While Americans struggle to make ends meet Trump spends millions on golf trips

 Lot's of money down the hole

A recent report has drawn attention to the high cost of Donald Trump’s second-term golf trips, revealing millions in taxpayer funds spent since his return to the White House.

The figure is now over $100 million dollars

HuffPost has been tracking Trump’s golf trips since he retook office, and the outlet says the President’s time on the links has cost the American taxpayers $101.2 million dollars since Trump kicked off his second term at the end of January 2025. 

An absolutely astonishing amount of money

The absolutely astonishing amount of money that Trump’s golf trips have cost Americans in security and expenses is already roughly two-thirds of the amount Washington spent on Trump’s golf excursions during his first term, and things are set to get worse. 

Trump is on track to hit $300 million by 2029

HuffPost reported that the country was on track to spend roughly $300 million dollars on Trump’s golf trips by the end of his second term. However, that isn’t the only astonishing fact about the President’s penchant for spending time golfing. 

Over fifty visits to his club in West Palm Beach

On March 28th, Trump reportedly visited his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida. The visit marked the 56th time the President has played golf at his West Palm Beach course since his second inauguration. However, again, the situation gets worse. 

Trump has spent a quarter of his term golfing

According to Huffpost, the President’s March 28th golf trip was the 110th day that Trump has spent on a golf course that he owns since his return to office, which the outlet noted means Trump has spent over a quarter of his time back in office golfing.

Trump has no regard for struggling Americans

“At a time when gas prices are spiking, and Americans across the country find themselves in an ever-worsening affordability crisis, the president has burned through over $100 million in taxpayer money in order to make promotional appearances at his golf courses and hobnob with millionaires and billionaires,” explained Jordan Libowitz. 

The President should stop spending taxpayer money

Libowitz is Vice President of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that monitors the government to hold it accountable to the American people. He added that if Trump’s “goal were to help struggling Americans out, one thing he could try is stop spending their money going to his golf courses.”

Trump’s golf statistics are truly horrendous

The statistics concerning Trump’s golf trips during his second presidency are worrying when laid out. It took the President a full two years to hit the $100 million dollars spent mark during his first four years in office. 

How much time he spent golfing in his first term

Trump racked up an unimaginable 293 days spent at his own golf courses during his first term in office, which cost taxpayers $151.5 million dollars at the time. 

Trump’s visits to Mar-a-Lago in his second term

As previously noted, the President has already spent 110 days golfing during his second term, many of which likely took place during his 17 visits to Mar-a-Lago, which is near two Trump-owned golf courses in West Palm Beach and Jupiter. 

Other costly golfing excursions to Trump courses

HuffPost noted that Trump made roughly seven trips to Mar-a-Lago that also included at least one additional stop. The President also made eight trips to his Bedminster course in New Jersey at a cost of roughly $1.1 million dollars each. 

A more expensive course to visit

Trump visited his Doral resort five times at a cost of $2.7 million dollars each. However, while that may sound expensive, HuffPost pointed out that the President’s visits to his Mar-a-Lago resort were the most expensive at a cost of $3.4 million a trip. 

Mar-a-Lago is still the most expensive location

Visiting Mar-a-Lago is more expensive because of the cost associated with patrolling the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Palm Beach and the Intracoastal Waterway, which separates Trump’s resort from mainland Florida.

Why is Mar-a-Lago so costly?

“When Trump is present, a Coast Guard ship is stationed offshore, and smaller law enforcement vessels with guns mounted on their bows are in the Intracoastal,” S.V. Date of Huffpost explained. 

Trump’s most expensive trip so far

The most expensive trip Trump has taken to date reportedly cost $9.7 million, which was his 2025 summer visit to Scotland that included the opening of his new course in Aberdeen.

How the golfing figure has been calculated

HuffPost noted it calculated Trump’s golf spending based on a report made to Congress during his first term. The report was issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2019 and calculated the cost of Trump’s early golf trips as President. 

