Resurfaced Video Shows Trump Making Lewd Comments About Baby Daughter's Breasts
The clip comes from a 1994 interview with Trump and his then-wife Marla Maples, which aired during an episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
Trump and Maples' only child together, Tiffany, was born on October 13, 1993.
The show's host, Robin Leach, asked Trump, 'What does Tiffany have of yours and what does Tiffany have of Marla's?'
'She's a very beautiful baby,' Trump said. 'She's got Marla's legs. We don't know whether or not she's got this part yet, but time will tell.'
As he said the final line, Trump made a gesture toward his chest that indicated large breasts.
Maples laughed, but viewers haven't found Trump's answer to be quite so humorous.
In 2016, Trevor Noah showed a clip of the then-newly resurfaced interview on The Daily Show, triggering dismay from viewers who found Trump's comments bizarre and inappropriate.
'We know for sure that there's no female too small for Trump to reduce her to her body parts,' the former late-night host said. 'We know this.'
The video attracted widespread attention again last week when the X account @CalltoActivism posted it with the caption, 'This is NOT normal. Every American needs to see this.'
The tweet has been liked almost 20,000 times since it was posted on July 19.
Perhaps relatedly, the hashtag #TrumpIsAPedoRapist was one of the platform's top trending 'Politics' topics on Friday, along with #EpsteinTrumpFiles.
The old video wasn't the last time Trump would say something shockingly sexual about one of his daughters.
In a 2006 appearance with Ivanka Trump on The View, the future president remarked that 'If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.'
The comment prompted a shocked reaction from the show's hosts, who told him 'Stop it' and 'You're so weird.'
That exchange—in which Trump said Ivanka had 'a very nice figure'—came two years after Trump gave the OK to Howard Stern to call Ivanka 'a piece of a--.'
Trump has repeatedly expressed his fondness for younger women over the years, a trait that linked him with Epstein during their years-long friendship.
'He's a lot of fun to be with,' Trump said of Epstein in a 2002 New York Magazine interview.
'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump pauses export controls to bolster China trade deal, FT says
(Reuters) -The U.S. has paused curbs on tech exports to China to avoid disrupting trade talks with Beijing and support President Donald Trump's efforts to secure a meeting with President Xi Jinping this year, the Financial Times said on Monday. The industry and security bureau of the Commerce Department, which oversees export controls, has been told in recent months to avoid tough moves on China, the newspaper said, citing current and former officials. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. The White House and the department did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment outside business hours. Top U.S. and Chinese economic officials are set to resume talks in Stockholm on Monday to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies. Tech giant Nvidia said this month it would resume sales of its H20 graphics processing units (GPU) to China, reversing an export curb the Trump administration imposed in April to keep advanced AI chips out of Chinese hands over national security concerns. The planned resumption was part of U.S. negotiations on rare earths and magnets, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said. The paper said 20 security experts and former officials, including former deputy US national security adviser Matt Pottinger, will write on Monday to Lutnick to voice concern, however. "This move represents a strategic misstep that endangers the United States' economic and military edge in artificial intelligence," they write in the letter, it added.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Horror's middle class is vanishing – and that's bad news for all film fans
Does no one want to watch people get butchered any more? Horror, long recognised as one of Hollywood's most reliable cash cows, is in a panic: few scary movies are breaking through financially in 2025, many more are cratering completely, and questions are being asked about the future of a genre that once seemed as durable as Jason Voorhees. Forget the death of the archetypal movie star: if sassy psycho-cyborg M3GAN can't open a movie, who can? Back in 2022, the first M3GAN – about an artificially intelligent doll with a bloodthirst – grossed $182m (£135m), including $78m of pure profit for its backers at Universal Pictures and the micro-budget horror studio Blumhouse, off a production budget of just $12m. Thanks to smart marketing, which turned its leading lady's incongruous dancefloor skills into a spooky meme, M3GAN ended up exemplifying the dream outcome of the modern studio horror film: low-cost, big-brain thrills with such inescapable dazzle that audiences couldn't not seek it out. Why, then, did last month's M3GAN 2.0 go so badly? In four weeks, the more action-oriented sequel has grossed a measly $38m worldwide, a result so mortifying that the head of Blumhouse put his hands up within days of its release and admitted to having totally missed the mark. M3GAN 2.0 isn't alone, either. This year has seen a staggering number of horror films die at the box office, among them Blumhouse's reboot of Wolf Man ($34m gross on a production budget of $20m), the Ayo Edebiri horror comedy Opus ($2m gross/$10m budget), Jenna Ortega vehicle Death of a Unicorn ($16m gross/$15m budget), the well-received adoption chiller Bring Her Back ($23m gross/$15m budget), and last week's revival of the Nineties hit I Know What You Did Last Summer, which opened to a flat $13m in the US. Yes, these films' production budgets are lean (though the extent of marketing budgets is largely kept under lock and key), and many of the above titles will ultimately break even once video-on-demand grosses are factored in – but none of their respective backers will be happy with what amounts to loose change. On the other end of the spectrum, meanwhile, are this year's handful of out-and-out horror smashes, most significantly the Michael B Jordan vampire film Sinners, which cost a reported $100m to make but has grossed $365m. There's also been Final Destination: Bloodlines ($285m and counting on a budget of $50m) and Danny Boyle's 28 Years Later, which has so far grossed $145m on a budget of $60m – not wildly profitable, by any means, but decent enough. So people are still going to see horror on the big screen, but – echoing the Western world as a whole – horror's middle class is evaporating. The genre seems