Donald Trump Spotted Wearing Glasses
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses in his motorcade over the weekend, a rare sighting of the president who reportedly avoids using them in public.
A photographer based in Northern Virginia captured the images and shared them on X, formerly Twitter. According to the photographer, the photos show Trump departing Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, on Sunday, a day after a round of golf.
Why It Matters
Trump, 79, who was the oldest president ever elected to a second term, has long been known to be very careful and savvy with his public image.
While it isn't uncommon for somebody his age to require glasses, there are few publicly available photos of Trump wearing glasses during his presidency. Sunday's images appear to mark the first such instance during his second term.
What To Know
President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses on June 29, 2025, as he departed Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia.
President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses on June 29, 2025, as he departed Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia.
Supplied/NorthernVirginiaPoliceCars
"President Donald J. Trump departs Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia following a round of golf with CIA Director John Radcliffe and Senators Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, and Eric Schmitt," professional police, fire, & EMS photographer, Northern Virginia Police Cars, posted on X on Sunday.
"POTUS is seen reading the paper in the back of his newer low-profile Suburban."
USA Today reported that Trump had played golf with the senators and Radcliffe before a Senate vote to debate the "Big Beautiful Bill."
The images show the president wearing his reading glasses, a white shirt, and a cream-colored "Make America Great Again" cap while seated in the back of the Chevrolet Suburban presidential limousine.
While it's unclear what he is reading from the photos, the president, according to a New York Times report in November 2019, has refrained from using reading glasses in front of others and rarely writes tweets himself in public.
Instead, then White House social media director Dan Scavino would draft and send tweets on Trump's behalf, often enlarging printed drafts to extra-large fonts for the president to review and approve.
One single-page article reportedly expanded to six pages once the font was enlarged to suit Trump's preferences.
Sunday's sighting marks what appears to be the first time in years—and the first during Trump's second term—that he has been publicly photographed wearing reading glasses.
He was also pictured in October 2017 wearing glasses while on his way back from the Trump National Golf Course. Before that, in January 2016, he wore glasses while campaigning in Cedar Falls, Iowa, as he read the lyrics to an song released by Al Wilson called "The Snake."
What People Are Saying
The images drew attention on social media. Some reactions on X included:
"Has ANYONE seen him in glasses before?"
"One of the few times I ever saw him with glasses on in public was his first 'The Snake' speech in Jan. 2016. I thought they looked good on him but he probably sees them as a sign of weakness."
"GLASSES?!? I've often wondered if he wore one."
"Rare glasses Trump...Rare form."
What Happens Next
According to Trump's public schedule, he's due to sign executive orders in the Oval Office Monday afternoon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
6 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Who is Senate parliamentarian? What to know about staffer Trump seeks to overrule
At the heart of the debate over the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' stands one little-known official: the Senate parliamentarian. The low-profile congressional official has been thrust into the spotlight after issuing a procedural decision on the GOP-backed spending bill, drawing sharp responses from some Republicans. President Donald Trump himself has even weighed in, calling for the 'unelected senate staffer' to be ignored. Who is the Senate parliamentarian? What powers do they have? And why are Republicans up in arms? Here is what to know. Who is the parliamentarian? The Senate parliamentarian is a nonpartisan advisor who makes recommendations to lawmakers regarding the interpretation of rules and precedents in the upper chamber. The role was established in 1935 amid the passage of a slew of New Deal-era laws, which 'expanded opportunities for procedural confusion and mischief,' according to Senate records. The parliamentarian is appointed by the Senate majority leader and serves at their pleasure, according to the National Constitution Center. The official's rulings are not necessarily final. The presiding officer of the Senate — typically the vice president or the president pro tempore — can simply ignore their advice, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. This has happened a few times in recent history, including in 2017, when GOP lawmakers changed Senate rules to allow Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority. That said, the Senate typically adheres to the parliamentarian's guidance, according to Time. This included in 2021, when the staffer rejected Democrats' attempt to include a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the 'Build Back Better' bill. Currently, the office of the parliamentarian is held by Elizabeth MacDonough, who has served in the position since 2012. She was appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. MacDonough formerly worked at the Senate