Who Is Karoline Leavitt's Husband? Everything To Know About Nicholas Riccio
But less is known about Karoline's husband, Nicholas Riccio. Karoline has described her husband as her 'greatest supporter', but on the whole he prefers to keep a low profile.
Nicholas Riccio is a real estate developer who grew up in Hudson. He graduated high school and was a student at Plymouth State University. He told The Sunday Herald that he experienced financial insecurity during this time of his life.
'When I was 19 or 20, I would call my buddies to go over their houses to watch a game just so I could take a shower,' he told the outlet in 2005.
After taking a real estate course, he worked his way up to own his own company, Riccio Enterprises. In the interview with the Sunday Herald, he discussed his big ambitions. 'My work in real estate has helped facilitate my dream of owning a professional sports team. And that will happen one day in the near future,' he said.
Nicholas Riccio is 59 years old. This means there is a 32 year age gap between himself and Karoline, which has been the topic of much media attention. When the pair met, she was 25.
During an appearance on The Megyn Kelly show earlier this year, she said it's a 'very atypical love story' adding 'he's incredible.'
'He is my greatest supporter, he's my best friend and he's my rock,' she gushed. 'He's built a very successful business himself so now he's fully supportive of me building my success in my career.'
The couple met in 2022 when Karoline was running for a Congress seat in New Hampshire. She won the Republican nomination, she lost the election to Democrat Chris Pappas.
She told The Megyn Kelly Show: 'A mutual friend of ours hosted an event at a restaurant that he owns up in New Hampshire and invited my husband,' she recalled. 'I was speaking. We met and we were acquainted as friends.'
Karoline and Riccio tied the knot in January 2025, days before Trump's second inauguration. She shared pictures of her wedding, which took place at Wentworth By The Sea Country Club, on Instagram, captioning the post 'Finally found some time to post a few of my favorite pictures from one of my favorite days!'
While Nicholas is fully supportive of what he does, Karoline doesn't share much of their private life on social media, as her husband prefers to keep a low profile.
'He's an introvert (complete opposite of me),' she told followers. 'I respect his privacy on here—but he's my number one fan, the best dad, and just the best man I've ever met.'
Yes, Karoline and Nicholas welcomed a son, Nicholas Robert Riccio, on July 10, 2024. Karoline shared the happy news on her Instagram, where she accompanied adorable pictures with the caption: 'It's true when they say there's nothing comparable to the love you feel for your child.'
She continued: 'My heart has grown bigger than I ever imagined possible. Babies are the ultimate blessing and I'm bursting with gratitude for our beautiful, happy, healthy boy.'
Karoline was on maternity leave during Trump's assassination attempt - something she said motivated her to return to work quickly. In an interview with The Conservator, she explained she was grateful that Ricco had a flexible work schedule so he could help with childcare while she went back to work.
'Leaving the baby every day to go to work, it does break your heart,' she said. 'It's incredibly challenging emotionally, physically, spiritually.'
Alice Hall is the Staff Writer at Grazia UK. She was previously a Junior Features Writer for The Daily Telegraph. At Grazia, she writes news and features about pop culture, dating, health, politics and interiors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Kamala Harris' book tour rolls out 15 stops - but where she's skipping is head-scratching
Former Vice President Kamala Harris announced Thursday a list of events to promote her memoir about the 2024 presidential race, titled '107 Days' which was the length of her losing campaign. Harris' list of tour stops predominantly includes deep-blue cities, and kicks off on September 24th in New York City, the day after her book is released. But the itinerary looks more like a safe space to pull in cash than a listening tour for a 2028 redo. Tickets for Harris' book parties - billed as a candid and personal recounting of 2024 - range from $75 over $331. 'Over the next few months, I will travel our country to share behind-the-scenes moments, lessons learned, and how we keep moving forward together,' the former vice-president said in the announcment. Notably, Harris wrote that the book tour was across 'our country' despite her route including a stop in Ontario, Canada, and one event across the pond in London. After the initial New York event, Harris will then travel to Philadelphia, followed by Los Angeles. In October, the former vice president will host events in Houston, San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Durham, North Carolina, Birmingham, Alabama, before heading to London for her first international stop. The list reads more like a pop star's tour schedule than like that of a political power player mulling a future presidential run. Notably missing are the 'blue wall' states of Michigan and Wisconsin. Other presidential swing states of Nevada and Arizona are also nowhere to be found. Out of the seven 2024 swing states, Harris is only hitting three. Harris is attempting to revitalize her public image after a devastating loss in the presidential race last year to Donald Trump. Trump won every swing state and beat Harris with a total of 312 electoral votes to 226. Reaction to Harris's announcement on X was mixed, with fans sharing excitement while others projected that the tour would not be a success. X user @jtatkins wrote 'if Kamala Harris were an artist, her management would already be talking about cancelling her tour. This is hometown after an hour of presale, hilarious,' posted with a screenshot of virtually all tickets still available to her event. Conservative X user Paul A. Szypula, with the handle @Bubblebathgirl, noted that 'Kamala Harris is going on tour to try to sell her lame '107 Days' book where she makes excuses for how she got obliterated in the election. This tour will be worse than when Hillary Clinton tried to do one. I'm so glad President Trump won.' X user Ashbama, posting under the handle @AshariExpresses wrote 'you mean to tell me Kamala Harris is coming to Houston as part of one of her stops for her book tour, BUT NO MEET & GREET!? All my hopes & dreams died today. There goes my full book tour experience.' The former vice president announced in July that she would not be running for governor of California in 2026, leaving the door open for a potential 2028 presidential bid. She followed up that announcement by previewing the release of the upcoming book about her 2024 campaign. The former vice-president's re-entry into public life comes as new analysis of Americans' voter registration habits points to potential long-term trouble for the Democratic Party. Data analyzed by the New York Times has revealed that the number of registered Democrats has declined in every state that tracks voter affiliation by party—a group that includes 30 of America's 50 states. The New York Times notes that explicitly, 'fewer and fewer Americans are choosing to be Democrats.' The Times attributes Trump's sweeping 2024 victory—including wins in every swing state and the national popular vote—to this very trend. Additional Harris tour locations include Portland, Oregon, Toronto, Canada, for her second foreign stop, followed by Nashville, Tennessee. The swing concludes in Miami on November 20th.
