Saudis use burgers to impress Trump (VIDEO)
Saudi Arabia has rolled out a mobile McDonald's truck outside the Royal Court ahead of US President Donald Trump's arrival in Riyadh – a nod to his well-known love for the Golden Arches.
Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday for his first major foreign trip after returning to the White House. While in Riyadh, he signed a 'strategic economic partnership' deal, which would see the Saudis investing some to $600 billion in the energy, defense, mining, and space sectors in the US.
A short video of a McDonald's double-decker trailer parked outside a media hub called 'Media Oasis' – where journalists covering Trump's visit to Riyadh were stationed – was posted on social media earlier in the day.
Conservative journalist Benny Johnson, who was among those sharing the clip, wrote that 'Saudi Arabia brought in a mobile McDonald's for President Trump on his visit.'
Some online commentators described the move by the Saudis as 'a charming gesture' and 'an ultimate sign of hospitality.' But the most frequent comment was: 'I'm Lovin' It.'
Saudi Arabia brought in a mobile McDonald's for President Trump on his visit. pic.twitter.com/6fxgqKHbjP
A White House official confirmed to Fox News that there really was a McDonald's truck in Riyadh during Trump's visit. However, there have so far been no reports of the US leader stopping for a meal there.
Trump once said in an interview that 'the Big Macs are great. The Quarter Pounder. It is great stuff,' while his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski claimed in his book 'Let Trump Be Trump' that his typical diet during the race for the White House in 2016 included: '...two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malt.'
During his first term, Trump ordered burgers for the national college football champions the Clemson Tigers, who visited the White House. According to his son-in-law Jared Kushner, the president also asked for McDonald's after his recovery from COVID-19 in 2020.
Last year, he worked at a fryer and handed out food through the drive-thru window at a McDonald's joint in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. The company issued a statement afterwards, saying that it did not give permission for Trump to hold the campaign event at its restaurant. 'McDonald's does not endorse candidates for elected office… We are not red or blue – we are golden,' it read.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump's trade war has cost firms $34 billion
Multi-national companies have suffered $34 billion in losses due to tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump, according to a Reuters analysis. The measures have disrupted businesses and heightened tensions with Washington's key allies, notably the EU. The report, based on disclosures from 56 firms across the US, Europe, and Japan, attributes the losses to higher input costs, revenue losses, and supply chain uncertainty. Economists have warned the real cost could be far higher, owing to ripple effects including weaker investment, reduced consumer spending, and rising inflation risks. Trump has rolled out sweeping duties since returning to office in January, in the name of protecting US manufacturing which culminated in his 'Liberation Day' tariffs on April 2 that included a universal 10% levy on all imports and a threatened 50% rate on EU goods. 'The Administration has consistently maintained that the United States, as the world's largest economy, has the leverage to make our trading partners ultimately bear the cost of tariffs,' said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. However, data suggests American businesses are footing the bill, while relations with Washington's allies have grown increasingly strained. The EU prepared countermeasures targeting €100 billion worth of American goods, including cars, medical devices, and plastics. After a call between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the 50% duties were delayed until July 9 to allow room for negotiation. Apple, Ford, Kimberly-Clark, Walmart, and others have warned of rising costs and lowered their own forecasts, blaming Trump's 'erratic' trade approach, Reuters reported. One of the few to endorse the measures is General Motors, which has backed the auto tariffs, arguing they allow US automakers to compete more fairly. Trump has defended his tariff strategy as a way of reshoring jobs and reducing the trade deficit. 'We're going to raise hundreds of billions in tariffs; we're going to become so rich we're not going to know where to spend that money,' he said in March. According to the Tax Foundation, tariffs imposed and scheduled for 2025 are projected to raise $152.7 billion in federal revenue, equivalent to 0.49% of GDP, the largest tax increase since 1993.
Russia Today
16 hours ago
- Russia Today
Elite Western universities form a corrupt and parasitic empire
US President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns. The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, who warn it could damage America's global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake is not just Harvard's global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US. But exactly how 'open' is Harvard's admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script. China's swift condemnation of Trump's policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for 'America's international standing' amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government. So, what was behind China's latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence. For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump's proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora's Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today. Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data! The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers. Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population. These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater's admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle. The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families. According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable. Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks. Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense? Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard. With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn't someone remark that 'behind every financial disaster, there's a Harvard economist?' Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that 'learning' is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward. If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year. Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving 'best practices'. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work. Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Lessons from the Raj As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI. That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia. India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let's compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China's population at the time. A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance. Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society's lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here). These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an 'unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.' Just check out the credentials of the 'experts' involved here. Shouldn't this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts? A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India's income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule. As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period. I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.
Russia Today
18 hours ago
- Russia Today
China ‘violated' deal
US President Donald Trump has accused China of breaching a tariff agreement reached earlier this month, reigniting tensions in a fragile trade truce between the world's two largest economies. Under the deal announced on May 12 after breakthrough negotiations in Geneva, the US and China agreed to suspend most new duties imposed since early April, pending further talks. On Friday, Trump took to his Truth Social platform, writing: 'China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US.' He gave no specifics but said China had been in 'grave economic danger' as a result of the tariffs, before Washington stepped in with what he called a 'FAST DEAL.' 'I saw what was happening and didn't like it, for them, not for us,' Trump wrote, adding 'So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!' Multiple outlets reported this week that the Trump administration has ordered US companies to halt shipments of high-end goods to China, including chip design software and specialty chemicals. Experts warned the decision would be likely to further escalate tensions with Beijing. The May 12 agreement had paused the 34% tariff hikes introduced on April 2 for 90 days, with Beijing taking reciprocal action. Both sides also committed to rolling back tariff increases introduced since April 8, while keeping a baseline 10% duty on mutual imports. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told CNBC on Friday that China had not removed certain non-tariff barriers as agreed under the deal. 'They removed the tariff like we did but some of the countermeasures they've slowed on,' he said. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed that concern, telling Fox News the negotiations were 'a bit stalled' and may now require direct involvement from Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. He said he expected talks to resume in the coming weeks. China on Friday urged Washington to 'immediately correct its erroneous actions, cease discriminatory restrictions against China and jointly uphold the consensus reached at the high-level talks in Geneva.' As part of that consensus, Beijing had also agreed to ease non-tariff measures such as export controls on US goods. The changes were due to take effect on May 14, alongside the creation of a bilateral consultation mechanism for future trade steps. Tensions spiked on April 2, when Trump imposed sweeping new tariffs on more than 90 countries, including China, citing trade imbalances. Beijing retaliated, triggering a tit-for-tat standoff that saw final US duties climb to 145% and Chinese tariffs to 125%. The dispute rattled global markets, driving volatility across equities and commodities.
