Kamala Harris makes surprise Met Gala debut in a classic black and white gown
Former Vice President Kamala Harris made her Met Gala debut at this year's annual fashion extravaganza.
Coinciding with this year's theme of "Superfine: Tailoring Black Style," the Democrat donned an asymmetrical classic black and white gown at the ceremony but did not walk the blue carpet.
The appearance marks a return to the public eye following the November election, where she ran and lost as the Democratic nominee. On April 30, she delivered a speech at the Emerge 20th Anniversary Gala in San Francisco, where she condemned the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second term.
"Instead of an administration working to advance America's highest ideals, we are witnessing the wholesale abandonment of those ideals," Harris said. "But in the face of crisis, the lesson is: Don't scatter. The instinct has to be to immediately find each other and to know that the circle will be strong."
She warned Americans that things are probably "going to get worse before they get better," but urged people to lose focus. "Please always remember this country is ours," she said. "It doesn't belong to whoever is in the White House. It belongs to you."
Is Donald Trump banned from the Met Gala 2025?
Trump has not been welcomed to the Met Gala for nearly a decade since Vogue Editor-in-Chief and gala chair Anna Wintour announced in 2017 that he would no longer be invited.
What is the Met Gala?
The Costume Institute Benefit, commonly known as the Met Gala, is a fundraiser for the museum's Costume Institute, which hosts a collection of over 33,000 fashion artifacts. The 2024 Met Gala raised approximately $26 million, according to The New York Times and The Associated Press.
Contributing: Rebecca Morin and Juan Carlos Castillo, USA TODAY Network
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Trump's interest rate demands put 'fiscal dominance' in market spotlight
By Davide Barbuscia NEW YORK (Reuters) -As U.S. debt swells and the White House leans on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, investors are weighing the risk of "fiscal dominance," a scenario where keeping government financing cheap eclipses the fight against inflation. A budget bill passed last month by the Republican-controlled Congress is set to pile trillions onto the swelling U.S. debt load - raising the cost of servicing that debt. U.S. President Donald Trump has meanwhile made explicit calls for the Fed to cut rates, in part to lower the U.S. government's interest costs. The White House's pressure campaign has raised concerns that the administration wants the Fed to return to a bygone era when it kept rates low in order to allow for lower-cost borrowing. "(Fiscal dominance) is a concern ... There are risks on the horizon, both from the perspective of increasing debt loads and the probability for higher structural inflation, or at minimum, more volatility of inflation," said Nate Thooft, chief investment officer for equity and multi-asset solutions at Manulife Investment Management. "The reason why the Trump administration and politicians in general ... would like to see lower rates, is because it actually requires lower rates to be able to afford the debt levels that we have outstanding," he said. The U.S. experienced fiscal dominance during and shortly after World War Two, when the Fed was required to keep interest rates low for the war borrowing effort. The inflation spike that followed led to the 1951 Treasury-Fed accord that restored central bank independence. High long-term Treasury yields and a sliding dollar already reflect that economic setup, some analysts say, as investors require more compensation to hold U.S. assets that could lose value if inflation rises. "The administration wants to outgrow the debt ... but the other way to deal with the debt is to inflate it away," said Kelly Kowalski, head of investment strategy at MassMutual, who sees the dollar continuing to weaken. Higher inflation would mean the real value of government debt shrinks. Trump said last month that the Fed's benchmark interest rate should be three percentage points lower than the current 4.25%-4.50% range, arguing that such a reduction would save $1 trillion per year. He separately said the central bank could raise rates again if inflation rose. In the 12 months through June, inflation as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index advanced 2.6% - still above the Fed's 2% target. Fed Chair Jerome Powell, however, has explicitly said that the U.S. central bank does not consider managing government debt when setting its monetary policy. Some investors argue fiscal dominance lies on an uncertain horizon, with rising debt yet to trigger unsustainable interest rates, while others see it already seeping into markets as long-term yields remain elevated even amid expectations of Fed rate cuts. