Don Jr. launches exclusive Trump fan club - here's how much it will cost you to join
Donald Trump Jr. has launched an exclusive club that charges members more than half a million dollars to hobnob with his father's administration.
The 47-year-old eldest child of the president worked with conservative financier Omeed Malik and partners at his 1789 Capital to create Executive Branch - an upcoming nightclub in the heart of Washington DC 's Georgetown neighborhood, Politico reports.
They had sought to create the 'highest-end private club' in the area and are catering to the elite.
The hefty cost is meant to deter wannabes and members of the press as the club caters to the business and technology moguls who are looking to improve their relationship with the president.
Trump Jr., Malik and South African entrepreneur David Sacks made the official announcement on Saturday night at an invite-only party.
It coincided with the annual White House Correspondent's Dinner, which nobody in the Trump administration attended.
Instead, Politico reports, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was set to attend the Executive Branch launch party.
But even before the official announcement Saturday night, the club already had a wait list of people trying to get in.
By Sunday evening, the club's official website even said 'the waiting list for new members is now closed and is subject to annual review' noting that membership 'is invitation-only.'
Among those who were lucky enough to be named founding members are Sacks, the controversial Winklevoss twins who famously sued Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg over the social media site's founding and venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya.
The owners, meanwhile, are listed as Malik; his business partner, Chris Buskirk; Trump Jr and Zach and Alex Witkoff - the sons of Trump's Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
21 minutes ago
- Sky News
The politics and controversy behind FIFA's reshaped Club World Cup
Among Donald Trump's gilded additions to the Oval Office, one ornament stands out: symbolising power plays in sport and geopolitics. The outlandish, elaborate golden discs form football's newest prize: the Club World Cup that will be handed out in New Jersey on 14 July, after 63 matches across 11 American cities. The trophy has become part of presidential theatre, prominent for all the major announcements - from nuclear warnings to Iran to celebrating the trade deal with Britain. It was hand-delivered to Mr Trump three months ago by Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president whose name is etched into it. Twice. This whole competition - supersizing an old, little-regarded format from seven to 32 clubs - is very much Mr Infantino's creation to reshape world football and extend FIFA's reach into the club game. For a trophy inspired by NASA missions into space - featuring astronomy and maps - it also signals how Mr Infantino has gained influence in Mr Trump's orbit. Becoming the commander-in-chief's closest non-American associate has secured invites to political speeches as well as sporting trips. The alliance - contentious given Mr Trump's rhetoric and interventions on topics such as immigration and diversity - is defended as fast-tracking decision-making at the highest level. This Club World Cup (CWC) is in many ways the test event for the more complex tournament next summer, as the World Cup is contested by 48 men's national teams across the US, Canada, and Mexico. "I think it is absolutely crucial for the success of a World Cup to have a close relationship with the president," Mr Infantino said. But the CWC begins against the backdrop of immigration raids and violent protests in Los Angeles amid concerns fans could be targeted or denied entry to FIFA events. Saudi Arabia's role This was a tournament intended to launch in China in 2021 until the pandemic shook the world and interest in football waned in the country once heavily courted by FIFA. And so attention shifted to Saudi Arabia. It can appear that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has bailed out Mr Infantino, bankrolling his pet project. There was little interest from FIFA's usual World Cup broadcasters - BBC and ITV in Britain - until loss-making streamer DAZN stepped in with a $1bn (£736m) deal, just around the time Saudi Arabia was handed the hosting of the 2034 World Cup. That was followed by DAZN selling a 10% stake to SURJ, an investment firm owned by Saudi's sovereign wealth fund, chaired by MBS. And then, completing the circle, the Public Investment Fund signed up as a CWC sponsor less than two weeks before the tournament begins. PIF also owns Al-Hilal, who qualified as Asian Champions League winners for the CWC in a group featuring Real Madrid. A Super League? Given Mr Infantino maintains the extravaganza features the 32 best teams in the world, what, for example, are RB Salzburg doing there? While four of Europe's slots went to recent Champions League winners, the other eight went to the best-performing teams ranked by European results in recent years. And while Liverpool should have made the cut by that measure, FIFA