Trump's new official presidential portrait unveiled, netizens say there's ‘less tension' in a ‘Bigfoot drawing'
The White House has unveiled the new official presidential portrait of Donald Trump in an X post. The video shared by the White House shows a person hanging Trump's new portrait on a wall, followed by a close-up of the photograph.
'NEW OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL PORTRAIT JUST DROPPED,' the White House captioned the post.
The portrait received mixed reactions from netizens, with some praising it as 'powerful' and others saying they are unimpressed. 'Looks like someone painted a haunted rotisserie chicken just moments before it asked to suspend the Constitution. I've seen less tension in a gas station Bigfoot drawing,' one user commented. 'This can't be real. No one can get a picture on the nail on the first try,' one said, while another wrote, 'Looks like sh**'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
37 minutes ago
- United News of India
US SC gives Trump admin's DOGE dept full authorisation to access social security data
Washington, June 7 (UNI) The US Supreme Court on Friday authorised officials from the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access Social Security Administration data, giving it complete access to all sensitive private data of American citizens. The Supreme Court issued the authorisation after allowing an emergency petition filed by the administration of President Donald Trump to ask for a lifting of an injunction issued by a district judge in Maryland, who stated that privacy must be safeguarded, reports said. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order. The order didn't, however, give the reasoning behind its ruling, which has become a very controversial issue. The order was also challenged by the court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all of whom dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The DOGE department, which was created by the Trump administration and was until recently headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, before his resignation following his spat with the POTUS, while not an official government department, was designed specifically to monitor data fraud and misinformation. The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions alleged that allowing broader access to personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no legitimate need to access the specific data in question, according to Xinhua. The 4th circuit court of appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Judge Hollander's decision, prompting the Trump administration to file an emergency request with the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued Friday in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted an additional request filed by the Trump administration, allowing it to shield DOGE from Freedom of Information Act requests for the time being. UNI ANV PRS
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC quashes discharge order of jail warder
1 2 3 Cuttack: Orissa high court quashed the discharge order of a jail warder who was removed from service on allegations of suppressing criminal case details in his attestation form, which was submitted at the time of applying for the post. The vacation bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ruled that the discharge order of P Rajesh Reddy, issued by the senior superintendent of circle jail, Berhampur, on Feb 2, 2024, "is unsustainable in law". Reddy was appointed to the post of jail warder in Daspalla sub-jail on May 29, 2023. The authorities alleged that Reddy failed to disclose his involvement in two criminal cases registered at Chamakhandi police station. While seeking the HC's intervention, Reddy pleaded that he had no knowledge of the cases and was never implicated, detained, or arrested in connection with them. He claimed to be a victim of mistaken identity and stated that his name was wrongfully linked to the cases involving a protest over land acquisition. Upon examining the facts and legal position, Justice Mohapatra, in his May 26 order, ruled that the discharge order violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and was void from the beginning. The judge further observed that the petitioner (Reddy) did not suppress any material facts within his knowledge, and subsequent investigation showed he was not involved in either case. Setting aside both the discharge order and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's representation dated July 18, 2024, Justice Mohapatra directed the senior superintendent of circle jail (Berhampur) to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and financial benefits. "Further, it is directed that the period of discharge be treated as 'on duty' and the financial benefits accruing in favour of the petitioner for the said period be also calculated and disbursed in favour of the petitioner," Justice Mohapatra specified, adding, "Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of two months. " Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Elon Musk deletes post claiming Trump appears in Epstein files amid ongoing feud
Elon Musk on Sunday deleted a controversial post in which he claimed that US President Donald Trump appears in the unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files, a move that may signal a cooling of tensions after days of public sparring between the two billionaires. 'Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk had posted on X, the platform he owns, on Thursday. In a follow-up, he urged followers to 'mark this post for the future' because 'the truth will come out.' Both posts have been deleted. The accusation marked a dramatic escalation in Musk's ongoing feud with Trump, which began over the president's support for a controversial bill dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk, who has slammed the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination,' claimed it was rushed through without proper scrutiny and accused the administration of betraying EV makers like Tesla. Trump, speaking at a press briefing, dismissed Musk's concerns and said: 'Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money… I can understand why he's upset.' The feud spiralled after Trump said he was 'disappointed' in Musk. Musk fired back, saying, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate… Such ingratitude.' Live Events But hours after the Epstein claim, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman publicly urged Musk to reconcile with Trump. Musk's short reply — 'You're not wrong' — coupled with the deletion of the post, has been interpreted by some as a sign of de-escalation. — elonmusk (@elonmusk) Though Trump's name has appeared in various documents related to Epstein, including flight logs and contact books, no charges have been brought against him. The White House reportedly called Musk's comments 'an unfortunate episode,' while Trump, in a call with Politico , played down the spat, saying, 'It's going very well, never done better.' Musk has not explained why he deleted the post, but the timing suggests an attempt to contain the fallout from a claim that could have far-reaching political consequences.
