French sculptors pledge to build titanium Statue of Liberty – and Elon Musk approves
The proposal by Nice-based Atelier Missor, which specialises in sculpting famed French figures such as Napoleon and Joan of Arc, received approval from Elon Musk, who called the idea 'cool' on X.
The foundry's plan to build a new Statue of Liberty 'to withstand millions of years' followed a call by French centre-Left MEP Raphael Glucksmann for America to return the original.
During a political rally of his Place Publique movement, Mr Glucksmann launched a blistering attack on the Trump administration in which he said: 'We're going to say to the Americans who have chosen to side with the tyrants, to the Americans who fired researchers for demanding scientific freedom: 'Give us back the Statue of Liberty.''
Mr Glucksmann is a member of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats and a staunch supporter of Ukraine.
France gave the statue, which stands 305 feet tall and weighs 450,000lbs, to the US as a gift on July 4, 1884, to commemorate the 108th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
The iconic copper-clad sculpture was created by Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi and sits on Liberty Island in New York Harbour.
'We gave it to you as a gift,' Mr Glucksmann went on, citing the United States' founding values of freedom and liberty. 'But apparently you despise it. So it will be just fine here at home.'
He concluded his remarks by stating France would welcome top researchers who were fired in the cuts to the US National Institutes of Health and similar organisations.
His comments prompted a fiery rebuke from Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, who said: 'My advice to that unnamed low-level French politician would be to remind them that it's only because of the United States of America that the French are not speaking German right now.
'So they should be very grateful to our great country.'
French commentators pointed out that if it weren't for French military and financial support during the War of Independence, America would likely still be a 'British colony' today.
Mr Glucksmann later fired back: 'No one, of course, will come and steal the Statue of Liberty. The statue is yours. But what it embodies belongs to everyone. And if the free world no longer interests your government, then we will take up the torch, here in Europe.'
Wading into the row, Atelier Missor wrote: 'To our fellow Americans: we are the last sculpture foundry in France and we have a message for you.'
'Keep the Statue of Liberty; it's rightfully yours. But get ready for another one.
'A New Statue of Liberty, much bigger, made out of titanium to withstand millions of years.
'We, the French people, are going to make it again!'
The foundry, which said its aim was to fulfil Napoleon's dream to 'make Paris the capital of the universe', was recently commissioned to build a monument statue of Joan of Arc for the French Riviera city of Nice.
However, in January, the local state prefect cancelled the €170,000 contract and ordered the 4.5-ton golden bronze statue to be taken down, saying Nice's Right-wing town hall had failed to respect the proper public tender process.
Atelier Missor said the annulment had left it on the verge of bankruptcy. A crowdfunding campaign to pay for the statue launched by Nice former deputy mayor in charge of culture has gathered €50,000.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
John Grisham: Trump's cuts to legal aid would hurt veterans, children and families
I write bestselling novels about the legal system. And as a lawyer, I represented low-income clients for free – the same people who will struggle to get justice under the president's proposed cuts. Before I became a writer, when I was a newly minted attorney in rural Mississippi, I saw how helpless people were going to court on their own. When I could, I took cases for no fee to prevent people from getting lost in the complex legal system. But it was obvious pro bono services alone could not meet the vast needs of Americans, especially in rural areas. Those people I sought to help are like the more than 6 million Americans annually who are aided by legal services organizations because they cannot afford an attorney on their own. Access to justice is a core American value, cited in the first line of the Constitution, etched over the entrance to the Supreme Court and invoked daily in the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress established the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in 1974 to better uphold this American ideal and ensure access to quality legal assistance for low-income Americans − including more than a million children, over 200,000 survivors of domestic violence and nearly 45,000 veterans. But the Trump administration has proposed eliminating LSC. This action would abandon the nation's founding principles of liberty and justice and devastate millions. Southerners, rural residents would be hurt most Congress has rejected the White House proposal to zero-out LSC. The Senate advanced a bill to slightly increase funding, and the House proposed a drastic 46% cut. Both bills fall far short of what's needed, but they send a clear message – lawmakers on both sides of the aisle see immense value in legal services for the folks they represent. About 15% of the population − more than 50 million Americans − are eligible for LSC-funded legal services. These are everyday, hardworking families and individuals who are faced with life-changing crises, often through no fault of their own. If LSC sees significant cuts, many more Americans will be left to face issues like domestic violence, natural disaster recovery, medical debt and consumer scams or fraud without legal assistance. Who would feel the loss the most? America's children, seniors, Southerners and those living in rural areas are the most likely to qualify for this type of legal aid. More than 1 in 5 children live in households eligible for LSC-funded services. The number of seniors eligible for legal aid has increased dramatically since 2016, from 6.6 million to 8.9 million in 2023. If this trend continues, more than 10 million seniors will be eligible by 2027. More households in the