logo
Digested week: Anti-Trumpism at the Met Gala – and some amazing gnashers

Digested week: Anti-Trumpism at the Met Gala – and some amazing gnashers

The Guardian09-05-2025

More by happenstance than planning, perhaps, the Met Gala, which took place in New York on Monday night, struck a note that seemed stridently to oppose Donald Trump. The theme of the evening, devised to advertise the Costume Institute's new exhibition, Superfine: Tailoring Black Style, was Black dandyism – an apparently defiant push back against Trump's executive order removing initiatives to promote, 'so called 'under-represented groups'.' Even if the theme had been planned before Trump's re-election, it was surely great to see.
It was also a rare example of politics coinciding with the $75,000-a-head fundraiser in a way that wasn't completely tone deaf. The memory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez using the Met Gala to advertise the slogan 'Tax the Rich' – and in the process comprehensively lose control of her message – probably contributed to Kamala Harris's decision on Monday to slip in through a side door rather than risk the red carpet. (Harris was dressed in a black and white silk gown by Ib Kamara, while Doug Emhoff, her husband, wore a tux by Brunello Cucinelli).
Other stand outs of the evening: Colman Domingo's fabulous floor length cape by Valentino; Madonna's white suit and cigar (her first time at the Met Gala in seven years and the 67-year-old's still got it); and Janelle Monáe and Whoopi Goldberg splendid in Thom Browne. Meanwhile Anna Wintour, the organiser and host, enjoyed what appears to be her annual public outing without sunglasses while flamboyantly performing her 2020 resolution – made in the face of accusations of racial insensitivity at Vogue – that she is 'committed to doing the work.'
I say this with love (not really): what's up with Steve Carell's gnashers? The actor appears in Tina Fey and Tracey Wigfield's new eight part Netflix comedy, The Four Seasons, in which three couples spend a year going on holiday with each other to talk about the health of their marriages and nothing else.
The show is long, boring, and apparently devised by people who haven't had even the most glancing interaction with the world everyone else inhabits for a very long time – but it's still Tina Fey, which means that roughly every seven minutes there's a throwaway line that is funnier than anything you'll find in a much better show.
Meanwhile the real star of the show is Carell's amazing veneers, which, like the old Victoria Wood joke about Deidre Barlow's perm getting shorter and tighter with each episode of Coronation Street ('Come home, Ken, it's up to me glasses!') seem to get more prominent with each public appearance. They draw one's attention to Carell's mouth in a way at this point in the 62-year-old actor's career, that is deserving of their own credit.
Barry Diller, the businessman and media mogul who has been married to Diane von Furstenburg for 24 years, makes the brave decision at the age of 83 to come out as what his generation would call an 'openly gay man'. It's a reveal he has chosen to make in his forthcoming memoir, Who Knew, in which he writes about the suffering he went through while hiding his sexuality for fear that it would stunt 'any chance of my having a fulfilling personal life,' a sense of powerlessness that often overwhelmed him. (Diller's been a billionaire since the 1990s).
Who knows what Diller's deal with Von Furstenburg really is, but I can tell you that sublimating his sexuality for the social capital of being 'normal' isn't something a lot of gays, including this one, are particularly fond of, although of course everyone is on their own unique journey etc. You see it a lot in born again lesbians who have their kids with men for reasons of social and financial expediency, then pop out the other side wanting a medal, and in men who make the brave decision to acknowledge the truth about their lives, supportive wives rictus-faced by their sides. At least Diller, in excerpts from the book, seems to acknowledge that aspects of his conduct over the years have constituted the 'opposite of courage,' so well done, OK, whatever.
Speaking of fancy gents: conclave! You go for years without saying the word 'conclave' and then it's the only word you use for a solid two weeks. Politico reports that before the election of a new pope on Thursday, some of the 133 cardinals participating in the conclave – many for the first time – sneaked a look at the 2024 movie starring Ralph Fiennes as an ambitious cardinal running a conclave as a primer on how the process might go.
Meanwhile the elevation of the cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as the first American pope throws up certain delicious possibilities. Pope Leo XIV, as he will be known, made his address on Thursday in Spanish and what Channel 4 news called 'American accented' Italian – bit rude, but anyway notably no English. Still, American he is, from the South Side of Chicago, prompting the New York Times to ask the vital question – White Sox or Chicago Cubs? – and the Free Press to speculate, happily, that we now live in a world in which the pope 'might have a Costco membership'.
The news that Brits apparently apologise up to nine times a day is, sorry, a classic example of under-reporting. The findings, from a survey by Interflora, found that 90% of the 2,000 respondents admitted to routinely apologising for things that weren't their fault, resulting in an annual apology-count of 3,285 a year. Triggers included squeezing past someone in a queue, summoning help at the self-check out, and sneezing, which is all well and good but overlooks the standard preface made by any British person embarking on a statement, 'Um, sorry', or the hair trigger need to panic apologise to inanimate objects you may have bumped into.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australia must resist US bullying to increase its military spending
Australia must resist US bullying to increase its military spending

