No, Taylor Swift & Bruce Springsteen Didn't Perform After Donald Trump's Comment
After Donald Trump made critical comments about and Bruce Springsteen, rumors regarding the two music stars performing together in defiance of the businessman-turned-politician started spreading like wildfire. However, with both artists having a massive fan following, users on the internet have come out to question if such an event actually took place.
So, here's everything you need to know about whether Swift and Springsteen joined hands to conduct a concert in response to Trump's criticizing statements.
At the time of writing, Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen have not taken to the stage with one another. Additionally, the two stars haven't shared any information regarding a potential collaboration in the near future.
Speculation about the pair coming together for a performance started to take shape after Facebook accounts such as Rock N' Roll Mania and Rock & Roll Universe shared posts claiming that Swift and Springsteen had organized a duet concert. Falsely noting that they did so in order to respond to Donald Trump, the said posts read, 'When Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift took the stage together, it wasn't just a duet—it was a statement. As the two icons stood shoulder to shoulder, the arena erupted in thunderous applause, drowning out the noise of viral criticism that had trailed them online.' The posts even mentioned that the pair received a massive reaction from the live audience, with fans weeping, cheering, and holding up signs that read, 'We Stand With You.'
However, such assertions have since been debunked. The photos used in the aforementioned posts actually showcased the artists performing on two separate occasions. While the featured Bruce Springsteen snippets highlighted his performances from his November 2022 and April 2023 concerts, the one highlighting Taylor Swift was from her November 2023 show in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Moreover, the source links provided under these posts either redirected users to random websites or to videos of Springsteen and Swift performing on their own.
Such rumors began to make their way onto the internet after Donald Trump took to Truth Social to issue searing remarks about both Springsteen and Swift. While Springsteen wasted no time in replying to the Republican politician, Taylor Swift has yet to provide an official statement regarding the situation.
The post No, Taylor Swift & Bruce Springsteen Didn't Perform After Donald Trump's Comment appeared first on ComingSoon.net - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
12 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know as Trump administration targets tuition breaks for students without legal status
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — For two decades on Texas college campuses, it was a resilient law in the face of Republicans' hardening immigration agenda: in-state tuition prices for students who did not have legal resident status. But in a flash, the Texas policy that was the first of its kind in the U.S. was halted Wednesday, blocked by a federal judge hours after the Justice Department sued to dismantle it. Republican Texas leaders did not fight the challenge, but instead eagerly joined it. The surprise and quick end to the law, known as the 'Texas Dream Act,' stunned immigration advocates and Democrats, who called it a cruel punishment for hardworking students that will ultimately hurt the state's economy. Republicans cheered the outcome and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that states with similar tuition policies could face similar actions. The lighting ruling ended a Texas policy that had once enjoyed bipartisan support when it was created in 2001, helped tens of thousands of students get into college and spawned similar laws in two dozen states. Here's what to know: The Texas law and the impact The Texas tuition policy was initially passed with sweeping bipartisan majorities in the state Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, as a way to open access to higher education for students without legal residency already living in the state. Supporters then and now say it boosted the state's economy by creating a better-educated and better-prepared workforce. The law allowed students without legal resident status to qualify for in-state tuition if they had lived in Texas for three years before graduating from high school, and for a year before enrolling in college. They also had to sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal resident status as soon as possible. Texas now has about 57,000 qualifying students enrolled in its public universities and colleges, according to the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration , a nonpartisan nonprofit group of university leaders focused on immigration policy. The state has about 690,000 students overall at its public universities. The difference in tuition rates is substantial. For example, at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley , a 34,000-student campus along the border with Mexico, a state resident will pay about $10,000 in basic tuition for a minimum full-time class schedule in the upcoming school year. A non-resident student will pay $19,000. 