South are eligible for LSC-funded legal assistance than in any other region, and 1 in 5 rural households are eligible for the aid. The states with the highest proportion of eligible residents include my own home state of Mississippi, along with Louisiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma. John Grisham: Ugly truth of racism, injustice there for all to see | Opinion LSC distributes more than 94% of its federal appropriation in grants to 130 independent nonprofit organizations with offices in every congressional district across the country. Since 1974, more than 75 million Americans have received assistance. They are Americans like Coleen, a widowed senior in Florida, who was scammed out of her life savings while working to recover after Hurricane Ian destroyed her home in 2022. With LSC's help, she got her money back and was able to repair her home. While the fundamental purpose of civil legal aid is to ensure fairness in our legal system, it also provides substantial economic benefits. For every $1 invested in civil legal assistance through LSC, communities see $7 in economic value. Protects Americans' lawfully earned wages Legal services are a crucial part of efficient government. Without LSC, courts would have to serve more people with no access to legal representation, complicating court dockets and slowing down proceedings. The issue of overburdened courts is one reason that a bipartisan majority of state supreme court chief justices and state attorneys general voice their support for LSC each year. Civil legal services are nonpartisan. They benefit working families, uphold American values, lift the economy and improve government efficiency. Opinion: Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? What recent rulings show. Legal assistance helps veterans access their benefits. It helps survivors of domestic violence leave unsafe situations. It helps displaced hurricane and wildfire victims attain the documents they need to rebuild. These are not political issues − these are problems that can affect anyone. The proposals to eliminate or cut LSC could stop assistance received by millions in every county in every state. By helping people address legal issues before they spiral, fewer taxpayer dollars are needed for costly services like shelters, medical care and law enforcement. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Legal assistance protects the lawfully earned wages and benefits that Americans rely on and allows them to maintain their independence and contribute to their local economies. By helping families stay together and ending cycles of violence, legal assistance enables more children to grow up in safe and stable homes, making them more likely to stay in school, complete their education and pursue steady employment. Without LSC, hope for millions of Americans to access legal support in times of crisis is in jeopardy. Congress must save this legal lifeline to protect the safety and security of everyday Americans and uphold liberty and justice for all. To see how proposed cuts to LSC funding would impact where you live, visit John Grisham is the author of more than 50 consecutive bestselling novels, which have been translated into nearly 50 languages. Much of his fiction explores deep-seated problems in our criminal justice system. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
NBC News
27 minutes ago
- NBC News
How Trump's poll numbers on immigration have shifted as he has enacted his agenda
President Donald Trump started his second term with one huge difference compared with his first term: Polls regularly showed majorities of Americans approving of his handling of immigration. In fact, it was his best issue, whereas it had been one of his least popular before. Six months into his second term, it's still among his best issues, but it's no longer as popular. There has been a clear decline in support for Trump's handling of immigration, with his approval rating dropping across a handful of prominent polls. The trend mirrors the downtick in his overall approval rating as the administration has pursued an aggressive set of policies resulting in many arrests but slow progress on deportations of known undocumented immigrants convicted of major crimes, as well as controversial clashes over deportations. While Trump still gets good marks on some specifics, including border security, many of his more aggressive specific immigration policies don't poll well, even as he continues to press on with immigration as a signature issue. Polls do continue to show immigration remaining among Trump's most popular issues. But the trend is clear. While most Trump voters remain satisfied with his handling of immigration and other issues, some have told NBC News that they take issue with his approach. "For one, I think it's immoral," Jorge, 21, an independent from Florida who voted for Trump last year, said in an interview following up on his responses in a previous poll. He criticized the Trump administration for not "taking the time to separate the people who do not need to be here, which are the criminals, illegal criminals and migrants, and separating from the working people that benefit our society," said Jorge, who declined to share his last name while discussing national politics. "It's disappointing. ... He thinks he can just take everyone." Inside the data In poll after poll in his first few weeks in office, Trump's approval rating on immigration regularly eclipsed 50%. Fifty-six percent of registered voters approved of his handling of immigration in a late January survey as part of Morning Consult's "Trump Tracker," which includes his approval rating on a slew of issues. Other polls found similar results: 51% of U.S. citizen adults approved in a mid-February Economist/YouGov poll, 54% of adults approved in a late February CBS/YouGov poll, and 51% of adults approved in an early March CNN poll. But across each of those polls, there has been a clear downward trend as more Americans are souring on Trump's handling of that major issue. Some of the movement is within polls' margins of error, but overall, they consistently show a measure of decline. In CNN's mid-July poll, just 42% of adults approved of Trump's handling of immigration, while 