Trump wants to celebrate 250 years of independence with UFC fight at White House
"We have a lot of land there," said Trump, a UFC enthusiast who has attended several of its mixed martial arts matches in recent months and is close friends with
Dana White
, the league's president.
Trump announced his plan in Iowa during the kickoff for a year's worth of festivities to celebrate America's 250th birthday on July 4, 2026.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Is your tinnitus getting worse? Do this immediately (Watch)
Hearing Magazine
Undo
The Republican president also announced a culminating festival on the National Mall in Washington, and a separate athletic competition featuring high school athletes from across the country.
"So every one of our national parks, battlefields and historic sites are going to have special events in honour of America 250. And I even think we're going to have a UFC fight," Trump said.
Live Events
"Think of this on the grounds of the White House. We have a lot of land there," he said, adding that it would be a "full fight" with 20,000 to 25,000 people.
A White House spokesperson said they had no details to share beyond the president's announcement.
Trump has recently enjoyed standing ovations and cage-side seats for several UFC fights, including an appearance immediately after his 2024 reelection and another just last month alongside White for two championship fights.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Neeraj Chopra Classic: 'This is the beginning of a new chapter' - Chopra's emotional leap for Indian athletics
Neeraj Chopra India's Olympic and World Champion javelin thrower Neeraj Chopra expressed heartfelt pride and optimism as he prepares to compete in the inaugural Neeraj Chopra Classic on Saturday at Bengaluru's Sree Kanteerava Stadium - a landmark event named in his honour. For Chopra, the event isn't just about competition; it's about catalysing a new era for Indian athletics. "I feel like I'm in a dream," Chopra said at the pre-event press conference on Friday. "Medals are a different thing. But I've given something like this to India and Indian athletes. I'm very happy about that. This is the beginning of a new chapter in our athletics." Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW! Chopra emphasised that the event represents more than personal recognition - it's a platform to provide Indian athletes the same kind of exposure their counterparts in Europe and the USA enjoy. Poll How important do you think events like the Neeraj Chopra Classic are for the future of Indian athletics? Very important Somewhat important Not important Unsure "There are so many international competitions in countries like Germany every week - A, B, C category events. That's what I want here in India - at least four or five world-class meets every year. Our athletes should get those opportunities, and the public should watch them live. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Get ₹2Cr life cover@ ₹700 p.m. ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo That will be very good for our sport," he said. Despite the pressure of organising the meet, Chopra confirmed his readiness to compete, saying, "The athlete in me is always up. I've been training hard even with all the responsibilities. My team is handling many things, but I still managed to get my throwing sessions done." He also acknowledged the role of Karnataka Olympic Association, sponsors, and World Athletics in bringing the event to life. "The support I'm getting is overwhelming. We can make this even better in future editions," he added. Chopra remains focused on his biggest test of the year - the 2025 World Championships in Tokyo. "Tomorrow is important, but my target remains the World Championships. I'm training with coach Jan Zelezny and everything I do now is part of that preparation," he concluded. For real-time updates, scores, and highlights, follow our live coverage of the India vs England Test match here . Game On Season 1 continues with Mirabai Chanu's inspiring story. Watch Episode 2 here.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Instant Scholar: Samuel P Huntington's 'The Soldier and the State' - a foundational work on civil-military relations
Representative AI image generated by Denny When The Soldier and the State was published in 1957, it instantly became a landmark contribution to the field of political science, especially in the domain of civil-military relations. Written by Samuel P. Huntington—later known for The Clash of Civilizations —the book was the first comprehensive theoretical framework to analyse how democratic states should manage their military forces without compromising either national security or liberal democratic norms. Over half a century later, Huntington 's ideas continue to shape academic research, military policy, and civilian oversight practices across the world. What Is the Book About? At its core, The Soldier and the State addresses a fundamental dilemma: how can a society ensure civilian control over the military while still maintaining an effective and professional fighting force? Huntington believed that the key to this balance lay in professionalism. He proposed that a truly professional officer corps would remain politically neutral and subordinate to civilian authority while maintaining the military expertise necessary for national defence. He called this balance objective civilian control. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Key Concepts Explained 1. The Professional Soldier Huntington opens by examining what it means to be a professional soldier. Drawing on sociological and philosophical traditions, he identifies three defining characteristics of a military professional: Expertise: Mastery over a complex body of specialized knowledge, particularly in the management of violence. Responsibility: A commitment to using this expertise for the benefit of society, namely by serving the state and defending its interests. Corporateness: A sense of unity and identity within the officer corps, fostered by training institutions, rituals, and a shared professional ethic. This framing set the stage for his larger argument: if the military is allowed to develop as a distinct and autonomous professional institution, it will be both apolitical and effective. 