Huma Abedin and Alex Soros tie the knot in star-studded New York wedding - Check who all attended

Huma Abedin, longtime aide to Hillary Clinton, and Alex Soros, the son of billionaire philanthropist George Soros, were married over the weekend in a high-profile wedding that brought together some of the biggest names in politics, media, and society.
The couple exchanged vows at the Soros family's sprawling estate in the Hamptons, marking a union that blended personal joy with public interest.
The ceremony was as grand as the guest list was powerful. Former US President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were in attendance, as were former Vice President Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff. Key congressional figures such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi also made appearances.
The bride wore not one but two custom dresses for the occasion. For the Western-style ceremony, Abedin wore an ivory silk crepe Givenchy gown, designed by Sarah Burton, the creative force behind some of fashion's most iconic wedding looks. The dress featured delicate olive-branch embroidery and hand-sewn initials, drawing inspiration from classic Hollywood elegance, notably Audrey Hepburn.
The celebration wasn't just political—it was also stylish. Vogue's Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour was among the high-profile guests, alongside Nicky Hilton Rothschild and talk show host Jimmy Fallon.
The wedding divided the internet. Various people took to X and criticised the union. One person wrote, 'The satanic couple from hell, Alex Soros and Huma Abedin, have released photos from their lavish wedding—joined by none other than Bill and Hillary Clinton (sic).'
Another person commented, 'Alex Soros has married Huma Abedin over the weekend! The dress is pretty, but there's not really much more to say when you're marrying into one of the most heinous families on the planet, but hey enjoy girl enjoy your weekly new custom Birkin! He's so unattractive, girl how? (sic).'
Though deeply private about their relationship in the past, the couple's wedding has now placed them firmly in the public eye.
In an evening that mixed glamour with gravitas, the Soros-Abedin wedding proved to be both a personal milestone and a social event of note.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

an hour ago

• First Post

Romania finally gets a prime minister, budget crisis PM Bolojan's first test

Romania's President Nicusor Dan nominated Ilie Bolojan, leader of the National Liberal Party, after weeks of coalition talks. Now, the biggest challenge in the new government's hands will be tackling the budget crisis read more Romania's new pro-Western president, Nicusor Dan, on Friday nominated Ilie Bolojan, leader of the pro-European National Liberal Party (PNL), as the country's next prime minister. AP Romania's new pro-Western President, Nicusor Dan , nominated Ilie Bolojan, leader of the pro-European National Liberal Party (PNL), as the country's next prime minister. The move was announced on Friday, marking an end to the weeks of political uncertainty following the annulled December presidential elections. The 56-year-old centre-right leader was serving the role of Senate president and is known for his reformist approach and administrative discipline. It is pertinent to note that Bolojan had previously served as acting president from February to May, when Dan defeated a hard-right opponent in a heated presidential election rerun . STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The nomination came as Romania, a European Union and NATO member state, is seeking to end a protracted political crisis that has gripped the nation since last year. Bolojan was nominated following a fresh round of talks between Dan and PNL. The biggest challenge facing Bolojan now will be taking care of the budget crisis in the country. The budget crisis: Bolojan's biggest challenge The 56-year-old leader will be tasked with tackling Romania's dire finances and reconciling the divided EU member. The country's budget deficit stood at 9.3 per cent at the end of last year, making it the highest in the European Union, AFP reported. In a press conference last week, Bolojan said Romania was 'in a complicated situation', adding that the incoming government would have to resort to 'unpopular measures' that could include cutting public spending and imposing tax rises. Meanwhile, Political scientist Sergiu Miscoiu told AFP that Bolojan was 'the person best placed to take unpopular measures to tackle the serious budget crisis'. However, analysts also point out that apart from a brief time as interim president, he had 'no experience in national politics'. Apart from this, deep social divisions in the nation were also made clear by the controversies that surrounded the presidential election. According to Cristian Andrei, a Bucharest-based political consultant, the new government will face the challenge of reaching a longer-term consensus over already delayed state reforms. 'There is only a disputed agreement on very short-term measures for the economic and budget crisis,' the political consultant told The Associated Press. 'If the short-term measures come with a social cost, inflation … (and) will not be met by profound changes in policies and institutions, then the political crisis will loom over the next years and (future) elections," he furthered. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What comes next Bolojan's nomination will now need to be approved by the country's parliament. According to Euro News, his government is expected to be comprised of the leftist Social Democratic Party, or PSD, the PNL, the reformist Save Romania Union party, and the small ethnic Hungarian UDMR party. Ahead of his nomination, the PSD has pushed for a power-sharing agreement that would see a rotation of the prime ministerial post. While speaking after being nominated for the prime ministerial position, Bolojan said he's 'fully aware of the great responsibility' the role will bring and acknowledged it 'will not be an easy undertaking.' 'I will pursue three priorities: to restore order to the country's finances, to work toward good governance that creates conditions for development in Romania, and … to show proper respect to the Romanian people," he furthered. While the far-right parties recently won a third of the parliament seats, they were kept out of the talks to form a new government. Defeated presidential candidate labelled the move as 'a disgrace and an insult'. Meanwhile, the European Union has voiced concerns over the rise of Eurosceptic parties in NATO member Romania that are opposed to sending military aid to Ukraine. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies.

