Melania Trump jokes about her husband's favorite sport as she surprises sick kids at Children's Hospital
The first lady joked about her husband's love of golf when kids asked if she shared the President Donald Trump 's love of the sport.
'No, I don't play golf,' she laughed, but disclosed that she used to play.
Nine former and current patients of the hospital in Washington, D.C. sat with Trump for an art session with Trump.
She even invited the group to come to the White House for the 250th Independence Day celebration next year on July 4, 2026 and told them about the upcoming celebration including the fireworks show and F14 flyovers.
The visit comes as her citizenship is under scrutiny after Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penn.) questioned if Trump truly qualified for the 'Einstein visa' that garnered her entry into the United States.
Trump moved to New York in 1996 on the EB-1 visa – known as the Einstein visa as it's for workers with special skills. The first lady, who was born in Slovenia, was working as a model when she met Donald Trump. The two married and she became a citizen in 2006.
Now an online petition is circulating, calling for her deportation as her husband's administration cracks down on migrants who entered the United States illegally.
But, on Thursday, the first lady's focus was on the Fourth of July holiday. She joined the children in the hospital's Healing Garden to paint rocks, cups and other items with patriotic decorations.
Sitting with nine former and current patients of the children's hospital, Trump joined-in for an art project.
'Welcome First Lady Melania Trump,' read a sign made by the young artists.
The first lady told the kids: 'You look beautiful.'
She brought goodie bags with blankets and teddy bears with 'Best Best' t-shirts.
The kids went outside after their crafts session with Trump to use their art to decorate the garden at the hospital.
She also unveiled a new flower - the 'External Flame' hybrid tea rose, which is a highly fragrant yellow rose.
Following her visit to the healing garden, Trump is making private visits with heart and kidney transplant patients.
The first lady has made children's wellbeing a priority through her Be Best program.
Trump visited the hospital every year around Christmas during her first tenure as first lady. It is a longtime tradition for the spouse of a president to visit the children's care center around the holidays.
After the hospital visit, she will join President Trump in the Oval Office to meet with freed Hamas hostage Edan Alexander and his family.
On Friday, she and the president will host a military picnic on the South Lawn and view the fireworks that evening.
First ladies going back to Bess Truman have been patrons of the Children's National Hospital, which is one of the top pediatric hospitals in the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
15 minutes ago
- Times
What Putin said and what he meant, with a flash of sharp teeth
Unlike his American counterpart, President Putin chooses his words carefully. His closing remarks after his meeting with President Trump on Friday speak volumes both for what he did and did not say. • Trump-Putin meeting: follow the latest updates Putin pitched this meeting as an opportunity to bring US-Russian relations back on track — and in effect, to relegate the Ukraine issue to the sidelines. His well-known obsession with history, even if a deeply slanted version that suits his political needs, was soon in evidence. After praising the way the talks had been 'held in a constructive atmosphere of mutual respect', he quickly moved on to stressing not just that the meeting in Alaska highlighted the degree to which Russia and the United States, 'though separated by the oceans, are close neighbours' — just 2.4 miles apart at the closest point — but also that there was much shared history. (Of course, Alaska had been Russian until it was sold to America in 1867.) In the closed-door talks, Trump was apparently spared the kind of 30-minute lecture with which Putin began his interview with the US journalist Tucker Carlson. Instead, in both those talks and his public statement, Putin tried to mobilise history to develop his fundamental point: that Russia and America ought to be allies rather than adversaries. On his way to Anchorage, Putin had stopped over in Magadan in the Russian far east, where he made a point of laying flowers at the 'Heroes of Alsib' memorial commemorating pilots killed on the Alaska-Siberia route in the Second World War, when the US was helping to supply the Soviets. Noting that Soviet pilots had also been buried at a cemetery close to the airbase where the meeting with Trump was held, Putin offered a little light flattery to 'the citizens and the government of the US for carefully taking care of their memory. I think that's very worthy and noble'. He continued to make the point: 'We'll always remember other historical examples when our countries defeated common enemies together in the spirit of battle camaraderie and allyship that supported each other and facilitated each other.' In other words, when Moscow and Washington co-operate, no one can stand in their way. Putin here presented the war as something of a distraction which has unnecessarily interrupted co-operation between two great nations. 