'Donny, Donny, you're so slow, I made you pontiff weeks ago': Trump-pope memes take social media by storm
In the AI image, Trump can be seen holding up his index finger as if about to preach ex cathedra. He is dressed in traditional bright white Catholic vestments with gold lining.
The image surfaced after Trump said he would be happy to be the next pope. Shortly after attending Pope Francis' funeral in Rome, the president was asked about his thoughts on who should be leading the Catholic Church now. 'I'd like to be Pope. That would be my number one choice,' Trump quipped.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham later came up with a suggestion for the College of Cardinals. 'I was excited to hear that President Trump is open to the idea of being the next Pope. This would truly be a dark horse candidate, but I would ask the papal conclave and Catholic faithful to keep an open mind about this possibility!' Graham wrote on X. 'The first Pope-U.S. President combination has many upsides. Watching for white smoke…. Trump MMXXVIII!'
Graham cheered the president even after the AI image went viral. 'Seeing is believing! A picture is worth a thousand words….,' Graham wrote. 'Glad to report there is very positive reception and strong momentum for President Trump to be the next Pope. But I will be first to admit there has been some resistance! Must keep your head down and plow forward — can't let the naysayers win the day. Next week is crucial as the papal conclave convenes…. More updates to come!'
The Catholic Church is now looking for a new spiritual head. Around 135 Catholic cardinals will enter a secret conclave to choose the next pope.
AI videos and memes followed the AI image, taking social media by storm. Here's a look at a few posts:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
UN's renaissance: Navigating a multipolar world with emerging bipolarity
The United Nations (UN) was born out of the need for a neutral convenor in a world highly suspicious of unilateralism. However, immediately after its creation in 1945, it had to navigate a tight bipolarity and a Cold War between the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, owing to the economic rise of countries like India, China, South Korea, Brazil and others, a multipolar world order emerged. The UN, despite facing several new challenges as opposed to the situation in 1945 and up to 1991, continued navigating through geopolitical storms. However, what was witnessed was increasing inefficiency, as its vetoes in the UN Security Council paralyse action on key conflicts. It was assumed that in a multipolar setup, the UN's inclusivity would be its strength. However, in 2025, as geopolitical winds change again, the UN faces its own crossroads. FILE PHOTO: The United Nations headquarters building is pictured though a window with the UN logo in the foreground in the Manhattan borough of New York August 15, 2014. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri/File Photo(REUTERS) In the swirling vortex of geopolitics in 2025, the winds of change are unmistakable. The dominant rivalry in the international system is now between the US and China. However, the diffusion of power throughout the existing rules-based international order also cannot be wished away. The US under a second Trump administration, has pivoted inward, attempting an America First policy, which includes irrational trade skirmishes with foes like Beijing and friends, partners, and allies like India, the European Union (EU), Japan, Taiwan and South Korea alike. China meanwhile, once at the pinnacles of economic success, now grapples with domestic economic headwinds and a foreign policy shift from the Belt and Road exuberance to a more cautious stance propagating multilateralism, while still harbouring hegemonic aspirations. While the world stands divided in understanding which of these two powers--the US or China is more capable of leading the international system, middle powers like India, Brazil and the EU assert themselves, as regional alliances become increasingly commonplace. In this flux, the UN, while a relic of post-World War II optimism, also has an increased role as a vital arbiter, if it can adapt boldly. If peacekeeping were taken as an indicator, it is seen that despite the world being increasingly divided, UN operations remain the primary tool for maintaining international security, albeit fraying relations and resource shortfalls reduce efficacy. The 2025 Peacekeeping Ministerial in Berlin had highlighted precisely this, while urging members to innovate for future missions and multipolarity. At least 305 million across the globe are still in need of aid, while the UN coordinates humanitarian efforts. From Gaza's malnutrition crises to displacement in Sudan, there are examples galore and from across the globe. A decline in multilateralism actually weakens institutions like the UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO), with