'This Blows': Stephen Colbert Mocks Trump's Failed Attempt To 'Save Face'
'Late Show' host Stephen Colbert said President Donald Trump's trip to Canada this week for the G7 summit 'did not go smoothly' as he unveiled a trade deal with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Trump tried to show off the document, but ended up dropping many of the pages.
Colbert broke out his Trump impression.
'Five-second rule, I can still eat it!' he cracked.
Colbert said 'Trump tried to save face' by blaming the wind, but 'Late Show' host was skeptical of that explanation given the lack of any evident wind.
'Sure, wind always makes things fall straight down,' he said. 'We all remember when an apple fell on Sir Isaac Newton's head and he declared, 'This blows.''
See more in his Tuesday night monologue:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
16 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Deploys 2,000 More National Guard Troops to Los Angeles
The Trump administration activated 2,000 additional National Guard soldiers in California, even as the state's governor clashes with the White House over deploying troops. US Northern Command said in a statement Wednesday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is directing the troops to protect federal functions, personnel and property in Los Angeles. US Northern Command said the members will not conduct law enforcement, and are completing training on 'de-escalation, crowd controls and use of the standing rules for use of force' ahead of joining other soldiers.
Fox News
43 minutes ago
- Fox News
Former US Olympic coach opens up on suing USA Fencing board amid trans athlete policy disagreements
EXCLUSIVE: Former U.S. Olympic fencing team head coach Andrey Geva has filed a lawsuit against USA Fencing Chair Damien Lehfeldt, alleging Lehfeldt made "false and misleading" statements to Congress in a May 7 congressional hearing on trans athletes. Geva, a USA Fencing board member, filed the lawsuit alongside fellow member and former Egyptian Olympian Abdel Salem, against Lehfeldt and the other five at-large director members. The lawsuit seeks to have Lehfeldt removed as chair. Geva has elaborated on those alleged false comments he claims Lehfeldt made in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. Geva pointed to a statement by Lehfeldt, when the chair said, "women more commonly exhibit other advantageous traits such as flexibility and agility. Ultimately, fencing is a sport of strategy and technique. Those elements will most frequently determine who prevails and, when it comes to strategy and technique, neither sex has any inherent advantage transgender status thus, doesn't appear to confer any inherent advantage over a cisgender fencer cisgender women have beaten." As a former Olympic fencing coach, Geva believes this statement is untrue. Geva served as Team USA's head fencing coach and managing director from 2013-21, leading the team through the 2016 Rio Olympics and Tokyo Olympics in 2021. The U.S. took six Olympic medals under Geva's leadership, including gold in the women's individual foil in Tokyo. "This is simply not true, and this is what I told him many times, that I have an expertise as somebody who successfully coached both male and female fencers at the highest international level," Geva said, later referring to how he trained his own male and female students. "I trained them differently. I have a different approach to male and female fencers because they are different." Geva also argued that Lefheldt made a "misleading" statement when the chair referenced "mixed-gender competition where men and women have safely and fairly competed against each other for decades," due to the fact that mixed-gender competitions are rare at the national level. "It's a misleading statement. Yes, at practice, men and women fence each other, no problem. Local tournament, not designated, not sanctioned tournaments sometimes will have mixed events. Sometimes when a female competition doesn't have enough competition we will have mixed events," Geva said. "However, there is zero mixed events on the national level." USA Fencing has official separate national events for men's and women's categories. The organization sanctions mixed-gender events at the local level, per the official policy page. USA Fencing responded to Geva's lawsuit in a statement provided to Fox News Digital, but the organization declined to address his recent comments. "USA Fencing proudly serves its members — athletes, coaches, referees and clubs — across our community with absolute transparency and integrity. This derivative lawsuit misrepresents our organization, and we will vigorously defend the organization in court; any attempt to disparage them will be addressed appropriately," the statement read. "Because litigation is ongoing, we cannot discuss details. Our focus remains unwavering: advancing fencing nationwide, supporting every member's success, and upholding the values of the Olympic and Paralympic movement." The lawsuit claims that Lehfeldt's statements at the May 7 hearing now risk the organization being declassified as a national governing body and "have alienated thousands of members in the fencing community who have provided more than 90% of USFA's revenues." Geva told Fox News Digital that he has communicated with several private clubs associated with USA Fencing that have left the organization in response to its current transgender legibility policy that allows biological males to compete in women's competitions, and moved to the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU)'s Fencing League of America. "Because of the USA Fencing policies, some of the clubs actually quit, small clubs, they quit USA Fencing membership and they moved to AAU," Geva said, adding that the clubs quit for other reasons as well. "I know quite a few clubs that quit membership in USA Fencing." Geva declined to name the clubs he claimed had quit. An unnamed source within the USA Fencing organization argued that the organization has seen record growth in the past year. "The season that is ending next month (2024-25) is a record year for USA Fencing with more than 43,000 members and nearly 750 clubs — both records. So that goes against any claims that we've 'taken a hit' from any news," the source said. Geva also said that the organization is growing, but "for different reasons." "Overall, our federation is growing, but this