Oh no! Hypocritical celebrities abandon US, blaming Trump. What will we do now?
I've never been so mad at a political party or a politician that I felt like leaving my country. I love America too much to even consider it.
But a slew of celebrities have done that. Late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel just announced during an appearance on the "The Sarah Silverman Podcast" on Aug. 7 that he obtained Italian citizenship. Kimmel alluded that President Donald Trump and the political climate he's created were contributing factors. It's not clear if Kimmel plans to move to Italy full time.
"What's going on is as bad as you thought it was going to be," Kimmel said to Silverman during the podcast.
"Way worse," Silverman said.
"It's so much worse. It's just unbelievable," Kimmel said about America's political climate. "Like I feel like it's probably even worse than he would like it to be."
Kimmel joins other celebrities who fled America and blame Trump
Kimmel joins several high-profile celebrities who have sought refuge elsewhere because of Trump. It's a fascinating example of how self-aggrandizement, celebrity and perception do not always equate to reality, common sense and gratitude. If anything, it fuels hypocrisy.
People magazine reported in 2024 that the comedian and former daytime talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, had moved to England. DeGeneres confirmed in July that Trump's return to the White House prompted her move across the Atlantic.
In March, comedian Rosie O'Donnell announced in a TikTok video that she moved to Ireland with her child. She's working on obtaining Irish citizenship. In the video, she said she moved because she didn't think she'd have equal rights under Trump.
If these celebrities' ties to our nation were so weak that they could be severed because Americans elected a Republican president, how much did they care about the United States to begin with? Were they ever really freedom-loving Americans?
Subscribe to my newsletterhere and get exclusive access to columns like this one – before anyone else
Celebrities who abandon the US are hypocrites
Celebrities are often hypocritical when it comes to their real lives, political beliefs and their careers. They'll claim they're anti-gun but make films with jarring violence and hire armed security for themselves. They'll tell other Americans how to vote − and it's mostly for Democrats − but live a lifestyle free of the economic and financial pressures that regular Americans face.
Celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer, Cher and Whoopi Goldberg threatened to leave America if Trump got elected in 2016, but they are still here. Perhaps they at least realize how silly it is to abandon their country because millions of their fellow citizens democratically elected a Republican into office. Perhaps they realized how hypocritical it was to live a life of luxury, thanks to America's free market principles, and then spit in its face because an election didn't go the way they wanted.
When O'Donnell says she fled to Ireland out of fear that Americans like her would lose their rights, what does that really mean? Trump has signed no executive orders and Congress has passed no laws that strip any Americans of their fundamental rights. Federal anti-discrimination laws remain in place to protect all Americans, including the LGBTQ+ community.
It's strange for someone like Kimmel, with a reported net worth of about $50 million, to flee the United States because of a supposedly difficult political environment. He still has a platform on network TV to ridicule Trump and other conservatives who don't support Kimmel's ultraprogressive opinions.
Trump, meanwhile, is doing what 77 million voters said they wanted in November. He's secured the southern border, brought illegal immigration under control, bolstered the economy and is working to secure peace in the Middle East and Ukraine.
If celebrities, or anyone else, want to flee the United States because a Republican is president, by all means, good riddance. If they can't appreciate the country that paved the way for their wealth and fame, and they want to believe they are victims of a difficult political climate, they deserve to wallow in their hypocrisy in a country that is a distant second to America's greatness.
Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@gannett.com and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What are Norwich mayoral candidates doing to increase voter participation?