What the GAO report revealed in 2019

“That report found that four trips to Mar-a-Lago in early 2017 cost taxpayers $13.6 million, and then broke down that total into components like additional security expenses, the costs to fly Air Force One, and the need to transport motorcade vehicles using expensive C-17 cargo planes,” Date explained. 

The biggest costs of Trump’s golf trips

The biggest expenses of Trump’s trips are the high costs of Air Force One and the C-17 Air Force transports needed for the excursions, as well as the salaries of those protecting the President. These salaries have likely increased since the 2019 report. HuffPost noted it did not inflate the salaries of military personnel and law enforcement to 2026 figures. 

Putin's death economy: The grim reality behind Russia’s growth

 

Dead soldiers boost the Russian economy

As Russia continues to rely heavily on military recruitment and mobilization to sustain its war effort, financial compensation for soldiers and their families has become an increasingly significant part of the state’s social contract.

Significant compensation

Families of fallen soldiers may receive compensation totaling approximately 14.5 million rubles (about $150,000), according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal and estimates from economist Vladislav Inozemtsev.

It all adds up and its boosting the Russian economy

The sum typically includes outstanding salary payments, state death benefits, and additional compensation provided to relatives of those killed in service.

Worth more dead than alive

The amount doesn’t include bonuses and insurance payouts, and in some regions of Russia, it’s more than what a man would have earned as a civilian if he worked until the age of 60.

An attractive offer for recruits

Moreover, in order to attract the largest number of recruits to the Ukrainian front, Vladimir Putin decided last July to double the monthly salary of contract soldiers.

Ten times the average salary

This amount increased from 195,000 to 400,000 rubles (a little over 4,000 euros or 4,400 US dollars), the equivalent of ten times the average salary in Russia.

A commitment bonus

According to French newspaper ‘Le Monde’, a bonus of 1.2 million rubles (a little over 12,000 euros or 13,300 US dollars) is paid to contract soldiers when they enlist. Enough to attract the youth of a country where the income of a part of the population remains low.

Cooperation of local authorities

Local authorities are involved in the aggressive recruitment campaigns. ‘Euronews’ reported that the Krasnodar region, a major supplier of recruits for the army, has increased the enlistment bonus to the equivalent of €16,000 ($17,700).

Social benefits

In addition to this tax-free income, there are a number of privileges for soldiers and their families, such as preferential mortgage rates, easier access to universities and high retirement pensions.

More profitable

Recalling the existence of a death bonus of up to 11 million rubles (around 110,500 euros or 122,000 US dollars), ‘Le Monde’ indicates that "a strange economic model has thus emerged, according to which a dead Russian brings more to his family than a living Russian."

The ‘death economy’

This phenomenon led Vladislav Inozemtsev, a Russian economist, to speak of a "death economy" driven by the income of fighters and investments in weapons.

Colossal expenses

According to the US-based expert, the Russian authorities currently spend between 1.5 and 2 trillion rubles (15.1 to 20.2 billion euros) per year just to pay military bonuses and salaries.

A new reality

"This is unprecedented because Russians have always been sent to the army under duress or out of patriotism. Vladimir Putin has created a completely new reality," Inozemtsev adds.

Avoiding an unpopular mobilization

"Russia is short of volunteers, but it does not want to repeat an unpopular mobilisation. That is why it continues to increase signing bonuses," Alexander Clarkson, a lecturer at King's College London, told ‘Euronews’.

Massive state intervention

How are such revenues possible in a country hit hard by Western sanctions? This is explained by a change in the economic model, characterized by massive state intervention in the economy.

A new model

Isolated from a big part of the world, Russia has turned to a war economy model in which the state supports growth through military spending and the payment of high incomes to part of the population.

Massive injections of money

According to the German newspaper ‘Die Welt’, Russia enjoyed an economic growth of 3.6% in 2023. The money supply (the amount of money in circulation) increased by 8.5% in the same year, after a 20% increase in 2022, with high inflation as a counterpart.

Growth driven by public spending

According to an analysis cited by the newspaper from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, a British research center, Russian economic expansion is linked to "aggressive military spending and consumption-driven growth."

