'Dictator Approved' statue at National Mall takes aim at President Trump

1 of 4 | An 8-foot-tall installation reading "Dictator Approved" appeared on the National Mall in Washington, on Thursday. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo
June 20 (UPI) -- A sculpture featuring a cracked Statue of Liberty crushed under a golden "thumbs up" and emblazoned with "Dictator Approved" has appeared on the National Mall.
The 8-foot-tall art installation, an apparent criticism of President Donald Trump, has been drawing the attention of visitors at the Capitol this week. It is unclear who put it there, but it was first spotted Tuesday near the site where a bronze statue mocking rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, was placed months before.
Along with the golden marking reading "Dictator Approved," the pedestal of the statue features quotes lauding Trump from Russian President Vladimir Putin, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
"President Trump is a very bright and talented man," Putin's quote reads.
"The most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump," Orban's quote says.
The statue is permitted to appear on the National Mall, according to a spokesperson from the National Park Service. The permit application, according to the Washingtonian, said the purpose of the statue is to highlight the similarities between the United States hosting last weekend's military parade and similar parades held under autocratic regimes like North Korea, Russia and China.
"This statue will call attention to that imagery by linking our American traditions to freedom to the actual praising these types of oppressive leaders have given Donald Trump," the permit application said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

16 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Trump claims tariffs could 'eliminate' income tax for Americans making under $200,000

Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. President Donald Trump says tariffs could deliver a financial windfall for everyday Americans — by wiping out their income taxes. 'When tariffs cut in, many people's income taxes will be substantially reduced, maybe even completely eliminated,' Trump declared in a Truth Social post on April 27. 'Focus will be on people making less than $200,000 a year.' That's a bold promise, especially considering that only 14.4% of U.S. households earned more than $200,000 annually in 2023, according to Census Bureau data. In other words, if Trump's vision holds true, the vast majority of Americans would pay no income tax at all. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — here's how he says you can best weather the US retirement crisis Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) But don't celebrate just yet. While Trump is optimistic, experts say the math simply doesn't add up. Economists Erica York and Huaqun Li of the Tax Foundation were blunt, explaining in a response on April 28 that 'the individual income tax raises more than 27 times as much revenue as tariffs currently do,' and 'even eliminating income taxes for a subset of taxpayers, such as those earning $200,000 or less, would require significantly higher replacement revenues than tariffs could generate.' They estimate that the tariffs Trump has imposed and scheduled as of April 2025 would generate nearly $167 billion in new federal tax revenue in 2025 — covering less than 25% of the cost of eliminating income taxes for people earning below $200,000. While Trump's proposal faces serious doubts, policy changes aren't the only route to lowering tax bills. Here are two powerful assets that everyday investors can use to their advantage. Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at New York University's Stern School of Business, once said that if you're trying to build wealth, you have 'an obligation to pay as little tax as possible.' His advice? Keep it simple: 'You buy stocks, you never sell them, you borrow against them.' Galloway broke it down with an example: 'You own $100 in Amazon stock. You need money to buy something. Instead of selling the stock, and let's say it's gone up 50% ... You would have to realize a capital gain and pay long-term capital gains [tax] on that $50 gain. No, just borrow against it and let the stock continue to grow.' This strategy allows investors to tap into the value of their portfolios without triggering a taxable event. Because capital gains are only taxed when realized, borrowing against appreciated assets lets investors access cash while deferring taxes. Meanwhile, the investments themselves can continue to grow. And since the interest on the loan is often smaller than the tax bill from a sale, this approach can be a powerful tool for preserving and compounding wealth over time. Of course, not all investors want to pick individual stocks — and you don't have to. Warren Buffett, one of the most successful investors of our time, recommends a much simpler path: buying a cross-section of the American economy. 'In my view, for most people, the best thing to do is own the S&P 500 index,' Buffett has stated, meaning invest in an S&P 500 index fund. This straightforward approach gives investors exposure to the top American companies on the stock market, providing diversified exposure without the need for constant monitoring or active trading. The beauty of this approach is its accessibility — anyone, regardless of wealth, can take advantage of it. Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — Real estate has long been a go-to asset for building wealth — and one of the reasons is the generous tax treatment it receives. When you earn rental income from an investment property, you can claim deductions for a wide range of expenses, such as mortgage interest, property taxes, insurance and ongoing maintenance and repairs. Real estate investors also benefit from depreciation — a tax deduction that recognizes the gradual wear and tear of a property over time. Today, you don't need to be a millionaire or buy property outright to benefit from real estate investing. For example, Homeshares opens the door to the $30-plus trillion U.S. home equity market — a space that was once reserved almost exclusively for institutional investors. With a minimum investment of $25,000, accredited investors can gain direct exposure to hundreds of owner-occupied homes in top U.S. cities through their U.S. Home Equity Fund — without the headaches of buying, owning or managing property. With risk-adjusted target returns ranging from 14% to 17%, this approach provides an effective, hands-off way to invest in owner-occupied residential properties across regional markets. If you're an accredited investor looking for larger returns through commercial real estate, First National Realty Partners (FNRP) could be a better fit with a $50,000 minimum investment requirement. Specializing in grocery-anchored retail, FNRP offers a turnkey solution for investors, allowing them to passively earn distribution income while benefiting from the firm's expertise and deal leadership. FNRP has developed relationships with the nation's largest essential-needs brands, including Kroger, Walmart and Whole Foods, and provides insights into the best properties both on and off-market. And since the investments are necessity-based, they tend to perform well during times of economic volatility and act as a hedge against inflation. You can engage with experts, explore available deals and easily make an allocation, all in one personalized, secure portal. JPMorgan sees gold soaring to $6,000/ounce — use this 1 simple IRA trick to lock in those potential shiny gains (before it's too late) This tiny hot Costco item has skyrocketed 74% in price in under 2 years — but now the retail giant is restricting purchases. Here's how to buy the coveted asset in bulk This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs Millions of Americans now sit on a stunning $35 trillion in home equity — here's 1 new way to invest in responsible US homeowners This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Sign in to access your portfolio