North Wales Chronicle
5 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Appeal court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against Donald Trump
The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost the president more than 515 million dollars (£382 million) and rock his property empire, was 'excessive'. The president, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory', adding: 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State.' After finding that Mr Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay 355 million dollars (£263 million) in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped 515 million dollars. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organisation executives including Mr Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr — now exceeds 527 million dollars (£391 million), with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Judge Engoron had also imposed other punishments, such as banning Mr Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during the appeal, and Mr Trump was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a 175 million dollar (£130 million) bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Judge Engoron imposed in its entirety while leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Mr Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last autumn. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York attorney general Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, had said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating and staggering fraud'. In a statement on Thursday, she focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company and two of his children are liable for fraud'. 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' she added. The president and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a months-long trial, Mr Trump said in January last year that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me'. He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by Ms James and Judge Engoron, who are both Democrats. The Justice Department has subpoenaed Ms James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. Her lawyer Abbe D Lowell has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign'. Mr Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements were not deceptive because they came with disclaimers noting they had not been audited. The defence also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, low estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, the president's lawyers said many of the case's allegations were too old, a claim they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defence also says Ms James misused a consumer protection law to sue Mr Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Mr Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state says the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others boost their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rested on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comported with Mr Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favourable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was one of several legal obstacles for Mr Trump as he campaigned, won and started a second term as president.
Glasgow Times
5 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Appeal court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against Donald Trump
The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost the president more than 515 million dollars (£382 million) and rock his property empire, was 'excessive'. The president, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory', adding: 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State.' After finding that Mr Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay 355 million dollars (£263 million) in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped 515 million dollars. Judge Arthur Engoron (Shannon Stapleton/AP) The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organisation executives including Mr Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr — now exceeds 527 million dollars (£391 million), with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Judge Engoron had also imposed other punishments, such as banning Mr Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during the appeal, and Mr Trump was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a 175 million dollar (£130 million) bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Judge Engoron imposed in its entirety while leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Mr Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last autumn. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York attorney general Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, had said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating and staggering fraud'. In a statement on Thursday, she focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company and two of his children are liable for fraud'. 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' she added. New York attorney general Letitia James (Yuki Iwamura/AP) The president and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a months-long trial, Mr Trump said in January last year that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me'. He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by Ms James and Judge Engoron, who are both Democrats. The Justice Department has subpoenaed Ms James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. Her lawyer Abbe D Lowell has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign'. Mr Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements were not deceptive because they came with disclaimers noting they had not been audited. The defence also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, low estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, the president's lawyers said many of the case's allegations were too old, a claim they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defence also says Ms James misused a consumer protection law to sue Mr Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Mr Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state says the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others boost their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rested on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comported with Mr Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favourable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was one of several legal obstacles for Mr Trump as he campaigned, won and started a second term as president.
