Trump's latest grift leaves us with one question: What does a Trump fragrance smell like?
The announcement came Monday in the same way so many announcements from Trump do — via Truth Social.
"Trump Fragrances are here. They're called 'Victory 45-47' because they're all about Winning, Strength, and Success — For men and women," the President of the United States wrote. "Get yourself a bottle, and don't forget to get one for your loved ones too. Enjoy, have fun, and keep winning!"
The 3.3 fl oz bottle retails for $249 on the official website. The image suggests that each perfume/cologne bottle has an image of a man in a suit on top. It's unclear whether that's supposed to represent Trump himself or not, even though the physique certainly bears no resemblance to the man himself.
The description further suggests that the fragrance is "inspired by President Trump's history win," with the perfume claiming to capture "confidence, beauty, and unstoppable determination" and the cologne blending "rich, masculine notes with a refined, lasting finish."
In other words, we have no idea what the scents actually are.
— (@)
x.com
It's a good bet that the official site didn't bother describing the fragrances because the sort of people who would jump at the chance to drop $249+ on Trump-themed perfume or cologne are unlikely to actually care about anything beyond proving their MAGA loyalty anyway. But where there are gaps, others are more than happy to fill in the blanks, and it didn't take long for people on social media to start theorizing as to what these pricy fragrances actually smell like.
Here are some of our favorites:
— (@)
x.com
From the man who's always full of shit!
— (@)
x.com
The idea that this scent is perfectly formulated to mask the "evil, rotting soul" underneath is 10/10, no notes.
— (@)
x.com
Don't sniff too much of it.
— (@)
x.com
You know, because the Commander-in-Chief has a tendency To Always Chicken Out.
— (@)
x.com
Specifically, the smell of the US Constitution set on fire.
— (@)
x.com
Do grifts even have a scent? Well, they do now! It's just too bad MAGAs still couldn't smell them, even right under their noses.
This article originally appeared on Pride: Trump's latest grift leaves us with one question: What does a Trump fragrance smell like?
This buff candle smells like 'the sexiest NFL player's jockstrap' and we're VERY interested
Amandla Stenberg Stars in Dreamy New Stella McCartney Fragrance Film
Gucci Enlists Elliot Page For His First-Ever Fragrance Campaign
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged on July 19 he's unlikely to satisfy the clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein. Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media. 'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.' 'But we want all the files,' Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?' Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Will the 2028 Democratic nominee be ‘none of the above'?
Did you hear the one where former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028? Neither have I. Nor have any Democrats I speak with who concern themselves with real-world politics. In a recent poll from a company called Echelon Insights — which describes itself as 'erasing old industry lines that separate the process of conducting research from the tools to act on it' — Harris was leading the Democratic field with 26 percent of the primary vote, followed by Buttigieg at 11 percent, Newsom at 10 percent, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) at 7 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 6 percent. I have spoken with numerous Democrats in or around the business of politics over the last few months. Not one believes that Harris will — or should be — the nominee. Similarly, none believe the other four names topping the poll will be the standard-bearer come November 2028. As has been stated many times in the past, a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The same holds true for polling. Depending on where you poll and how you shade the questions, a poll can bolster the views and desires of one partisan entity over the other, be they Democrats or Republicans. As for a recent glaring example of such polling flaws — purposeful or innocent — look no further than the truly laughable final Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa Poll of the 2024 election season conducted by Selzer and Co. In a state Trump was heavily favored to win, the jaw-dropping poll showed Harris leading Trump 47 percent to 44 percent. Of course, Trump went on to crush Harris in Iowa by 13 points, meaning the poll was a whopping 16 points off. 