stalled pollution talks to illustrate hurdles in negotiations. The US led order's collapse, as Trump accelerates withdrawals, creates space for China to gain ground, without it yet having capacities for full replacement. Yet, this also creates opportunity, as a reformed UN could reclaim preventive diplomacy and peacebuilding. Given Trump's unpredictability and tendency to throw allies and partners under the bus, it is currently unclear what the U.S. actually wants. Trump's lifting of restrictions on chip sales to China, his stalling of the impending ban of TikTok, his fawning praise of Xi Jinping, along with his irrational targeting of India for being the second largest buyer of Russian oil, while letting China go scot-free, signal at attempts at a G2 between the US and China. However, Trump also keeps emphasising his policies to Make America Great Again, which presumably mean the US wants to remain the leading actor of the international system. As far as China is concerned, it clearly wants to be the leading actor of the international system and wants the coveted position to itself. While Trump figures out what he sees the role of the US as either as a subservient partner to China or to continue being the hegemon of the system, other important players need to push for the reforms of the UN. The year 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the UN. Interestingly, the UN thanks to the changing geopolitical headwinds, also stands at a pivotal juncture. The roles of both the US and China have been diminished, owing to their own economic policies which now force them to look inwards or to tweak their economic engagements abroad, with reduced roles. The need of the hour amidst geopolitical headwinds is to reduce domination and to create greater space for dialogue, and the UN, if empowered, is uniquely positioned to conduct it. To thrive, the UN must reform, and the first of many steps would be the expansion of the UNSC, for broader representation, enhancing legitimacy in multipolarity. A failure to adapt, risks irrelevance, while success holds promises of a more equitable world. The UN needs to be revitalised, lest the winds scatter global stability. This article is authored by Sriparna Pathak, professor, China Studies and International Relations, Jindal School of International Affairs, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat.
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Putin Calls Zelensky the West's Illegitimate Puppet. Can He Talk Peace With Him?
If Russian President Vladimir Putin agrees to meet his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, as urged by President Trump, he will come face-to-face with a man he has spent 3½ years excoriating as an illegitimate leader and puppet. Negotiating directly with Zelensky would run sharply counter to the narrative Putin has carefully constructed and sold to Russians in an effort to justify his 2022 invasion of Ukraine: that the war is part of a broader conflict with the West in which Zelensky and his country are mere pawns. Trump's call for a meeting puts Putin in a bind. If he declines, he risks angering the U.S. president, who has already threatened him with more sanctions. But sitting down with Zelensky could damage him politically with the Russian elite and the broader public. Trump said Tuesday that he was working to bring the two leaders together as the next phase in his efforts to forge a lasting peace in Ukraine, but he nodded to the challenge at hand. 'They haven't been exactly best friends,' he said in an interview with Fox News, adding that Putin and Zelensky will have to iron out details of a possible meeting if they agree to one. The question of Putin's willingness to meet his Ukrainian counterpart has taken center stage following a Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and discussions Monday at the White House between Trump, Zelensky and European leaders. On Tuesday, Russian officials gave little indication they were working toward such a meeting. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said plans for any contacts between officials should be laid out 'with the utmost care.' Other Russian officials ridiculed Zelensky as an unserious politician. Agreement from Putin to meet Zelensky won't likely come quickly—or easily. He has dismissed the Ukrainian leader repeatedly as a servant of the West, and has insisted that various complex issues be solved before the two leaders sit down. He has also questioned Zelensky's legitimacy after he extended his mandate beyond the usual five-year term, citing the problems with holding an election during a war. Putin has questioned his authority to sign any peace agreement. Ukrainian servicemen installing antidrone nets in the eastern Donetsk region words 'For Russia' on a wall in Mariupol, which Russian forces captured from Ukraine in 2022. Putin has said a meeting between the two leaders should come at the end of a peace process—and more as a formality to sign the necessary documents. 