Chris Columbus hesitant to cut Donald Trump cameo from 'Home Alone 2' citing deportation fears
The filmmaker, who is being honoured at this year's San Francisco International Film Festival, expressed his concern during an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.
'It's become an albatross for me. I just wish it was gone,' said Columbus. 'If I cut it, I'll probably be sent out of this country. I'll be considered sort of not fit to live in the United States.'
Though born in America, Columbus, who has Italian heritage, joked that any attempt to erase the cameo might lead to him being sent 'back to Italy or something.'
His comments come amid a wider pattern of aggressive actions by Donald Trump's current administration toward critics, including journalists, scholars, and public figures.
Photo: 20th century Fox
The controversy surrounding the scene stems from Trump's demand to appear in the 1992 sequel as a condition for allowing filming inside the Plaza Hotel, which he owned at the time.
Trump has accused Columbus of lying about the circumstances of the cameo, claiming the production 'begged' him to participate. Columbus has firmly denied this, stating: 'There's no world I would ever beg a non-actor to be in a movie.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
OPEC+ agrees in principle another large oil output hike, sources say
LONDON: OPEC+ agreed in principle to boost oil output by 548,000 barrels per day in September, two OPEC+ sources said on Sunday as the group finishes unwinding its biggest tranche of production cuts amid fears of further supply disruptions from Russia. A decision is expected at a meeting scheduled to begin at 1100 GMT, amid fresh U.S. demands for India to stop buying Russian oil as Washington seeks ways to push Moscow for a peace deal with Ukraine. Fresh EU sanctions have also pushed Indian state refiners to suspend Russian oil purchases. OPEC+, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support the market. But it reversed course this year to regain market share, and as U.S. President Donald Trump demanded OPEC pump more oil. OPEC+ began output increases in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July and 548,000 bpd in August. If the group agrees to the 548,000-bpd September increase, it will have fully unwound its previous production cut of 2.2 million bpd, while allowing the United Arab Emirates to raise output by 300,000 bpd. Oil falls on worries about OPEC+ supply OPEC+ still has in place a separate, voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from eight members and a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which expire at the end of 2026. Sources have said previously the group had no plans to discuss other tranches of cuts on Sunday.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The new trade colonialism
On August 1, as the clock struck midnight Eastern Time, a new era in global trade was inaugurated — one that might be remembered not for its reciprocity or fairness, but for the brute leverage of American power. With the rollout of sweeping new reciprocal tariffs under President Donald Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' strategy, dozens of nations were forced into last-minute trade deals that, beneath the surface, bear a striking resemblance to the 'unequal treaties' of the 19th century. Only this time, they were not written at gunpoint, but under threat of economic coercion. The United States, claiming to be correcting trade deficits and restoring domestic manufacturing, has essentially coerced trading partners into accepting higher tariffs, ceding regulatory ground and committing to strategic economic realignments, all while ensuring minimal concessions on its own part. For countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, and even the European Union, the consequences could be far-reaching, reshaping industrial policies, altering investment incentives and, most importantly, undermining economic sovereignty. The Trump administration's public rationale for this aggressive trade overhaul is the need to rebalance global trade deficits. The claim is straightforward: the US has been losing in trade and it's time to 'even the playing field.' However, this rhetoric masks a complex and asymmetric web of tariffs and conditions that belie the supposed principle of reciprocity. Take Vietnam, for instance. Under its deal with Washington, Hanoi agreed to a 20% tariff on most exports to the US, plus a staggering 40% levy on transshipped goods; a direct blow to Vietnam's unique status as a production hub for global giants like Foxconn, Apple, Intel, and Nike. With 71.7% of Vietnamese exports coming from foreign-invested enterprises, this transshipment clause is more than a customs technicality; it strikes at the heart of Vietnam's export-driven growth model. In return Vietnam was pressured into offering zero tariffs on select US imports, including large-engine automobiles, an almost negligible sector in Vietnam's domestic market but a significant win for US exporters. Indonesia, similarly, secured a slightly lower tariff rate — 19% instead of the initially threatened 32% — but only by agreeing to purchase US Boeing aircraft and remove or reduce various trade barriers. Beyond tariffs, the deals increasingly intrude upon the internal economic policies of sovereign states. Embedded in these trade arrangements are demands regarding "transshipment restrictions" and "supply chain security" — vague yet powerful instruments that allow the US to dictate how and where its partners manufacture goods. These clauses give Washington indirect influence over national industrial strategies, particularly in countries where foreign direct investment forms the backbone of growth. For the European Union, the stakes are no less severe. The deal demanded a $600 billion investment from EU states into the US economy, effectively exporting European capital and potentially jobs to American soil. Even more contentious is the clause requiring the EU to buy $750 billion worth of US energy over three years, a move that French officials bluntly called 'capitulation.' Energy policy, long considered a pillar of national sovereignty, is