'Sorry, Trump…': Rolling Stone rips Donald Trump for sexist smear on Taylor Swift as Travis Kelce stands by her
Donald Trump
's latest swipe at
Taylor Swift
may have lit up Truth Social, but Rolling Stone isn't buying it, and neither are the numbers. In a sharp rebuttal published this week, the magazine took direct aim at Trump's claim that the 'woke singer' is 'NO LONGER HOT,' calling out how laughably disconnected that statement is from Swift's current career status.
Taylor Swift is still breaking records, even in her so-called off-season
Donald Trump's post praised actress
Sydney Sweeney
for her Republican affiliation and went on to slam Taylor Swift, once again injecting politics into pop culture. But Rolling Stone made it clear: even in a 'quiet' year, Swift is dominating like no other artist.
— RollingStone (@RollingStone)
According to Rolling Stone, Swift is the highest-streaming female artist in the U.S. for 2025, boasting a staggering 5.3 billion on-demand audio streams as of July 3, and that's without releasing a single new song this year.
Only Morgan Wallen and Drake surpass her overall, both of whom have released fresh content in 2025.
The real mic drop, though? Swift's control of her master recordings. Her re-recording mission wasn't just about artistic control, it was a financial power play. As Hits Daily Double reports, she's now expected to command a two percent market share in the music industry. That kind of influence puts her in the same league as major corporate players, and Rolling Stone says that's no accident.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Uncover cards that can help you get seat upgrades
Intuit Credit Karma
Learn More
Undo
From
Eras Tour
to global influence, even
Travis Kelce
sees the power
It's no surprise that someone like Travis Kelce, who's carved out his own crossover empire in sports and entertainment, is in her orbit. Swift's Eras Tour, which wrapped in December, became the highest-grossing tour in history, hauling in over $1 billion. And her 2024 album The Tortured Poets Department shattered her own streaming records.
Also Read:
After Donald Trump's 'no longer hot' swipe at Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce chooses loyalty over controversy with silent show of support
So, while Trump tries to frame Swift as fading, Rolling Stone and the receipts say otherwise. She's not just still hot. She's untouchable. And her tight end boyfriend knows it, too.
Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump Is Making CEOs' Business His Business
In dealing with America's biggest companies, the commander in chief has no qualms about acting as the micromanager in chief. President Trump took his penchant for telling corporate bosses how to run their companies to another level Thursday by publicly calling on Intel's chief executive to resign. The move wasn't out of character: Trump has told Detroit carmakers not to raise prices and demanded Walmart 'eat the tariffs.' He's pressured the Washington Commanders football team to change its name and wants Coca-Cola to use cane sugar instead of corn syrup. All of that intervention is creating a risk for business leaders who thought they had largely figured out the Trump playbook. Public flattery and splashy U.S. investment announcements were supposed to placate the president and keep companies out of his Truth Social posts. Instead, the Republican is weighing in on business decisions in unprecedented ways, in industries from pharmaceuticals to banking and manufacturing. Now that the president has called for the head of one CEO, the fear is that he will target others who displease him, executives and corporate advisers say. 'It's wrong for the president of the United States to be telling a major corporation's board to fire their chief executive,' said Bill George, a former CEO of the medical-device maker Medtronic, who remains in touch with executives across industries. Trump's post criticizing Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan's past business dealings in China came the same day he used an executive order to strong-arm banks to do business with more conservatives and other political allies. A day earlier, he exempted tech companies like Apple from new tariffs on semiconductors—on the condition they increase their investments in the U.S. 'President Trump has been focused on making the United States the best place in the world to do business and invest,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. 'As the administration reorients government policies to put Americans and America first, businesses should follow suit.' In recent months he has pushed drug companies to lower prices and threatened auto executives if they raised prices because of tariffs. His administration began its second term going after corporate diversity, equity and inclusion programs, threatening organizations that practiced 'illegal DEI' with investigations. In June, to approve a merger between Japan's Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, Trump secured a 'golden share' that gives the president authority to appoint a member to Nippon Steel's U.S. board and approve any closures of existing U.S. plants. Even for Trump, a public call for the CEO of a major company to 'resign immediately' is new territory, historians said. The tactic fits with his pattern of publicly targeting those he wants to influence. He had used it with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before turning it on Intel this week. 'This is certainly not an approach the United States has seen in modern American politics,' said Meena Bose, director of a center that studies the presidency at Hofstra University. 'It's government bending economic interests.' The China factor Intel strikes two especially raw nerves for Trump: companies' investments in U.S. production, and China. The chipmaker's financial troubles have limited its ability to boost its domestic investments, a Trump priority. Likewise, China has emerged as the biggest target in Trump's trade war, and Tan's ties there stem from his time in the semiconductor industry and as a venture capitalist who invested in China. Tan, who was born in Malaysia and is a U.S. citizen, became Intel's CEO in March. Many executives have longstanding ties to Chinese partners and have to be prepared for similar attacks if they get on Trump's radar, analysts said. 'This is the new normal,' said Ray Wang, a semiconductor analyst at research and advisory firm Futurum Group. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management, said Trump's demand was already reverberating among corporate leaders. 'It's just a frightening process to have the military commander of the U.S. pick and choose who's to lead private companies,' he said. In the banking industry, Trump's executive order is partially inspired by his own experiences being denied accounts at JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America. The banks have said their decisions aren't discriminatory and often driven by legal and regulatory factors. Last week, Trump sent letters to 17 companies, including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, asking them to reduce U.S. drug prices to match those in other countries. This week, he said tariffs on pharmaceutical imports will be announced soon. Trump has shown he's willing to intercede in other realms of society. He has issued a flurry of executive orders against law firms, saying some 'weaponized' the legal system, and launched a series of broadsides against research universities dependent on federal funds. CEOs shudder Some business leaders said they were most frustrated that Trump called for an American executive's ouster without detailing evidence of wrongdoing. Others said they would have preferred Trump settle the issue behind the scenes with Intel's board. 'He has the right to say what he wants to say, but there's a difference between you have the right, and is it the right thing to do in a free market capitalistic system?' said Harry Kraemer, former CEO of healthcare company Baxter International, who is now a professor of leadership at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. Presidents including Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt have seized control of companies for not complying with labor agreements or to keep key industries afloat. In 2009, the Obama administration nudged then-General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner to resign as it bailed out the Detroit automaker. A key distinction was that the government was a big GM investor at the time. Unless Tan improperly shared technology or acted illegally, Intel should stay the course, said George, the former Medtronic CEO. A leadership shake-up now would further delay the recovery of a company critical to the U.S. semiconductor industry. CEOs have sought to court Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, hiring new lobbyists with ties to him and avoiding any public remarks that could offend the administration. Trump's latest move, though, makes Washington even trickier to navigate now, business leaders say. 'I'm really uncomfortable with this kind of activity,' said Nancy Tengler, CEO and chief investment officer at Laffer Tengler Investments. Demanding a CEO's resignation suggests the government knows best how a company should be run. 'This is, I think, not the purview of the president.' Write to Chip Cutter at and Amrith Ramkumar at
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Prez Trump plans to sign an order requiring US colleges to prove they don't consider race in admissions
President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order requiring colleges to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions, according to a fact sheet shared by the White House ahead of the Thursday signing. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions but said colleges may still consider how race has shaped students' lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays. Trump's Republican administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies to consider race. The executive order is similar to parts of recent settlement agreements the administration negotiated with Brown University and Columbia University, restoring their federal research funding. The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardised test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public. Conservatives have argued that despite the Supreme Court ruling, colleges have continued to consider race through proxy measures. The planned executive order makes the same argument. 'The lack of available admissions data from universities — paired with the rampant use of diversity statements' and other overt and hidden racial proxies — continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,' the fact sheet said. The first year of admissions data after the Supreme Court ruling showed no clear pattern in how colleges' diversity changed. Results varied dramatically from one campus to the next. Some schools, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Amherst College, saw steep drops in the percentage of Black students in their incoming classes. But at other elite, selective schools such as Yale, Princeton and the University of Virginia, the changes were less than a percentage point year to year. Some colleges have added more essays or personal statements to their admissions process to get a better picture of an applicant's background, a strategy the Supreme Court invited in its ruling. 'Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected the applicant's life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2023 for the court's conservative majority. As an alternative to affirmative action, colleges for years have tried a range of strategies to achieve the diversity they say is essential to their campuses. Many have given greater preference to low-income families. Others started admitting top students from every community in their state. Prior to the ruling, nine states had banned affirmative action, starting with California in 1996. The University of California saw enrollment change after the statewide ban in 1996. Within two years, Black and Hispanic enrolments fell by half at the system's two most selective campuses — Berkeley and UCLA. The system would go on to spend more than $500 million on programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students. The 10-campus University of California system also started a program that promises admission to the top 9% of students in each high school across the state, an attempt to reach strong students from all backgrounds. A similar promise in Texas has been credited for expanding racial diversity, and opponents of affirmative action cite it as a successful model. In California, the promise drew students from a wider geographic area but did little to expand racial diversity, the system said in a brief to the Supreme Court. It had almost no impact at Berkeley and UCLA, where students compete against tens of thousands of other applicants. Today at UCLA and Berkeley, Hispanic