The Guardian

time31 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Australia must resist US bullying to increase its military spending

The US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, may not be the sharpest tool in President Trump's tool kit. But, in the great American tradition, he is a top hustler. In an arrogant display that would have won Trump's approval, Hegseth blustered his way around the Shangri-La conference in Singapore's clammy weather last week in what resembled an ugly American charm offensive. He omitted tariffs, though these were front of mind for everyone else. He told regional leaders that they bludged off America's generosity, getting security on the cheap and leaving it to America to do the heavy lifting of containing China by maintaining the strategic balance – whatever that might be. All they needed to do was invest much more in defence to help the US maintain its primacy. And behind his shrill calls for more money on bombs and their delivery systems was a growing US alarmism directed at China. Provocation is never a substitute for diplomacy, as any sharp player knows. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Hegseth spoke about the imminence of the China threat. America may well need an enemy to define its ambition and to sustain its sense of insecurity. But the question is: do we? The countries of south-east Asia have made their position pretty clear: they just do not believe it. Nor do they want to get sucked into a contest between titans. As the proverb has it, 'when elephants are dancing, grasshoppers get out of the way'. Hustlers evidently do not appreciate irony. Notwithstanding the claims of massive increases in China's defence spending, it runs a defence budget that hovers around 1.7% of GDP, compared with America's 3.4%. In dollar terms, China spends around USD 300bn per annum. America spends around USD 900bn, accounting for about 40% of global arms spending. These expenditures dwarf everyone else's. In the US case, they contribute to a deficit overhang bigger than its GDP. For our part, without any additional defence spending, we are already the 12th largest contributor to the global industrial-military complex. It should not have been a surprise that Australia's defence minister, Richard Marles, like other regional defence leaders, found himself cornered at Shangri-La. Marles, whose exposure to knucklers is limited to the polite exchanges for which ALP factional leaders are renowned, might have thought that he had to accommodate Hegseth's demand that Australia ramp up its defence spending to 3.5% of GDP forthwith – almost double our present defence budget. Inveterate verbalist that he is, Marles was not going to be badgered into submission. He did not agree to a figure, but he did agree to Hegseth's arguments, saying that Australia would consider the proposal. In the bracing temperatures of Hobart, however, Anthony Albanese had other ideas. In sharply defined comments that might have been channelling John Howard's 'we will decide who comes to this country' a quarter of a century ago, Albanese proclaimed that Australia would determine its defence budget for itself and decide on what capabilities Australia needs. Albanese went further and cut to the heart of the problem: setting an arbitrary rate – a percentage of GDP – is no way to calculate budget priorities. As prime minister, Albanese presides over the cabinet that assesses the competing bids of portfolio ministers – health, education, childcare, aged care, redressing inequality, defence and the rest. He knows better than anyone that there are only three ways to increase expenditure: raise taxes; cut services; increase debt, or a bit of each. He also knows that the Australian economy is in structural deficit, as treasury secretary Steven Kennedy pointed out just last week. Pressures on the commonwealth and state budgets are climbing, with stewardship becoming an increasingly key indicator of government performance. Albanese understands that setting arbitrary spending targets, rather than balancing needs, priorities and resources, only encourages the fattening of sacred cows and the bloating of pork-barrels. As he pointed out, the government has provisioned an additional $10bn for defence over the forward estimates, with the eye-watering costs of Aukus looming over future budgets for future governments. As it heads into Australia's48th parliament, the government finds itself caught in the cleft stick of an increasingly fluid international scene and growing economic headwinds, due in no small measure to the US. Throwing money around at fears – rather than allocating it judiciously to needs – does not reward the voter confidence that the government's massive majority would indicate. Let us all hope that Albanese can maintain his poise and resist the strident calls for military boosterism. Allan Behm is the author of No Enemies, No Friends and The Odd Couple (both by Upswell). He is a special adviser at the Australia Institute