'UTRGV understands that the consent judgment may affect financial plans already made by individual students,' the school said in a statement Thursday. 'Our priority and focus are on minimizing disruption to student success consistent with applicable law and helping students navigate this transition with clarity and care.' Political pushback and a swift end The law stood mostly unchallenged for years, but it came under fire as debates over illegal immigration intensified. In the 2012 Republican presidential primary, Perry ended up apologizing after saying critics of the law 'did not have a heart.' The law withstood several repeal efforts in the Republican-dominated Legislature. In the legislative session that ended on June 2, a repeal bill did not even get a vote. But the ax fell quickly. On Wednesday, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional. State Attorney General Ken Paxton, a key Trump ally, chose not to defend the law in court and instead filed a motion agreeing that it should not be enforced. With the state administration aligned with the Trump administration, the law was suddenly struck down by a federal judge without even an argument on the lawsuit's merits or a response from the students affected. Trump, immigration and higher ed The Trump administration challenged the law in a border state where Gov. Greg Abbott, Paxton and the Republican leadership have given full-throated support to his immigrant crackdown efforts and have spent billions trying to help. The ruling also expanded efforts by Trump to influence higher education across the country. The administration has leveraged federal funding and its student visa authority to clamp down on campus activism and stamp out diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives . Impact beyond Texas The ruling affected only the Texas law, but with nearly half of U.S. states having similar policies, Bondi suggested the administration could pursue similar action elsewhere. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill to repeal the law in that state in July. 'Other states should take note that we will continue filing affirmative litigation to remedy unconstitutional state laws that discriminate against American citizens,' Bondi said. Immigration lawyers and education advocates said they are assessing if there are legal avenues to challenge the Texas ruling. 'Make no mistake, advocates, students, campuses are not going to just take this,' said Miriam Feldblum, president and chief executive officer of the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. 'But I have no doubt there will be an effort to do this (elsewhere).' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How this Democrat fights Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobia in Congress with smart preparation
New Mexico Democratic U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury wasn't planning to go viral. But when she spoke up during a congressional hearing last month and calmly held aloft an uncropped photo that debunked a Republican smear — while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican and subcommittee chairwoman, slammed her gavel in exasperation — the moment captured something larger than one procedural dispute. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. In a single act of preparation and truth-telling, Stansbury had exposed the hearing as political theater. The doctored image, which Greene's team presented in an effort to humiliate USA Fencing Chair Damien Lehfeldt, appeared to show him flipping off the committee. But as Stansbury revealed, he was actually flashing a peace sign. 'The document you have up behind you is a misrepresentation of the actual post,' she said as Greene tried to continue speaking. Greene responded with a furious, uncontrolled banging of the gavel — a scene that quickly became the viral centerpiece of the May 8 Department of Government Efficiency Subcommittee hearing and a late-night comedy segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live! But Stansbury wasn't trying to be funny. She was trying to expose a lie. In a Tuesday interview with The Advocate, Stansbury explained that the viral moment was the result of weeks of planning — and a decision to reject silence. 'When we saw that the chairwoman was going to call a hearing on transgender athletes, actually my initial response was, we're not participating in that at all,' she said. 'Because clearly, it really is wholly outside of the scope of anything that the Oversight Committee has anything to do with. And it's just a blatant political attack on the trans community.' Related: Jasmine Crockett shreds GOP's obsession with trans people over American problems with 'Trump or trans' game Ultimately, she and her fellow Democrats chose to engage strategically. 'We were prepared to shut them down,' she said. 'We were ready to use every procedural motion we could. We were ready for any shenanigans they would pull.' The plan worked. Early in the hearing, Stansbury called a motion to adjourn, and when Republicans didn't have enough members in the room to stop her, the delay bought critical time. 'They had to sit there for about 10 or 15 minutes,' she recalled. 'And so during that time, some of our staff saw the poster they were planning on presenting.' That gave Stansbury the upper hand. When Greene unveiled the image, Stansbury called it out immediately. The gavel slammed. Greene shouted. The internet noticed. For Stansbury, who has been representing New Mexico's First District since 2021, the hearing was just the latest installment in what she calls a disturbing trend. 