Artificially stimulated consumption

The rise in consumption is itself "fueled by a sharp increase in payments to military personnel in war zones and their families, as well as by increases in pensions and social benefits."

A closed boiler full of money

Interviewed by the German media, Russian economist Oleg Viougin described his country as a "closed cauldron full of money", in reference to the increase in income and wealth since the start of the war.

The limits of a model

This short-term growth should not, however, overshadow the limits of the new Russian economic model. Starting with inflation, recently estimated at more than 9% over a year by the Rosstat statistics institute.

A shortage of labor

Moreover, the mobilization of young men and the exile of Russian executives abroad are leading to a shortage of labor. And the massive recruitment of the army and the defense industry are penalizing the private sector.

Competition between employers

"The Russian army must now compete with the Russian military industry, which is booming and also hungry for workers," adds ‘Euronews’. The outlet describes a dilemma for the country's elite between recruiting soldiers and workers.

Lack of innovation

"The government is injecting a lot of money into the arms industry, but without innovating," says Alexandra Prokopenko, a visiting researcher at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin, quoted by ‘Le Monde’.

A strong constraint

"Human resources are a real constraint. The low unemployment rate is not due to the success of the Kremlin's economic policy; in reality, many economic sectors are short of workers," the expert adds.

A sustainable model?

Can this situation of economic overheating, marked by inflation and labor shortages, last? For Vladislav Inozemtsev, the answer is yes.

Hydrocarbon revenues

Indeed, Russia's status as "the world's largest exporter of raw materials" gives it "the revenues needed to produce weapons and pay the military sent to the front."

No Plan B for Russia

"Returning to a situation of peace, in which such expenditure would be unjustified, and demobilizing an army of criminals would prove very dangerous," the economist adds.

Danger remains for Ukraine

According to him, Moscow can maintain this morbid economic model "for at least five to six years, which is much longer than Ukraine can endure." So Kyiv cannot yet count on the possible exhaustion of the invader.

With an Iranian proxy commander arrested for attacks in the UK, will Starmer respond?

 

Kata’ib Hizballah senior official Mohammad Baqer Saad Dawood Al-Saadi was arrested and charged on Friday for planning attacks in the US, Canada, and Europe, with the US Department of Justice alleging that the Iranian proxy commander was responsible for the wave of attacks against Jewish, Israeli, and Iranian dissident sites in London over the last two months under the banner of Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI)

The revelation that HAYI was not a new terrorist organization, and merely a component of Kata’ib Hizballah, places the question of a response before UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the governments of other European governments targeted in alleged Islamic Regime attacks on their soil and citizens.

"Since the onset of the Iranian Military Conflict on or about February 28, 2026, Kata’ib Hizballah, through a purportedly new terrorist group using the pseudonym Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, has carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Europe against US and Israeli interests," read the complaint. "Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, in fact, a front of Kata’ib Hizballah, designed to carry out and further the terrorist goals of Kata’ib Hizballah, Hizballah, and the IRGC."

Al-Saad allegedly orchestrated and posted the HAYI propaganda videos of 18 attacks in Europe, most of which occurred in London over the last two months. On March 9, explosives were hurled at a Belgian synagogue, and four days later, there was an arson attack against a Rotterdam synagogue. In Amsterdam, explosives were used against a Jewish school on March 14,  and in the same city against the Bank of New York Mellon. Belgium was hit again on March 23, with the arson of a vehicle in an Antwerp Jewish neighborhood, and the first of the London attacks was conducted the same day, with the arson against four Hatzala ambulances in Golders Green. On March 28,  an improvised explosive device (IED) was placed at the Bank of America in Paris, and on April 3 explosives were used against a pro Israel organization in Nijerk. A Munich Israeli restaurant was attacked with a pyrotechnic device on April 10, and on April 12, a Skopje synagogue was attacked with a firebomb.