students make up 20% of undergraduates, higher than in 1996 but lower than their 53% share among California's high school graduates. Black students, meanwhile, have a smaller presence than they did in 1996, accounting for 4% of undergraduates at Berkeley. After Michigan voters rejected affirmative action in 2006, the University of Michigan shifted attention to low-income students. The school sent graduates to work as counselors in low-income high schools and started offering college prep in Detroit and Grand Rapids. It offered full scholarships for low-income Michigan residents and, more recently, started accepting fewer early admission applications, which are more likely to come from white students. Despite the University of Michigan's efforts, the share of Black and Hispanic undergraduates hasn't fully rebounded from a falloff after 2006. And while Hispanic enrollments have been increasing, Black enrollments continued to slide, going from 8% of undergraduates in 2006 to 4% in 2025
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
US picked wrong target: Tharoor calls Trump 'school bully' over 'dead economy' jibe
In a sharp and eloquent rebuttal to US President Donald Trump's jibe labelling India a "dead economy", Congress MP Shashi Tharoor drew an evocative comparison, calling the Republican leader a "schoolyard bully" and declaring that the United States had "picked the wrong target". Speaking to India Today's Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai, Tharoor said that India's self-respect was sacrosanct and "simply not up for bargaining". advertisement"I don't believe it is right for Mr Trump to speak to India this way. Whoever is in the Indian government, whichever party is in power - our self-respect is simply not up for bargaining. As far as the substance is concerned, by all means keep a cool head, by all means try to negotiate over the next three weeks and try to explain to Americans why we have certain red lines. We have 700 million people in our country who are dependent on agriculture. We cannot sell them down the river with subsidised American grains flooding our market. There are other areas where we might be able to show some flexibility and some give," he noted that India could afford to show flexibility in certain areas, much like it did during Donald Trump's first term as US President when New Delhi eased import duties on Harley-Davidson motorcycles. That concession, he pointed out, carried little real impact for most Indians, as such high-end bikes remain within reach of only a small segment of the population. When asked about Donald Trump's use of deplorable language and whether India had misread the US President-especially in his second term, when New Delhi extended a hand of friendship only to be met with steep tariffs - Shashi Tharoor likened Trump's "dead economy" remark to "a schoolyard bully telling a smaller child that your mother is ugly"."He may not have even seen the mother. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's meant to be a way to insult the other person. Mr Trump is famous for his unconventional techniques. He will say and do anything to make a deal he wants. He may have picked the wrong target for insulting language," the Thiruvananthapuram MP unleashing a blistering tirade against India after slapping trade penalties, chief among them a 25 per cent import duty for purchase of Russian oil, the US President had earlier called India a "dead economy", while brazenly declaring that he didn't care what New Delhi did with a fiery post on Truth Social, Trump doubled down on his long-standing gripe over India's trade practices, accusing the country of levying "among the highest tariffs in the world" and blaming New Delhi for what he claimed was "very little business" between the two don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care," he later, he escalated the trade confrontation by announcing an additional 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, effectively doubling the total import duty to 50 per cent. The Republican leader justified the move by alleging that India's continued purchase of Russian oil was indirectly financing Moscow's war effort in CALLS OUT AMERICA'S DOUBLE STANDARDSCalling out what he described as America's glaring double standards, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor highlighted that while Washington lectures New Delhi over its Russian oil imports, both the United States and the European Union continue trading extensively with Moscow to serve their own national remarks came in the wake of the US slapping an additional 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods over New Delhi's continued energy purchases from Russia."America, when its national interests are at stake, buys from Russia without hesitation," Tharoor said, reeling off figures to underscore the point. "They have been importing significant quantities of fertilisers - in just five months, from January to May, purchases were worth USD 806 million. Over a year, that easily comes to USD 1.8 billion, maybe closer to two. Uranium imports from Russia have risen by 28 per cent since last year. Palladium, used in catalytic converters, accounted for almost USD 1 billion in imports last year. On top of that, they are still buying aircraft parts, engine components, chemicals. How can Mr Trump argue that our dollars are fuelling the Russian war machine, but American dollars spent in Russia are not? Isn't this sheer hypocrisy - completely unfair and unjustified?"advertisementTharoor suggested that the tariff move was likely part of Donald Trump's hard-nosed negotiating style, possibly aimed at making India "blink first," but criticised the former US President's tone. "He has certainly chosen the wrong sort of language. We are not going to accept being dictated to. Previous Indian governments were treated with a great deal of respect by earlier American Presidents. This kind of disrespectful, belittling, demeaning language is not something we will take kindly to," he a narrow window before the tariffs take full effect, Tharoor signalled that New Delhi would stand its ground. "We have three weeks, but if this unfairness persists, we have absolutely no reason not to walk away and look to other horizons," he the existing 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods already in force, the newly announced additional levy is set to take effect on August 27 - unless New Delhi and Washington can strike a mutually acceptable deal before the deadline.- EndsTune InMust Watch