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the Trump administration respects the Fed's independence, but that, with inflation having come down significantly from its highs in recent years, Trump believes it's time to reduce rates. The U.S. central bank so far has resisted those demands, though it is expected to lower borrowing costs at its September 16-17 meeting. It declined to comment on this story. FED'S MANDATE The dollar is down about 10% this year against a basket of major currencies while Treasury term premiums - the extra compensation investors demand for holding long-term debt - are high, even as yields have recently dipped amid slowing economic growth. "It's difficult to be bullish (on) long bonds in this environment," said Oliver Shale, an investment specialist at Ruffer, citing government spending that could keep inflation elevated and erode bond values. "If you have an economy that's running above its natural output, that's going to result in inflation or have important implications for inflation, interest rates, and probably the currency," he said. Thooft at Manulife said he was bearish on long-dated Treasuries as higher inflation would require higher term premiums. Despite years of economic growth, U.S. deficits have continued to balloon. Debt now stands at more than 120% of GDP, higher than after World War Two. The Fed normally manages inflation while Congress maintains fiscal discipline. That balance inverts under the fiscal dominance scenario, with inflation driven by fiscal policies and a Fed trying to manage the debt burden, said Eric Leeper, an economics professor at the University of Virginia. "The Fed cannot control inflation and keep interest payments on the debt low. Those are in conflict," Leeper said. One red flag for investors is the narrowing gap between interest rates and economic growth. Benchmark 10-year yields have hovered around 4.3% in recent weeks, while nominal GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.02% in the second quarter. When interest rates exceed the growth rate, debt as a percentage of gross domestic product typically rises even without new borrowing, making the debt increasingly unsustainable. "Risks to Fed independence stemming from fiscal dominance are high," Deutsche Bank analysts said in a recent note, citing high deficits and long-term rates close to nominal GDP growth. 'DOVISH BIAS' History offers cautionary tales. Extreme fiscal dominance triggered hyperinflation in Germany in the early 1920s and in Argentina in the late 1980s and early 2000s. More recently in Turkey, pressure on the central bank to keep interest rates low undermined policy credibility and fueled a currency crisis. A majority of economists polled by Reuters last month said they were worried the Fed's independence was under threat. Despite a barrage of criticism from Trump and administration officials, Powell has vowed to remain Fed chief until his term expires in May 2026. "It seems relatively clear that whoever is nominated for the seat, regardless of whatever views they've espoused in the past, is likely to articulate a dovish bias in order to be nominated," said Amar Reganti, a fixed income strategist at Hartford Funds and former Treasury official. Lower interest rates, however, might only be a temporary fix. The administration may be hoping to "juice nominal growth," despite the risk of creating higher inflation, to get to a place where real growth makes the debt trajectory sustainable, said Brij Khurana, a fixed income portfolio manager at Wellington. "The problem they have is ... the central bank is saying: 'I don't want to make that bet with you.'"
