Smell of Victory: Donald Trump launches new fragrance that celebrates 'winning'
The US President announced the latest instalment in a long line of Trump wares on his social media platform Truth Social.
'Trump Fragrances are here. They're called 'Victory 45-47' because they're all about Winning, Strength, and Success — For men and women,' wrote Trump.
'Get yourself a bottle, and don't forget to get one for your loved ones too.
'Enjoy, have fun, and keep winning!'
The 45-47 represent Donald Trump's terms as US President. Trump announced the launch of the new fragrances on his social media platform, Truth Social / Credit: Truth Social / @realDonaldTrump
The bottles are said to be limited edition and numbered collectables, featuring the 47th President in the form of a golden statue.
The precise scent of the perfumes is not immediately obvious from the descriptions on the website.
The male cologne is said to have 'rich, masculine notes', while the women's perfume has a 'sophisticated, subtly feminine scent'.
Each bottle is listed as $249 (£181).
The president himself is not personally involved in the fragrance creation.
A disclaimer on the website reads: 'Trump Fragrances are not designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals.
'45Footwear, LLC uses the Trump name, image and likeness under a license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms.'
Trump has previously released two other fragrances: 'Fight! Fight! Fight!' and 'Victory' colognes were both released in 2024 under the Trump brand.
Trump is often seen with his most identifiable piece of merchandise, the red MAGA hat.
He has also released several other wares, including guitars, trainers, and the controversial 'God Bless the USA' bible. Donald Trump's 'God Bless the USA' bible / Credit: AP
A mandatory financial disclosure report filed in June highlighted how much Donald Trump made from some of his merchandise ventures last year.
Trump took in $3 million in revenue from selling 'Save America' coffee table books, $2.8 million from Trump watches, and $2.5 million from Trump-branded sneakers and fragrances.
Additionally, he made $57 million last year from World Liberty Financial, a crypto company he and his sons helped launch in September.
The president will even turn his lowest moments into a merchandising opportunity.
His election campaign claimed they raised $7.1 million from his 2023 police mugshot, after his scowling face was emblazoned on T-shirts, mugs and even baby grows.
The timing of the president's latest business venture comes as his 'big, beautiful' spending bill makes it through the Senate.
The Senate bill included big funding cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing additional work requirements to make eligibility more stringent.
The bill would infuse $350 million more into border and national security spending, including for deportations.
The bill also includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that it will add around $3.3 trillion in federal deficits over the coming decade.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
European leaders scramble to shield Ukraine in high-stakes Trump talks – but did they?
It was dubbed the 'Great European Charm Offensive'. Hours before Volodymyr Zelenskyy headed to Washington for a Monday meeting with Donald Trump, announcements came pouring in from across Europe, making it clear that the president of Ukraine would not be going alone. Instead, seven European heavyweights – a 'dream team' of leaders representing Europe's economic and military heft and who had a proven rapport with the US president – hastily cleared their schedules to join Zelenskyy in Washington. The result was a meeting set to become among the 'oddest in modern diplomacy', Simon McDonald, former permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote in the Guardian. Their scramble hinted at just how much was at stake. Days earlier, Trump had met with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, rolling out the red carpet for a man wanted by the international criminal court for war crimes. The US president had gone into the summit insisting he wanted 'some form of a ceasefire'; he came out of it backing pro-Russian positions. As Trump publicly dropped plans for an immediate ceasefire and insisted it was now up to Zelenskyy to 'get it done,' the mood in Moscow was jubilant. At its most simple, the united European front was aimed at avoiding a repeat of Trump's February ambush of Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. But the 'rare and sweeping show of diplomatic force' was also about protecting Ukraine and Europe from any widening aggression from Moscow, said Luke Harding, the Guardian's senior international correspondent, as the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Finland landed in Washington alongside their EU and Nato counterparts. The talks offered up a showcase of the lessons learned during Trump's erratic time in power. Flattery flowed fast and freely, with European leaders showering compliments on Trump and gently papering over potential sticking points as much as possible. Six months after Zelenskyy's extraordinary dressing down in the Oval Office, the Ukrainian president peppered his opening remarks with eight thank you's, most of them directed at Trump, as he sported what one European diplomat described as 'almost a suit' in a style that Reuters coined as 'combat formal'. Matthias Matthijs, a senior fellow for Europe at the Council of Foreign Relations, likened it to the meandering trajectory that EU trade relations have taken under Trump: 'There are always high expectations, and then the Europeans' expectations are dashed by the Americans – usually by Trump's social media posts or some interview he gives,' he said following Monday's meeting. 'Then when they meet again, having avoided the worst outcomes, they come to some sort of agreement. It's better than they feared, but it's always worse than the status quo. But as the saying goes, the Europeans live to fight another day.' Fabrizio Tassinari pointed to the broader picture of how Trump had inadvertently become 'the greatest unifier of Europe since the end of the cold war'. Writing in the Guardian, the executive director of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute in Florence, added: 'For those like myself who have followed the chimera that is European foreign and security policy for years, it was almost an epiphany to witness these seven leaders, each speaking for two minutes, repeating the exact same message.' Days after the unprecedented flurry of diplomacy, questions continue to swirl over what – if anything – might come out of it. On Monday, Trump and several European leaders, said Putin had agreed to face-to-face talks with Zelenskyy in the coming weeks. Moscow, however, has yet to confirm that any such meeting – which would be the first since Russia launched its full invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago – is being planned, with a Kremlin aide saying only that Putin and Trump discussed the idea of 'raising the level of representatives' in the Ukraine talks. Trump had also indicated a willingness to be part of security guarantees for Kyiv if there was a deal to end fighting. But the exact nature of those guarantees remains to be seen, with Trump later ruling out the possibility of the US putting troops on the ground in Ukraine and instead floating that Washington could provide air support. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Concerns also continue to linger over what exactly Trump proposed in Alaska and what, if anything, Putin agreed to during the near three-hour meeting. As Pjotr Sauer, a Guardian Russian affairs reporter, noted, some fear Trump may have overstated the outcome and misjudged Moscow's willingness to compromise. Others, such as Yuriy Boyechko, CEO of charity Hope for Ukraine, suggested Trump is deliberately setting out an exit path for Washington by entertaining Putin's demands that Ukraine withdraws from Donetsk and Luhansk, even as Zelenskyy sets a firm red line against ceding land beyond the present occupation or legitimising Moscow's control. Putin had offered a 'peace deal' that Ukraine would be forced to reject, knowing Trump would then blame Zelenskyy and end US support for Kyiv, he told the Guardian on Monday. After a week dominated by talks and punctuated by Russian bombs continuing to rain down on Ukraine, Boyechko hoped that the jarring contrast would force European leaders to realise that it would take more than just charm offensives to protect the region. 'Ukraine and its European allies must recognise the urgent need to develop their own strategy to defend Ukraine and secure peace in Europe – because it is increasingly likely that Trump will walk away from the peace negotiations.' This is an edited version of the This is Europe newsletter. If you want to read the complete version every Wednesday, please sign up here.
