‘This timeline is so stupid': Social media shakes head over Jillian Michaels taking ‘new media' seat at White House
Jillian Michaels, best known as the fitness trainer on the reality series The Biggest Loser, got the opportunity to ask the first question at Thursday's White House press briefing as a 'new media' member – and the internet did not disappoint with its reaction to the spectacle.
'This timeline is just so stupid,' one Bluesky user noted, seemingly speaking for much of social media.
With the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again Commission – led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – releasing its much-anticipated report on childhood chronic illness, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt invited Michaels to occupy the 'new media' seat at Thursday's press briefing.
Michaels, who once criticized Donald Trump's former vice president Mike Pence as 'the number one anti-gay politician in the country,' has refashioned herself in recent years as a conservative podcaster and pundit. After expressing support for Kennedy's presidential campaign and MAHA movement, she ended up voting for Trump in what was a reversal of her previous stance on his first administration.
The White House's 'new media' seat, meanwhile, has disproportionally (but not exclusively) been reserved for pro-Trump media outlets and influencers who have generally rewarded Leavitt for the assignment by tossing obsequiously softball questions her way.
Prior to turning to the former reality star on Thursday, Leavitt promoted Michaels' podcast Keeping It Real and called her a 'media powerhouse' before acknowledging that she was at the White House to attend that afternoon's MAHA event. Michaels then kicked off the briefing by asking the press secretary about the personal impact of Kennedy's new study.
'As a MAHA mom yourself, how do you interpret the significance of this report in terms of delivering measurable health improvement for Americans and their kids? And what specific actions does the administration plan to take in response to it?' Michaels wondered.
'When the president took office, he promised to make this country healthy again. And the president signed an executive order directing this commission, now less than 100 days later, the commission is delivering this report,' Leavitt responded. 'Another promise kept.'
Of course, it didn't take long for the spectacle of The Biggest Loser trainer asking questions at a White House briefing to make its way to social media. And the reaction, especially from liberals and progressives, was a combination of mockery, incredulity and dismay.
'Jillian Michaels is in the new media seat at the White House press briefing,' one Twitter user wrote. 'This timeline is so wild.'
Laura Bassett, a columnist at The Cut, said she 'could write a dissertation about the new media seat.' States Newsroom reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris added that her '2005 self would be so confused by this.'
While some pointed out that she's now a host of a right-wing version of The View, others explained that they had to do a 'double take' when they noticed her while watching the briefing.
Still, in the end, many just felt that Michaels' appearance showed 'spectacular levels of unseriousness' and snarked that the United States was now 'the least serious country in the entire benighted history of the solar system.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's military attack on Iran reveals split among Maga diehards
Saturday's US strikes on Iran provoked conflicting reactions from isolationist Republicans who support Donald Trump's 'Make America great again' (Maga) movement, catching them – like many Democrats – between supporting efforts against nuclear proliferation and opposing American intervention in foreign conflicts. The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – a loyalist to the president – reacted to the strikes by urging those in the US to pray that terrorists do not attack 'our homeland' in retaliation. 'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our US troops and Americans in the Middle East,' Greene wrote on X. But Greene had not been so supportive in a message posted 30 minutes before Trump announced news of the surprise strikes on Saturday evening. Related: Democrats say they were left in dark about plans for US strikes on Iran In that message, Greene wrote: 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if [its prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' The former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, who has been an opponent of US military intervention in Iran, hit out at the president for thanking Netanyahu in a national address shortly after the strikes. Speaking on his War Room web show, Bannon said, 'It hasn't been lost … that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank.' That came amid ongoing speculation that Trump's decision to attack Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday stemmed from information that Iran was close to developing a weapon – as supplied by Israeli, and not US, intelligence sources. The issue created an apparent split between Trump and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The president recently criticized Gabbard and the US intelligence community, saying they were 'wrong' in assessing that Iran had not taken the political step of ordering a bomb. Gabbard has denied that she and Trump were not on the same page. Nonetheless, Bannon continued his criticism of the strikes, saying: 'I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck.' The former White House adviser also criticized Trump for leaving open the possibility of further US strikes if Iran fails to capitulate to US demands. 'I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of Maga wanted to hear,' he said. 'It sounded … very open-ended.' Days earlier, amid signs of a Maga rebellion against the administration's increasingly hawkish stance on Iran, Bannon told an audience in Washington that bitterness over the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a driving force for Trump's first presidential victory. 'One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. Bannon, though, said 'the Maga movement will back Trump' despite its opposition to military interventions. But there are now signs that the Maga 'America first' isolationist position may be more amenable to limited airstrikes. The administration has stressed that Saturday's raids only targeted Iran's nuclear enrichment and not manufacturing locations, population centers or economic assets, including the oil terminal at Karg island. Related: Cheering support and instant condemnation: US lawmakers respond to attack on Iran The far-right influencer Charlie Kirk had warned of a Maga divide over Iran, saying 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' Yet on Sunday, Kirk reposted a clip of an interview with JD Vance on Meet the Press in which the vice-president praised the B-2 pilots from Missouri who carried out the previous day's bombing. 'They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine, and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East,' Vance said in the clip. 'Whatever our politics, we should be proud of what these guys accomplished.' In that interview, Vance suggested Trump had 'probably' decided by mid-May that the diplomatic process with Iran was 'not going anywhere'. But Vance refused to be drawn on when precisely Trump approved the strike, saying it probably came 'over time'.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europeans back higher defence spending amid Russia threat, poll finds