'How,' curious minds wondered, 'could a legitimate poll be that far off?' Some, including Trump himself, openly speculated whether it had been a tactic to suppress the Republican vote in the state. Trump was rightfully so bothered by the massive and mysterious failure of that poll that he decided to sue pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register newspaper and its parent company Gannett. Although the suit was later dropped, Selzer chose to retire from the polling business. All that is to say that more and more people in the business put little stock in any of these polls. Of course, at some point, some Democrat is going to emerge as the frontrunner and then the eventual nominee. After Trump's decisive victory in 2024, every Democrat I spoke with believed their party would learn from its mistakes and tone-deafness and move back toward the center — back toward once again listening to the voices of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. Not only has the party not done so, but it has doubled and tripled down on 'woke' and 'DEI' rhetoric while still loudly pushing its main 'policy' plank from 2024: 'We hate Trump.' Of course, the 'we hate Trump' strategy did nothing to address the 'bread and butter' issues upending the lives of working-class and disenfranchised Americans in 2024 and it is doing less for them now. And yet, 'rising voices' such as Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) still invoke that strategy incessantly in egocentric attempts at gaining attention. Here is a suggestion for Democratic-leaning polling companies. Why not poll the minority, poor and disenfranchised constituents in the districts represented by Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett? Why not ask which 'bread and butter' emergencies either is fixing by appearing on show after show proclaiming their hatred of Trump? How has the 'leadership' of Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett improved the real lives of those constituents? Most Americans want to see those 'bread and butter' issues fixed. They don't live in entrenched and elite bubbles of entitlement. They exist in an often brutally tough world, in which many still must choose which necessity they will have to go without that month. They don't care if you 'hate Trump' or not. They want to feed and protect their children. And yet Democratic leaders still refuse to wrest control back from the far-left wing of their party. Why? Are they truly that afraid and intimidated by what really does amount to a tiny percentage of their base? In the meantime, the 2028 Republican Party bench could not be stronger. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all on the list. And guess what? Just as in 2024, all are laser-focused on the 'bread and butter' issues that most affect the quality of life of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. So who will be the Democratic nominee in 2028? As the internal battle for control of that party goes on, my money is still on 'none of the above.'
Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
USCIS ends key parole benefit, says immigration fees will rise ‘soon'
After eliminating several immigration programs and benefits established by the previous administration under Joe Biden, the government of Donald Trump has decided to end another key aid for those seeking to regularize their immigration status in the United States. An update from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also warns that new fees will 'soon' be implemented for certain immigration benefit applications. The decision regarding one of the most commonly used forms by parole recipients went into effect on Thursday, July 17, 2025. What benefit was eliminated by USCIS? USCIS released a new edition of Form G-1055, the Fee Schedule. In this edition, it eliminates the eligibility for a fee waiver for Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, Parole Documents and Arrival/Departure Records, for immigrants applying for parole under the following categories: ▪ Initial Request for Arrival/Departure Record for Parole In Place (PIP), for noncitizens currently in the United States. ▪ Re-parole Requests for individuals who had previously received a period of parole under the PIP program. Read more: 'A privilege, not a right': Trump administration puts green card holders on notice From now now, those submitting these applications will have to pay the current fee of $630, as stated in the updated G-1055 document. Requirements for obtaining PIP vary by case, since the U.S. grants different types of temporary stay permits, ranging from family members of U.S. military personnel to individuals who qualify for humanitarian reasons. In 2024, the Biden administration proposed expanding parole in place to undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens who met certain requirements, such as having lived in the country for a minimum number of years. An estimated 500,000 people could have benefited from that measure, but a federal court in Texas blocked the process, known as the Keeping Families Together (KFT) initiative. USCIS announces increases to immigration fees On July 11, USCIS announced that it 'will soon begin charging new fees for certain immigration benefit requests.' 'We will provide details on the implementation of these fee changes in the coming days,' the agency noted, just before updating the parole in place form. These measures are part of the reforms promoted by President Trump as part of his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' budget plan, which was approved by the Senate. This legislation proposes sweeping changes to the immigration system, including: ▪ Stricter enforcement rules for immigration laws ▪ New restrictions on social benefits such as Medicaid or food stamps (SNAP) ▪ Increases in fees for essential immigration procedures, such as permanent residency, TPS and asylum applications.