'I'm ready to meet, but if it's some kind of final stage, so we don't sit there endlessly dividing things up, but bring this to an end,' he said in June. 'But we will need the signature of the legitimate authorities.' The issues also go far beyond Zelensky. Putin sees the war as part of a broader Russian push to relitigate grievances the country has felt since the end of the Cold War, analysts say. Putin's engagement with the Trump administration is part of an effort to secure an agreement that goes far beyond territorial concessions in Ukraine and concerns the very makeup of Europe's security architecture. 'For Putin, this is a much wider confrontation with the West. And Ukraine is a battlefield between Russia and the West,' said Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'In Putin's eyes, Zelensky is not a player,' she added. 'The fact Ukrainians are fighting at all is because of Western support.' Most important, a meeting with Zelensky could end the delicate dance Putin has performed around Trump's peace efforts. To avoid more punishing sanctions, the Kremlin leader has professed his desire for peace while escalating offensives have won Russian troops important gains in the country's east. A summit with Zelensky could bring an unwelcome moment of truth. 'A meeting could indicate that he's really willing to negotiate the end of this war, and I don't think he's ready,' said Samuel Charap, veteran Russia watcher and senior political analyst at Rand Corporation. The first and only time Putin met Zelensky was in 2019 at a very different moment in Russian-Ukrainian relations. At the time, Putin appeared to have high hopes for a relationship with his newly elected counterpart who had made peace with Russia a main campaign priority. The meeting between Putin and Zelensky was hailed as a step toward peace after Russia had seized Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine with soldiers and money. But far from being the start of a working relationship, disagreements erupted over the details of a peace deal, including disengagement across the front line. Ties quickly deteriorated thereafter and the two haven't met since. Since the start of the war, Zelensky has believed that he could make headway in his relationship with Putin if he could sit down face-to-face with the Kremlin leader, but he has also drawn the ire of Moscow by issuing a vaguely worded decree that calls talks with the Kremlin leader impossible. To satisfy Trump and Zelensky's own desire to meet, Putin has said he isn't opposed to talking face-to-face, but that various conditions would need to be met, including signals from Kyiv that it is ready to make serious concessions. Zelensky, for his part, has shown openness to meet without preconditions, most recently abandoning an earlier demand for a cease-fire to facilitate talks. 'If Ukraine begins setting various preconditions for a meeting—including justified ones regarding a cease-fire—then the Russians will present 100 of their own,' he said after his meeting with Trump and European leaders in Washington on Monday. 'I think we should meet without conditions and explore what further progress there can be on this path to ending the war.' Zelensky has successfully used the Kremlin leader's resistance against him. In May, Trump had expressed his desire for Putin to come to Turkey where he could meet face-to-face with Zelensky. When Putin passed up the chance, Zelensky flew into Turkey and bemoaned how the Kremlin was 'too afraid' to meet. This time, however, the political stakes are higher, adding pressure on the Kremlin leader. With rising demands from Trump and European leaders, Moscow has hinted it will double down on its refusal and continue to paint Zelensky as a dilettante that Putin shouldn't stoop to meet. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova went on the offensive on Tuesday to level accusations against the Ukrainian leader to justify Putin's own refusal to meet. Ultimately, analysts say, Putin is likely to pour cold water on the idea of a meeting without actually refusing one outright—a strategy he has previously deployed in response to calls for a cease-fire. Agreement over maximalist peace terms that Russia handed to Ukraine in Istanbul, according to Stanovaya, is likely to serve as Moscow's precondition for a meeting. Those terms include Ukraine's disarmament, political neutrality, and abandonment of its aspiration to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 'What Putin will say now is 'let's do it,' but first we need to talk about common documents we can finalize in such a meeting,' she said. 'And we'll find ourselves in the same situation as before the Alaska summit.' Write to Thomas Grove at and Matthew Luxmoore at Putin Calls Zelensky the West's Illegitimate Puppet. Can He Talk Peace With Him?
