Trump's latest grift leaves us with one question: What does a Trump fragrance smell like?
The announcement came Monday in the same way so many announcements from Trump do — via Truth Social.
"Trump Fragrances are here. They're called 'Victory 45-47' because they're all about Winning, Strength, and Success — For men and women," the President of the United States wrote. "Get yourself a bottle, and don't forget to get one for your loved ones too. Enjoy, have fun, and keep winning!"
The 3.3 fl oz bottle retails for $249 on the official website. The image suggests that each perfume/cologne bottle has an image of a man in a suit on top. It's unclear whether that's supposed to represent Trump himself or not, even though the physique certainly bears no resemblance to the man himself.
The description further suggests that the fragrance is "inspired by President Trump's history win," with the perfume claiming to capture "confidence, beauty, and unstoppable determination" and the cologne blending "rich, masculine notes with a refined, lasting finish."
In other words, we have no idea what the scents actually are.
— (@)
x.com
It's a good bet that the official site didn't bother describing the fragrances because the sort of people who would jump at the chance to drop $249+ on Trump-themed perfume or cologne are unlikely to actually care about anything beyond proving their MAGA loyalty anyway. But where there are gaps, others are more than happy to fill in the blanks, and it didn't take long for people on social media to start theorizing as to what these pricy fragrances actually smell like.
Here are some of our favorites:
— (@)
x.com
From the man who's always full of shit!
— (@)
x.com
The idea that this scent is perfectly formulated to mask the "evil, rotting soul" underneath is 10/10, no notes.
— (@)
x.com
Don't sniff too much of it.
— (@)
x.com
You know, because the Commander-in-Chief has a tendency To Always Chicken Out.
— (@)
x.com
Specifically, the smell of the US Constitution set on fire.
— (@)
x.com
Do grifts even have a scent? Well, they do now! It's just too bad MAGAs still couldn't smell them, even right under their noses.
This article originally appeared on Pride: Trump's latest grift leaves us with one question: What does a Trump fragrance smell like?
This buff candle smells like 'the sexiest NFL player's jockstrap' and we're VERY interested
Amandla Stenberg Stars in Dreamy New Stella McCartney Fragrance Film
Gucci Enlists Elliot Page For His First-Ever Fragrance Campaign
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
28 minutes ago
US won't send some weapons pledged to Ukraine following a Pentagon review of military aid
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is halting some shipments of weapons to Ukraine amid concerns that its own stockpiles have declined too much, officials said Tuesday, a setback for the country as it tries to fend off escalating attacks from Russia. Certain munitions were previously promised to Ukraine under the Biden administration to aid its defenses during the more than three-year-old war. The pause reflects a new set of priorities under President Donald Trump and came after Defense Department officials scrutinized current U.S. stockpiles and raised concerns. 'This decision was made to put America's interests first following a review of our nation's military support and assistance to other countries across the globe,' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. 'The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran.' That was a reference to Trump recently ordering U.S. missile strikes against nuclear sites in Iran. The Pentagon review determined that stocks were too low on some weapons previously pledged, so pending shipments of some items won't be sent, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide information that has not yet been made public. The Defense Department did not provide details on what specific weapons were being held back. 'America's military has never been more ready and more capable,' spokesman Sean Parnell said, adding that the major tax cut and spending package moving through Congress 'ensures that our weapons and defense systems are modernized to protect against 21st century threats for generations to come." The halt of some weapons from the U.S. is a blow to Ukraine as Russia has recently launched some of its biggest aerial attacks of the war, in an escalating bombing campaign that has further dashed hopes for a breakthrough in peace efforts championed by Trump. Talks between the sides have ground to a halt. The U.S. stoppage was first reported by Politico. To date, the U.S. has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion worth of weapons and military assistance since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022. Over the course of the war, the U.S. has routinely pressed for allies to provide air defense systems to Ukraine. But many are reluctant to give up the high-tech systems, particularly countries in Eastern Europe that also feel threatened by Russia. Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department undersecretary for policy, said officials continue 'to provide the president with robust options to continue military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end.' 'At the same time, the department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach to achieving this objective while also preserving U.S. forces' readiness for Administration defense priorities,' Colby said in a statement. Trump met with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the NATO summit last week and had left open the possibility of sending Kyiv more U.S.-made Patriot air defense missile systems, acknowledging they would help the Ukrainian cause. 'They do want to have the antimissile missiles, OK, as they call them, the Patriots,' Trump said then. 'And we're going to see if we can make some available. We need them, too. We're supplying them to Israel, and they're very effective, 100% effective. Hard to believe how effective. They do want that more than any other thing.' Those comments hinted at thinking about providing weapons to Ukraine that's begun to change across the administration in recent months. In testimony before lawmakers in June, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he has moved quickly to quash wasteful programs and redirect funding to Trump's top objectives. Hegseth said a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine, which has been promoted for months by Trump, makes America look strong, even though Moscow is the aggressor in the conflict. He also said the defense budget includes hard choices and 'reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent. And President Trump deserves the credit for that.' The defense secretary told lawmakers last month that some U.S. security spending for Ukraine was still in the pipeline, without providing details. But he said such assistance — which has been robust for the past two years — would be reduced. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' Hegseth said. 'We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' The change comes after Hegseth skipped a meeting last month of an international group to coordinate military aid to Ukraine that the U.S. created three years ago. Hegseth's predecessor, Lloyd Austin, formed the group after Russia attacked Ukraine, and Hegseth's absence was the first time the U.S. defense secretary wasn't in attendance. Under Austin's leadership, the U.S. served as chair of the group, and he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff attended monthly meetings, which were both in person and by video. Hegseth had previously stepped away from a leadership role of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group — turning that over to Germany and the United Kingdom — before abandoning the gathering altogether.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's big budget bill would jump-start his immigration agenda