is mostly due to, like any organization, it's natural growth. It's very hard to judge if it's growing because we're doing excellent job, or just because more and more people discover that fencing is the niche and the way to get to college," Geva said. The organization has been under immense national scrutiny following a viral incident when women's fencer Stephanie Turner kneeled to protest a transgender opponent and was subsequently punished by USA Fencing. Lefheldt's testimony at the May 7 hearing only intensified the criticism. Lehfeldt, who was subpoenaed and did not come voluntarily, elevated the controversy ahead of the hearing with a series of Instagram stories that were later blown up and used against him on the committee floor. In one post, which went viral before the hearing, he responded to a question that asked whether he was "okay" with putting female fencers at a disadvantage with a simple, brash answer: "Yeah." Then, during the hearing, Lehfeldt admitted multiple times he regretted answering that way and admitted the question required a "more-nuanced" response. At one point during the hearing, Lefheldt confessed to falsifying an email from a fictitious fencing mother, "Dorothy," who disagreed with him and called those members with similar views of "Dorothy" "grand wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan. Lehfeldt said the post "was a poor attempt at humor." Geva believes the post should be enough to prompt Lehfeldt's resignation. "This is more than enough, any decent person in my opinion, after this fiasco at this congressional hearing, should resign," Geva said. "I believe under his leadership our federation is going just in the wrong direction." Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Only one American can start a nuclear war: The president
The American president has the sole authority to order a nuclear strike, even if every adviser in the room is against it. Three minutes, a football and a biscuit. These are all a president of the United States needs to start nuclear war. During a 1974 meeting with lawmakers, President Richard M. Nixon reportedly stated: 'I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.' He was correct. And since then, despite the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, little has changed. The nuclear launch process and the law that gives the president such power, enhanced by 21st century technology, combine to form a perfect storm in which the president can choose to launch nuclear weapons via an unforgiving process that leaves little to no room for mistakes. In the United States, the president is the only person in the country who can legally order the use of nuclear weapons, a power referred to as 'sole authority.' The president may choose to consult with advisers but is not required to do so. He can order nuclear use despite the objections of every adviser in the room. The next nuclear age This is the third article in a series by experts from the Federation of American Scientists examining why today's global nuclear landscape is far more complicated and, in many ways, more precarious than during the Cold War. Read part one and part two. Previous Next Naturally, the president should want to consult with his top advisers. But with norms collapsing across all facets of government — even national security — enhanced guardrails are called for. Nuclear use should not depend on the whims of one person. Presidential sole authority was established at the beginning of the nuclear age during the Truman administration due to Harry S. Truman's desire to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of overzealous, trigger-happy generals — 'some dashing lieutenant colonel,' as he put it. A formal policy was established in 1948, declaring: 'The decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such a decision to be required.' The policy remained in place throughout the Cold War — and is upheld to this day. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Anyone who looks closely at images of U.S. presidents out and about — on their way to or from a meeting, boarding Air Force One or even out for a run — will notice a constant presence trailing behind the president: a military official carrying a large, black briefcase. The approximately 40-pound leather satchel is known as the 'nuclear football,' and it allows the president to order the launch of nuclear weapons at any time from any location. A U.S. Navy military aide carries the nuclear football while boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in May 2017. (Alex Brandon/AP) Contained within the nuclear football is everything the president needs to make the order. Contrary to many pop culture references, this does not include a big red button. It does, however, include the 'black book,' which lists a president's options for the timing, type of delivery system and targets for a nuclear strike. The black book used to comprise a heavy set of war plans, but after President Jimmy Carter complained that its contents were too dense and complicated, it was simplified into a sort of menu of attacks for the president to choose from. The start of nuclear war, the probable deaths of millions and the choice of which cities to decimate — the black book distills these realities into a sanitized list of options that a former military aide to President Bill Clinton likened to a 'Denny's breakfast menu.' Accompanying the strike menu is secure communications equipment that allows the president to call the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) to relay the order. To verify a launch order, the president must identify himself with a unique code. The code is inscribed on a small card known as the 'biscuit,' which the president carries on his person at all times. Once the president's identity is confirmed and the order is transmitted, the Pentagon could execute the launch order in about one minute. If the president chose a strike option that included intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), the missiles would fire in approximately two minutes. There is no way to recall or disarm ICBMs once they have launched. A Launch Control Center inspection is completed at the beginning of an alert outside Great Falls, Montana, on July 1, 2018. (Lido Vizzutti/For The Washington Post) Experts estimate that — to ensure the ability of the United States to retaliate before an incoming attack lands and potentially takes out the command and control system (or the president himself) — a president would have less than 10 minutes to process the situation and review his options before having to make a decision on whether to launch nuclear weapons. The rationale behind this process is that it allows a president to respond rapidly and decisively in the case of an imminent nuclear attack headed toward the United States. During the Cold War, this was seen as the best — and perhaps the only — way to deter a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack from the Soviet Union, convincing Soviet leadership that the U.S. president would be able to respond in kind before their attack landed. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement When the Soviet Union dissolved and the Cold War ended, the threat of a massive surprise attack dissipated. Yet the system that emphasized speed in launching nuclear weapons remained in place. Some national security officials argue this process is still necessary. But the president's authority to order nuclear use is not limited to cases of imminent or confirmed attack on the United States. The president can, legally and logistically, simply command the Pentagon to launch. False alarm Even when warning systems indicate an attack is underway, it might be a false alarm. That's happened on several occasions in the past, as recently as 2018. On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018 — just days after President Donald Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un lobbed nuclear threats at each other — smartphones across Hawaii received an alert from the state's Emergency Management Agency (EMA): 'Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.' A smartphone screen capture shows a false incoming ballistic missile emergency alert sent from the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency system on Jan. 13, 2018. (Caleb Jones/AP) But the attack didn't come. Somebody at the EMA had pushed the wrong button. If a false alert of multiple incoming nuclear missiles had happened within the national warning system, the president would have been alerted and could have initiated a nuclear launch before it was discovered to be a false alarm. One of the most dangerous publicly known false alarms occurred on Nov. 9, 1979. Warning screens at the Pentagon's NMCC and three other command centers suddenly lit up, showing nearly 1,500 Soviet ballistic missiles headed toward the United States. Per proper procedures, fighter jets were put to the sky, nuclear bomber crews were ordered to their planes, nuclear missile crews were put on high alert and the president's emergency airborne command post, known as the 'doomsday plane,' took off. Six minutes after the alert began, officers at the North American Aerospace Defense Command discovered that a training cassette simulating a Soviet attack had mistakenly been entered into their primary computer system and broadcast to other command centers. Numerous incidents like these throughout the nuclear age have revealed the susceptibility of early warning systems to human and technical errors. Today, cyberthreats pose an additional concern and exacerbate the vulnerability of these systems. Such vulnerabilities, combined with the speed with which a president can react, heighten the risk of a U.S. president starting a nuclear war by mistake. Avoiding nuclear disaster also depends on the rationality and stability of whoever occupies the Oval Office. Two presidents of the nuclear age — Nixon and Trump — displayed erratic behavior that led high-ranking officials to attempt to insert themselves into the nuclear chain of command as a safeguard against the presidents' power. However, neither Defense Secretary James Schlesinger in 1974 nor Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley in 2020 had the legal authority to do so. Subordinates at the NMCC or missile launch facilities would not have been obligated to follow their orders. The nuclear football is carried to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House on April 25. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post) The U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) — the foundation of the U.S. military justice system — makes disobeying legal orders from a superior during peacetime punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay or even a five-year confinement. During wartime, disobeying legal orders can be punishable by death. The UCMJ also obligates military members to disobey illegal orders. This puts young service members in the position of having to make split-second legal determinations as non-legal-experts while under intense stress and likely without knowing why the order was issued. Additionally, there is a presumption that orders from a superior officer — and, particularly, those given by the commander in chief — are legal. We cannot rely in perpetuity on one person's willingness to step forward to protect against the whims of an irrational or unstable president. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Several proposals have been put forward to prevent a president from being able to use nuclear weapons in contravention of the national interest. A central challenge, however, is that experts disagree on the primary problem with the current system. Is it unconstitutional for a president to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons, thereby starting a war, which is a power reserved for Congress? Does sole authority bias a president in favor of nuclear use? Does it place an unfair burden on military subordinates who have to carry out a catastrophic order? Or is the real problem that ICBMs can launch within two minutes, leaving too little time for correction? But almost all experts agree that something needs to change. In 2021, nearly 700 scientists and other experts signed a letter asking President Joe Biden, among other nuclear risk-reduction measures, to alter the policy of sole authority to safeguard against a 'reckless' or 'unstable' future president. As the world enters a new age of heightened nuclear risk with expanding global nuclear arsenals, increased prevalence of nuclear threats and aggressive rhetoric, shortening decision time and cyber capabilities, diminishing diplomacy and transparency, and a U.S. president with a history of making nuclear threats, action is urgently needed to reduce the risk of nuclear war.