Faced with an unpredictable Donald Trump and an aggressive Russia, Europeans favour increased spending on defence and, in some countries, compulsory military service. A survey of 12 countries for the European Council on Foreign Relations showed majorities for increased defence spending in Poland (70%), Denmark (70%) and the UK (57%). Support was softer elsewhere, but large minorities in Germany (47%), Spain (46%) and France (45%) also backed bigger military budgets. Italy was an outlier: only 17% favoured higher spending, with 57% against. Europeans in several countries supported reintroducing mandatory military service, with the crucial exception of 18- to 29-year-olds – those most likely to be called up in any armed conflict. People in France (62%), Germany (53%) and Poland (51%) were the strongest supporters of military service. Opposition to the idea outweighed support in countries including Italy (50% against), the UK (53%), Spain (56%) and Hungary (58%). Older people were keenest on the draft. In Germany, for example, a net total of 49% of over-70s supported military service, while a net total of 46% of 18- to 29-year-olds opposed the idea. The research also found the European public divided sharply over Trump, whose return to the US presidency has scrambled traditional allegiances to Washington. Countries with traditionally strong ties with the US are becoming increasingly sceptical of the US system: in the UK and Germany, majorities of 74% and 67% think it is broken. 'EU-US relations are now increasingly ideological,' the ECFR's Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard wrote in a paper to accompany the findings. 'In many respects the relations of the far-right parties to Trump start to resemble the relationship of former communist parties to the Soviet Union in the cold war. They feel obliged to defend Trump and to imitate him.' European far-right parties, which often took inspiration from Vladimir Putin's Russia, now look to Trump's system as a model, the authors suggest. In contrast, voters for mainstream parties are critical of Trump and the US political system. Far-right and national populist allegiance to Trump exists, despite sizeable minorities of voters for those parties seeing his re-election as bad news for Americans. For instance, 34% of AfD voters in Germany, 28% of France's National Rally supporters and 30% of Reform UK voters consider Trump's re-election as 'very bad' or 'rather bad' for Americans. The findings come on the eve of a Nato summit this week where members of the alliance will be asked to raise defence spending to at least 5% of GDP a year by 2032. Spain has already rejected the target as 'unreasonable' and 'counterproductive'. Italy wants to delay the deadline until 2035. Voters in most countries polled are sceptical that Europe can be independent of the US. Citizens in Germany, Spain, Poland and Italy were more likely to say it would be very difficult or practically impossible for the EU to become independent of the US in defence and security. Only in Denmark did a slim majority (52%) consider it was possible for the EU to achieve autonomy in defence and security. Denmark, which is directly threatened by Trump's claims over Greenland, also showed the highest antipathy towards the US president: 86% believe the US political system is broken, while 76% rated Trump's re-election as a bad thing for US citizens. Several European publics support developing an alternative national nuclear deterrent that does not rely on the US, with the strongest support in Poland (60%), Portugal (62%) and Spain (54%). In Germany, support for such an idea was only 39%. The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has proposed that his country could share nuclear weapons with France and Britain but also said this could not replace the US's protective shield over much of Europe. In an encouraging sign for Kyiv, most Europeans oppose following the US if Trump pushes Ukraine to cede occupied territories or lifts economic sanctions against Russia. Even in Hungary, which has a government that has consistently slowed agreement on EU sanctions, 40% oppose copying any US move to lift sanctions, while 38% were in favour. In other countries there were strong majorities against emulating any pro-Russia policy on Ukraine that may come from the US. The report's authors suggest two explanations for this support for Ukraine. 'A benevolent interpretation is that Europeans support an autonomous European policy to support Ukraine and they don't want to blindly follow Trump's lead. But another reading of that data is that Europeans want Ukrainians to continue fighting on their behalf.' Leonard said: 'Our poll shows that Europeans feel unsafe and that Trump is driving demand for increased defence spending, the reintroduction of military service and an extension of nuclear capabilities across much of Europe.' Krastev, who is chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, said: 'The real effect of Trump's second coming is that the United States now presents a credible model for Europe's far right. To be pro-American today mostly means to be sceptical of the EU; to be pro-European means being critical of Trump's America.' Pollsters commissioned by ECFR spoke to 16,440 adults last month.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Live updates: Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz; US warns of 'heightened' risk Here are five big questions about what comes next. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's Parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices ranging from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with noninterventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd chanted 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, reposted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal nonnuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously had been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israeli attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East war. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider in chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