to either go big or collapse entirely. Any kind of financial in-between is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. All this leaves a film such as next week's Weapons carrying undue levels of pressure. A missing-persons thriller starring Julia Garner and Josh Brolin, it revolves around the disappearance of a class of children in small-town USA, and serves as filmmaker Zach Cregger's follow-up to his 2022 sleeper hit Barbarian. Promotion for the film has been strong – lots of abstract and eerie imagery in trailers, and attempts at virality via the publishing of two hours of 'surveillance footage' from the night of the children's 'disappearance'. But the stakes feel particularly high. Weapons sparked a bidding war between rival studios when Cregger first unveiled his script, with Warner Bros so eager to get the up-and-comer on side that they coughed up a $38m budget for the film, and allowed him final cut. If Weapons underperforms, this kind of investment in a young, ambitious filmmaker's original ideas may become even rarer than it is already. Why this is bad for everyone is that, in the last decade or so, horror has been one of the few genres to wholeheartedly embrace fresh ideas and fresh voices. The likes of Jordan Peele's Get Out (2017), Coralie Fargeat's The Substance (2024), Ari Aster's Hereditary (2018) and Robert Eggers's The Witch (2015) proved that audiences will turn out in droves for intriguing new concepts, no matter how wild they might seem on paper – and in the process, an entire generation of buzzy new filmmakers developed fanbases, industry clout, and (relative) name recognition. Speaking to The Town podcast shortly after M3GAN 2.0 bombed, Blumhouse head Jason Blum suggested that there is simply too much horror being released for many films to break through, and that the cheap-to-produce movies that were Blumhouse's bread and butter (their biggest hits have included Get Out, Us, The Invisible Man and the Purge franchise) no longer cut it. 'We need to up the budgets,' he insisted. 'People need theatrical events.' Which is, I suppose, accurate. This year's most successful horror films had heavy promotional spends behind them, while even the most financially lucrative horrors of 2024 – meaning the low-cost, high-return likes of The Substance and Oz Perkins's Silence of the Lambs pastiche Longlegs – were transformed into must-see 'events' via relentless and effective marketing. But just as important is the actual quality of material on offer, with far too many modern horror movies settling for tedious mining of intellectual property and repetitive premises (Knives Out and Midsommar have created an unfortunate cottage industry of star-studded, eat-the-rich, religious-cult disappointments). Blumhouse have been particularly guilty of this over the last 18 months, tossing out a raft of movies that felt as if they were formed backwards from an already unimpressive elevator pitch: Night Swim (haunted pool!); AfrAId (haunted Alexa device!); House of Spoils (Ariana DeBose!). Things may, however, be looking up. As much as it pains me to slander a film that made smart use of Nineties stalwarts Freddie Prinze Jr and Jennifer Love Hewitt, it is something of a relief that I Know What You Did Last Summer couldn't get people in cinema seats last week. A largely serviceable but poorly directed slasher pastiche, the film may have lifted the story beats and faces from the 1997 original, but it failed at the things that truly matter: character development, suspense, memorable chase sequences. It seemed to prove that, when it comes to horror, box-office success in 2025 requires far more than just dusting off some old IP and hoping for the best. Hollywood does have a knack for taking all the wrong lessons from its success stories. (Just look at how Barbie's gargantuan box office has led to the development of loads of other movies about toys.) But wouldn't it be lovely if the triumph of Sinners sparked an influx of expensive, original horror movies moving forward – and not, well, Sinners 2. 'Weapons' is released 8 August
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Happy Gilmore 2 subtly honors Adam Sandler's late co-star Cameron Boyce
Adam Sandler managed to sneak in a subtle, yet heartwarming, tribute to his late Grown Ups co-star Cameron Boyce in the new Happy Gilmore sequel. Happy Gilmore 2, out now on Netflix, follows Sandler's titular retired golfer, Happy Gilmore, as he returns to the sport in order to pay for his daughter to attend a Parisian ballet school. It comes nearly 30 years after the original 1996 classic sports comedy. In one scene, Happy is seen walking up to a golf course check-in booth with a bag of clubs on his shoulder. As he nears the desk, the attendants inside are watching what appears to be an episode of Disney Channel's sitcom Jessie. The screen quickly flashes to show Boyce's character Luke Ross, whom he played throughout the show's entire 2011 to 2015 run. The brief nod to Boyce — who starred as Sandler's on-screen son in the 2010 family comedy Grown Ups and its 2013 sequel before his sudden death in 2019 — has left fans overcome with emotion. 'Adam Sandler honoring Cameron Boyce in Happy Gilmore 2 melts my heart,' one said on X, while a second added: 'Excuse me while I sob.' A third commented: 'Adam Sandler subtly including Cameron Boyce in this scene from #HappyGilmore2 hits different.' 'Happy Gilmore 2 was great,' another praised. 'The honoring of Cameron Boyce was such a cute and awesome Easter egg. Bottom right of the screen they're watching them on TV. Adam Sandler you killed it. Family is very happy.' Someone else on TikTok wrote that the tribute 'is hurting and healing my heart at the same time.' Boyce was only 20 when he died after experiencing a seizure in his sleep. At the time, his family released a statement, explaining the seizure 'was a result of an ongoing medical condition for which he was being treated.' 'The world is now undoubtedly without one of its brightest lights, but his spirit will live on through the kindness and compassion of all who knew and loved him. We are utterly heartbroken,' they added. Sandler was among many celebrities to honor Boyce after his death, posting on X: 'Loved that kid. Cared so much about his family. Cared so much about the world. Thank you, Cameron, for all you gave to us. So much more was on the way. All our hearts are broken.' Boyce isn't the only celebrity to make a surprise cameo in the new movie. Dozens of other cameo appearances from professional golfers, athletes and celebrities — some of which were announced when the film was in production — are also featured. Happy Gilmore 2 is streaming now on Netflix.