library and as a trial attorney, according to the Wall Street Journal. She also advised former Vice President Al Gore during a recount dispute following the 2000 election. Why are Republicans upset? Some Republicans expressed outrage at the parliamentarian after she issued rulings on the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which is currently being considered by the Senate, following its passage in the House in May. In late June, MacDonough ruled that a series of provisions in the bill violate the Senate's Byrd Rule, which prohibits 'extraneous' provisions from being included in budget reconciliation bills. One such provision would have charged immigrants a $1,000 fee to apply for asylum in the U.S., according to The Hill. MacDonough also ruled against several provisions that affect Medicaid. One was a proposed cap on provider taxes, which states use to fund Medicaid, according to CNBC. Another would block noncitizens from accessing Medicaid in addition to other health programs, according to USA Today. In response to these proposed changes, multiple GOP lawmakers telegraphed their frustration with MacDonough. 'The WOKE Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and advised Al Gore, just STRUCK DOWN a provision BANNING illegals from stealing Medicaid from American citizens,' Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican from Alabama, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on June 26. 'THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP.' Rep. Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, also singled out MacDonough for criticism. 'How is it that an unelected swamp bureaucrat, who was appointed by Harry Reid over a decade ago, gets to decide what can and cannot go in President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill?' he wrote on X. He then called on Vice President JD Vance — using his power as the presiding officer in the Senate — to ignore the proposed changes. Trump appeared to concur with this view. 'Great Congressman Greg Steube is 100% correct,' he wrote on Truth Social on June 29. 'An unelected Senate Staffer (Parliamentarian), should not be allowed to hurt the Republicans Bill. Wants many fantastic things out. NO!' However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, poured cold water on the push to sideline MacDonough. When asked by Politico about overruling her on June 26, Thune said, 'No, that would not be a good option for getting a bill done.' Meanwhile, other Republicans have defended MacDonough. North Carolina Sen. Thom Thillis, who recently announced he will not seek reelection, called her a 'straight shooter,' according to Reuters. And Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy told reporters, 'Nah, never overrule the parliamentarian.'
Miami Herald
6 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Minnesota agriculture institute joins lawsuit against USDA to save grant funding
WASHINGTON - A Minnesota agriculture group says the Trump administration's canceling of so-called DEI grants in farm country broke the law and imperiled a food network initiative's future, in a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis joined other farm sector non-profits who said last week in a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Agriculture slashed grants for DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion - haphazardly and without individual review, violating federal law. The grants are intended to promote DEI efforts, from a San Francisco Bay Area initiative to boost LGBTQ and multiracial farmers to a New York soil health program. In Minnesota the IATP's grant for $111,695 to finance the MinnieAg Network, including tools for bridging farmers with food and ag industry officials, was terminated just six months from the finish line. That forced the organization to spend $30,000 from its own pocket to finish the grant's goals. "The abrupt and unexpected cancelation of our grant comes at a critical juncture just before we were planning to finalize our 'Farm and Food Systems 101′ resources to make this information available to all," said Erin McKee VanSlooten, Community Food Systems program director at IATP. VanSlooten said the cuts amount to "negating" 18 months of work, and she worries about the program's future. Upon taking office in January, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders aiming to root out government funding for equity, sustainability and diversity programs under the charges that such programs were discriminatory or wasteful. According to the ag groups' lawsuit, when USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted to X that she'd cancelled a grant in the Bay Area to "educate queer, trans and BIPOC urban farmers and consumers about food justice," she said her agency would refocus around "American farming, ranching and forestry." The lawsuit alleges staff at USDA did not properly review programs and the agency could not revoke funding previously granted. The plaintiffs cover a wide swath of agriculture groups working to build pathways for non-traditional farmers to enter the industry, improve soil health and build climate and food resilience. One nonprofit's grant work aimed to build more trees in cities to provide buffers from the heat. Another sought to teach producers about no-till farming. The lawsuit names USDA, Rollins and other Trump administration officials, including the acting director of the Department of Government Efficiency. In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said they would not comment on pending litigation. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.