45% of adults said the same in an early July Economist/YouGov poll, as did 41% in a late June Quinnipiac University poll. While narrowly half or more still approved of Trump's handling of the issue in the most recent Morning Consult (51%) and CBS/YouGov (50%) polls from mid-July and late June, respectively, months of surveys by both found the same trend of slightly decreased ratings on immigration. Fox News' poll, however, hasn't changed much. Fox News tested Trump's approval rating on immigration three times, finding it at 47% in April, 46% in June and 48% in July. That having been said, the landscape remains complicated, especially from a partisan political perspective. When Fox News asked this month which party does a better job on immigration, Republicans had a 6-point lead (52%-46%). While that's down from the double-digit Republican advantage the poll found in 2022 and 2023, Democrats had the edge when Fox tested the question during the first three years of Trump's first term. What has sparked the public reaction A possible reason Trump's broader numbers on immigration have fallen could lie in the administration's policies itself. Even when Trump's numbers on the issue were higher, the harder-edged parts of his immigration policy — the ones the administration has trumpeted in recent months — have always polled worse than his overall numbers on the issue. Then, once Trump started acting on those policies, they drove news coverage and perceptions of the administration. The Wall Street Journal poll conducted in mid-January, before Trump returned to office, provides a clear example of the pre-inauguration warning signs on an issue that was once a strength. Almost three-quarters of registered voters (74%) said they supported detaining and deporting only undocumented immigrants who had been convicted of crimes. It was the second-most-popular immigration proposal tested, behind creating a pathway to citizenship for "undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for many years and pass a background check," which 79% supported. A majority of registered voters also favored increasing the level of legal immigration and the number of H1-B visas available for high-skilled workers. The public was narrowly in favor of a plan to "detain and deport millions of undocumented immigrants" (52% in favor); noting that businesses could face worker shortages because of the plan made it slightly less popular. A majority (53%) also backed building a wall along the Mexican border. By contrast, only 38% favored a plan to detain and deport undocumented immigrants with American citizen children, 31% favored a call to end birthright citizenship, and 26% favored deporting "undocumented immigrants even if they have lived in the U.S. for 10 or more years, pay taxes on earnings, and have no criminal record." Fox News found a similar thing when it polled voters' views on illegal immigration shortly before Trump returned to office and in late July. Both times, 59% said their views hewed closest to "deport only those illegal immigrants who have been charged with crimes but allow others to remain in the U.S. and eventually qualify for citizenship." Twenty-nine percent said they backed deporting all illegal immigrants, and 11% backed allowing all to remain in the country. In other words, there's broader support for general promises of deportations or plans focused on removing criminals than there is support for specifically deporting people who haven't committed crimes outside of coming to the United States illegally or people who have American citizen children. Other, more recent polls have mirrored those findings. A May NPR/Ipsos poll on immigration found near-majority support (48%) for "quickly deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798," and pluralities also supported a border wall and allowing local law enforcement to detain immigrants without legal status. But a near-majority, 46%, backed giving "legal status to immigrants without legal status brought to the U.S. as children," and a majority (53%) opposed ending birthright citizenship, which Trump has tried to do by an executive order that has been challenged in court. And the public was almost evenly divided on support for the "mass deportation of everyone who is in the country without legal status." This week, the Wall Street Journal poll found registered voters close to evenly split on their approval of Trump's handling of immigration — 48% approved, 51% disapproved — and with similar marks for his handling of illegal immigration specifically — 51% approved, 49% approved. But as in many other recent polls, some specific pieces of the administration's policy poll better than others. Sixty-two percent approve of "deporting undocumented immigrants," while 36% oppose. But 58% oppose deporting people "believed to be here illegally without them ever seeing a judge or getting a hearing." And 53% say the "Trump administration is crossing the line" with its deportation efforts, while 45% say it is "doing what is necessary." Most of the swing-state voters who participated still supported Trump and his broad actions on deportations, but a handful of participants criticized the administration's widespread deportations. They said Trump and the government should be prioritizing undocumented immigrants who committed additional crimes over those who have followed the rules since they came to the country illegally. 'He was going to deport people that were criminals and have backgrounds,' Ruby L., a focus group participant who was born in Colombia and lives in Georgia, said last month. 'But I see that he's deporting people that work hard and have been in this country. I think he should find a way to help them stay and get a citizenship or something.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump Baby Accounts Could Create Generation of Millionaire Retirees