Time of India

2 hours ago

• Time of India

Trump wants a Nobel Prize: These four US Presidents including Obama had received it

As U.S. President Donald Trump continues to publicly express frustration over not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, he has once again pointed to his self-claimed diplomatic successes as proof of deserving the world's most prestigious peace honour. As of date only four US Presidents and one Vice President has been recognised with the honour since its inception. Each of them earned the prize under vastly different historical circumstances, often after significant international consensus and, at times, long-standing public service. Theodore Roosevelt (1906) The first U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. He was honoured for mediating the peace settlement between Russia and Japan through the Treaty of Portsmouth, which ended the 1904–05 Russo-Japanese War. Also Read: 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the war between India and Pakistan': Trump does it again Live Events Roosevelt's intervention was significant in halting hostilities in East Asia and marked a turning point in U.S. global diplomacy. Despite the award, critics of the time questioned Roosevelt's broader imperialist policies. Woodrow Wilson (1919) In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the Peace Prize for his role in ending World War I and founding the League of Nations, the first global intergovernmental organisation aimed at maintaining peace. Although Wilson's vision helped shape the post-war order, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty, and the U.S. never joined the League. The prize, presented in 1920, reflected both Wilson's aspirations and the limitations of U.S. isolationism at the time. Jimmy Carter (2002) Former President Jimmy Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002—21 years after leaving office. The Nobel Committee recognised his decades-long work in advancing human rights, promoting democracy, and facilitating peaceful conflict resolution globally. His post-presidency work through Also Read: 6 times in one post- Trump brings up Nobel Peace Prize again and again The Carter Center, including efforts in global disease eradication and free elections, contributed to the honour. Carter had earlier facilitated the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel during his presidency. Barack Obama (2009) Barack Obama was awarded the Peace Prize in 2009, less than a year into his presidency. The Nobel Committee cited his 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples' and for promoting nuclear non-proliferation. However, the decision sparked global debate, with critics pointing to his limited record at the time. The prize was seen by many as an encouragement for future action rather than a reward for past achievement. Al Gore (2007) Although not a U.S. president, former Vice President Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The prize recognised their joint efforts in raising awareness about global warming and pushing for action against climate change. Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth and his international campaigning were central to the award. Trump's case President Trump has been nominated multiple times, for the 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2024 Peace Prizes, for a series of diplomatic moves, including the Abraham Accords , which normalised ties between Israel and several Arab states, and his summit diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In 2025, U.S. Representative Darrell Issa officially nominated Trump for the prize. Trump has repeatedly voiced frustration over not receiving the award. In his latest social media post, Trump said, 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me.' He also referenced his claimed role in preventing a war between India and Pakistan and in easing tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Nile dam. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )

Business Standard

2 hours ago

• Business Standard

Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate: The 3D solution for India's Pakistan problem

