Most of us would appreciate a token of appreciation from our boss, especially at Christmas. Even if we get a bonus from the organisation that employs us, a small present or a card for everyone on the team shows we’re valued by the boss themselves – who could object to something like that?
Maybe that was the reasoning running through Donald Trump’s head when he decided to send some gifts to three members of his team, which – due to federal government transparency rules – have just been publicly disclosed.
Where some bosses might buy a Toblerone for everyone on their staff, the President has gone his own way: he seems to have given $45,000 (£33,200) each to three of his team, and nothing to almost everyone else – at least according to disclosures so far.
South Park TV series renamed in apparent Trump reference
The creators of the animated TV show have announced that its new series will be called South America, appearing to reference Donald Trump’s recent retitling spree.
The context
The President signed an executive order in August to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America amid trade tensions with Canada, and Apple and Google subsequently changed the name in their respective maps apps for US-based users. Trump also declared that the Gulf of Mexico should be called the Gulf of America last year.
A day before the South Park announcement, Trump shared an AI-generated video of him placing the word “America” over “Mexico” on a “Welcome to New Mexico” sign.
south park’s creators, matt stone and trey parker
History with Trump
Previously, an episode from the 27th series of the long-running show, which is known for its profanity and dark humour, depicted Trump naked in bed with Satan.
In response, the White House described as a “fourth-rate” show that was “hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention.”
Will the new name stick?
- The announcement came after won an Emmy for Outstanding Animated Program on Sunday.
- The name change shared to the show’s official social media account featured an image of the South Park sign with the word “Park” replaced with “America”.
- It remains unclear whether the new name will be adopted permanently or if it will revert to the original, with the 29th series premiering on 16 September.
All the things Trump has tried to rename – and why it smacks of desperation
First there was the Gulf of America, then Lake America.
Now, Trump has suggested renaming the state of New Mexico as ‘New America.’
Oil prices spike after US strikes on Iranian tankers
The price of oil has risen to over $100 a barrel for the first time since July after the latest exchange of strikes between the US and Iran.
Renewed attacks
The US military said it had “destroyed” several Iranian tankers on Tuesday after Tehran attempted to strike a US navy warship with ballistic missiles.
- The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it struck a US military base in Jordan in retaliation. Air defence systems destroyed 18 of the ballistic missiles, with two more landing in unpopulated areas, causing no casualties, according to Jordan’s state news agency.
Rising energy prices
Brent crude, the international benchmark for oil prices, rose 2.1 per cent past the milestone amid the renewed fighting. It is up more than 60 per cent this year.
UK gas prices have also soared, with the benchmark British gas contract rising to its highest level since December 2022.
3 min read
4 min read
What this means for you
The immediate impact is the rate you can get a new fix at will get even more expensive. Then longer term, this feeds into the January price cap. It’s currently on target to rise 10% to 15% over October’s cap, and that remember is already confirmed to rise 3.6%, and was on top of the 12.6% rise in July.
money saving expert founder Martin Lewis on impact of rising gas prices
Trump’s war in Iran is driving the worst wave of pirate attacks in decades
Reduced security, new shipping routes, and desperation are fuelling a rise in attacks.
Israel sanctions row – has Burnham made his first mistake?
Andy Burnham’s Government announced a ban on trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank yesterday.
It was presented as an attempt to protect the prospect of a two-state solution, but it has already provoked threats of retaliation from Israel and drawn criticism from US politicians.
Our writers give their views on whether this is a principled attempt to restrain Israel, or an ineffective gesture.
Patrick Cockburn: Suffering makes sanctions a moral necessity
“The terrible fate of the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank is the great moral issue of our age.
“It should be impossible for any decent individual or government to know about the 75,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza and say ‘there was right on both sides’.
“On the contrary, this is an issue about right and wrong and the British Government is wholly correct, if late in the day.”
Jonathan Sacerdoti: This cynical move won’t help Palestinians
“The measures will do nothing tangible for Palestinians, nothing to advance peace and nothing to improve Israel’s security.
“For Britain, meanwhile, they risk damaging relations with Israel and the United States, while broadcasting a broader message of weakness: sufficient domestic political pressure can dictate British foreign policy.”
3 min read
3 min read
Paul Wood: Netanyahu’s Government has gotten exactly what they want
“If the Burnham Government hopes to change Israel’s behaviour, there may be the opposite effect to the one intended.
“The far-right members of Netanyahu’s government have spent the current election campaign looking for a fight with a foreign government – they believe they can only benefit from the ensuing controversy. Britain has now given them what they want.”
Kitty Donaldson: Greens are real target
“Burnham is seeking to distinguish himself from Starmer’s handling of Gaza and attempting to win back voters who have drifted to the Green Party. However, whether these sanctions go far enough for Green voters is another question.”
UK politics
State pension triple lock could be axed – how to replace it
Andy Burnham is facing growing pressure to scrap the triple lock on state pensions to help repair the nations’ finances.
Here’s how the Government could navigate any journey away from the policy – and what could replace it.