now subordinated to bilateral trade enforcement mechanisms. In trade diplomacy, access to the US consumer market is perhaps the most coveted prize. The Trump administration has weaponised this leverage to extract far-reaching concessions. For some countries, the alternative to signing a deal is punitive: Mexico faces a 25% blanket tariff and Canada, a top US trading partner, could see tariffs of up to 35% on goods not compliant with the existing USMCA. Meanwhile, India — despite being dubbed a 'friend' by Trump — has been hit with a 25% tariff across the board, plus an unspecified penalty tied to its energy dealings with Russia. Such measures reinforce the view that these 'agreements' are less about trade and more about aligning partners with US geopolitical objectives. Even where countries managed to avoid worst-case tariffs, the deals were often asymmetrical. South Korea, for example, agreed to a 15% tariff rate on its exports while pledging $350 billion in US investments and granting zero tariffs on American agricultural and automobile exports. These are not trade negotiations in the traditional sense. They are economic ultimatums wrapped in diplomatic language. Ironically, while these deals are framed as a win for American workers, they may end up harming US consumers and industries. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the average US household could face $2,400 in additional annual costs due to higher prices on imported goods — effectively a hidden tax. Moreover, American industries that rely on foreign components, like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, will face disrupted supply chains and rising production costs. This suggests that the primary beneficiaries of these aggressive trade deals are not US consumers or workers, but rather a political narrative built around economic nationalism and short-term geopolitical gains. What makes these modern trade pacts so unsettling is how closely they echo the 'unequal treaties' of colonial history. In the 19th century, Western powers extracted lopsided agreements from Asian nations, forcing them to open ports, accept foreign jurisdiction and buy unwanted goods. Today, the US is not demanding extraterritorial rights, but it is imposing conditions that interfere with national industrial policies, force purchases of US products, and limit the autonomy of states to craft their own trade strategies. In the longer term, this coercive trade strategy may backfire by undermining the very multilateral institutions that have governed global trade for decades. The World Trade Organisation, already weakened, is increasingly sidelined as bilateral power politics dominate. Meanwhile, countries that feel cornered by US tactics may seek alternative trading blocs, perhaps turning to China, regional groupings, or even forming counter-alliances. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, chief economist at the IMF, warned this week of the broader risk: 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty… Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Al Jazeera quoted him as saying. His words are a plea not just for economic sanity, but for the preservation of a rules-based order. While the US has every right to renegotiate trade terms that it deems unfair, fairness must be mutual. These new 'agreements,' far from establishing equitable exchange, are imposing a 21st-century version of the unequal treaty — a shift that may have profound consequences for global diplomacy, development and international economic cooperation.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump wins his deal, Pakistan eyes the future
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan said that at first when someone says let's impose tariffs on some foreign imports, it looks like they are doing the patriotic thing by protecting the American products and jobs and sometimes for a short while it works but only for a short-time. He went on to say that high tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Thirty-eight years down the line, President Donald Trump has done exactly the opposite to it, which forced the world capitals to rush to Washington to get some respite at least until they come up with better alternatives. The US-Pakistan trade deal in the aftermath of Donald Trump's protectionist policy has apparently given an edge to Washington. But the deal has the potential to benefit Pakistan in many ways, starting from gaining political advantage, retaining market access to the US and luring back American companies after a long time. The US-Pakistan trade deal has consolidated political relations between the two nations after Islamabad accepted a minimum 19% tariffs on its exports to the states but agreed to a duty-free access to American products against over 4,100 tariff lines with complete market access. Where the concessions have kept the doors of the US markets open for Pakistani exporters, the deal has lured the United States interest back in Pakistan's economy, particularly after Washington was wary of growing Chinese penetration in Pakistan. The government of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also stands ready to welcome the US investment in extraction of rare earth metals –the most sought after minerals in the world, which require new technologies and investments. For some, Pakistan would have negotiated much better tariffs but given the country's political and economic standing the deal after all is better one, if not the best. Through the new Executive Order of July 31st, hours before the expiry of the deadline to negotiate deals, President Donald Trump stated that after considering the information and recommendations he determined that it is necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency by imposing additional ad valorem duties on goods of certain trading partners. As a result, Pakistan now faces a 19% tariff on its exports to the United States. The revised tariff for Pakistan is down from the previous retaliatory tax of 29%, which was announced as a threat to come on the negotiations table. Importantly, the revised tariff is over and above the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff, which