Last week, National Interest teased a sequel: The perils of self-hyphenation. What does this mean? For three decades de-hyphenation from Pakistan has been the centre point of our grand strategy. But we can't move away from Pakistan physically or strategically. As Atal Bihari Vajpayee's immortal line goes: 'You cannot choose your neighbours.' India is particularly 'blessed' in that respect, with two big hostile nuclear-armed neighbours. They are in a tight strategic alliance, which is today perhaps the strongest in the world after America and Israel. Yet they're different countries, with shared interests but different priorities. You have to have the wherewithal to deal with them. Ideally, one at a time but be prepared in case they decide to collude, either indirectly as principal-and-proxy, as during Operation Sindoor, or, who knows, in active warfare. The first element of Indian grand strategy, therefore, has to be to prevent. Of the two, militarily and economically, India is much better equipped to deal with Pakistan. China is the really formidable challenge that we will need years to either match up to, or to create sufficient mutual vested interest in stable peace. That is where the idea of de-hyphenation with Pakistan comes from. It is wise, and has been pursued by every Prime Minister since Indira Gandhi's second coming in 1980. India has pushed back sharply at any suggestion of an Indo-Pak policy from Western powers (read the United States). Progress on this was slow, until the first Bill Clinton term, and then picked up. In the two decades since the nuclear deal, it has moved at a sprinting pace. India pushed it to the extent that it objected if a Western leader combined visits to India and Pakistan. The two-country rule was seen as an offence and another name of hyphenation, however convenient it might have been for visitors. The first sign it was working came during Mr Clinton's post-Kargil visit when he did touch down in Pakistan but left after a few hours at the airport, having delivered a finger-wagging 'maps in the subcontinent can no longer be redrawn in blood' warning to the Pakistanis. This principle is now so firmly established that we just saw how the Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto visiting India as our Republic Day chief guest was gently dissuaded from adding Pakistan to the itinerary. The Americans used a different description, saying that their view on the subcontinent is not a zero-sum game. That they could have ties with India and Pakistan independent of each other and unencumbered by the burdens of the Cold War. The Simla Agreement is rooted in this principle — that henceforth, India and Pakistan will both discuss all their issues bilaterally. It implied that no third party, no mediator had any further role to play, and that the old UN Security Council Resolutions were accordingly rendered obsolete. This is why India became so triggered by Donald Trump's repeated assertion (16 times so far) that he brought about the peace between India and Pakistan. The Congress latched on, accusing Narendra Modi of surrendering under Mr Trump's pressure ('Narender, surrender') and he responded. At this point, however, it looks like both sides have calmed down. Hopefully, what both sides call the most consequential strategic relationship of the 21st century will survive this turbulence. Let's be optimistic now and hope that Mr Trump takes a chill pill on the subcontinent, understanding that if he so needs a Nobel, this is the wrong geostrategic patch for him to find it. If India and Pakistan do really decide on a permanent peace, why would they give some outsider the credit? There are Nobel hopefuls here as well. Everybody can be aspirational, and in this case, in a good way. How will the picture look if and when Mr Trump does calm down? That's the question that takes us back to self-hyphenation. Check out the number of times Pakistan features in our, mostly the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's), political discourse, and not necessarily after Op Sindoor. It's a harsh reality, but must be stated, that over the years, this BJP government has pretty much built its domestic politics around a permanently hostile Pakistan. I don't know how you prefer to analyse these things. But if you simply did a word-cloud analysis of all speeches by the Prime Minister, you will find Pakistan featuring, compared to China, 100:1. In fact, maybe even more than that. How does one explain this, when we are also told that China is the real long-term threat to India? Pakistan doesn't matter so much. We've left it so far behind. It is a belief shared across the political and intellectual divide going back four decades. General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, in a famous 1986 interview with India Today, had said: 'China is the real challenge. Pakistan can be handled en passant.' Fun fact: That's the first time I read that expression. It means 'in passing' and is drawn from nonchalantly knocking off a pawn in chess. You might translate it into Hindi as 'chalte chalte'. As in, Pakistan ko hum chalte chalte sambhal sakte hain. How has what we thought we could handle en passant in 1986 returned to centre stage? The short answer: We've reinstalled it there. The Modi government has done it by making Pakistan an essential feature of its domestic politics. This political formulation isn't at all twisted. It is quite linear. Pakistan equals terrorism, which means Islamist terrorism, and suffice it to say, makes the core of the politics of Hindu-Muslim polarisation. India's larger strategic plan of these three decades is sound and pragmatic. Stabilise the situation with China and respond only to the gravest provocation. Create the time to build India's economy and reposition it favourably in the post-Cold War era as its comprehensive national power (CNP) rises. Meanwhile, keep advising the world not to hyphenate you with Pakistan, as you've moved into a different orbit, and are poised to jump higher still. But, are we following that advice ourselves? The evidence of the past decade isn't reassuring — especially since 2019, after Pulwama won the Modi government its biggest election victory yet. Since then, Pakistan has become central to the Modi-BJP politics. This is our self-hyphenation. It has now reached a stage where even the Pakistanis would think they can game our responses. They will end up suffering more in the end, as we saw again in their battered airbases. But if they were so rational, they won't be trapped in this permanent enmity with India. This also guarantees Pakistan army its pre-eminence there. See how Op Sindoor has pulled Asim Munir from the public opinion doghouse to national adulation. This underlines the perils of self-hyphenation. By making Pakistan central to its politics, the BJP has now created an unexpected predicament for itself, and for India — where its domestic political interests are clashing with India's geopolitical priorities. Indian strategists are smart and need space to deal with this Trumpian world of many simultaneous wars. They will be strengthened by a reboot in our domestic politics. On Pakistan, our diplomats should use their skills to keep diminishing the threat, as focused military spending builds deterrence. Meanwhile, the BJP's politics should drop this re-hyphenation. Diminish, deter, de-hyphenate. That's the 3D solution to our Pakistan problem.