America's once kitschy obsession with Trump is no longer funny
I've been coming to this part of the West Coast for years, joining my best friend and her family to celebrate the Fourth of July – a weekend full of delightfully kitsch Americana. There's the annual golf cart parade bedecked with American flags and sparkles, a rodeo, a fireworks show on the lake.
I grew up in a similar town in South Carolina, where the Fourth of July was an annual event replete with family traditions: the dessert pies the mothers baked, the meats the fathers barbecued, the brand of fireworks the kids were sent off to buy at the nearest petrol station.
In American mythology, this has always been a day when everyone could celebrate something that felt unifying: the idea of being American. Even in its darkest moments, this was still a country in which progress was deemed possible, one where those who demanded justice would one day be able to bend the arc toward a better place. But this year felt markedly different.
On the same day that Americans celebrated our nation's independence, Trump signed into law a budget mega-bill that will axe critical healthcare and food support for the poorest people living in the wealthiest country on earth, while delivering further tax cuts to the richest.
Loading
In Lake Almanor, hundreds of golf carts taking part in the annual parade are adorned with inflatable Trump statues, or have MAGA flags flying in place of American ones. It's a topic that comes up many times over the course of the weekend; the shame of seeing the American flag being lost as a symbol of equality or of our nation's ideals, to now seemingly signal a border around those signed onto Trump's grievance-filled vision of a country.
The once seemingly kitschy – and in some cases sycophantic – obsession much of America has with Trump is no longer funny. The painful irony of this adoration is that Trump's latest bill will result in lives being lost in communities just like Lake Almanor. It's estimated that between 11 and 18 million Americans will lose their health insurance as a result of the new bill, meaning either their healthcare bills become so high they go bankrupt, or they die because they're unable to access essential services. Taxes that directly help fund rural hospitals in regions like this are also set to be lowered, while as much as $US3 trillion will be added to the national debt.
Though Republicans are attempting to sell the brilliance of the so-called 'big, beautiful' bill, they know it is deeply unpopular. Days before its final passage, polling showed that just 29 per cent of Americans supported the bill.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
12 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Coalition demands answers after Albanese government lifts biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports
The Albanese government is being urged to explain its backflip on a US beef ban after the Prime Minister previously insisted Labor would not 'compromise' on biosecurity. The Australian Financial Review revealed on Thursday that Australian officials had notified their US counterparts that restrictions on the importation of US beef will be lifted following a scientific review of the biosecurity risks. Responding to the reports on Thursday, Nationals Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie said the decision could pose a risk to our beef industry. 'We need to make sure our $11 billion beef export industry is protected. Our concerns would be any watering down of those science-based protocols would lead the risk of disease, entering this country, and our farmers, being subjected to unnecessary risk,' Ms McKenzie said. Shadow finance minister James Paterson said the government needed to explain its backflip. 'The prime minister himself has said that we couldn't relax the restrictions on the importation of US beef because of serious biosecurity concerns," Mr Paterson told Sky News. "So if the government has found some way of dealing with that issue, protecting our domestic agricultural industry from the introduction of foreign diseases and pests, then they should say so they should stand up and explain that, not anonymously leak it to a newspaper. 'Full credit to the AFR for getting the story, but a major story like this affecting a major export industry of about $11 billion a year and about an $82 billion domestic industry, when you include red meat more broadly, deserves more answers than this.' The restrictions had been cited by President Donald Trump as a justification for his decision to impose a 10 per cent across the board tariff on Australian imports – as well as much larger tariffs on steel and aluminium – in violation of the existing Australia-US free trade agreement. 'Australia bans – and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef,' President Trump said in April In response to the comments, Prime Minister Albanese emphatically declared his government 'will not change or compromise any of the issues regarding biosecurity, full stop, exclamation mark, it's simply not worth it. So it's that simple.' A blanket ban on US beef imports - imposed following a mad cow disease in 2003 - was repealed in 2019. However biosecurity rules have remained in place due to the risk of beef from countries such as Mexico and Canada being imported through the US, and no American beef has been imported under the new scheme. But a government source told the AFR on Thursday that the US Beef Imports Review had undertaken a 'rigorous science and risk-based assessment over the past decade' and the bans would be lifted. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins confirmed the report, saying in a statement that her department was "satisfied the strengthened control measures put in place by the US effectively manage biosecurity risks.' However Cattle Australia CEO Will Evans said he was sure the decision would not have been made unless scientific experts had the 'utmost confidence' it would not impose a risk to Australia's cattle industry. 'Context is important here. We export more than $4 billion of beef a year to the US, and this has been a multi-year assessment process undertaken by the Department of Agriculture - they're the competent authority in this, and they're required to assess this under a rules based trading system. 'What they've done is they've completed a technical scientific assessment, and they've said, look, there are the right processes in place in these countries to be able to manage these risks, and they've determined that they're going to grant access after making this assessment over many years. 'Now, the cattle industry is a $75 billion industry in Australia. I'm sure they wouldn't have made this decision unless they had the utmost confidence that the science was correct.'