'This time has been very hard for bilateral relations, and let's be frank, they've fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War,' he said. 'I think that's not benefiting our countries and the world as a whole. It is apparent that sooner or later, we have to amend the situation to move on from the confrontation to dialogue.' This was Putin sounding conciliatory, yet wanting to have his cake and eat it: to restate his fundamental position, while posing as a peacemaker. The tell comes a few moments later. • Four key moments from Trump-Putin press conference This is Putin's usual code for demands that Kyiv must surrender territory, be barred from Nato membership and shrink its military to a level that leaves it perpetually vulnerable. He emphasised that from his perspective 'to make the settlement lasting and long-term, we need to eliminate all the primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict.' He is of course not talking about the unprovoked Russian invasion that started the war (which he ordered) but rather the supposedly 'legitimate concerns of Russia' and the need 'to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe and in the world' which would be more advantageous to Moscow. Meanwhile, he invoked what sounded like kinship with the Ukrainians, adding even that 'naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well'. This might have surprised those Ukrainian civilians hiding in their air raid shelters at the time. However, his claim that Russians have 'always considered the Ukrainian nation … a brotherly nation' as 'we have the same roots' was really just a sugar-coated rendition of his usual claim that Ukraine is not really a genuine country, more an annexe of a greater Russia. It is not yet clear what Putin meant by this arch suggestion. The official translation of his word ponimanie is 'agreements' but really the looser 'understandings' is more accurate. We therefore don't know if there is any framework for an agreement — although there are recurring suggestions of a halt to mutual air attacks on Russia and Ukraine's cities and infrastructure — or just a sense of progress being made. In any case, Putin was astute enough not to dwell on this too much and instead to refocus on the Russian and American relationship. First he dangled the benefit to the United States of improved dialogue with Russia. 'It is clear that the US and Russian investment and business co-operation has tremendous potential,' he said. 'Russia and the US can offer each other so much in trade, digital, high tech and in space exploration. We see that Arctic co-operation is also very possible.' Then he spoke warmly of his own bond with his American counterpart. Trump may be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, but he still manifests an insecurity that Putin is happy to exploit. Speaking of the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022 the Russian said: 'President Trump is saying that if he was the president back then, there would be no war, and I'm quite sure that it would indeed be so' (as if the invasion had been some natural disaster, rather than something he initiated). As for Trump's peacemaking efforts, it was the Europeans and Ukrainians who were frustrating him, Putin suggested. He expressed the pious hope that they 'will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress.' It was, of course, naked flattery, but it was also different from the kind of fawning obeisances some European leaders have adopted. Rather it was calibrated to convey a sense that the two men were equals and it came with the hint of an invitation to the club of strongman leaders: 'The president of the US has a very clear idea of what he would like to achieve. He sincerely cares about the prosperity of his nation. Still, he understands that Russia has its own national interests.' This sounded like a compliment, not condescension. Putin is not a rigid strategist but an opportunist. He likes to keep his options open. Having averted any ultimatum on a ceasefire, he made it clear that he will pursue both military and diplomatic tracks simultaneously, the very thing Kyiv has been trying to prevent. He can see if some deal that suits him emerges — or just use continuing negotiations to keep Trump paralysed and try to paint the Ukrainians and the Europeans as the obstacle. At this stage, he doesn't have to decide, and that's the way he likes it. One might think that this would be enough for him, but Putin wouldn't be Putin without a snarky parting shot. Just as Trump was wrapping up the brief press conference with a vague suggestion that the two men would 'probably' see each other again soon, Putin pounced. By inviting him, in English, to the Russian capital for their next meeting, he knew he was putting Trump very much on the spot. Obviously, this would be an even greater fillip for Putin, and pretty much guarantee that President Zelensky wasn't going to be present. It was a closing flash of the sharp teeth behind the bland smile: I am not, Putin could have been saying, just another second-tier national leader who can be pushed around. Professor Mark Galeotti's book, Forged in War: A Military History of Russia from its Beginnings to Today, is published by Osprey/Bloomsbury