imposed a cap on two teams per country unless they had all qualified as competition winners. So FIFA only has Chelsea and Manchester City, although Lionel Messi's Inter Miami were handed a place as national champions despite not actually winning the main American soccer title. To some, this could seem to be the genesis of a Super League - the aborted European breakaway in 2021 - in a different guise. Champions League organiser UEFA once tried to thwart the CWC, given it could diminish the status of its own competition, before caving-in to FIFA. And while selling tickets and finding viewers will be challenging, it will be lucrative for the participants. That Saudi $1bn (£736m) is all going back to clubs, with up to $125m (£92m) for the winners. Workload concerns Chelsea and City have already played 57 matches this season - now up to seven more are being bolted on. 1:37 And their players could have had up to 10 international matches over the last year, including two in the gap between the end of the domestic season and the CWC trip. It is why - in plans first revealed by Sky News in 2023 - global players' union FIFPRO has launched a legal challenge claiming FIFA has abused a dominant position to risk the health of players. But the European Commission has not officially taken up the case to prevent this launch. And, given that other FIFA events have already expanded - or are expanding - to 48 finalists, the Club World Cup could be here to stay - and even get even bigger. There is also still the delayed women's tournament, which is set to finally launch in 2028.
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump scrambles to claim credit for Israel's Iran attack he publicly opposed
Donald Trump is walking a tightrope as he claims that he was fully aware of Israel's plans to launch massive airstrikes against Iran while continuing to distance the US from those strikes and deny Washington took any active role in the preparations. The White House's messaging has shifted quickly from Marco Rubio's arms-length description of the Israeli attack as a 'unilateral action', to Trump claiming on Friday morning that he was fully in the loop on the operation and that it came at the end of a 60-day ultimatum he had given Iran to 'make a deal' on its nuclear programme. 'Today is day 61,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'I told [Iran] what to do, but they just couldn't get there.' Trump's framing presents a good cop-bad cop dynamic of his approach with Benjamin Netanyahu, the embattled Israeli leader with whom he has a notoriously combative relationship. The US president has scrambled to now present the Israeli strikes, which he publicly claimed he did not want on Thursday, as a means of continuing his efforts to convince Iran to negotiate. 'They should now come to the table to make a deal before it's too late,' he said. But the discordant US response from to the strikes, including Rubio's Thursday evening statement, a hasty evacuation of some US personnel from the region and ambiguity over whether the US provided intelligence or would actively take part in Israel's defence from a likely counterattack, has raised questions over whether Israel may have moved ahead of the Trump administration as a way to present Washington with a fait accompli. 'They made a bet on President Trump,' said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggesting that Israel had pushed harder for strikes while the Trump administration had sought to maintain a diplomatic route. 'The Israelis struck and then today Trump called it 'excellent'.' While Israel had clearly given the United States advanced warning of the strike, claims that it was fully coordinated in Israeli state media have been subject to speculation: was Trump actually on board or was he repositioning himself on Friday in order to present the strikes as part of a coherent strategy. On Thursday, in remarks from the White House's East Room, Trump said that strikes on Israel could 'blow up' his diplomatic efforts to negotiate with the Iranian leadership and said he 'didn't want them going in'. He defended his decision to begin evacuating personnel because a strike 'could well happen'. 'The US started evacuating voluntarily non-essential personnel on Wednesday, barely 24 hours ahead of time, not enough time to really get people out of harm's way,' said Rosemary Kelanic, the Middle East director for Defense Priorities, a thinktank that pushes for a more restrained US foreign policy. 