Expand article logo  Continue reading

London saw two attacks on April 15, with an arson attempt against the Iran International offices and against the Finchley Reform Synagogue. On April 17, HAYI claimed that it had placed hazardous materials onto a drone and dropped them on the Israeli embassy in London, but jars found nearby by the Metropolitan police contained a benign substance. A London building that was once the premises of a Jewish group, still with the organization's name on the window, was the target of an arson attempt on April 17. Attacks continued in London with the April 19 firebombing of the  Kenton United Synagogue. On April 29, a terrorist stabbed two Jewish residents of Golders Green, hospitalizing them.

HAYI took credit for all the attacks, but other unclaimed incidents occurred in London that have been treated as connected by the Met. On April 27, arsonists set a fire at the Golders Green memorial wall for Iranian protesters. Last Tuesday, there was an arson attack on the former East London Central Synagogue in Tower Hamlets.

Thus far, the UK government has skirted around addressing the culprit orchestrating the attacks behind the scene.

When the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) raised the UK National Threat Level on April 30 in the wake of the Golders Green stabbings, MI5 said that it was in part due to  "a sustained and significant tempo of state-linked threats including to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions."

Starmer, in a May 1 speech on the state of the Kingdom, did mention that legislation would be fast-tracked to " tackle the malign threat posed by states like Iran," but he stopped short of attributing recent attacks to Iran, and listed the problem as one of many tributaries to rising antisemitism.

While HAYI has claimed responsibility for the attacks, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley and Security Minister Dan Jarvis had declined to comment on the group and its potential links to Iran.

Counter Terrorism senior national coordinator Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, on April 19, acknowledged that many of the attacks seemed to have involved criminals employed to carry out the attacks, and while she said that it was a tactic often visited by Iran, she didn't confirm the Islamic Regime as responsible.

Plausible deniability with HAYI taking responsibility

Until the arrest of Al Saadi, there was plausible deniability with HAYI taking responsibility, though, as the US criminal complaint noted, the organization had all the hallmarks of an Iranian proxy, with a suspiciously rapid buildup of media and operational infrastructure as soon as it appeared.

The allegations against Al Saadi, however, make it difficult for Starmer and other European leaders to ignore Iranian attacks within their territory.  The US complaint alleged that HAYI is less of an organization and more of a mask for Kata’ib Hizballah to conduct attacks on behalf of itself and the IRGC. Al Saadi allegedly had a hand in organizing 20 attacks and plots in North America and Europe.

The Iraqi national allegedly told an undercover officer that they usually have third-party paid criminal actors conducting attacks in Europe, in line with UK law enforcement's beliefs about many of the incidents conducted in London.

The UK and other countries have long been aware of Iranian attacks on their territory. In 2024, the UK published an Intelligence and Security Committee report detailing that Iran used proxy groups and criminals to attack its enemies, and that Tehran had allegedly used the method at least 15 times since 2022 to attempt to murder or kidnap Jewish or Iranian dissident UK nationals or residents.

In October, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said in an annual threat update that the intelligence organization had tracked "more than twenty potentially lethal Iran-backed plots" since his last presentation a year prior. In July 2024, the UK was among 14 states that issued a joint statement denouncing the Islamic Regime for hiring criminals to attack Jews and dissidents in their countries.

In contrast to the UK skirting around naming Iran, in August, when the Australian Security Intelligence Organization announced Iran had orchestrated at least two antisemitic attacks, this was enough for Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to declare the Iranian ambassador persona non grata and expel him, withdraw its own diplomatic mission, and proscribe the IRGC.

Trump drawn back into spotlight as Epstein story evolves

 A distraction

A recent poll suggests that a notable portion of Americans believe the Epstein files controversy involving Donald Trump may have played a role in the worsening U.S.-Iran conflict.

Trump promised to release the Epstein files while campaigning

Trump promised while on the campaign trail that if he were reelected to the presidency, his new administration would release the federal government's files from its years-long investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his many alleged crimes. 

The President never delivered on his promise

The issue helped Trump regain the presidency in 2024. However, after retaking power, Trump failed to deliver on his promise, and Congress stepped in to force the President to release the Epstein files through the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Congress forced Trump’s hand in the scandal

Despite being legally required by Congress to release the federal government’s files on Epstein and his crimes, Trump and his administration bungled the release, and the whole situation has mired Trump in a scandal that threatened to bring down his presidency. 