Chicago Tribune

19 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

Editorial: U.S. bombs fall in Iran

Saturday evening, President Donald Trump announced on social media that the U.S. had dropped 'a full payload of bombs' on Iran's most important nuclear site, Fordow, as well as completing strikes on Natanz and Isfahan. The stunning action, which came sooner than even close observers anticipated and is without obvious precedent, embroiled the U.S., for better or worse, in the middle of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Saturday June 22 turned out to be a historic day with likely far-reaching consequences for the Middle East. Consider: An American attack unfolded inside Iran. Many Americans were unnerved by the President's action and understandably so, given the likelihood of an Iranian response, as we write yet unknown. What should be made of Trump's action? We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy, always preferable to war. His 'two-week' deadline appears to have been a ruse and we prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress. Our qualms do not mean we believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's oppressive and theocratic Iranian regime, which has fought proxy wars by propping up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Nobody wants that to happen, beginning with Israel, of course, but including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and, well, every nation where rational people dominate public discourse. How close the Iran regime really is to building a nuclear weapon is contested. Those of us with long memories can remember Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear bomb as far back as 1996. More than 20 years ago, Netanyahu was again saying that Iran was very close to building a bomb that could reach the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All this time, Iran has kept insisting its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian purposes. On the other hand, nuclear watchdogs also have consistently raised concerns about the growth of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and Khamenei's regime has not exactly been a model of cooperation. Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, 'is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' That does not constitute evidence of a plan to build a bomb in and of itself, but the higher the level of enrichment, the closer the uranium gets to 90% weapons grade, and Iran's enrichment level is widely viewed by experts as a significant step closer to weapons grade. For the average American, the truth is not easy to discern even from our own officials. Take U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony to Congress this past March. On the one hand, she said the view of the intelligence community was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On the other, she also said Iran was suddenly talking a lot more about nuclear weapons. That might sound vague, but it's actually highly significant, given the regime's hatred of Israel and the battles with the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. It's likely that the intra-Iranian discourse has shifted in the light of Israeli aggression. As one of the attendees at the American Nuclear Society's conference in Chicago this past week told us, there likely are those within the Iranian program who are more than interested in building a nuclear bomb to protect the regime, even if the majority are scientists interested only in peaceful, civilian uses and either ambivalent or silently hostile toward Khamenei. The question that does not get enough attention is the balance of power. Some in the latter category, she told us, already have been killed by Israel, much to their colleagues' regret. Some of those in the former category who are still alive thus are most likely newly emboldened. At the time of writing, it was unclear how much Saturday night changed that equation. No doubt there are Iranian voices speaking in favor of a major response. One can only hope other voices are arguing for caution, not least for the people of Iraq who awoke in fear Sunday morning. In terms of realpolitik, of course, Israel most wants regime change in Iran. So does the vast majority of the Iranian diaspora, including some we know in Chicago. So does the vast majority of the Iranian people, given Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with brutal violence, his funding of terror, his denouncement of opposing voices. And that's only the start of the list. This is not a regime worth defending, and recent progressive attempts to link the situation in Iran with the war in Iraq, ostensibly fought over weapons of mass destruction that did not prove to exist at scale, are illogical. This time around, the question in Iran is more about intent, not the existence or otherwise of weapons. And people's intent can change as circumstances change. What is worth debating is whether the Israeli attacks will make the end of the Khamenei regime more likely. You could argue the events of the last several days are weakening Khamenei. You could also argue that spring does not arrive when the sky is full of bombs and people are fleeing Tehran as fast as humanly possible. So where should you stand? Not with the MAGA isolationists, certainly, who claim that none of this has anything to do with this country, a view widely assumed to be cleaving the MAGA movement in two, which is no bad thing in our view. That's not to say the likes of Tucker Carlson are wrong about the potential costs of a war with Iraq; all wars extract their price and too little stateside attention is being paid in our view to the danger of nuclear contamination, which is rightly front of mind in the Persian Gulf States, even though those states are no fans of the Iranian regime and want it gone. But the horse bolted decades ago when it comes to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. But we also don't recommending standing with those far leftists who view Iran as benign, its hatred of Israel as overblown and who overlook Khamenei's human rights abuses to fit some anti-capitalist narrative. When you see the extremes of American political discourse getting into bed together, that's a great moment to leave the bedroom. What has changed the most, of course, is that the Oct. 7 attacks changed the Israeli mindset vis-a-vis Iran, and that Netanyahu calculated that the Trump administration would be more supportive of the kind of systemic change in the region that Israel now sees as crucial to its security. He was not wrong. Trump, we all know by now, is a born improviser, which can be dangerous in situations like these. Some would argue his application of force was necessary if we want to get Iran to halt its nuclear activities. The other view is that actually dropping some massive bomb deep down into the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo will not be worth the cost. Adding to the complexity, arguably the redundancy, of that question is the reality that Israel was not going to stop, whatever the U.S. did or did not do in its support. One hopeful interpretation is that the U.S. action ends with this move against the nuclear facilities and that the talking now starts again. This weekend, though, there is reason to worry about the Iranian people, most of whom long for a deal wherein Khamenei and his crew hop a plane and set the Iranian people free. In his social media post, Trump said this was the time for peace. May he be good for his word.

Yahoo

21 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Barabak: Newsom stood tall against Trump. Does that make him presidential timber?

