Trump seeks 'major' probe of celebs who backed Harris
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump called Monday (May 19) for a "major investigation" into Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen and other celebrities, alleging they were paid millions of dollars to endorse his Democratic opponent in the 2024 election, Kamala Harris.
In a rant-filled diatribe that provided no evidence for his allegations, Trump charged, for instance, that Beyonce was paid US$11 million to appear at a Harris rally - reports the Democrat's team has denied.
Trump, six months after he beat Harris to launch a second term in the White House, said such payments could amount to illegal campaign contributions.
The US president alleged that for a Harris rally in late October in which the "Freedom" singer made an appearance, "Beyonce was paid $11,000,000 to walk onto a stage, quickly ENDORSE KAMALA, and walk off to loud booing for never having performed, NOT EVEN ONE SONG!"
Trump said this was "according to news reports".
At the time, Beyonce told the rally crowd that "I'm not here as a celebrity. I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother."
The US president said he intended "to call for a major investigation into this matter".
"Candidates aren't allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment," he said, while also alleging the Democrat was trying to "artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT'S NOT LEGAL!"
In her bid for the presidency, Harris sought to harness star power from celebrities such as Beyonce, Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey.
Winfrey has defended a US$1 million payment to her production company from the Harris campaign to cover costs associated with the talk show legend's production company hosting the presidential candidate at a rally in September.
The campaign listed one endorsement-related expenditure of US$75 in its financial reports to an environmental advocacy group.
Trump, who won the 2024 election comfortably, received scant support from the entertainment industry at large but tapped into a targeted subset of well-known, hypermasculine influencers including podcast host Joe Rogan.
The president on Monday accused Harris of paying rock star Springsteen to perform at a rally in Georgia weeks before the election.
"How much did Kamala Harris pay Bruce Springsteen for his poor performance during her campaign for president?" he wrote.
"Why did he accept that money if he is such a fan of hers?"
Trump last week took to Truth Social to feud with Springsteen after the star told a British concert audience that his homeland was now ruled by a "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration."
In return, the 78-year-old Republican said the star, nicknamed "the Boss," is "Highly Overrated."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
16 minutes ago
- Straits Times
US Supreme Court keeps Doge records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
The US Supreme Court extended its block on orders requiring Doge to turn over its records to a watchdog. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court extended on June 6 its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based US District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for Doge to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that Doge likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (Foia). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions 'are not appropriately tailored' and that 'separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications.' The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Ms Sonia Sotomayor, Ms Elena Kagan and Ms Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from June 6's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on June 6 permitted Doge broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. Doge has played a central role in Mr Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the US government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called Crew, said its intention was to shed light on what it called Doge's secretive structure and operations. Mr Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Mr Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Mr Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending Bill and played out dramatically on social media on June 5. Crew sued to obtain an array of records from Doge through the Foia statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on Doge's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programmes pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. The Trump administration contends that Doge is an advisory entity and not subject to Foia. In response, Crew sought information to determine whether Doge is subject to Foia because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Mr Cooper ruled in April that Doge must turn over some records sought by Crew and that the group was entitled to question Doge official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Mr Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. Crew told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president 'free reign' to create new entities that would 'functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws.' In one of his decisions, Mr Cooper said Doge's operations have been marked by 'unusual secrecy.' In another, the judge said that the language of Mr Trump's executive orders concerning Doge suggests that it is 'exercising substantial independent authority.' REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The US Supreme Court most recently let the Trump administration end temporary legal status provided to migrants for humanitarian reasons. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies – mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signalled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Mr Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Mr Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on May 30 lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Dr Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' he added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Mr Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Mr Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice – on April 7 and on May 16 – have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Mr Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention centre in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster', the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Professor Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, she said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States'. A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Mr Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return him to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government US$6 million ($7.74 million). Dr Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Dr Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Mr Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Prof Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' she said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Mr Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017 to 2021. The Supreme Court gave Mr Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Mr Trump's bid to end a programme that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants – often called 'Dreamers' – who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Mr Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship – a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being sent there. The judge on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Judge Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Dr Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
South Korea's Lee, Trump agree to work towards swift tariff deal, Lee's office says
SEOUL/WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump and South Korea's new president Lee Jae-myung agreed to work toward a swift tariff deal in their first phone call since Lee was elected this week, Lee's office said on Friday (Jun 6). Trump has imposed tariffs on South Korea, a long time ally with which it has a bilateral free trade deal, and pressed it to pay more for the 28,500 US troops stationed there. Separately, Trump allies have aired concerns about Lee's more conciliatory stance towards China, Washington's main geopolitical rival. Lee, a liberal, was elected on Jun 3 after former conservative leader, Yoon Suk Yeol, was impeached and ousted. The future of South Korea's export-oriented economy may hinge on what kind of deal Lee can strike with Trump, with all of his country's key sectors from chips to autos and shipbuilding heavily exposed to global trade. His term began on Wednesday. "The two presidents agreed to make an effort to reach a satisfactory agreement on tariff consultations as soon as possible that both countries can be satisfied with," Lee's office said in a statement. "To this end, they decided to encourage working-level negotiations to yield tangible results." Trump invited Lee to a summit in the US and they plan to meet soon, according to a White House official. Analysts say the first opportunity for the two to meet could be at a G7 summit in Canada in mid-June. Lee's office said the two leaders also discussed the assassination attempts they both experienced last year as well as their enthusiasm for golf. Lee underwent surgery after he was stabbed in the neck by a man in January last year, while Trump was wounded in the ear by a bullet fired by a would-be assassin in July. South Korea, a major US ally and one of the first countries after Japan to engage with Washington on trade talks, agreed in late April to craft a "July package" scrapping levies before the 90-day pause on Trump's reciprocal tariffs is lifted, but progress was disrupted by the change of governments in Seoul. Lee said on the eve of the elections that "the most pressing matter is trade negotiations with the United States." Lee's camp has said, however, that they intend to seek more time to negotiate on trade with Trump. While reiterating the importance of the US-South Korea alliance, Lee has also expressed more conciliatory plans for ties with China and North Korea, singling out the importance of China as a major trading partner while indicating a reluctance to take a firm stance on security tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Political analysts say that while Trump and Lee may share a desire to try to re-engage with North Korea, Lee's stance on China could cause friction with the US. A White House official said this week that South Korea's election was fair, but expressed concern about Chinese interference in what analysts said may have been a cautionary message to Lee. Speaking in Singapore last week, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said many countries were tempted by the idea of seeking economic cooperation with China and defense cooperation with the United States, and warned that such entanglement complicated defense cooperation.
