New Trump portrait hangs in Colorado Capitol after he called previous one 'the worst'
A presidential portrait with Donald Trump's approval now hangs in the Colorado Capitol after his complaints got a previous one of him taken down.
The new portrait by Tempe, Arizona, artist Vanessa Horabuena is a sterner, crisper image than Sarah Boardman's painting of Trump that had hung since 2019.
Last spring, Trump posted on social media that Boardman 'must have lost her talent as she got older' and 'purposely distorted' him, criticisms the Colorado Springs artist denied.
Article content
Trump portrait that he called 'truly the worst' is being taken down 'immediately'
The next day, lawmakers announced they would remove the portrait from a wall of past presidents. By the day after that, Boardman's painting was gone, put into museum storage.
The Horabuena portrait donated by the White House a month or so ago went up this week after a Thursday decision by Lois Court, a former state lawmaker who chairs the Capitol Building Advisory Committee that helps select artwork for the Capitol in downtown Denver.
'There was a blank on the wall. It seemed inappropriate. We knew that the White House had sent us this replacement and it simply made sense to put it up,' Court said.
The White House donated the Horabuena portrait a month or so ago, said Court.
Horabuena is a 'Christian worship artist' who has done several other depictions of Trump as well as Abraham Lincoln, Mount Rushmore and Jesus Christ, according to her website.
On Tuesday, the Colorado statehouse was sleepy with lawmakers out of session and no schoolchildren visiting the historic building. A smattering of tourists took photos of the new portrait.
Horabuena did not return a phone message Tuesday seeking comment.
Article content
Latest National Stories
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
MAGA faithful cheer Trump for pausing Ukraine weapons after bristling at Iran strikes
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is getting praise from his most ardent supporters for withholding some weapons from Ukraine after they recently questioned the Republican leader's commitment to keeping the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. This week's announcement pausing deliveries of key air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other equipment to Ukraine comes just a few weeks after Trump ordered the U.S. military to carry out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Bombing those sites in Iran had some hardcore supporters of the 'Make America Great Again' movement openly questioning whether Trump was betraying his vow to keep America out of 'stupid wars' as he inserted the U.S. military into Israel's conflict with Tehran. With the Ukraine pause, which affects a crucial resupply of Patriot missiles, Trump is sending the message to his most enthusiastic backers that he is committed to following through on his campaign pledge to wind down American support for Ukraine's efforts to repel Russia, a conflict he has repeatedly described as a costly boondoggle for U.S. taxpayers. 'The choice was this: either prioritize equipping our own troops with a munition in short supply (and which was used to defend U.S. troops last week) or provide them to a country where there are limited U.S. interests,' Dan Caldwell, who was ousted as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X. Caldwell publicly worried before the Iran strikes that U.S. involvement could incite a major war and ultimately cost American lives. Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec, another ardent MAGA backer, warned as Trump weighed whether to carry out strikes on Iran last month that such a move 'would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' He was quick to cheer the news about pausing some weapons deliveries to Ukraine: 'America FIRST,' Posobiec posted on X. Both the White House and the Pentagon have justified the move as being consistent with Trump's campaign pledge to limit U.S. involvement in foreign wars. 'The president was elected on an America first platform to put America first,' Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said. At the same time, the decision is stirring anxiety among those in the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party. Many are flummoxed by Trump's halting the flow of U.S. arms just as Russia accelerates its unrelenting assault on Ukraine. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican who hails from a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, wrote to Trump and the Pentagon on Wednesday expressing 'serious concern' about the decision and requesting an emergency briefing. 'We can't let (Russian President Vladimir) Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it's why he's been advocating for peace,' Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, wrote on X. 'Now is the time to show Putin we mean business. And that starts with ensuring Ukraine has the weapons Congress authorized to pressure Putin to the negotiating table.' Trump spoke by phone with Putin on Thursday, the sixth call between the leaders since Trump's return to office. The leaders discussed Iran, Ukraine and other issues but did not specifically address the suspension of some U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser. Zelenskyy said in Denmark after meeting with major European Union backers that he hopes to talk to Trump in the coming days about the suspension. The administration says it is part of global review of the U.S. stockpile and is a necessary audit after sending nearly $70 billion in arms to Ukraine since Putin launched the war on Ukraine in February 2022. The pause was coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby. Colby, before taking his position, spoke publicly about the need to focus U.S. strategy more on China, widely seen as the United States' biggest economic and military competitor. At his Senate confirmation hearing in March, he said the U.S. doesn't have a 'multi-war military.' 'This is the restrainers like Colby flexing their muscle and saying, 'Hey, the Pacific is more important,'' said retired Navy Adm. Mark Montgomery, an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Backers of a more restrained U.S. foreign policy say the move is necessary, given an unsettled Middle East, rising challenges in Asia and the stress placed on the U.S. defense industrial complex after more than three years of war in Ukraine. 'You're really coming up to the point where continuing to provide aid to Ukraine is putting at risk the U.S. ability to operate in future crises,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities. 'And you don't know when those crises are going to happen.' 'So you have to be a little bit cautious,' she added.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court clears way for deportation to South Sudan of several immigrants with no ties there
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the justices found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the court lifted his broader decision. The Trump administration has called the judge's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.' Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
A look at what will happen to food assistance under Trump's big tax cut bill, by the numbers
President Donald Trump 's big tax cut bill will overhaul a common food assistance program for lower-income people by forcing states to pick up some of the costs and requiring more people to work to receive benefits. The changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are projected to squeeze some people out of the program, which has existed for decades in varying forms as part of the nation's social safety net. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. The modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million More than 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in March, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of March, more than 22 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $350. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Dollars: $186 billion Legislation approved by Congress is projected to cut $186 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. More than one-third of those savings come from expanded work requirements for SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Another third comes by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Yet another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits, saving the federal government tens of billions of dollars by 2034. Ages: 14 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents, need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation expands work requirements for those ages 55 through 64 and for parents without children younger than 14. It also repeals work exemptions for homeless individuals, veterans and young adults aging out of foster care. States could continue to seek federal waivers from SNAP work requirements in areas with unemployment over 10%. But the bill eliminates a more flexible exemption for areas without sufficient jobs. Percentage: 6% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs, starting in the 2027 federal fiscal year. Some states, for the first time, also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. Under the legislation, the federal government would fully fund SNAP benefits only for states that make mistakes in fewer than 6% of their payments to people. Just seven states — Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming — met that threshold last year, according to federal data. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Nationwide, nearly 11% of SNAP payments had errors last year. Starting in 2028, states with error rates greater than 6% will have to cover between 5% and 15% of the cost of SNAP benefits. Those with higher error rates generally must pay more, but a Senate amendment delays the cost-share implementation to as late as 2030 for states with the highest mistake rates. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate SNAP benefits for people. Margin: 1 The legislation containing the SNAP changes passed the Senate 51-50. Vice President JD Vance, in his role as Senate president, cast the tiebreaking vote. The House then gave final approval to the bill, 218-214.
