Trump-Jeffrey Epstein dancing sculpture mysteriously appears on National Mall
The White House has strongly condemned a controversial sculpture that recently appeared on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The artwork, depicting President Donald Trump dancing alongside convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has sparked outrage and drawn sharp criticism from officials. This golden television sculpture follows another anti-Trump installation that was unveiled on the National Mall just a week earlier. The National Mall witnessed another controversial sculpture where Trump is dancing with Jeffrey Epstein.(X)
Also Read: Jim Ryan resigns: Here's what led to UVA president's decision - timeline of events
The sculpture of a golden television shows clips of the president dancing in different locations and is adorned with a bald eagle. In one of the clips displayed on the TV, Trump was seen dancing next to Epstein, who was charged with sex trafficking minors in 2019. A plaque that rests at the base of the statue reads, 'In the United States of America you have the freedom to display your so-called art, no matter how ugly it is.' — The Trump White House, June 2025," as reported by the Irish Star.
Since the controversial sculpture was placed directly in the view of Capitol Hill, the White House lashed out at the mysterious artist.White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the Washington Post, 'Wow, these liberal activists masquerading as 'artists,' are dumber than I thought!'
She added, 'I've tricked them into taking down their ugly sculpture and replacing it with a beautiful video of the President's legendary dance moves that will bring joy and inspiration to all tourists traversing our National Mall. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Maybe they will put this on their next sculpture.'
Also Read: Jim Ryan resigns: Here's what led to UVA president's decision - timeline of events Who is the artist behind these anti-Trump sculptures?
The artist behind these sculptures is yet to be identified. According to the organizer's permit application filed with the National Park Service, the artwork aims 'to demonstrate freedom of speech and artistic expression using political imagery,' as reported by The Post. Earlier this month, another provocative piece titled Dictator Approved appeared on the National Mall. It was an 8-foot-tall sculpture featuring a giant thumbs-up crushing the head of the Statue of Liberty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
26 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump says presidency is a very dangerous profession, riskier than bull riding
US President Donald Trump, during an unscheduled press briefing at the White House on Friday, reflected on the dangers of holding the nation's highest office. His remarks came as he celebrated a major US Supreme Court ruling that limits the authority of federal judges to block presidential policies with nationwide to reporters, Trump mentioned he occasionally feels physical reminders of the July 13, 2024, incident when a bullet grazed his ear during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. "I get that throbbing feeling every once in a while," he said. "But you know what? That's okay. This is a dangerous business."advertisementTrump compared the dangers of being president to other dangerous professions. "You have race car drivers as an example, 1/10 of 1 per cent die. Bull riders, 1/10 of 1 per cent . That's not a lot, but it's - people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. Okay? This is, this is a very dangerous profession." Among the 45 US presidents, four have been assassinated, and some have endured severe threats or assaults. Trump is in his second term and has been targeted with numerous threats throughout and following his election ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS In addition to the July incident, Trump allegedly evaded another assassination attempt on September 15, 2024, while golfing at his West Palm Beach resort. The perpetrator in that incident faces five federal charges and has pleaded not guilty. The July shooter, in turn, was killed by Secret Service agents after he opened fire during the Pennsylvania event when one of the attendees was killed and two others were WITH IRAN Trump also cited past intelligence that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had planned to assassinate him, something Tehran denies. This is just days after US attacks on Iranian nuclear presidency has been characterised by vigorous rhetoric against political adversaries and a larger effort to increase executive power. On the basis of an investigation by Reuters, over 300 politically motivated acts of violence have happened in the U.S. since January 6, 2021, when a mob attacked the Capitol representing an intensely polarised and combustible period in American politics.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's Court Win Opens a Path to Clear Hurdles to His Agenda
The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair Game' 'Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a press conference in the White House Friday that the administration will 'promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and 'stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total 'retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple Paths 'It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. 'But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a US law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. 'This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. 'It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would 'assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. 'The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said. ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Economic Times
41 minutes ago
- Economic Times
‘Direct attack on US': Trump terminates trade talks with Canada over ‘egregious taxes' on tech firms
President Donald Trump said Friday that he's suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue with its tax on technology firms, which he called "a direct and blatant attack on our country." Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the US that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect Monday. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period," Trump said in his post. Show more 06:00 03:51 03:57 09:05 02:10 08:15 04:30 08:02 08:36 08:44 09:01 02:27 03:11 03:52 05:19 06:52 08:18 02:59 06:07 06:34 07:31 01:18 02:50 09:49 08:51 15:42 08:58 09:23 08:42 15:49 03:01 01:42 01:58