2. Objective vs. Subjective Civilian Control Perhaps the most enduring theoretical contribution of the book is Huntington's distinction between subjective and objective civilian control: Subjective Civilian Control: Civilian groups—such as political parties, ideologies, or interest factions—seek to control the military by merging it into their own structure. This includes practices like appointing military leaders based on loyalty or enforcing ideological conformity. For example, a leftist government might politicise the military to ensure it supports socialist values, while a conservative regime might rely on military backing to suppress dissent. Huntington criticises this model, arguing that it weakens military professionalism and risks politicising the armed forces. Objective Civilian Control: Civilian leaders maintain firm control over the military by acknowledging and respecting its autonomy as a professional body. The military, in turn, remains politically neutral and focuses strictly on defence matters. Huntington sees this model as superior, arguing that a professional military with political detachment is more reliable and loyal to the constitutional order. 3. The Military Mindset: Realism and Conservatism Another distinctive feature of Huntington's analysis is his portrayal of the military ethos. According to him, the military profession is naturally inclined toward a conservative and realist worldview. Key traits include: Skepticism of change : The military values tradition, hierarchy, and discipline, making it wary of rapid political or social transformations. Focus on order and security : Officers are trained to view the world in terms of threats, conflict, and strategy, rather than ideals or reform. Moral clarity : Military culture often encourages binary thinking—friend vs. foe, duty vs. betrayal—which can conflict with civilian complexity and compromise. Huntington does not see this conservative orientation as inherently problematic; in fact, he argues that it serves as a necessary counterbalance to the liberal values of civilian society. The danger arises, he claims, when civilians attempt to mould the military in their own ideological image. Case Studies: US, Britain, and Prussia To ground his theory, Huntington offers historical and comparative analysis of civil-military relations in three key countries: United States In the US, Huntington believed the tradition of civilian supremacy was strong but had undervalued military professionalism. American liberalism often fostered distrust of standing armies, leading to a military that was politically subordinated but also underdeveloped professionally. He called for greater respect for military autonomy in order to build a more capable defence establishment. United Kingdom Britain represented a model of subjective control, where the military was closely tied to the aristocracy and the civilian elite. Huntington viewed this as stable but less applicable to democratic societies with broader political participation. Prussia Prussia (later Germany) exemplified objective control: the military developed as a distinct, professional body with a clear mission and a strong sense of duty to the state. Huntington admired the Prussian model for its balance of autonomy and subordination, although he acknowledged its flaws—especially its later descent into nationalism and militarism during the World Wars. Huntington's View on American Civil-Military Relations Huntington's own context—the early Cold War—deeply influenced his recommendations. In the 1950s, the United States was confronting a long-term geopolitical threat from the Soviet Union. At the same time, domestic politics were turbulent, with intense partisan competition and ideological suspicion (e.g., McCarthyism ). In this environment, Huntington urged a restructuring of civil-military relations to meet the demands of a permanent national security state. His main arguments included: The US should embrace a more professionalised military that could think strategically and act globally. Civilian leaders must resist politicising the military, especially in times of national crisis. The officer corps should be educated not just in tactics but in grand strategy and policy, making it a capable partner—not a rival—of civilian leadership. Influence and Criticisms Why the Book Matters Since its publication, The Soldier and the State has become a foundational text for scholars, military officers, and policymakers alike. It introduced a clear normative framework for understanding and managing civil-military relations in liberal democracies. The book is routinely assigned in war colleges, political science departments, and defence institutions. Its principles continue to influence how nations like the United States, India, and Israel train their military and oversee national defence. Key Criticisms Despite its influence, Huntington's work has drawn critiques over the years: Overidealisation of the Prussian model: Some scholars argue that Huntington overlooked the dangers of excessive military autonomy, such as the rise of militarism in Germany. Assumption of military apoliticism: Critics say that even 'professional' militaries can develop institutional interests and ideological leanings, which may subtly influence policy. Rigid binary thinking: The distinction between subjective and objective control may oversimplify a more complex reality where civil-military interactions are fluid and contextual. Modern scholars like Peter Feaver and Eliot Cohen have developed more nuanced models (e.g., the 'agency theory' or 'unequal dialogue' frameworks) that attempt to describe the real-world interplay between military institutions and civilian leaders. Relevance Today In an era marked by military coups, democratic backsliding, and politicisation of defence forces across many countries, Huntington's insights remain disturbingly relevant. From Turkey and Egypt to the United States and India, the debate over civilian supremacy versus military autonomy is far from settled. As democracies grapple with threats both internal and external, the challenge is to maintain strong and effective armed forces without eroding the civilian foundations of constitutional government. Huntington's answer still resonates: Professionalism, not politicisation, is the key to a stable civil-military relationship. Samuel P. Huntington's The Soldier and the State offers a powerful theoretical lens through which to view one of the most critical aspects of governance—how to manage the relationship between the sword and the shield, between the guardians and those they serve. While not without its critics, the book remains an essential guide for understanding the delicate balance between military power and democratic control, a question as vital today as it was in 1957. Full text: Samuel P Huntington's 'The Soldier and the State' Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