Accusations of creating crises to cause distraction

Trump has been accused of creating political crisis after crisis to distract the American people from the Epstein files scandal, including by Representative Thomas Massie, a leading figure in the drive to get the Epstein files released.

Massie’s public attack on Trump

“PSA: bombing a country on the other side of the globe won’t make the Epstein files go away, any more than the Dow going above 50,000 will,” Massie said on X on March 1st.

Polling is starting to reveal a new problem

While accusations similar to Massie’s X attack against President Trump have been growing, some polls are now showing that many Americans believe Trump started the war against Iran as a distraction from the dangerous scandal.  

Most say the Epstein scandal is why Trump went to war

On March 17th, The Telegraph reported that recent findings from the left-leaning, new media organization Zeteo found that over half of people in the United States believed that Trump started the war with Iran to distract the country from the Epstein files scandal.

What the polling revealed

Newsweek reported Zeteo surveyed 1,272 likely voters between March 6th and March 8th, and found that 52% of respondents believed Trump was “at least partly motivated to take military action against Iran in order to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.”

Many disagree with the accusation

Another 40% of those polled reported that the Epstein files had no motivation for President Trump’s decision to use military force against Iran, whereas 8% said they were unsure. 

Democrats were the biggest backers of the idea

The new media organization reported that Democrats were the most likely to think that Trump was using the Iran war as a distraction from the Epstein files scandal, with 81% of Democrats saying so. However, they were not alone. 

Independents and Republicans

A majority of independents (52%), and even 26% of Republicans, believe that Trump is using the war in Iran to distract from the Epstein files. Interestingly, 64% of Republicans said they did not believe the Epstein files were a factor in Trump’s decision. 

Similar findings from another poll

However, Zeteo isn’t the only media outlet that has made this shocking discovery about why Trump went to war with Iran. Others have picked up the question, and more information on this critical viewpoint is becoming increasingly available.  

What a left-of-center polling firm found

On March 18th, Navigator Research released its latest polling data on what Americans think about the war with Iran. It found that 40% of Americans think Trump “wants to use the conflict to distract away from other issues like the Epstein files.”

Other possible reasons for the war

Another 40% believe Trump started the war to get access to oil or other resources from the region, whereas 38% think President Trump started the conflict because he “actually felt Iran’s nuclear and missile programs posed an imminent threat.”

Few think Trump wanted to help Iranians

Slightly fewer respondents (31%) said Trump started the conflict to liberate the Iranian people from an oppressive regime. A near majority of respondents (46%) said that they think the war had made the world less safe, compared to 28% who said the opposite. 

Support for the war isn’t high

The polling firm also noted that 40% of the 1,000 American adults it surveyed between March 12th and March 16th said that they supported the war, while 49% said that they did not support the conflict, and 11% reported they were “not sure”. 

Another assessment of the war’s support

On March 18th, the latest findings from YouGov and The Economist showed that just 39% approved of Trump’s handling of Iran, and 52% disapproved. This was far lower than his handling of the Epstein files, which had 24% approval and 59% disapproval, the worst of the eight major issues the polling surveyed. 

After four bloody years, the war on Ukraine might be turning into Putin’s undoing

 

On 9 May, Russia held its iconic annual Victory Day parade to honour the sacrifices of its soldiers and civilians during its four-year war against Nazi Germany. When the president, Vladimir Putin, invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, he didn’t anticipate a fight that would last longer than the Red Army’s epic struggle against the Wehrmacht. But his war drags on. Worse, it’s failing and threatening his grip on power.

Despite Putin’s boasts about Russian troops advancing on every front, even pro-war military bloggers are criticising military mismanagement. Some say the momentum favours Ukraine and at least one warns that Russia could lose. With the frontline stalled, an estimated 1.3 million Russian troops dead or wounded, and ordinary Russians under increasing economic pressure, the war Putin believed would produce his crowning achievement may prove to be his undoing.