'In my personal opinion, I think that the Republican fixation on trans lives is weird,' she said. 'It's just weird. I almost cannot explain it.' Related: Nancy Mace sits silently as Robert Garcia roasts her anti-trans record in House Oversight hearing She singled out GOP members like South Carolina U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, saying, 'Who once purported to stand with [the] LGBTQ+ community and now are just so obsessed in a way that is unhealthy — even personally.' Stansbury made the same point even more bluntly during the hearing itself: 'It's just weird. Your obsession with this is weird.' Greene's retort — 'We'll let the American people decide who the weirdos are' — backfired spectacularly, becoming meme fodder within hours. 'I could tell that it got under the skin of the chairwoman when I said that,' Stansbury told The Advocate. Stansbury made clear that the GOP's culture war is not organic. 'This was a completely manufactured issue,' she said. 'You know, the Republicans are obsessed with less than 1 percent of the population.' And she knows exactly where it's coming from. 'If you rewind the tape and look at where it originated from, the same groups that have Heritage Foundation affiliation are the same as those who brought before the Supreme Court for the Dobbs case," she said, referring to the case that led the court to strike down Roe v. Wade, which protected abortion rights nationally. "They are all being funded by dark money behind the scenes. And it is a Christian nationalist agenda that is very explicitly going after the trans community.' That targeting, she warned, has real consequences. 'I have trans kids in my life, and people are scared. People are afraid just to be themselves. I have a veteran in my district who has shared her story, and she's afraid to leave her house.' Despite Republicans' fixation, Stansbury said the issue around taking away trans rights is nowhere near the top of mind for her constituents. 'It doesn't come up. It has never once come up. Ever. Once. Never,' she said. 'I don't get asked about it in town halls. I don't get asked about it when I'm on the campaign trail. I don't get asked about it at the doors.' Instead, she said, New Mexicans take pride in their state's record, which includes gender-affirming care protections, legal safeguards for providers, and some of the most progressive LGBTQ+ rights laws in the country. As the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico outlines, those seeking gender-affirming care in the state are protected by confidentiality laws and can assert their rights through legal channels if they face discrimination. The law explicitly shields the privacy of patients from out of state, and conversion therapy remains banned. 'One of the biggest applause lines that I get when I do town halls is when I list all of the things that New Mexico did under progressive leadership, including protecting LGBTQ civil rights and transgender care,' she said. But on taking rights away from trans people in the state? 'It is not a motivating issue for any constituent that I have ever talked to,' Stansbury said. Amid whispers from some Democrats that the party should tone down its public support for transgender rights to avoid alienating moderate voters, Stansbury offered a sharp rebuttal. 'What I make of the kind of political retreat that I see some people making around this issue is, like, the American people right now — no matter what their ideological affiliation is — they want to see strong leadership,' she said. 'Trump is trying to take us back a half-century, whether that's civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, whatever it is,' she continued. 'And so we have to be as bold and as fierce in our fight as Democrats in standing up and saying no — and punching back — as they are in attacking people.' Asked how Democrats should respond to the tidal wave of false narratives, Stansbury was unequivocal: 'Allyship doesn't mean anything if it doesn't come with action.' 'To me, that means saying something when you see something, fighting back in a full-throttled way, speaking up, speaking out, reaching out to the communities that we work with and partnering with them.' And when it comes to Trump's broader agenda? 'They're trying to rewrite the Civil Rights Act. They're trying to undo all of these things that are not the result of policy and politics — they're the result of culture changing, of people's movements for generations,' she said. 'They think they can just go and write a few executive orders and undo generations of social struggles. They're crazy. That's not going to happen.' Stansbury finds hope in younger generations. 'I look at people in my life who are Gen Z and Alpha ... this younger generation doesn't even think about these issues the same way the older generation does,' she said. 'There's not only going not to be a demand for this, there's not going to be any tolerance for this.' But until that future arrives, Stansbury isn't waiting for permission to lead. 'We see you. We're fighting for you,' she said of her message to transgender Americans. 'You're loved, you're cared for, and we see what's happening — and we're going to continue to fight back.'
