U.S. Soccer Star Dishes On 'Weird' Oval Office Moment With Donald Trump
U.S. Men's National Soccer Team star Timothy Weah has opened up about what he described as the 'weird' experience of standing behind Donald Trump in the Oval Office while the president fielded questions on the Iran-Israel war and attacked the idea of transgender women competing in women's sports.
Weah was at the White House with his Juventus teammates on Wednesday as part of a promotional event for the FIFA Club World Cup, ahead of the Italian side's 5-0 victory over the United Arab Emirates' Al-Ain FC.
Advertisement
Trump invited questions from reporters about the game and the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which the U.S. will host alongside Mexico and Canada.
But the Juventus players stood uncomfortably behind POTUS as he instead answered queries about the more pressing political questions of the day.
Weah, the son of former Liberian soccer star-turned-former president George Weah, later told reporters that the players had been made to attend the event.
'They told us that we have to go and I had no choice but to go,' he explained, reported The Athletic.
'I was caught by surprise, honestly. It was a bit weird,' he added. 'When he started talking about the politics with Iran and everything, it's kind of like, I just want to play football, man.'
Related...
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
S&P To Crash 50%? Trump Calls Jerome Powell 'Dumbest'
President Donald Trump reignited his long-standing feud with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Thursday, calling him "one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government [sic]". The comment on social media followed the Fed's decision to hold interest rates steady, with the Federal Open Market Committee maintaining its target range at 4.25% to 4.5% - unchanged since December. Trump has been calling for lower rates, noting that the Fed was costing the country billions in interest payments. Trump's rhetoric sure does make headlines, but the real danger for investors is the Fed buckling under political pressure and cutting rates too soon. That could unleash a second wave of inflation, which might be more entrenched than the post-Covid surge. If that happens, expect a sharp reset in valuations, a spike in bond yields, and a steep correction in the S&P 500. Cutting interest rates before inflation is fully tamed risks igniting a more persistent cycle of price increases, forcing the Fed to respond later with even more aggressive hikes, just as it did in the 1970s, when inflation spiraled out of control. Back then, the Fed's delayed tightening led to stagflation and a severe equity downturn: the S&P 500 fell nearly 50% between 1972 and 1974. What's more, higher valuations today, coupled with policy uncertainty, might actually make things worse. For investors seeking upside with less volatility than individual stocks, the Trefis High Quality portfolio offers an alternative. This portfolio has outperformed the S&P 500 and delivered cumulative returns of over 91% since inception. Trump's Policies Create The Perfect Storm? This time around, there is a risk of persistent supply-side inflation driven by policy. Trump's policy agenda, which includes tariffs, mass deportations, and tax cuts, could create a perfect storm of sorts. Tariffs are a supply shock. They raise input costs and consumer prices by removing cheaper imports from the market. Mass deportations of immigrants who entered the country illegally sounds reasonable - after all, they're illegal immigrants - except that it will make cheaper labor unavailable. On average, the price of services will go up. This could be a big factor driving inflation higher. Then there are the tax cuts under Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, under which most taxpayers are expected to see a tax cut, with all income groups reportedly likely to benefit. Now, while tariffs and deportations constrain the supply of goods and services to increase prices, reduction in taxes makes more cash available to consumers. So people can spend more while prices are higher. The result would be spiking inflation, and this would make the Fed's job a lot harder. A Replay of the 1970s? The Fed will likely pull out its 2022 playbook: it'll have no choice but to increase interest rates - not just reverting some of the recent cuts, but in fact, going beyond, to rates above 6% and even 7% or higher for short-term treasuries. Now, if you can get a guaranteed 6% on a 1-year Treasury bill, or bank savings - risk-free investments - won't you demand higher earnings and returns from stocks as well? There will be an exodus - a massive outflow from the S&P and overall markets from risky equities into treasuries, CDs, and savings accounts. It happened in 2022 - within months, the S&P 500 tumbled by 20%. It's easy to forget that stocks including Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) and Meta (NASDAQ:META) had lost more than 50% in the 2022 rate cycle alone (Can Nvidia Stock Lose 50%?). Smaller companies, with less cash on their balance sheets, fared even worse. That said, in 2022, inflation was largely transitory, and the Fed was able to bring it under control. This time, it could be entrenched. Covid-related stimulus money was a transient cause of 2022 inflation. This time, tariffs, tax cuts, and deportations, together, are likely to prove a stronger and perhaps much more persistent force. A replaying of the 1970s crisis is very much possible, taking the S&P 500 down. Higher rates don't just hurt stocks - they make U.S. debt less sustainable. Annual interest payments now already exceed $1 trillion, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has called it a red flag. If bond markets start to question the government's fiscal path, yields could spike, deepening the equity selloff. On top of that, loan defaults are rising both in the commercial real estate sector and across consumer debt, like credit cards and auto loans. Big lenders like JPMorgan, BofA, and Citigroup are especially