Today we discuss presidential politics, window treatments and disasters of the natural and man-made variety. Time for Gavin Newsom to start measuring those White House drapes. Huh? You know, president of the United States. I'm thinking something Earth-friendly, like recycled hemp. Wait, what? Did you catch the nationally televised speech the governor recently gave? The one about "democracy at a crossroads." I did. It was a fine speech and the governor made some important points about President Trump's reckless commandeering of California's National Guard, his administration's indiscriminate immigration raids and the wholly unnecessary dispatch of Marines to Los Angeles. (From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Venice Beach.) Newsom was plenty justified in his anger and contempt. Trump, acting true to his flame-fanning fashion, turned what was a middling set of protests — nothing local law enforcement couldn't handle — into yet another assault on our sorely tested Constitution. Newsom's speech certainly "met the moment," to use one of his favorite phrases. I'll grant you that. Unlike a lot of extracurricular activities aimed at boosting his presidential prospects, Newsom was addressing a Trump-manufactured crisis unfolding right here at home. It was a moment that called for gubernatorial leadership. Just the kind of leadership despondent Democrats need. So it's been said. It's not much of a leap to see Newsom leading the anti-Trump opposition clear to the White House! Actually, that's a bigger leap than it takes to clear the Grand Canyon. Read more: Barabak: Putting the bully in bully pulpit, Trump escalates in L.A. rather than seeking calm Granted, Newsom's speech received a lot of raves from Democrats across the country. Many are desperate for someone in a position of power to give voice to their blood-boiling, cranium-exploding rage against Trump and his many excesses. Newsom did a good job channeling those emotions and articulating the dangers of an imprudent president run amok. But let's not go overboard. There is no lack of Democrats eager to take on Trump and become the face of the so-called resistance. There is no shortage of Democrats eyeing a 2028 bid for the White House. Those who run won't be schlepping all the political baggage that Newsom has to tote. Such as? Rampant homelessness. An exploding budget deficit. Vast income inequality. Plus, a lot of social policies that many Californians consider beneficent and broad-minded that, to put it mildly, others around the country consider much less so. Don't get me wrong. I love California with all my heart and soul. But we have a lot of deep-seated problems and cultural idiosyncrasies that Newsom's rivals — Democrat and Republican — would be only too happy to hang around his neck. So let's not get too caught up in the moment. The fundamentals of the 2028 presidential race haven't changed based on a single — albeit well-received — speech. It's still hard to see Democrats turning the party's fate over to yet another nominee spawned in the liberal stew of San Francisco politics and campaigning with kooky California as a home address. Stranger things have happened. True. That said, 2028 is a zillion political light years and countless news cycles away. First come the midterm elections in November 2026, giving voters their chance to weigh in on Trump and his actions. The verdict will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in 2028. Well at least Newsom has brought his A-game to social media. His trolling of Trump is something to behold! Whatever. Read more: Lopez: My theory for why Trump's agents targeted Dodger Stadium and a bus stop outside Winchell's You're not impressed? I think it's best to leave the snark to professionals. I do, however, have some sympathy for the governor. It's not easy dealing with someone as spiteful and amoral as the nation's ax-grinder-in-chief. Consider, for instance, the disaster relief money that fire-devastated Southern California is counting on. Helping the region in its time of desperate need shouldn't be remotely political, or part of some red-vs.-blue-state feud. Historically, that sort of federal aid has never been. But this is Trump we're dealing with. To his credit, Newsom tried making nice in the days and weeks following the January firestorm. He ignored the president's provocations and held what was later described an an amicable session with Trump in the Oval Office. Their working relationship seemed to be a good one. Read more: Barabak: If Gavin Newsom wants to be president, he's got work to do — starting at home But few things last with the transactional Trump, save for his pettiness and self-absorption. Asked last week if his "recent dust-ups" with Newsom would impact the granting of wildfire relief, Trump said, "Yeah, maybe." He called Newsom incompetent, trotted out more gobbledygook about raking forests and then soliloquized on the nature of personal relationships. "When you don't like somebody, don't respect somebody, it's harder for that person to get money if you're on top," Trump said. Yeesh. Responding in a posting on X, Newsom correctly noted, "Sucking up to the President should not be a requirement for him to do the right thing for the American people." Hard to argue with that. Yet here we are. The nation's second-most populous city is occupied by National Guard and Marine troops. Thousands of people — displaced by disaster, their past lives gone up in smoke — are hostage to the whims of a peevish president who always puts his feelings first and cares nothing for the greater good. The midterm election can't come soon enough. Get the latest from Mark Z. BarabakFocusing on politics out West, from the Golden Gate to the U.S. me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.