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Facing Trump tariffs, India's shrimp farmers consider switching to other businesses
By Rishika Sadam HYDERABAD, India/GUAYAQUIL, Ecuador (Reuters) -On India's southern coast, V. Srinivas thrived for two decades by farming shrimp, as the country became the top supplier of the delicacy to the United States. Now, Donald Trump's 50% tariff threat is forcing many to consider other ways of making money. Andhra Pradesh state sends the most shrimp from India to the U.S. and farmers there have spent millions of rupees (hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars) over the years to cultivate high-quality shrimp in saline ponds. Now they are being hit hard as Indian exporters have slashed rates they offer farmers by almost 20% after the tariff shock, wiping out most of their profits. "I am contemplating if I should do fish farming," said the 46-year-old from Veeravasaram village who has already mortgaged his family property and has $45,800 in outstanding loans. "These prices will not help me get any profits and I will not be able to pay off my loan." The United States is the biggest market for India's shrimp farmers and exporters, with clients including U.S. supermarket chains such as Walmart and Kroger. Last year, total seafood exports from India globally stood at $7.4 billion, with shrimp accounting for 40%. But the industry is now in troubled waters with President Trump's 25% tariff on imports from India already in place - the highest among major economies, and another 25% levy to kick in from August 27 to penalize New Delhi for buying Russian oil. By comparison, Ecuador, India's main rival for shrimp exports to the U.S., faces a much lower 15% tariff, heightening its competitive edge. In Andhra, there are around 300,000 farmers engaged in shrimp farming, selling products to dozens of exporters who ship to America. Pawan Kumar, head of the Seafood Exporters Association of India, said orders from U.S. clients have been paused in recent weeks as buyers aren't willing to absorb the tariff, and neither can exporters, forcing the latter to cut prices they pay to farmers. Although India also sells shrimp to other countries such as China, Japan and the UK, and likely will look to expand sales there and diversify into new markets, "that's not going to happen overnight," Kumar said. The impact is yet another example of how Trump's tariff threats are causing business disruptions across the world, especially in India, given it faces one of the steepest levies that have soured its relations with Washington. In Andhra, six of 12 farmers Reuters interviewed said they were considering putting shrimp farming on hold and looking at fish farming, vegetable retailing or other local businesses to tide over the crisis. The other six are choosing to wait it out a bit. Each round of shrimp cultivation takes about 2 months or more. While prices being offered for their shrimp are being slashed, the farmers said they still face loan payments and high operating costs for electricity, raw material and feed, as well as high land rentals. "There's hardly a 20-25% profit for us on good days, and if that's getting eaten up, what else is left?," said Gopinath Duggineni, the chief of a local union in Ongole city, adding the farmers plan to seek financial support from the state government. Ecuador, meanwhile, is closely tracking tariffs on India to seize on business opportunities, but producers there will go slow on new investments amid uncertainty over whether India and the Trump administration could strike a tariff deal, said Jose Antonio Camposano, president of National Chamber of Aquaculture of Ecuador. "India's exports are highly concentrated in the United States ... just as China is for us. So that is where we could gain ground if India withdraws," he said.
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Is America done with clean energy? Why wind, solar power are in peril
Since taking office, the Trump Administration has paused permits on all new wind and solar projects on public land, both onshore and offshore. New wind and solar power installations, and the cheap, clean energy they provide to America, may not survive the Trump administration. Building on public concerns and his own dislike of "ugly," "disgusting" wind turbines and "ridiculous" solar farms, President Donald Trump has issued a blizzard of directives and executive orders limiting new solar and wind projects across the county. In at least one case, the administration yanked back an already-issued permit. Instead, the administration is promoting energy production from oil, natural gas and coal, which the Biden administration had made more expensive through regulations Trump is now dismantling. 'They're basically trying to make it impossible or next to impossible to build wind or solar power in this country while at the same time rolling back regulations on fossil fuels,' said Nick Krakoff, senior attorney with the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, a nonprofit environmental organization. Wind and solar power are two of the fastest-growing energy sectors in the United States and produced as much as 17% of the country's electricity last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical agency of the Department of Energy. Since taking office, the Trump administration has paused permits on all new wind and solar projects on public land, onshore and offshore. The vast majority of renewable energy projects – 95% – are on private land, according to a report by the Brookings Institution. But many of those require some type of federal approval and are also being stalled by the new rules. It's this push to end large-scale energy projects on private property as well that some in the energy industry consider especially troubling. 'It's expected that every time you have a major change in administrations, policies on public land might change," said Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association. 