exposed. So, how much would that hurt? Well, the combined market cap of S&P 500 constituents is roughly $47 trillion. So a 50% decline in the index would mean a loss of more than $23 trillion in value. And you thought the $5 trillion-plus wipeout the benchmark index witnessed in the first few days of April 2025 was bad! How Low Can JPMorgan Stock Go In A Market Crash? A Question When things are bad, what do you expect Trump to do? Blame everyone else, or change his course on taxes, deportation, and tariffs? There's certainly hope that his cabinet and loyalists will be able to sway his view into easing inflationary policies in the event they create spiking inflation before the U.S. economy plunges into a recession. But if the easing does not materialize or comes into play too late, how bad can things get if there is another recession? Our dashboard How Low Can Stocks Go During A Market Crash captures how key stocks fared during and after the last seven market crashes. Invest with Trefis Market Beating Portfolios See all Trefis Price Estimates
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No, the Bengals aren't going to trade first-round pick Shemar Stewart
The Cincinnati Bengals won't trade first-round pick Shemar Stewart despite the strange contract standoff, reportedly due to the team attempting to make him the first to accept the revised precedent around how it does contracts. That big disclaimer out of the way, the idea the Bengals might throw up their hands and trade Stewart is starting to make the rounds (it's mid-June with no news to speak of, after all). Advertisement Bleacher Report's Mitchell Milani just suggested trade packages. And one doesn't have to look long to find many more. Again, not happening. As we've already documented, the 'nuclear' option for Stewart is to completely skip this year and enter the 2026 draft, which would mean the Bengals get zero back for the loss and can't draft him again. But if he tried to play in college again or another professional league, the Bengals would keep his rights, according to ESPN's Ben Baby. RELATED: Bengals, Shemar Stewart nuclear option includes 2026 NFL draft route As Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio already pointed out, teams can technically trade unsigned draft picks up until 30 days before the first game of the season. Advertisement But again, if Stewart would likely fall undrafted or to the late rounds a year from now after all this drama, why would a team trade for him right now? And why would the Bengals entertain the idea? Make no mistake, Cincinnati's standoff with Stewart is public and ugly. The team's past reputation in the media isn't doing any favors, either. But he's been present for most of the activities and taking mental reps with his teammates. Yes, Stewart is a project who needs every live rep possible. But the early summer stuff has already been missed. It's done. The Bengals aren't going to turn around and trade him for undoubtedly a lesser return than what they paid to draft him because of a staring contest over a little language in his contract. And Stewart's not going to want to go to another team that, depending on who to believe in the reporting, already uses this language he's not happy about in the first place. Advertisement So, Bengals fans will need to smile and grit through it. There's an endless wave of content about a Stewart trade inbound, but it's the same thing as Trey Hendrickson trade content…also not happening. RELATED: Bengals standouts after mandatory minicamp includes surprises This article originally appeared on Bengals Wire: No, the Bengals aren't going to trade first-round pick Shemar Stewart
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bengals crushed by earned reputation with major contract standoffs
The Cincinnati Bengals have modernized in a few ways, which many fans recognize. Joe Burrow's arrival has accomplished that. But the old-school reputation the Bengals very well earned over the course of decades is something currently being leveraged in a very public fashion during contract standoffs with first-round pick Shemar Stewart and All-Pro edge rusher Trey Hendrickson. Advertisement So says Albert Breer of Sports Illustrated: 'Is Hendrickson taking advantage of the leverage created by Burrow's words and the spot the Bengals are in? He'd be smart to do that. Is Stewart piggybacking on the Hendrickson situation to get favorable contract terms? It wouldn't be the dumbest thing to do—though, as a rookie, it'll be vital that he's ready to go. Also important? That the Bengals, after their healthiest offseason in a few years, are ready to roll when they report to camp.' RELATED: Bengals, Shemar Stewart nuclear option includes 2026 NFL draft route Breer notes that, beyond the really obvious stuff from over the last few years, the Bengals left their comfort zone on the Ja'Marr Chase deal and made some scouting department shuffles after losing Christian Sarkisian. Advertisement But the Bengals will continue to lose the battle of public perception for the foreseeable future. Their history overshadows the fact that Hendrickson signed a short contract extension recently, is 30 years old, was granted permission to seek a trade and has walked back previous holdout threats. Cincinnati's history also, ironically enough, overshadows the fact that attempting to revise contract leverage, starting with Stewart, is another attempt at modernizing, considering some reporting says the language they want to insert is pretty standard for other teams. All of these are self-inflicted wounds. Some would call them growing pains for an organization trying to modernize. There will continue to be a lag between the team's more modern actions of late and actual public perception. Right now, players negotiating with the team are smart and within their rights to keep leaning into that leverage when possible. RELATED: Bengals standouts after mandatory minicamp includes surprises This article originally appeared on Bengals Wire: Bengals crushed by earned reputation with major contract standoffs