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Embattled business partner attempts rebrand after restaurant was bombed with bad reviews amid influencer's feud with chef
A San Francisco restaurateur is attempting to turn the page after a bitter online feud between his co-owner and a popular food influencer tanked his wine bar's reputation. Eric Lin, a first-time restaurant owner, recently reopened his Hayes Valley wine bar under a new name, Bosque, just three weeks after shuttering the premises in the wake of a viral social media controversy. The original café, named Kis, became the target of online outrage after TikTok influencer Karla Marcotte posted a video detailing her 'nightmare' experience there with Lin's former business partner, Luke Sung. Marcotte arrived at the restaurant expecting a free meal, but instead claims she was belittled by chef Sung who told her she was not famous enough to warrant the treatment. An immediate backlash followed and Sung was forced to step down. Now Lin says all he really wants to do is move past the tense confrontation. 'It's been really tough,' Lin told SFGate. 'I've turned myself off from social media a little bit.' After abruptly closing Kis Cafe last month, Lin quietly reopened the business on August 7 under a new identity, reportedly named after his dog. The rebrand was low-key, with Lin declining to offer a website, social media, and or even announce the re-opening. 'I'll probably have something, maybe a website,' he said, adding that he doesn't 'see a point in being very engaged.' The only trace of the new venture online is a Resy page describing the eatery as 'a wholesome neighborhood wine bar that serves simple small plates'. Lin's Kis Cafe had opened only six months prior when Marcotte entered for what was supposed to be a 'collaboration meeting'. Instead, she posted a video accusing Sung of belittling and disrespecting her. Following her controversial review of the northern California spot, her follower count surged from 15,000 to nearly half a million, and Kis Cafe's Yelp page was bombarded with more than 3,000 negative reviews. Lin even said that he, his employees, and even their families received threats as a result of the negative publicity. Lin, who left a tech career to pursue food and hospitality, said the chaos was never what he signed up for. 'I've never liked being the face of anything, and that's not what this place is about,' he said. 'It's about the food. It's about the people who come to eat here.' Though the restaurant dons a new namesake, little has changed inside the establishment. The dining room retains its denim-blue chairs and open kitchen and the menu remains largely the same, SFGate reported. However, while the rebrand appears to have calmed some of the online fury, Lin says business has been slow. 'I need to be a responsible business owner,' Lin said. 'I'm not made of cash.' Sung has since shared his side of the story with The San Francisco Standard. He claims Marcotte entered the restaurant without introducing herself or acknowledging his role, and that she appeared unfamiliar with the restaurant or his background. 'I thought she'd say, "Hey, Mr. Sung, I read about you, and I am so happy to be doing this with you." But she showed up and sat down and didn't say hi,' he told the outlet. He admitted to questioning Marcotte's qualifications, reviewing her TikTok content at the table, and expressing concerns about her representing his food. 'I saw creamy spaghetti in a pan with sliced, overcooked New York steak on top,' he said. 'That night, I was running a special with this beautiful coho salmon. I didn't want to be misrepresented by someone who doesn't understand the difference between Atlantic salmon and king salmon.' Marcotte, however, said she had introduced herself and even showed up early to shoot content. She claimed that Sung and Lin were speaking negatively about her when she arrived. Before leaving the restaurant, she also allegedly warned Sung, 'The restaurant world is really small. There will be consequences.' Following the viral fallout, Sung stepped down from both Kis Cafe and his other restaurant, Domo. He issued a public apology on Instagram, writing: 'Karla - I am truly sorry for my actions toward you. I was condescending, hurtful, and intimidating. You did not deserve to be made to feel less than or unimportant, nobody does.' Sung said the ordeal has left his personal and professional life in tatters. 'Everything is broken into pieces. I have to try to pick it up and glue it back together. I have to just let it heal.' Meanwhile, Lin is cautiously optimistic about Bosque's future. 'The food works,' he said. 'I don't see a point in stressing, and I don't have the money to overhaul everything right now.' He hasn't ruled out working with influencers again and acknowledges that it was ultimately his invitation that brought Marcotte into his restaurant in the first place. 'I hope to do everybody proud, from Luke to Karla to all of them,' Lin said. 'At the end of the day, everybody likes good food, and everybody likes good drink.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