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Tim Walz calls for less ‘rigid' Democratic nominating calendar in future election cycles
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz answers questions during a June 5, 2025, interview with States Newsroom staff in Minneapolis. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Thursday Democrats need to take a broader approach to the states they are targeting during elections — which could mean further changes to the presidential nominating calendar. Speaking with Minnesota Reformer editor Patrick Coolican at a States Newsroom conference in Minneapolis, the 2024 vice presidential candidate tackled multiple topics related to President Donald Trump's time in office. He also discussed ways for the Democratic Party to bounce back after significant Republican wins in 2024, including Trump's win over his and Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. One of the major questions leading up to the 2028 presidential election season — especially for Iowa — is the Democratic presidential nominating calendar. Following issues in the 2020 Democratic caucuses and Democratic National Committee concerns about the accessibility of the caucus system, Iowa was booted from it's longtime first-in-the-nation position in the Democratic nominating calendar in 2022, replaced by South Carolina. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX When asked by Iowa Capital Dispatch Editor-in-Chief Kathie Obradovich which state should go first, Walz immediately quipped, 'Minnesota.' But in a longer response, the Democratic governor said he believes Democrats should rotate which states kick off the nominating process each presidential election cycle — a process he said may not be popular in states that may not traditionally have held early contests, but could improve Democrats' odds in elections. He reflected on how in his 2024 run with Harris, winning the presidency came down to winning a handful of contested states. 'On the calendar, I think you can't be too rigid,' Walz said. 'And it was … I don't know if the word is depressing, but going to the seven states over and over and over again, and recognizing that you could win a presidential election or lose one doing that — I think we've got to be broader.' Iowa Democrats made changes to the caucus system, moving from in-person events to a mail-in presidential preference contest in 2024, but there is not any indication the DNC plans to reinstate Iowa as an early state in the next nominating cycle. However, Iowa and other states that were not a part of the early state lineup in 2024 will have a chance to take a top position in 2028. Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart and other Iowa officials have said the DNC plans to revisit the calendar leading up to the next presidential election. Though Iowa is still in the running, a potential blow was dealt to the state with Iowa Democrat Scott Brennan losing his longtime seat on the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee, the body overseeing the nominating calendar, the Des Moines Register reported. Walz said he is not running as a Democratic presidential candidate, he has made visits to many of the traditional early states, including a May Democratic Party event in South Carolina and March event in Des Moines. He is not the only speculated 2028 Democratic presidential candidate to visit Iowa in recent months — former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, who won the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, held an event in Cedar Rapids in May. Walz is also not the only person who thinks changes Democratic presidential nominating calendar would serve the party well in future elections. Chris Cillizza, a political commentator who formerly worked for CNN, said during a Potluck Podcast episode Monday with members of the Iowa Writers' Collaborative that it was 'very clear' former President Joe Biden moved South Carolina to the front of the calendar in 2024 'because South Carolina and Jim Clyburn got him elected president' in 2020. However, Biden ultimately was not the Democratic presidential candidate in 2024, Cillizza said, and recent Democratic losses for the presidency with Harris and Hillary Clinton in 2024 show states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are crucial to winning the general election. He said he believes Iowa should go first because 'if you're if you're a Democrat trying to solve your broader problems, I think Iowa going first would help, not hurt' in the fight to win Midwestern states. He said he believes this strategy has been reflected with the potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates visiting traditional early states like Iowa. When I look at travel schedules now, they're acting as though we're back to the pre-Joe Biden nominating calendar — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina,' Cillizza said. 'And I wouldn't be surprised if it went back to that. I mean, look, I actually think there's a case to be made.' However, he said he is not sure about the DNC chair Ken Martin's strategy heading into 2028. Martin, elected in February, is from Minnesota, which Cillizza said 'probably helps a little bit in the case for the Midwest.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
