White House donates photo of Trump to Colorado Capitol to replace ‘purposefully distorted' painting of the president
The White House has donated a portrait of Donald Trump to the Colorado Capitol to replace one that the president hates.
The new artwork, which appears to depict Trump's official photograph, is set to replace a painting the president claimed had been 'purposely distorted' in an alleged petty plot by Colorado Governor Jared Polis.
The decision to replace the portrait was made on Thursday by Lois Court, chair of the Colorado Capitol Building Advisory Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the historic preservation of the building.
'It is currently being framed,' Court, a Denver Democrat, told the Colorado Sun.
Court told the newspaper she made the decision with two Democratic state legislators on the advisory committee.
The committee is reportedly weighing whether to remove presidential portraits altogether to make room for paintings of Colorado's governors.
'In due time,' Court said, 'we will have a thorough discussion about all the presidential portraits.'
Colorado Republicans raised over $10,000 to commission the portrait by artist Sarah Boardman, which was unveiled in 2019 during the president's first term.
The painting was removed in March after the president flew into a fit of rage and said that Boardman made former President Barack Obama look 'wonderful' but him look 'truly the worst.'
Along with his own calls to remove the painting, Trump alleged that Colorado natives had been left furious about the portrait, urging state officials to pull it down.
'She must have lost her talent as she got older,' Trump said in his March Truth Social rant.
Boardman said in April that the situation was 'directly and negatively impacting my business of over 41 years, which now is in danger of not recovering.' In a separate interview with the Colorado Times, she claimed that personal politics don't influence her work.
The president seized on the moment to take a swipe at Polis and his policies, referencing members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which had a presence in Aurora, Colorado, last year.
'I am speaking on their behalf to the Radical Left Governor, Jared Polis, who is extremely weak on Crime, in particular with respect to Tren de Aragua, which practically took over Aurora (Don't worry, we saved it!), to take it down,' he continued.
'Jared should be ashamed of himself!'
Polis, however, wasn't behind the painting, which was commissioned in 2018, months before he took office and a year before it was finally unveiled.
Earlier that year, a political activist had snuck into the State Capitol with help from an advisor to Colorado's Democratic House Speaker, Crisanta Duran.
A large painting of Russian President Vladimir Putin was erected where Trump's portrait was meant to hang. It came after Republicans reportedly could not raise the funds required to commission the picture of Trump.
After the stunt, Kevin Grantham, a Republican who served as president of the Colorado Senate, raised more than $10,000 through GoFundMe for the portrait.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
June 28 (Reuters) - As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit, opens new tab in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?"
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US Senate Republicans aim to push ahead on Trump's sweeping tax-cut, spending bill
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans will seek to push President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill forward on Saturday with a procedural vote that could kick off a marathon weekend session. The bill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main first-term legislative achievement, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Nonpartisan analysts estimate a version passed by the House of Representatives last month would add about $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2-trillion government debt. Senate Republicans have been deeply divided over plans to partly offset that bill's heavy hit to the deficit, including by cutting the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income Americans. Republicans are using a legislative maneuver to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber. Their narrow margins in the Senate and House mean they can afford no more than three Republican no votes to advance a bill that Democrats are united in opposing, saying it takes a heavy toll on low- and middle-income Americans to benefit the wealthy. Trump has pushed for Congress to pass the bill by the July 4 Independence Day holiday. The White House said early this month that the legislation, which Trump calls the "One Big Beautiful Bill," would reduce the annual deficit by $1.4 trillion. While a handful of Republicans in both chambers have voiced opposition to some of the bill's elements, this Congress has so far not rejected any of the president's legislative priorities. A successful vote to open debate would kick off a lengthy process that could run into Sunday, as Democrats unveil a series of amendments that are unlikely to pass in a chamber Republicans control 53-47. Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer summarized the reasons for his party's opposition to the bill at a Friday press conference: "It has the biggest cuts to food funding ever" and could result in more than 2 million people losing their jobs, as he highlighted the Republican rollback of clean energy initiatives ushered in by the Biden administration. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune stressed the tax-cut components during a Friday speech to the Senate. "The centerpiece of our bill is permanent tax relief for the American people," he said as he showcased legislation that contains a new tax break for senior citizens and other taxpayers. The measure, Thune said, will "help get our economy firing on all cylinders again." It also would raise the Treasury Department's statutory borrowing limit by trillions of dollars to stave off a first-ever default on its debt in coming months. If the Senate manages to pass Trump's top legislative goal by early next week, the House would be poised to quickly apply the final stamp of approval, sending it to Trump for signing into law. But with Senate Republicans struggling to find enough spending cuts to win the support of the party's far right, Trump on Friday loosened the leash a bit, saying his July 4 deadline for wrapping it all up was "important" but "it's not the end-all." Among the most difficult disagreements Senate Republicans struggled to resolve late on Friday was the size of a cap on deductions for state and local taxes and a Medicaid cost-savings that could hobble rural hospitals.