means 19% is the minimum rate. Prime Minister's Coordinator on Commerce Rana Ihsaan Afzal said this at Pakistan's only premier show on economy, The Review, that 19% tariff was over and above the MFN tariff. In the last fiscal year, Pakistan exported $6 billion worth of goods to the US compared to $2.4 billion imports, earning a surplus of $3.7 billion, a source of concern for President Donald Trump. Pakistan has still gained relative advantage over several regional neighbours under the new US tariff regime, with its 19% rate lower than India's 25%, Bangladesh's 20%, Iraq's 35%, Vietnam's 20%, and equal to Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia's 19%. There appears to be political signaling in setting the new rates by President Donald Trump. On April 2, President Trump announced a 26% tariff for India and set its final rate at 25%, lower than Pakistan's 29% at that time. But he has now kept the Indian tariffs 6% above the Pakistan tariffs. The US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick apprised the Pakistani negotiating team that he had been instructed by Donald Trump to conclude a favourable deal with investment in mines, minerals and cooperation in areas of artificial intelligence, crypto currencies, digital infrastructure and rare earth metals to help Pakistan's economy. This was also acknowledged by Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb who said that the deal was a win-win due to Washington's interest to invest in Pakistan. It was probably for the first time in over a decade that the US has shown any serious interest in Pakistan's economy. A better part of the last one decade was consumed in US attempts to undermine the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor through using its diplomatic muscles and influencing the nation's economic policies through arm-twisting by the International Monetary Fund. It is said that Field Marshal and Chief of the Army Staff Asim Munir's meeting with President Donald Trump helped break the ice. Pakistani negotiators also expressed constructive approach toward the US demands, which helped to get something in return of giving complete market access. The deal's fine points are that Washington has gained market access at zero tariffs. Initially, there were reports that the US would be charged no import tariff against its exports on 1,714 tariff lines. Commerce Coordinator Rana Ihsaan disclosed in The Review programme, that the US has also been offered additional 2,400 tariff lines at zero rate, which are currently only available to China. Rana Ihsaan said that the US would get zero tariffs on over 4,100 tariff lines. Pakistan was negotiating the effectiveness of zero rates on US imports against 4,100 tariff lines from July 2026 due to needed legislative changes and also because of negative revenue implications. The United States had set two key demands for a trade deal with Pakistan: lower tariffs on its exports to Pakistan to zero with total access to markets; and exemption to its companies from 5% tax imposed under the Digital Presence Proceeds Act 2025. Hours before President Donald Trump's announcement that his administration reached a deal with Pakistan, the Federal Board of Revenue issued a notification to withdraw the 5% tax. There have been concerns in the Pakistani camps that since zero-duty access is in breach of the World Trade Organization framework, Pakistan's other trading partners might object to the huge concession. To deal with the matter, there is a possibility that both sides show intentions to sign a Preferential Trade Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement. President Donald Trump also talked about exploring Pakistan's oil reserves with US companies. A Petroleum Division official said that there was a possibility that any US company can participate in the upcoming offshore drilling. The Express Tribune reported last week that the Petroleum Division was seeking bids from interested investors to grant rights for drilling on offshore wells and it would open the bids on October 31, 2025. For some, the US interest in Pakistan's oil and gas sector was surprising. But as a matter of fact, the US companies have in the past too played a role in oil drilling. The country currently produces 73,000 barrel per day oil, which is hardly equal to 15% of its total daily needs. The remaining over 550,000 barrels is imported, which costs the nation annually between $11 billion to $14 billion, depending upon the global oil prices. There has also been a criticism that Pakistan has given too much in return of getting only 10% relief against initially announced retaliatory tariffs. But the Pakistani negotiators said that Washington was not willing to step back from its demand of complete market access. The Donald Trump administration also used the India card in these negotiations. Pakistani negotiators were told that India was ready to give market access on 90% proposed tariff lines by the US but President Trump rejected the demand. With Pakistani minimum tariffs still lower than regional peers, our exporters expect the status quo to the least. They do not see any loss of market in the shorter term. Nonetheless, the behavioral change of the US consumers due to the now high cost of consumer goods cannot be ruled out, which impacts orders in the longer run. The enhanced tariffs would do more damage to the US competitiveness and appetite for innovation due to further protection that its industries have received in the shape of 10% to 41% increase in import taxes against various countries. Pakistani policymakers may also have to offer more than just lower than regional tariffs mantra by cutting the interest rates at least 5%, bringing stability in the exchange rate regime, clearing pending tax refunds to lower the cost and reducing the taxes on industries along with at least one-third reduction in energy tariffs. Until an enabling and regionally competitive environment is not provided to exporters, the country cannot take much benefit from any trade deal. The exporters too have to adopt the new technologies and stop parking a portion of their export receipts abroad to win the trust of the policymakers.