If past behavior is a predictor of the future, it's likely that the Norwich mayoral election will have fewer than 50% of the eligible voters participate. In Norwich, presidential elections get better turnouts. In 2020 and 2024, 90% and 71% of eligible voters in the city cast a ballot. In 2021, 2022, 2023, 32%, 47%, and 31% of eligible voters turned out, according to data from the Norwich Registrar of Voters Office. It's unfortunate that non-presidential years get a lower turnout, mayoral candidate Stacy Gould (R) said. What are the candidates doing to get out the vote? 'I'm hoping that people with a vested interest in their city come out and vote on Nov. 4,' she said. Despite the lower voter turnouts in non-presidential years, mayoral candidate Swarnjit Singh (D) feels it's more important for the public to participate in local elections, as the decisions that impact someone's day-to-day life are at the local level, he said. 'You cannot pick up a phone and call the president of the United States of America, but you have the flexibility to call your mayor,' he said. How the candidates are working to get out the vote Singh, campaigning as Singh Swarnjit, said he's knocked on over 1,000 doors in the city to get support for his campaign. He also wants to knock on the doors of people who don't normally participate in politics, as civic education, including absentee ballots, early voting, and encouraging green card holders to become citizens, is a keystone of his campaign, he said. 'That's a lot of civic education that needs to be promoted,' he said. During his door-to-door campaigning, Singh recalls even being invited inside the houses of local Republicans to talk about the issues, he said. 'I feel its going in a good direction, but I'm not taking things for granted,' he said. When The Bulletin spoke to petitioning candidate Marcia Wilbur, she hadn't been made an official candidate yet by the state, but she wants to hold town halls and other events where voters can meet her, she said. 'I think I have a pretty good pulse on what's going on, but, I definitely need to meet and greet more with the public,' Wilbur said. When Wilbur was collecting signatures for her petitioning candidacy, she, a registered Republican, got a signature from a Democrat who said they'd be willing to help with her campaign, because they wanted to support change in local politics, she said. Gould is encouraging locals to register to vote, reminding people that the two-week early voting period is an option, she said. Gould has also utilized door-knocking, signs and meet and greets to reach the voters. Her efforts are going well so far, she said. Multiple local business owners have already asked Singh for campaign signs to show their support, even though, Singh normally doesn't put campaign signs out until September, he said. Those signs can be seen in downtown and elsewhere. This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: What are the Norwich mayoral candidates doing to engage voters?
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
What six wars did Donald Trump end? See the list of conflicts he claims as settled
As President Donald Trump continues to work toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, he is touting a record of settling six wars. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 18, before the meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House where he made a similar claim. "I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them," the social meda comment continued. But did Trump really end six wars in six months? Here is what we know: More: Trump caught on hot mic talking to Macron: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me' Has Trump ended six wars? Since Trump took office, the United States has been involved in five ceasefires or peace agreements, though not all parties involved credit the U.S. for the agreements. Those include: When asked about the sixth war Trump was referring to, the White House also cited Ethiopia and Egypt. However, there has neither been a war or a peace agreement between the countries, according to Axios. Trump dealt with a dispute between the two countries in his first term as they were feuding over a huge hydropowerdam, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt and Sudan have expressed concern that water flow to their part of the Nile River would be impacted, USA TODAY previously reported. Trump mentioned the countries in a July meeting with the NATO Secretary General where he rattled off other examples of settling wars. "We worked on Egypt with a next-door neighbor who is a good neighbor," he said. "They're friends of mine, but they happened to build a dam, which closed up water going into a thing called the Nile. I think if I'm Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile and we're working on that." The White House did not answer follow-up questions on how this constitutes a "settled war." More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up What happened at the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump? Zelenskyy's August trip to the White House had far fewer fireworks than the February visit, when he was berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In addition to Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attended the summit on Aug. 18. Zelenskyy, wearing a black suit instead of the military garb that drew comments in February, met with Trump in the Oval Office ahead of the wider group of foreign leaders. He also thanked Trump, something Vance had criticized Zelenskyy of not doing during the previous Oval Office spat. Trump then met with the European leaders in the White House East Room, saying they would know 'in a week or two weeks' if a deal to stop the fighting is possible. After the day of meetings with the European leaders, Trump called Putin to urge him to meet with Zelenskyy. Trump deemed it a step in the right direction. "Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy," he wrote on Truth Social. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years." Although the meeting showed strong European unity, it was unclear whether major progress toward peace was made. Trump said the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal, but did not clarify the extent of the commitment. He also appeared to dismiss the need for a ceasefire ahead of peace negotiations. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Bart Jansen, Zac Anderson, Francesca Chambers, Josh Meyer, Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