For Russians, the war was once something that happened over there. Now it’s happening inside Russia itself. Ukraine’s drones and missiles routinely hit targets deep inside the country – often more than 1,000 miles from the border. They include Moscow, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Perm, Rostov-on-Don, Yaroslavl, Murmansk and the Baltic Sea oil-loading ports at Primorsk and Ust-Luga. The refineries at Tuapse, on the Black Sea’s northern coastline, and Yaroslavl have been set ablaze repeatedly. Ukrainian drones have also caused numerous airport closures and flight delays across Russia.

Ukraine’s relentless drone attacks forced Putin to pare back Saturday’s military parade. In a phone call with Donald Trump on 29 April, Putin floated the idea of a three-day ceasefire from 9 May to avoid the humiliation of a Ukrainian attack on Red Square. The Ukraine president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, later accepted the proposal at Trump’s urging, especially because a prisoner exchange was included, but he didn’t allow Putin to avoid embarrassment completely: his official ceasefire decree exempted Red Square from attack, but not all of Russia.

The war has also battered Russia’s economy. The army and military industry’s huge appetite for manpower has created an acute labour shortage. That has produced a low unemployment rate (2.2% in March), but it has also slowed economic growth, squeezed small businesses already reeling from tax increases and raised inflation as companies compete for workers. Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry reports that nearly two-thirds of small businesses didn’t turn a profit in the first quarter of this year. Economic growth fell from 4.9% in 2024 to 1% in 2025, and will probably remain at that level this year. But 2026 is already off to a bad start: GDP shrank by 0.3% year-on-year during the first quarter.

If things in the rear don’t look good, the same goes for the front. The Russian army’s advances this year have been minimal, in part because Ukrainian drone warfare has transformed the battlefield. For about two years, Russian commanders have struggled to mass armoured and mechanised units capable of punching through the 900-mile frontline and seizing territory because Ukraine’s ubiquitous drones quickly spot concentrations of men and material. Russia switched to sending small groups of soldiers to infiltrate Ukrainian lines and establish footholds for follow-on forces, but because drones strike infiltrating infantry so effectively, this adaptation won’t produce major advances.

Last year, Russia gained a mere 0.8% of Ukrainian territory at the cost of more than 400,000 casualties, including 200,000 dead. Its momentum has slowed markedly this year, and in April it lost more territory than it captured – a first since the reverses in Kursk in the autumn of 2023 – though the ubiquity of drones can complicate precise assessments of territorial control. Although Russia may launch a big summer push in Donetsk, Chasiv Yar and Pokrovsk still haven’t been fully conquered despite offensives that began there in the spring and summer of 2024, respectively.

Related: Why is Putin now talking about the war in Ukraine ‘coming to an end’?

Ukraine has certainly suffered substantial casualties (at least 300,000 soldiers and, according to some estimates, more than 500,000 – plus 59,000 civilians), extensive destruction and territorial losses of about 8% since 2022 – and about 20% since 2014. But these figures are unsurprising (as are Ukraine’s struggles with recruitment and retention), given Russia’s advantage in firepower; what is remarkable is the magnitude of Russian losses.

Those losses reflect Ukraine’s ramp-up of drone production and development of models that are harder to jam or shoot down. The early versions were followed by first-person view (FPV) drones (remotely operated through real-time video feeds), then fibre-optic models impervious to jamming, and most recently AI-assisted models. Ukraine has also started using aerial and ground-based autonomous systems for supplying the front, evacuating the wounded and even for assaults. Those successes have reduced its casualties while increasing Russia’s, which now equal the number of monthly recruits – roughly 35,000 – with drones accounting for 70-80% of casualties.

The signs of anxiety within the Kremlin are unmistakable. Putin’s security cordon has been tightened, his travel within the country curtailed. Bocharov Ruchey, his Black Sea residence in Sochi, was demolished and rebuilt with added security. In contrast to Zelenskyy, he hasn’t visited frontline soldiers since March last year. The government has also clamped down on social media, blocking Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube. In February it started restricting access to Telegram, which nearly 50% of Russians use for news and messaging, and in April moved towards a full ban. Last month, the Communist party chief, Gennady Zyuganov, a stalwart Putin supporter, warned his fellow parliamentarians of the example of 1917, when wartime strains on society sparked two revolutions.