The National
12 minutes ago
- The National
Ukraine shows Scotland why independence cannot wait
Even the most cursory glance at the letters or comments sections show they are replete with righteous indignation whenever a perceived slight towards Scotland is detected. Such comments also serve as confirmation – were it needed – that as Scots, we often take exception to others speaking on our behalf, not least when their prime motivation is self-serving and to Scotland's detriment. Any sovereign nation is entitled to have its own voice, make its own decisions, instead of others doing it for them, which brings me to Ukraine and the recent flurry of diplomacy surrounding Russia's war on the country. READ MORE: Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: 'Independence first, everything later' is doomed to fail Writing in The National yesterday, my colleague Mark Brown characterised this ongoing diplomacy as little more than 'inter-imperialist rivalries' and the war in Ukraine as being one not of 'liberation' but 'a proxy war between Russia and the nominal West'. On one level I would agree and in this column have often acknowledged that fear of Nato expansionism was undoubtedly a contributing factor behind Russia's land grab and invasion. But whatever really lay behind Russia's motivation, an illegal invasion of a neighbouring sovereign state, which it undeniably was, and Ukraine's subsequent fight to retain its independence free from Kremlin control is both understandable and justified. It's important never to lose sight of this. For as this war has dragged on, the concerns, desires and wishes of Ukrainians themselves seem to have been increasingly overlooked or outright ignored. The war Ukrainians are waging to repel the Russian invasion is not only about the freedom of a people to choose their place in Europe, but as they see it, it's also about defending democracy itself. And speaking of Ukraine's democratic credentials, you need look no further than the recent surge of civic mobilisation that made Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy think again and reverse his decision, restoring the independence of the two bodies responsible for combating corruption. The very fact that these public protests were possible while the country was under martial law and were responded to positively by those in power, speaks volumes about the health of Ukraine's democratic vibrancy. Can you imagine anything comparable happening on the streets of Moscow or St Petersburg on Vladimir Putin's watch? READ MORE: Could Scotland challenge hotels housing asylum seekers? A legal expert explains Watching Ukraine's fate and its people's desire for freedom once again resting on the whims of the Trump administration has been an unedifying spectacle to say the least. Donald Trump and his special envoy sidekick the credulous Steve Witkoff are to diplomacy what a sputtering candle is to a supernova. As was evident in Anchorage and then a few days later at the White House, optics matter more to Trump than substance. The simple inescapable fact is that Trump will never be able to process the fundamental reality that most Ukrainians and other neighbouring countries in the region have long recognised. In short, Ukraine like Georgia and others in the region want to be secure, sovereign and independent, while Russia wants to subjugate and control their destiny. Recognising this, let alone putting in train a diplomatic strategy to assist Ukraine in achieving such aims, is frankly beyond Trump and Witkoff's abilities. Speaking to Ukrainians from here or whenever I visit the country, time and again I hear them say the last thing they need right now is Trump's flip-flopping approach. Just as it's evident in Trump's on-off tariffs and trade relations, so it's the same when it comes to diplomacy over Ukraine, resulting in more chaos and volatility rather than solid moves towards peace and stability. Ukrainians are also acutely aware that Trump's tendency is to reflect the views of the last person he has spoken to or to be more precise, who has flattered him. In Anchorage it was Putin, in Washington it was the Europeans. This is the diplomatic tightrope that Zelenskyy has to walk. Those that opine from afar that Zelenskyy should cede territory for peace need to try putting themselves in his position or indeed that of his fellow citizens. READ MORE: Scottish Labour MSP Colin Smyth issues statement after 'indecent images' arrest To those outside it might seem like small price to pay for ending a war that has lasted three and half years and killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. But the future of the country's borders and the security implications that come with them is more than the kind of run of the mill real-estate deal that is Trump and Witkoff's raison d'être. Anyway, it is not within Zelenskyy's 'gift' to hand over under Ukraine's territory as any changes would have to be settled inside the country by a referendum, according to Article 73 of the country's constitution. The question can only be put to a referendum by popular initiative if the signatures of three million eligible Ukrainian voters are gathered from at least two thirds of the country's regions. This is not to say that it will never happen as part of any diplomatic process and were Ukraine offered strong and reliable security guarantees, it could become easier for Zelenskyy's government to consider such concessions on territory. While a recent Gallup poll suggested that 69% of Ukrainians favoured a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, the same polls also unequivocally showed that most Ukrainians are not prepared to formally concede territory in exchange for peace. In other words, it's unlikely that Zelenskyy would accept the loss of any territory putting in jeopardy – as such a move would – Ukraine's future security and his own political survival. These past few days as the international diplomatic band wagon has rolled on, there has been a lot of form but very little by way of content produced so far. If there are grounds for cautious optimism then it should certainly not come at the expense of what Ukrainian themselves want by way of an outcome. This is paramount. They after all are the ones that were invaded, have seen their people bombed, murdered, raped, tortured and abducted by Russian forces. Like any independent, sovereign nation, they must continue to have their own voice heard. They must be a central part of decision making that ultimately affects them most. Above all, they should not be steamrollered by others making such decisions on their behalf purely out of self-interest. To put this in some kind of context for those of us here, would you really expect anything different were Scotland to find itself in such a challenging position?