Building the border wall. Increasing detention capacity. Hiring thousands of immigration agents. The budget bill narrowly approved by the Senate on Tuesday includes massive funding infusions — roughly $150 billion — toward immigration and border enforcement. If passed, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" will cement President Trump's hard-line legacy on immigration. Read more: By a single vote, Trump's megabill passes the Senate The budget bill would make Immigration and Customs Enforcement the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the federal government, exceeding its current yearly $3.4-billion detention budget many times over. It also would impose fees on immigration services that were once free or less expensive and make it easier for local law enforcement to work with federal authorities on immigration. The 940-page Senate bill will now head back to the House, which passed its version in May, also by one vote, 215 to 214. The two chambers must now reconcile the two versions of the bill. Though the legislation is still evolving, the immigration provisions in the House and Senate versions are similar and not subject to the intense debates on other issues, such as Medicaid or taxes. Many of the funds would be available for four years, though some have longer or shorter timelines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that, if enacted, the bill would increase the deficit by at least $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. Here are key elements concerning immigration: $46.5 billion toward fortifying the U.S.-Mexico border wall and interdicting migrant smugglers at sea. This includes building barrier sections and access roads and installing barrier-related technology such as cameras, lights and sensors. The legislation doesn't reference specific locations. Trump, in his first term, repeatedly vowed that Mexico would pay for the wall. It didn't. $32 billion for immigration enforcement, including staffing of ICE and expanding so-called 287(g) agreements, in which state and local law enforcement agencies partner with federal authorities to deport immigrants. $7 billion for hiring Border Patrol agents, customs officers at ports of entry, air and marine agents and field support staff; retention bonuses; and vehicles. $3.3 billion to hire immigration judges and support staff, among other provisions. Trump has said he wants to hire 10,000 ICE agents, as well as 3,000 Border Patrol agents. $45 billion to build and operate immigrant detention facilities and to transport those being deported. $5 billion for new Customs and Border Protection facilities and improvements to existing facilities and checkpoints. It's unclear how this could affect California or the Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Onofre. The bill allows for families to be detained indefinitely, pending a removal decision.. Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, called that a blatant violation of the so-called Flores settlement agreement, which has been in place since 1977 and limits to 20 days the duration children can legally be detained. $13.5 billion to reimburse states and local governments for immigration-related costs. These are divided into two pots of funding: $10 billion for the "state border security reinforcement fund" and the "Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide" or BIDEN fund. Both would fund the arrest by local law enforcement of immigrants who unlawfully entered the U.S. and committed any crime. "You can think of it like a gift for [Texas Gov. Greg] Abbott," Altman said. A fee of at least $100 for those seeking asylum, down from a $1,000 fee outlined in the House bill. Applicants also would pay $100 every year the application remains pending. This is unprecedented — a fee has never before been imposed on migrants fleeing persecution. At least $550 ($275 on renewal) to apply for employment authorization for those with asylum applications, humanitarian parole and temporary protected status. Currently there is no fee for asylum seekers and a $470 fee for others. At least $500 for temporary protected status, up from $50. The stated fees are minimums — the bill allows for annual increases and, for many, prohibits waivers based on financial need. "The paradox of a fee for an employment authorization document is that you're not allowed to work, but you need to pay for the fee," said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst with the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. Altman noted that imposing a yearly fee on asylum seekers for their pending applications punishes people for the U.S. government's backlogged system, which is out of the applicant's control. Other sections exclude lawfully present immigrants, such as refugees and those granted asylum, from benefits including Medicare, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Another provision excludes children from the child tax credit if their parent lacks a Social Security number. Altman, whose organization has closely tracked the immigration aspects of the funding bill, said people can look at the legislation two ways: big picture — as a $150-billion infusion to supercharge what the Trump administration has already started — or surgically, as a series of policy changes that will not be easy to undo "and make an already corrupt system subject to even fewer safeguards and really go after people's most basic needs." Bush-Joseph had a different view. She said the funding reinforces an outdated and inflexible immigration system without fundamentally changing it. "That's why there's all this money going to the border even though there aren't a lot of people coming now," she said. Money alone won't change things overnight, Bush-Joseph said. It takes time to hire people and to open detention facilities. Immigration judges will still have a massive backlog of cases. And getting foreign countries to agree to accept more deportees is tricky. "Arresting and detaining people with private contractors doesn't get you to an agreement from El Salvador to take five more planes per week," she said. During a White House event Thursday, Trump urged Congress to pass the bill quickly, saying it "will be the single most important piece of border legislation to ever come across the floor of Congress." Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of three Republicans who voted against the bill Tuesday, had called it "reckless spending," writing on X: "I'm all for hiring new people to help secure our borders, but we don't need it to the extent that's in this bill, especially when our border is largely contained." Across the political aisle, Democrats including California Sen. Alex Padilla have slammed the bill, saying the immigration-related funding increases amount to a substantial policy change. 'You would think that maybe just for a moment, Republicans would take this reconciliation process as an opportunity to do what they said before they wanted to do and modernize our nation's immigration system," Padilla said last month. "But they're not." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Elon Musk Responds to Trump's 'Back Home to South Africa' Comments
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. Elon Musk called President Donald Trump's comments about him "so disappointing". The Musk-Trump feud reignited over the president's One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX sees as an unacceptable multi-trillion-dollar expansion of the federal debt. Musk touted forming a new "America Party". In a post on Truth Social, Trump took aim at Musk for the subsidies his companies have received, particularly for electric vehicles. Trump said without them, Musk would "probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa." "Just plain wrong," Musk, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen more than two decades ago, wrote on X in a direct response to a screenshot of Trump's post. "So disappointing." Trump had also said "we'll have to look" when asked if he would consider deporting Musk. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