Though Putin’s fate isn’t necessarily sealed his war is floundering, and the signs of disquiet at the top are too numerous to dismiss. The Victory Day parade was meant to celebrate Russia’s martial glory; instead, it could prove to be a requiem for Putin’s military ambitions.

Fight erupts in Trump-Xi summit: Live video captures profane shouting and chaos as camera tumbles to ground

 

A Trump-Xi summit in Beijing descended into brief chaos on Thursday when a scuffle broke out on live video as Donald Trump entered a vast meeting room to begin talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with a voice yelling 'get the f--k out' as a camera appeared to crash to the floor.

The apparent fight erupted just hours after Trump was given a full red-carpet treatment on arrival in the Chinese capital, complete with a ceremonial welcome and children waving flags as he greeted Xi.

The US president is in Beijing for high-stakes discussions with his Chinese counterpart, framed as an attempt to reset ties between the world's two largest economies, even as mutual suspicion over trade, technology and security still runs deep.

The video clip, circulated from inside the venue, shows Trump walking into an enormous hall, flanked by officials, as the incident unfolds just out of clear view.

The camera angle suddenly lurches, voices rise, and someone can be heard shouting the expletive-laden command before the footage tumbles to the floor. It is not yet clear who was involved or what triggered the confrontation, and no official account of the scuffle has been provided. With no confirmation from either government, the precise circumstances remain unverified and should be treated with caution.

What is certain is that the jarring moment cut sharply across the carefully stage-managed optics surrounding the Trump-Xi encounter. Earlier in the day, Chinese state hospitality had been on full display. Trump walked a long red carpet to meet Xi, the two leaders exchanging stately handshakes as cameras rolled. Children lined up with flags, a familiar script of protocol and pageantry designed to project calm power and partnership.

Trump, never one to waste a handshake opportunity, offered Xi his trademark grip before moving down the line of senior Chinese officials. Xi did the same with top American delegates, including members of Trump's inner circle. The choreography was deliberate: this was meant to signal that the Trump-Xi summit still mattered, that both capitals could put on a united front when it suited their interests.

Conspicuously absent from the spectacle was Melania Trump. The first lady did not appear alongside her husband at the Beijing events, with no immediate explanation offered in the coverage of the visit. Instead, Trump arrived with an unusually personal entourage. His son, Eric Trump, and daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, were in the delegation, a reminder that the President continues to fuse political theatre with family brand-building.

Adding another layer of intrigue, Tesla and SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk turned up as what one US outlet described as a 'frenemy' presence. Musk has oscillated between critic and ally of Trump over the years, and his appearance in Beijing alongside the President prompted a wave of commentary in China, including reports that locals had coined a 'savage nickname' for Trump as he landed with the tech mogul in tow.

Trump-Xi Summit Balances Flattery With Warnings

Once the leaders sat down for their bilateral talks, the tone shifted from spectacle to scripted diplomacy. Both men offered warm words about each other, stressing the importance of the Trump-Xi relationship and the future of US-China ties. It was the kind of language that has been used for decades to paper over deep disagreements.

Xi, though, chose his words carefully. In remarks carried in the report, he warned against a return to rivalry between the two dominant economic powers. 'Cooperation benefits both sides, while confrontation harms both,' he said, framing the choice in starkly pragmatic terms. He went on: 'The two countries should be partners rather than rivals, achieve success together and pursue common prosperity, and chart a correct path for major-country relations in the new era.'

If Xi's language sounded almost textbook, it also carried a quiet edge. Partnership, in Beijing's current vocabulary, tends to come with conditions. The 'correct path' is very much in the eye of the beholder, and China's leadership has made it plain that it expects Washington to accept a larger Chinese role in global rule-setting.