'So the question for me is what did the president know and when did he know it?' On Friday, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he was not caught unaware by the strike: 'Heads-up? It wasn't a heads-up. It was, we know what's going on.' And he indicated that he had been apprised of future Israeli plans, writing that the 'next already planned attacks' would be 'even more brutal'. Senior Israeli officials also began to brief media that Trump had only pretended to oppose an Israeli attack and that they in fact had a 'green light' for the attack. But Kelanic and others noted that Israel may be seeking a means to 'entrap' the US into a war. In either case, it is doubtful that Israel could have prepared the attack in the past week without US knowledge. Officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies would have seen the preparations for the airstrike – involving more than 200 Israeli fighter jets striking more than 100 targets across Iran – and probably understood that Israel was planning a major attack against Tehran. Late on Thursday, administration officials told Fox News that the US had replenished missiles for Israel's Iron Dome anti-air batteries in recent weeks in preparation for an expected counterattack. And the US in recent weeks had deployed B-52 bombers to its airbase on the remote Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, where multiple B-2 bombers have also been stationed since late March. B-2s stationed at the base took part in airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen earlier this year, but the base would also serve as a launching point for airstrikes against Iran if the US were to join the conflict. But there are other explanations for the resupply of anti-air missiles to Iron Dome, particularly following the unprecedented barrage of ballistic missiles launched by Iran against Israel last year. And the US could have employed those B-2s and B-52s to strike the Fordow uranium enrichment centre, which is located deep underground and was not apparently struck in Friday morning's strikes. Still intact, it represents an important element in Iran's nuclear program that was not eliminated – at least in the first round of the Israeli attacks.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Israel's shock attack on Iran: confusing US signals add to the peril
US presidents who thought they could easily restrain Benjamin Netanyahu have quickly learned their lesson. 'Who's the fucking superpower?' Bill Clinton reportedly exploded after his first meeting with the Israeli prime minister. Did Donald Trump make the same mistake? The state department quickly declared that the devastating overnight Israeli attack on Iran – which killed key military commanders and nuclear scientists as well as striking its missile capacity and a nuclear enrichment site – was unilateral. Mr Trump had reportedly urged Mr Netanyahu to hold off in a call on Monday, pending US talks with Iran over its nuclear programme due this weekend. The suspicion is that Israel feared that a deal might be reached and wanted to strike first. But Israeli officials have briefed that they had a secret green light from the US, with Mr Trump only claiming to oppose it. Iran, reeling from the attack but afraid of looking too weak to retaliate, is unlikely to believe that the US did not acquiesce to the offensive, if unenthusiastically. It might suit it better to pretend otherwise – in the short term, it is not clear what ability it has to hit back at Israel, never mind taking on the US. But Mr Trump has made that hard by threatening 'even more brutal attacks' ahead, urging Iran to 'make a deal, before there's nothing left' and claiming that 'we knew everything'. Whether Israel really convinced Mr Trump that this was the way to cut a deal, or he is offering a post-hoc justification after being outflanked by Mr Netanyahu, may no longer matter. Israel has become increasingly and dangerously confident of its ability to reshape the Middle East without pushing it over the brink. It believes that its previous pummellings of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran's air defences have created a brief opportunity to destroy the existential threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme before it is too late. Russia is not about to ride to Tehran's rescue, and while Gulf states don't want instability, they are not distraught to see an old rival weakened. But not least in the reckoning is surely that Mr Netanyahu, who survives politically through military action, only narrowly survived a Knesset vote this week. The government also faces mounting international condemnation over its war crimes in Gaza – though the US and others allow those crimes to continue. It is destroying the nation's international reputation, yet may bolster domestic support through this campaign. The obvious question is the future of a key Iranian enrichment site deep underground at Fordo, which many believe Israel could not destroy without US 'bunker busters'. If Israel believes that taking out personnel and some infrastructure is sufficient to preclude Iran's nuclear threat, that is a huge and perilous gamble. This attack may well trigger a rush to full nuclear-armed status by Tehran – and ultimately others – and risks spurring more desperate measures in the meantime. Surely more likely is that Israel hopes to draw in Washington, by persuading it that Iran is a paper tiger or baiting Tehran into attacking US targets. 'My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,' Mr Trump claimed in his inaugural speech. Yet on Friday he said was not concerned about a regional war breaking out due to Israel's strikes. Few will feel so sanguine. The current incoherence and incomprehensibility of US foreign policy fuels instability and risks drawing adversaries towards fateful miscalculations.