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new federal savings initiative could dramatically reshape the financial future of millions of American children. Signed into law by President Donald Trump as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, "Trump accounts" promise to give babies born in the U.S. a $1,000 head start on building long-term wealth. With additional contributions from families and employers, and potentially decades of compounding investment growth, these accounts could have the potential to turn today's youngsters into retirement millionaires. But while the headline numbers are eye-catching, the real impact may lie in how families choose to use the funds—for college, a first home, or retirement—and what kind of financial support system exists around them. Here's how the program works, what it could grow into, and why some experts see it as the start of a generational wealth shift in America. What Are Trump Accounts? Each baby born in the U.S. between 2025 and 2028 who has a Social Security number will receive a one-time $1,000 deposit from the government into their Trump account. There are no income requirements to qualify. Parents, relatives, and employers can contribute up to $5,000 annually to each account. While contributions made before a child turns 18 are not tax-deductible, employer contributions—up to $2,500 per year—are excluded from taxable income. The saved money must be invested in low-cost mutual funds or ETFs that track a U.S. stock index, such as the S&P 500. For now, more stable investment options like bonds or cash are not on the table. The accounts will become available in July 2026, and no money can be withdrawn until the child turns 18 years old. "Currently, the Trump account functions similarly to a traditional retirement account," Scott Hefty, senior wealth manager and founding partner at Serae Wealth, told Newsweek. "It offers tax-advantaged growth and penalty-free withdrawals after age 59 and a half. However, there are several exceptions that allow for earlier use. These exceptions include education expenses, buying a first home, or starting a business." Hefty added that while some may prefer more flexibility, "the rules are in place because the government is offering a benefit in exchange for encouraging certain outcomes…This account reflects a broader shift in how Americans build wealth across generations. We are moving toward a model where families, employers, and the federal government each play a part." The policy follows on from similar initiatives in the U.S. and abroad designed to bolster the lifetime savings of new generations. In Germany, new early-start pensions with a government contribution are being rolled out for kids. Here at home, Connecticut offers an initial government savings deposit of $3,200, albeit only for low-income children. Composite image created by Newsweek of a retired couple, a stack of coins, a piggy bank and a baby. Composite image created by Newsweek of a retired couple, a stack of coins, a piggy bank and a baby. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty How Much Can Be Saved? How much can be saved depends on whether contributions are made by the family of the child, and whether that child and/or their family/employers make contributions when they are an adult. The Internal Revenue Service is also expected to clarify tax rules around the savings before the accounts become available, which will impact overall savings. Based on an average return rate of 7 percent annually and the maximum $5,000 being invested every year, by the time a child reaches 65 years old, they could bank approximately $6,950,000 before tax—plenty of money to see them through a long and comfortable retirement. The simple fact of the matter is that to continue making the maximum $5,000 contributions every year means the parents of the child must be extremely financially secure, given that they may already be making contributions to their own savings funds, like 401(k)'s and general savings accounts. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans saved only 4.5 percent of their disposable personal income in May 2025. In a more realistic scenario, where the family and/or account beneficiary save a consistent $1,000 per year in the account and leave it untouched until 65, it would result in a saving of $1,464,800—still, nothing to be disappointed about. If the $1,000 seeded from the government remains in the account with no contributions, by the time the account holder reaches 65, they will have around $93,380 to help them through later life. "That amount of money is a tremendous gift for a child, and opens up a lot of extra doors," Matt Hylland, a financial planner at Arnold and Mote Wealth Management, told Newsweek. "Perhaps they can be more comfortable taking a job in an industry they enjoy, even if it is lower paying. Or, it gives them the freedom to save for other non-retirement goals like a home down payment, or college savings for their children." College and Home Buying There's also the fact that plenty of savers with Trump accounts are unlikely to keep the money there all the way through to retirement, with many being likely to use the funds to pay for college expenses or to buy a home. As Hefty said, the account rules "reflect the overall goal of the program, which is to support long-term retirement preparedness." But he also acknowledged that the exceptions for earlier use—like education or first-home buying—align with key milestones in life.` Based on the same 7-percent compounding rate and the maximum annual contribution of $5,000, the account would be worth $194,856 by the time the child turns 18. In a more realistic scenario, where the parent has put away $1,000 into the account per year, this would drop to $55,831—which is still no small amount to help toward expensive college bills. The national average age to buy a home in the U.S. is now 38, according to a 2024 report by the National Association of Realtors. In this scenario, with a $1,000 seed and $1,000 contributions each year, there would be around $210,700—a hefty down payment, or in some cases, the total cost of a home in a more inexpensive area of the country. "If the seed contribution continues beyond 2028," Hylland said, "the potential for long-term impact grows even further." "Even a modest contribution, combined with the federal seed money, can be beneficial over time," he said. "I believe nearly every child who receives a Trump account will benefit in some way. The scale of that benefit will vary, but the baseline is an improvement compared to having no such account at all."