Trump-Xi Talks Wrapped In Business And Spectacle

Trump, by contrast, leaned into the language of deals and status. He told Xi that the White House had invited what he described as the 'top 30' business leaders in the world to join the trip, and that 'every one of them said yes'. The number has not been independently verified, but it fits Trump's long-standing habit of surrounding himself with high-profile executives to project economic clout.

'I didn't want the second or the third in the company. I wanted only the top, and they're here today to pay respects to you and to China,' he told Xi during the public portion of their meeting. It was a revealing formulation, flattering Xi even as it subtly cast Trump as the ringmaster, the man who could deliver the corporate elite to Beijing's door.

Trump added that the assembled CEOs were hungry for trade and investment opportunities, promising that engagement would be 'totally reciprocal on our behalf.' Given the history of US complaints about market access and intellectual property in China, the pledge of reciprocity may have sounded aspirational at best to many observers. Neither side elaborated publicly on what, if anything, that would mean in practice.

What the cameras did capture, however briefly, was the gap between the gleaming surface of global summitry and the messy reality beneath it. On a day meant to showcase the stability of the Trump-Xi relationship, it was the sound of an unseen voice shouting 'get the f--k out' and the clatter of a falling camera that cut through the choreography.

Lidl to sell £400 solar panels – here’s what you need to know

 The solution to rising electricity bills might soon be found middle aisle of Lidl, with news that high street supermarkets are to start selling cheap, plug-in solar panels.

Thanks to a regulatory shake-up by the UK government, smaller plug-in solar panels will soon be appearing on UK shelves. Retail giants including Lidl and Amazon, alongside dedicated power brands like EcoFlow, are preparing to stock these DIY mini power plants for around £400.

Portable solar panels offer free, renewable energy that bypasses the need for expensive scaffolding, an electrician’s sign-off or a second mortgage to install. But before you chuck a solar array into your trolley alongside the weekly shop, here’s exactly how this plug-and-play tech actually works, and whether it will genuinely save you any cash in the long run.

What is a plug-in solar panel?

Plug-in solar panels are about as basic as the tech gets. The kits typically consist of one or more lightweight solar panels and a microinverter. Many are foldable too, so you can easily store them away when they’re not needed.

Crucially, you don't need a professional to fit them and they don’t need installation. You simply hang the panel on a sunny balcony, strap it to a garden fence or prop it up on a patio, and then plug it directly into a standard 3-pin wall socket. The microinverter syncs with your home’s electrical grid, meaning your appliances will automatically use the free, sun-generated power before they start pulling expensive electricity from your supplier.

The plug-in solar panel concept is already popular in places like Spain and Germany, where roughly half a million of these devices are plugged in every year. Until now, UK wiring regulations effectively banned them without an electrician’s sign-off, but the government’s intervention changes all that.

How much will they save you?

You won’t be taking your house entirely off the grid with a single plug-in panel, but it will put a dent in your electricity usage, powering things like your fridge, your wifi router and your laptop while the sun is shining.

The government estimates that a typical UK home could save between £70 and £110 a year on their energy bills. At an upfront cost of around £400, that means the panel will pay for itself in around four years. Given that a decent solar panel has a lifespan of around 15 years, you’re looking at a decade of pure profit once the initial outlay is cleared.

Compare that to a traditional rooftop solar array, which typically sets you back upwards of £6,000 and requires a lengthy payback period, and the appeal of the plug-and-play model is clear.

When and where can you buy them?

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero says the kits will be available “within months”, with brands like EcoFlow hoping to have stock ready in time for the summer.

Lidl has welcomed the regulatory changes, saying the panels will make sustainable living affordable for everyone. Amazon is also confirmed to be participating in the rollout, meaning you’ll soon be able to order a personal solar power plant with next-day delivery.

This announcement is part of a broader government push for clean energy – including the new Future Homes Standard, which mandates solar panels and heat pumps on new builds from 2028. For anyone with an older property, or renting a flat with a bit of sunny outdoor space, plug-in solar lowers the barrier to entry.

If you have £400 spare and a south-facing railing, buying your own miniature power plant alongside your weekly groceries could be the smartest financial decision you make this year.