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump-Putin summit: Legacy of US-Russia personal diplomacy
The summit between President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin, held on August 15, 2025, at Alaska's Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson, stands out both for its symbolic significance and the formidable challenges it sought to address. Set against the backdrop of Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine, this rare meeting marked Putin's first official visit to the US in a decade and the first time a Russian leader engaged in direct, high-level talks with the US on American soil since before the 2022 invasion. The stakes were immense: Russia's pariah status, underscored by an ICC arrest warrant for Putin, cast a shadow over the proceedings, while Trump, recently returned to office, aimed to demonstrate his capacity as a dealmaker and peacemaker in the world's most intractable conflict. US President Donald Trump (Bloomberg) Preparations for the summit were meticulous, signaling both the seriousness and the tension surrounding the event. Putin's travel route was shrouded in secrecy, a stark contrast to traditional state visits, and the presence of fighter jets and heightened security underscored both the risk and the hoped-for breakthrough. The meeting itself was staged with diplomatic choreography, red carpet, military courtesies, and a star-studded team that included US secretary of state Marco Rubio and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov joining the expanded discussions after an initial one-on-one session between Trump and Putin. The central agenda was ambitious yet sharply focused: seeking a ceasefire or at least a significant de-escalation in Ukraine. Reports suggest Trump played the role of mediator and negotiator, pushing for terms that could bring about a pause in fighting. However, the outcome reflected the entrenched complexity of the situation. Despite productive talks, both sides candidly acknowledged that a comprehensive agreement had not been reached. Trump, in his post-meeting remarks, emphasized ongoing dialogue with NATO allies and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and projected confidence that discussions would yield fruit eventually. Putin, while highlighting new understandings, reiterated his view that direct US-Russia talks were long overdue but left specifics purposefully vague. The historical echoes of this summit are unavoidable. From the dramatic Reykjavik meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev in 1986, where the world teetered on the edge of a sweeping nuclear disarmament breakthrough, to the tense, sometimes secretive, Cold War summits held at key junctures, high-level dialogue has always reflected both hope and peril. More recently, Trump and Putin's own summit in Helsinki in 2018 raised hackles among allies for its secretive tone and ambiguous outcomes, a template not unlike what unfolded in Anchorage. The pattern of personal engagement, leaders attempting to bypass layers of diplomatic bureaucracy has carried the dual risks of unpredictable breakthroughs and missed opportunities for substantive, lasting change. International reaction to the Alaska summit mixed cautious relief with skepticism. Allies in Europe and officials in Kyiv closely scrutinised the proceedings, wary that any perceived softening of US policy might embolden Russia or weaken Ukraine's position. Markets, particularly those intertwined with Russia's sanctioned energy sector, closely monitored every announcement, as India and other oil importers faced immediate commercial consequences when Trump signaled stricter US tariffs on Russian oil as a negotiating tool. Yet, despite the media's breathless coverage and the leaders' attempts to cast the summit as 'historic,' critics, especially in Ukraine and opposition circles in the West, lamented that the lack of a breakthrough risked being interpreted as a lifeline for Putin's ongoing military campaign. At its core, the Alaska summit laid bare the limits of leader-driven diplomacy. While face-to-face meetings can serve as vital channels for communication, particularly when broader relations have sunk to historic lows, the notion that complex, entrenched conflicts can be resolved by force of personality alone has rarely withstood the test of time. History warns us that the substance behind the symbolism is what ultimately shapes outcomes. The 2025 Trump-Putin meeting, for all its drama and significance, ended with more questions than answers and illustrated the stubborn durability of deep strategic divides. Both leaders returned home claiming some measure of progress, but substantive change, true ceasefire, withdrawal of troops, or a broader strategic realignment, remained as elusive as ever. Ultimately, the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska joins a long and often fraught lineage of US-Russia summits: Moments where the spotlight of diplomacy is brightest, but the shadows of history often prove formidable. Whether future rounds will yield real transformation or more choreography depends not just on the willingness of powerful men to talk, but on their capacity and credibility to forge peace from conflict. This article is authored by Kamakshi Wason, global COO and director, academic programme, Tillotoma Foundation, Kolkata.