Sky News
15 minutes ago
- Sky News
How Trump's Republicans are literally redrawing maps to help stay in power
Legislators in Texas have approved new congressional maps designed to boost Donald Trump's Republicans at next year's midterm elections. Known as redistricting, the state's re-drawn map would shift conservative voters into districts currently held by Democrats, and combine other districts with a Democratic majority into one. The process is not new, and is completely legal - unless it is ruled to be racially motivated - but typically occurs every 10 years after the US Census to account for population changes. The push to redistrict early came from Mr Trump himself, who wants to bolster his chances of preserving the slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives at next year's crucial midterms. But by trying to re-draw the maps in the red state of Texas, Democrats have lined up their own counter redistricting effort in the blue state of California. If more states decide to re-consider their maps, it has the potential to largely determine the outcome of the 2026 midterms, before a single vote is cast. What's happening in Texas? Mr Trump first said he wanted politicians in Texas to redraw the state's congressional district in July. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, followed up on the president's demands, calling for a special session to vote on new maps. "Please pass this map ASAP," Mr Trump urged on his Truth Social platform on Monday. "Thank you, Texas!" In an effort to try to make passing the vote as difficult as possible, Democrats fled the state for two weeks. Per parliamentary rules, if enough Democrats refuse to take part in the special session, the Texas House can't meet. On their return, each Democratic politician was assigned a police escort to ensure they attended the session. Nicole Collier, who refused the police escort, stayed in the House for two nights, and was pictured with an eye mask and blanket trying to sleep at her desk. Once the debate started, the doors to the chamber were locked and all members wanting to leave had to get a permission slip to do so. After nearly eight hours, the legislation to formally change the map was passed 88-52 on Wednesday. It now needs to be approved by the Texas Senate, where Republicans hold a majority, and then signed off by Mr Abbott, who has already committed to doing just that. Why re-draw maps? Republicans in Texas have openly said the rally to re-draw congressional maps is in the party's interest. Todd Hunter, the Republican who wrote the legislation formally creating the new map, told the House: "The underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance." He said the dispute is nothing more than a partisan fight, and made reference to the US Supreme Court having previously allowed politicians to redraw districts for partisan purposes. Democrats hit back, arguing the disagreement was about more than partisanship. "In a democracy, people choose their representatives," representative Chris Turner said. "This bill flips that on its head and lets politicians in Washington, DC, choose their voters." Another Democrat, John H Bucy, blamed the president, saying: "This is Donald Trump's map. "It clearly and deliberately manufactures five more Republican seats in Congress because Trump himself knows that the voters are rejecting his agenda." How have Democrats responded? The move by Republicans has triggered a tit-for-tat move by the Democrats, who are due to meet in California on Thursday to revise the state's maps in order to gain five more seats. To enact the same powers in California will prove harder, as state laws require an independent commission to take responsibility for redistricting - meaning it would need to be approved by voters in a special election. In other blue states, rules are even tighter. For example, in New York, they cannot draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval. Despite the obstacles, California governor Gavin Newsom confirmed a redistricting election will take place in the state on 4 November, in order to "fight fire with fire". His plan has gained support from former president Barack Obama, who said it was necessary to "stave off" the Republicans' move in Texas. Could this affect the midterms? The midterms in November next year will likely be on a knife edge. Whatever the outcome, it could shape the remainder of Mr Trump's second term in office. A Democrat majority would make it tougher for him to pass laws. Currently, Republicans control the House of Representatives in Washington, 219-212 (excluding four open vacancies). A party needs 218 seats for a majority. In the Senate, the Republicans hold a similarly slim majority of 53 to 45. However, the incumbent president's party typically loses seats in the midterms. In the 2018 midterms, during Mr Trump's first tenure as president, the Democrats took control of the House. Likewise, in 2022, when Joe Biden was president, the House swung back to the Republicans. It's important to note that 27 House seats will remain in states that are unlikely to redraw their maps, according to The New York Times. In a bid to avoid a repeat of history, Mr Trump is pushing for redistricting in states beyond Texas. Top Republicans in states like Indiana, Missouri, and Florida continue to talk about tweaking their maps to create more Republican-controlled congressional seats. While Ohio has to legally redraw, the timing of which could benefit the Republicans, and, by extension, Mr Trump.