Longtime NBC News host reveals severe act of retribution after he criticized Trump during first term
Longtime NBC News host reveals severe act of retribution after he criticized Trump during first term

Daily Mail​

time32 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Longtime NBC News host reveals severe act of retribution after he criticized Trump during first term

Chuck Todd has revealed how he was the target of a serious act of retaliation shortly after drawing the ire of President Trump during his first term. Speaking during a wide-ranging interview with Times Radio, the NBC News anchor said he walked outside his Arlington, Virginia home to discover his tires were slashed on his vehicle. He said the incident was directly connected to the fact he was publicly called out by Trump during the early years of his administration. The disturbing disclosure is just the latest reminder of how volatile the political climate can be for journalists who find themselves on the receiving end of Trump's notorious public rebukes. Todd, a veteran anchor and former moderator of NBC's Meet the Press and who quietly left the network earlier this year said he addressed the fallout directly with the president at the time. According to Todd, Trump shrugged off the consequences, brushing aside concerns about security threats. Todd's comments come amid growing concern over the security risks faced by public officials, journalists, and even judges who have been publicly criticized by Trump. He noted how the number of people in Washington DC now requiring personal security details is higher than at any point in his three decades of covering politics. Todd's account underscores the danger that can accompany the president's signature practice of singling out perceived enemies, a tactic critics have long warned could inflame supporters and provoke harassment or worse. While Todd stopped short of directly blaming Trump for inciting violence, the implication was clear - and that presidential rhetoric has real-world consequences. The broader conversation with Times Radio touched on Trump's ongoing influence over the Republican Party, his controversial use of tariffs, and his combative approach to governing - all themes that dovetailed with Todd's reflections on the precarious state of political discourse. Todd's experience is not an isolated one. In recent years, threats against journalists, judges, lawmakers, and even election workers have surged. For Todd, the slashed tires were a stark reminder of a reality where being publicly criticized by the president could translate into personal danger at one's own front door. In his second term, Trump has continued to deploy fiery rhetoric against opponents, critics, and institutions alike. Todd, who left NBC to launch his independent Chuck Toddcast podcast, has remained a vocal critic of the former president, frequently calling out what he sees as the erosion of democratic norms and the corrosion of political civility. On his new platform, Todd has warned that the risks journalists face today are more severe than at any point in recent history - not simply because of the increasingly polarized political climate, but because powerful figures have normalized the targeting of individuals in ways that endanger their personal safety. During his tenure at the helm of Meet The Press, Todd frequently clashed with President-elect Donald Trump. Trump frequently called Todd 'Sleepy Eyes' on social media and dubbed the show 'Meet the Depressed.' In 2020, Trump called for Todd to be fired, complaining 'Meet the Press' performed a 'sleazy hit job' on Attorney General William Barr. Trump let loose after the program admitted to 'inadvertently cutting short' a sound bite from Barr when he was responding to a question about the dismissal of charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. 'He should be FIRED by Concast. If done by a Republican, would be 'prosecuted,"' Trump said on X. During a campaign rally near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2018, Trump called Todd a 'son of a b***h.' Trump dubbed the show 'Meet the Depressed' after Todd accused loyalist senator John Kennedy of 'spreading Vladimir Putin's lies' in a heated on-air clash in 2019. The loss of Todd is undoubtedly a big one for NBC, as he appeared on many of its channels to provide political expertise. He joined NBC News in 2007 as a political director, before being named the network's chief White House corresponded in 2008. Six years later, he was promoted to lead Meet the Press, succeeding fellow fixture David Gregory in doing so. He expanded the program by doing a regular daytime hour on MSNBC called 'MTP Daily,' a program that was eventually moved over to the live-streaming service NBC News Now. The ended when he was replaced by Welker in June of 2023 after such time he had a far less prominent role.

