Trump considers UFC fight at the White House to celebrate 250th Independence Day
Article content
'We have a lot of land there,' said Trump, a UFC enthusiast who has attended several of its mixed martial arts matches in recent months and is close friends with Dana White, the league's president.
Article content
Article content
Article content
Trump announced his plan in Iowa during the kickoff for a year's worth of festivities to celebrate America's 250th birthday on July 4, 2026.
Article content
Article content
The Republican president also announced a culminating festival on the National Mall in Washington, and a separate athletic competition featuring high school athletes from across the country.
Article content
'So every one of our national parks, battlefields and historic sites are going to have special events in honor of America 250. And I even think we're going to have a UFC fight,' Trump said.
Article content
″Think of this on the grounds of the White House. We have a lot of land there,' he said, adding that it would be a 'full fight' with 20,000 to 25,000 people.
Article content
A White House spokesperson said they had no details to share beyond the president's announcement.
Article content
Trump has recently enjoyed standing ovations and cage-side seats for several UFC fights, including an appearance immediately after his 2024 reelection and another just last month alongside White for two championship fights.
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
President Donald Trump holds a gavel after he signed his signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts at the White House, Friday, July 4, 2025, in Washington, surrounded by members of Congress. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) WASHINGTON — Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. U.S. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Hard to reap the rewards Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Social net setbacks Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Some unhappy Republicans Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. 'The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.' Associated Press writer Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report. Seung Min Kim, The Associated Press
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Canada's now-abandoned digital services tax was never enough to begin with
Days after U.S. President Donald Trump broke off trade talks with Canada, Ottawa suddenly rescinded its new three per cent digital services tax (DST). We all knew bargaining with Trump would be full of drama, threats and bluster. But Canadians had their elbows up. Abandoning the DST so quickly, weeks before the July 21 deadline for a deal, is a worrying sign. What will Trump demand next? At any rate, given Trump's deals with other countries (which are not binding, and leave U.S. tariffs in place), it's not clear any deal (if reached) will be worth the paper it's printed on. Opinion articles are based on the author's interpretations and judgments of facts, data and events. More details
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
How Trump could make Canada better
As obnoxious as he is, Donald Trump may actually be doing Canada some good. His demands are forcing this country to rethink bad ideas, question sacred cows and brace itself for the challenges of the future. Just this week, the U.S. President gave Prime Minister Mark Carney an excuse to jettison a wrong-headed tax on foreign tech giants. Because just about all of those giants are American, Washington has opposed it from the start, under Joe Biden's administration as well as Mr. Trump's. The heaps of money that were to flow to Ottawa from the tax would have come from the pockets of the millions of Canadians who use Amazon, Apple, Google or other digital providers. Higher taxes inevitably mean higher rates for consumers. Mr. Trump refused to continue trade talks with Canada until Ottawa got rid of the tax, which was about to take effect. Mr. Carney duly killed it. A capitulation? No, a sensible concession. Good policy, to boot. I can think of at least three other ways that Mr. Trump's Blame Canada campaign is forcing us to reconsider the way we do things. Start with national defence. Mr. Trump has said for years that Canada and other countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are freeloading off the United States, relying on Washington to keep the Western alliance well armed while scrimping on armaments themselves. To up defence spending, Canada must cut deeper, tax harder and borrow more – all at once It's not your grandfather's war any more, and defence procurement must evolve Canada was one of the worst of the laggards, its rate of spending near the bottom of the pack. By outsourcing our defence to our mighty next-door neighbour, we saved countless billions – money that was freed up for other needs such as hospitals, roads, parks and schools. The generous health care and other social programs that Canadians cherish were in effect underwritten by the U.S. That had to change some time. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine showed how vital it is to keep NATO strong, united and well armed. Now the alliance itself is calling for all members to increase their defence spending dramatically over the next decade. 'For too long, one ally, the United States, carried too much of the burden,' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said at last month's summit. That is changing, he said, and Mr. Trump 'made this change possible.' That may have been an attempt to feed the ego of the egomaniac in the White House, but it was not wrong. Or consider interprovincial trade. The absurd barriers to the flow of goods, services and labour across Canada have been an issue for decades. Everyone agreed they were absurd. Editorial writers turned blue in the face pointing out their absurdity. Premiers and prime ministers huddled every few years to talk about doing something. Next to nothing actually happened. Try getting one of Quebec's many excellent craft beers in Ontario. Now, at last, we are seeing some progress. The punishing, nonsensical tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump have put a fire under the provinces and the feds. If we cannot have free trade with the United States, we should at least be able to trade freely with each other. Internal free trade by Canada Day? It'll take longer than that Even Canada's system of supply management is getting a second look. Under this Soviet-style scheme, marketing boards, rather than the free market, govern the output of eggs, milk, cheese and poultry. Authorities set minimum prices and impose production quotas. High tariffs on imports of these basic commodities ensure that the cozy little set-up survives. The result for ordinary consumers is far higher prices than they might otherwise pay for simple things such as a brick of cheddar or a carton of yogurt. Mr. Trump attacked the system in his first term and is at it again. He is not alone. Canada's other trading partners complain bitterly about it, too. But the agriculture lobby is so strong, especially in Quebec, that no government has dared to dismantle it. Whether Mr. Carney's will remains to be seen. The recent Throne Speech reaffirmed support for supply management and new legislation attempts to prevent Ottawa from sacrificing it in trade talks. But the system is probably the biggest remaining irritant for Mr. Trump, and Mr. Carney might be forced to make concessions to strike a tariff deal with him. Good. Should we all be giving Mr. Trump a great big cheer, then? Of course not. He is bad for his country, for us and for the world in ways too many to count. He is a bully and blowhard. He has insulted our leaders and threatened our sovereignty. On many issues, pushing back against his demands is the way to go. But some of what he says about the way we do things is right. We do hide under American skirts for our defence. We do coddle our farm producers and hobble foreign competitors. If Canada is to survive the Trumpian onslaught, it must do more than simply put its elbows up and stand strong. It must become more efficient, more productive, more innovative. It must change.