'But the willingness of this administration to create political and bureaucratic barriers to private economic activity on private land is something nobody anticipated.' A shift that began Jan. 20 The dozens of new rules, mostly issued by the Department of the Interior, add multiple layers of permit requirements to an already thorough process – requirements that could slow or stymie some projects. 'It looks like they are just trying to find any moment at which the federal government interacts with a project and putting it on this list," said Michelle Solomon, manager of the electricity program at Energy Innovation, Policy and Technology, an energy think tank based in San Francisco. The flood of new regulations began on Jan. 20 when the administration temporarily withdrew all permits for offshore wind projects. On July 7, all subsidies for wind and solar projects were ended, though federal subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas were left in place. On July 15, the Department of the Interior added multiple layers of review for all wind and solar projects on public land, including a requirement that the secretary of the interior sign off on each one. It was not clear whether these requirements will stop new projects from being permitted, but "at the very least it will slow decisions down – and a lot of the decisions are not controversial, they're routine,' Krakoff said. On July 29, the department required wind or solar projects that have been approved but are being sued by opponents be federally reviewed and possibly canceled. Nearly a third of solar projects and half of wind projects that completed Environmental Impact Statements faced lawsuits, according to research by Resources for the Future, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit research institute. Targeting the renewable energy industry Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said in March that the administration's efforts "are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion." The new rules will ensure that wind and solar projects "receive appropriate oversight when federal resources, permits or consultations are involved," Department of the Interior senior public affairs specialist Elizabeth Pease said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY. The directives are already having an effect. On Aug. 6, the agency announced it was reversing a permit for a 1,000-megawatt wind facility that had been approved in Idaho. 'They're canceling meetings and taking down web pages," Grumet of American Clean Power said, adding that he sees the moves as "an unprecedented effort to weaponize bureaucracy to undermine an American industry." In early August, Nevada's Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo complained to the secretary of the interior in a letter that solar projects deep in the project pipeline have been frozen. 'This is part of a pattern of targeting the renewable energy industry," said the Conservation Law Foundation's Krakoff. "It's pretty unprecedented to target an entire industry and undermine the rule of law." Power demands are at an all-time high and rising These actions could stop cold what has been the biggest contributor to U.S. power supplies at a time when power demands driven by global warming and the needs of artificial intelligence and data centers are pushing power consumption to all-time highs. 'We need to build more power generation now, and that includes renewable energy. The U.S. will need roughly 118 gigawatts (the equivalent of 12 New York Cities) of new power generation in the next four years to prevent price spikes and potential shortages," said Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy." Only a limited set of technologies – solar, wind, batteries and some natural gas – can be built at that scale in that time frame." As of last year, 17% of electricity in the United States was created by wind or solar power. Of the new power generation projected to come online this year, 93% was expected to come from solar, wind or battery storage, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Solar power appears to be less impacted by the policy shifts than wind, Solomon said. 'Certainly the administration is seemingly trying to do everything they can to slow progress for wind and solar – but they don't have unilateral control over everything,' she said. 'I think there's a decent chance that there's a lot of projects on private land, at least solar projects, that will not have federal permitting requirements.' China has overtaken the United States on clean energy The shift comes as the rest of the world – especially China – make significant strides in moving to cheaper power from wind and solar. "I don't think the administration fully appreciates that if they were to tie their own hands, we could be retreating in that competition with China," Grumet said. China is installing wind and solar projects faster than any other nation and today has almost half the world's wind farms. In 2023 it built out more wind and solar than the rest of the world combined. In May, its solar power reached 1,000 gigawatts. The United States' current solar capacity is 134 gigawatts. A 1 gigawatt solar facility generates enough power to support about 200,000 households, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the first quarter of this year, China was able to produce more energy through wind and solar than through coal and gas. As of July, the country made up 74% of all wind and solar projects under construction globally. China's enormous buildout of wind and solar power caused its carbon emissions to fall by 2.7% in the first six months of this year. Some experts believe its greenhouse gas emissions may have peaked. The country's combination of clean energy production along with the success of its electric vehicles has earned it the title of the world's first "electrostate." Fossil fuel-based nations are called "petrostates." None of this bodes well for the future of the United States on the world stage, said Julio Friedmann, an expert on carbon, hydrogen and biofuels at Carbon Direct, a company that provides climate solutions. "In all likelihood, the actions will strengthen China's position as global leader," said Friedmann, who also taught at Columbia University. "At worst, the U.S. may surrender its many advantages."