Trump's border czar sounds alarm on major terror attack: 'I'm convinced something's coming'
Trump's border czar sounds alarm on major terror attack: 'I'm convinced something's coming'

Daily Mail​

time38 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Trump's border czar sounds alarm on major terror attack: 'I'm convinced something's coming'

Trump's border czar Tom Homan declared on Monday night that the United States is under threat of an imminent 9/11-style terror attack due to Joe Biden 's failed immigration policies. Homan - who oversees Trump's mass deportation initiative - cited the staggering number of immigrants who evaded capture, called 'gotaways,' as the nation's greatest looming security vulnerability. 'It's coming,' Homan said bluntly on Fox News. 'I'm convinced something's coming unless we can find them. It's only a matter of time.' Homan described the situation as the most preventable national security threat in American history and one he believes could rival, or even surpass, the devastation of 9/11 if the government doesn't act swiftly. Over the past four years, millions of migrants have either turned themselves in or evaded capture entirely, overwhelming the country's immigration infrastructure. But Homan says what keeps him up at night are the two million illegals who avoided apprehension altogether with many paying smugglers premium fees to evade authorities. 'These two million known gotaways scare the hell out of me,' Homan admitted. 'They crossed the border. We don't know where they are now. 'They could have paid half of what they paid to cross the border, turn themselves in, get released the same day, get a free airline ticket, a hotel room, three meals a day, free medical care, and work authorization. But they didn't. They paid to avoid being fingerprinted, to avoid being vetted. Why?' Homan questioned. 'This should scare the hell out of every American. I've been doing this for 40 years. I've never seen anything like this,' Homan said. 'This is the biggest national security vulnerability this country has ever seen,' he went on. 'And thanks to what they did in just four years, we'll be dealing with the consequences for the next decade.' The gravity of Homan's warning was amplified by real-world events just one day earlier. In Boulder, Colorado, 12 people were wounded in an antisemitic terror attack carried out by a man using Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower. The suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is a 45-year-old Egyptian national who entered the US on a tourist visa in 2022, later obtained asylum protections, and was issued a work permit - all under Biden-era immigration policies. But his work visa expired in March, making him illegally present in the country at the time of the attack. Homan seized on the attack as proof of what he called the Biden administration's reckless approach to immigration. 'Even through the legal process, the Biden administration was bringing people in unvetted, handing out work visas like they're candy,' he said. While Biden campaigned in 2020 on restoring America's image as a haven for the persecuted, his administration's policies soon faced backlash from both political opponents and Democratic-led cities burdened by the sheer number of incoming migrants. As the crisis deepened, Biden's team shifted strategies combining tougher asylum rules with new pathways for legal migration. Still, arrests at the border skyrocketed to historic levels during his tenure before declining ahead of Trump's inauguration for a second term in January. Homan's warnings come as the Trump administration touts its sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration: new mass deportation efforts, expanded ICE raids, and even the use of US military planes to deport migrants - in some cases sending them to the Guantanamo Bay detention center or El Salvador. Since Trump's return to office, about 6,500 active-duty troops have been deployed to the southern border, a massive increase over previous years. While these troops don't directly interact with migrants, they assist Border Patrol in surveillance and detection operations, a necessary reinforcement as the administration grapples with the fallout from what Homan calls 'four years of chaos.' Critics argue that Biden's policies and his decision to hand immigration responsibilities to Vice President Kamala Harris early in his first term created an enforcement vacuum. Harris, tasked with addressing the 'root causes' of migration, made a single trip to the border nearly six months into Biden's presidency, drawing criticism from opponents for what they saw as a lack of urgency. Homan says only now are the consequences becoming apparent. 'We are looking for the bad guys while protesters assault ICE officers and members of Congress grandstand outside our facilities,' Homan fumed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store