Perth Now
12 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Macron sues over claim France's first lady is male
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte have filed a defamation lawsuit in the US against right-wing influencer and podcaster Candace Owens, centred on her claim that France's first lady is male. The Macrons said in a complaint filed in Delaware Superior Court that Owens has waged a lie-filled "campaign of global humiliation" to promote her podcast and expand her "frenzied" fan base. These lies included that Brigitte Macron, 72, was born under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux, the actual name of her older brother, the Macrons said. "Owens has dissected their appearance, their marriage, their friends, their family, and their personal history — twisting it all into a grotesque narrative designed to inflame and degrade," the complaint said. "The result," the complaint added, "is relentless bullying on a worldwide scale." In her podcast on Wednesday, Owens said, "This lawsuit is littered with factual inaccuracies," and part of an "obvious and desperate public relations strategy" to smear her character. A spokesperson for Owens called the lawsuit an effort to bully her, after Brigitte Macron rejected Owens' repeated requests for an interview. "This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist," the spokesperson said. In a joint statement released by their lawyers, the Macrons said they sued after Owens rejected three demands that she retract defamatory statements. To prevail in US defamation cases, public figures must show defendants engaged in "actual malice," a tough legal standard requiring proof the defendants knew what they published was false or had reckless disregard for its truth. Owens has more than 6.9 million followers on X and more than 4.5 million YouTube subscribers. The Macrons' lawsuit focuses on the eight-part podcast "Becoming Brigitte," which has more than 2.3 million views on YouTube, and X posts linked to it. According to the Macrons, the series spread "verifiably false and devastating lies," including that Brigitte Macron stole another person's identity and transitioned to female, and that the Macrons are blood relatives committing incest. The complaint discusses circumstances under which the Macrons met, when the now 47-year-old president was a high school student and Brigitte was a teacher. It said their relationship "remained within the bounds of the law." In September, Brigitte won a lawsuit in a French court against two women, including a self-described medium, who contributed to spreading rumours about her gender. An appeals court overturned that decision this month, and Brigitte Macron has appealed to France's highest court.
9 News
42 minutes ago
- 9 News
Donald Trump told his name was in Epstein files: reports
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here When Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department's review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, she told him that his name appeared in the files, sources familiar with the discussion told CNN. The conversation, which also included Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, was characterised by two White House officials as a "routine briefing" that covered the scope of the Justice Department's findings. Trump's name appearing in the files, they said, was not the sole focus of the discussions. Bondi also raised in the meeting that several names of high-profile figures were also mentioned, and that investigators did not find evidence of a so-called client list or evidence refuting that Epstein died by suicide, the officials said. Attorney-General Pam Bondi reportedly told Donald Trump his name is in the Epstein files. (AP) The sources familiar with the department's review said the files appeared to include several unsubstantiated claims that the Justice Department found not to be credible, including those relating to Trump. It wasn't clear in what context Trump's name appeared in the files. Like many high-powered people in 1990s New York, Trump was an associate of Epstein's, who worked to cultivate celebrities to burnish his business. The revelation that his name appears in the documents does little to advance previous knowledge about his ties to the late sex offender. "The White House is not surprised by this – Trump's name was present in the binders that Bondi produced and handed out," one of the White House officials said, adding that many of the materials already released by the Justice Department had included mention of the president's name. "The White House does not view this as groundbreaking or new or surprising at all," the official said, adding that there is no evidence that Trump was involved in any wrongdoing. "The fact is that the President kicked him out of his club for being a creep," White House communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement to CNN, referring to Epstein. "This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about." Donald Trump and Attorney-General Pam Bondi. (AP) The Wall Street Journal first reported that Bondi informed Trump in May about his name appearing in the documents. The revelations about the meeting contradict Trump's more recent denials that he was told he was in the files. Pressed last week on whether Bondi had told him he was named in the documents, he said, "No, no. She's given us just a very quick briefing." Trump has struggled to tamp down weeks of backlash over the administration's decision not to release more documents related to the Epstein investigation — a move that infuriated a vocal segment of the MAGA base and put the president at odds with some of his most ardent supporters. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein at a Victoria's Secret Angels event in 1997. (Getty) Inside the White House, officials were outraged that Bondi did not redact Trump's name from publicly available materials contained in Epstein binders distributed to influencers in February, sources said. Her failure to protect the president during the episode has been a longstanding point of contention between the DOJ and the White House. "The DOJ and FBI reviewed the Epstein Files and reached the conclusion set out in the July 6 memo," Bondi and Blanche said in a statement. "Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution, and we have filed a motion in court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts. As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings." The White House has dismissed the ongoing focus on the Epstein files, arguing that it's distracting from the administration's accomplishments and aiding Democrats' efforts to damage the president. But a growing and bipartisan chorus of lawmakers have since called for a full release of the documents, forcing Republican leaders on Capitol Hill to cut short their legislative session to avoid taking a series of votes on the matter. Trump denied writing the letter and has since sued the Wall Street Journal over its publication of that article. Donald Trump Jeffrey Epstein USA US POLITICS World CONTACT US Auto news: Why Australians are still driving around without insurance.