39 minutes ago
- First Post
July 4: America at crossroads as it celebrates Independence Day amid Trump-induced global uncertainty
As the United States celebrates the 4th of July, commemorating the 249th year of independence, here's a look at how its hegemonic presence is fading away in a multipolar world. read more Advertisement U.S. President Donald Trump. Image- AFP On July 4, 2025, the United States of America will commemorate its 249th year of independence . In the span of over two centuries, the country's place in the world order has changed dramatically. From staying relatively isolated in the initial years of its independence, the US became a hegemonic power after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, this global dominance is currently on decline, with the rise of the multi-polar world order. The decline has become even more apparent with the comeback of US President Donald Trump in the White House. With Trump-induced global uncertainties, regional blocs and countries are looking for alternatives. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, Trump's policy has been more inward-looking over the years. This can be reflected by his brainchild, the ' Make America Great Again movement (MAGA). Right after he returned to the White House, he signed a plethora of executive orders, including cutting foreign aid and imposing high tariffs. He closed the American border and significantly reduced US military presence overseas, questioning alliances and exuding scepticism toward international institutions like the UN, WTO and NATO. This compelled the US's allies to look for alternatives, with multiple countries and regional blocs signing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with each other. Here's why under Trump, the US no longer enjoy the hegemony it once used to have. Trump and wars While campaigning to return to the White House, Trump made a highly ambitious proclamation of ending the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours . However, it has been over 100 days since he returned to the White House, and the war between the two nations is still raging. Trump's struggle to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the negotiation table can be seen in the fact that he often jumped in and out of peace talks. During the 12-day confrontation between Israel and Iran , Trump once again attempted to bring peace in the region. He called for a ceasefire after bombing three of Iran's nuclear facilities. However, neither Iran nor Israel stopped fighting, reflecting the diminishing influence of the US. An angry Trump eventually told reporters that Israel and Iran have been 'fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f**k they are doing '. In a similar brazen manner, Trump went on to claim that he stopped the India-Pakistan conflict. While Pakistan supported the President's narratives to gain brownie points, even to this day, India rejects Trump's claim, reflecting that the US no longer has the power to change the direction of the conflict. Apart from this, Trump often tends to diminish the importance of international groups like NATO , the European Union and the United Nations. In March, he casts doubt on the US's willingness to defend Nato allies. 'It's common sense, right?' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'If they don't pay, I'm not going to defend them. No, I'm not going to defend them.' He often called out the UN for its inability to preserve international peace. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump tariffs are pushing countries away from the US In April this year, Trump commemorated ' Liberation Day ' by announcing reciprocal tariffs on goods the US imports from different countries. He announced a blanket tariff of 10 per cent on all nations and introduced additional tariffs on countries like Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and India. China, however, faced the major brunt of it with tariffs ranging as high as 125 per cent. While these tariffs are yet to come into force, in the words of Trump, countries rushed to sign bilateral trade deals with the US, with the UK already having one in place and India finalising its trade deal. Amid the tariff saga, several countries and regional groups joined hands and signed FTAs with each other, providing a new alternative to the US hegemony. India has signed FTAs with the UK and Australia , with a deal with the EU on the cards by the end of this year. Similarly, South America's largest trading bloc, Mercosur, signed a trade deal with the four-nation European Free Trade Association (EFTA) on Wednesday. Over the years, China have also been enhancing its influence around the world with its Belt and Road Initiative. When asked if Trump tariffs would eventually push US allies towards China, renowned American economist Jeffrey D. Sachs emphasised that there is more to the story. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Trump is alienating the rest of the world over many issues, including tariffs, but also sanctions, threats to sovereignty (e.g. vis-à-vis Canada, Panama, and Greenland), and reckless disregard for climate change,' he told Firstpost in an interview on April 11 . Chaos at home Chaos ensued across the United States ever since Trump came back to power. Domestic political polarisation and economic challenges complicate US governance and its ability to project global leadership. For instance, when the US was intervening in the Iran-Israel war, the United States' Los Angeles was witnessing protests over the ICE raids on immigrants. The demonstrations were so severe that the Trump administration went on to threaten the arrest of LA Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom . Trump eventually compared the protests in LA with an 'invasion of third-world lawlessness'. In terms of the economy, Wall Street witnessed a decline the moment Trump announced sweeping reciprocal tariffs. This eventually prompted Trump to pause the tariffs to prevent a crash of the American markets. Hence, political and economic volatilities induced by Trump's policies are taking the US's attention away from what is happening in the world and giving space to other powers to fill the vacuum, transforming the world into a multipolar world order.