Why might the triple lock be axed?
The British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) has, for the first time, called on Chancellor John Healey to abandon the policy, under which the state pension rises by whichever is highest of inflation, wage growth or 2.5 per cent each year.
The BCC argued that replacing it with an inflation-matched raise (a single lock) could save £3.3bn in two years. Currently, the triple lock costs £146bn a year.
Other options to replace triple lock
Smoothed earnings link
Mostly following wage growth but rising with inflation if there’s a temporary price shock.
Double lock
Removing the 2.5 per cent guarantee, rising with the higher of inflation or wages.
People build up credits through work and activities, and retirement age is determined by individual health.
Why is it controversial?
The Labour Party committed to keeping the triple lock in its 2024 manifesto. Going back on this would likely alienate older voters, who are generally more likely to go to the polls in an election than younger generations.
2 min read
3 min read
‘The triple lock has got to go’
There is no longer a financial or moral justification for keeping the triple lock, but scrapping it represents a political risk that no prime minister has felt like taking.
It was only introduced to rebuild the value of the state pension after decades in which it had fallen relative to earnings – not necessarily as a permanent settlement.
The inescapable fact is that most of us are living longer and collecting pensions for longer. Someone has to pay for that, and the bill goes to people of working age.
3 min read
Frequently consuming drinks at very high temperatures increases the risk of oesophageal cancer – cancer of the food pipe or gullet – UK research suggests.
A three times higher chance
The study, from Oxford Population Health at the University of Oxford, included nearly a million people and found those who drank “very hot” drinks had about a three times higher risk of oesophageal .
Hot liquid may damage the cell lining of the food pipe as it travels down to the stomach, which could increase the risk of cancer developing, though the overall risk is low.
3 min read
3 min read
How hot is too hot?
The research, published in the , did not record the temperature of drinks. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified drinking beverages above 65°C as “probably carcinogenic”.
Drinking six or more hot beverages a day also increases the risk, data from 977,282 middle-aged men and women in this latest study shows.
What to do
- Letting drinks cool down before drinking or adding cold milk can negate the risk, experts agreed.
- Researchers said the temperature at which coffee and tea is drunk in Western populations is estimated to be .
- “More research is needed to identify the exact drink temperatures linked to increased risk,” the researchers added.
5 min read
A rare cancer
The researchers said that one or two in every 10 oesophageal cancers could be avoided if people stopped consuming hot drinks.
The cancer is rare, though, with only around 1 per cent of the UK population at risk of being diagnosed with this type of cancer.
- Other factors, such as smoking, pose a comparatively bigger risk for developing oesophageal cancer.
Don’t make these money moves before next month’s Budget
With next month’s Budget fast approaching, speculation over what the Chancellor might announce is rife.
But history suggests making moves before the red box is opened can leave people worse off. Here is what to avoid.
Taking tax-free cash early
- One of the most obvious reactions to is to take the 25 per cent tax-free lump sum before the rules potentially change.
- The Institute for Fiscal Studies proposed cutting the lump sum to £100,000 in 2024 but the change has still not been implemented.
- Ian Cook, chartered financial planner at Quilter Cheviot, warned that taking the lump sum could undermine long-term retirement plans, and means the money loses the opportunity to remain invested.
Selling assets just in case
Another rumoured Budget policy change is that the capital gains tax (CGT) rate could increase, which can tempt investors to sell assets now and pay today’s tax rate.
- However, this can mean paying more tax than needed if assets are sold in bulk, as there are multiple tax-free allowances before CGT is owed.
Giving away too much
With speculation that inheritance tax (IHT) could be raised, people often use gifting to avoid it, as gifts given more than seven years before death are exempt from IHT.
However, experts warn that rushing into this can lead to people giving away more than they can afford.
3 min read
3 min read
Making a hasty property move
There have been suggestions that the recently introduced mansion tax could be charged on homes worth £1.5m or more, rather than the current £2m.
Eamonn Prendergast, chartered financial planner at Palantir Financial Planning, said people should not panic and instead “ignore speculation when making a property purchase or sale decision, and act as if there was no speculation” rather than making a move they don’t really want.
Doing nothing at all
But experts warn that the biggest trap is becoming so worried about the Budget that you stop making sensible financial decisions altogether.
Jason Hollands from wealth management firm Evelyn Partners says: “For investors and savers, the sensible approach is to focus on decisions that make sense under current rules rather than trying to second-guess the contents of a future Budget.
Hundreds of thousands of unemployed young people may see their benefits replaced with employment support under Government welfare reforms.
Here’s what we know.
Alan Milburn, the Government’s youth unemployment tsar, suggested many young people who are not in education, employment or training (Neets) – including those diagnosed with conditions like ADHD and anxiety – should see a shift in the state support they receive. “Work beats welfare every single time,” he said.
3 min read
3 min read
Why The Netherlands is a blueprint
- Milburn was visiting The Netherlands as part of a “fact-finding mission” as he prepares to publish his final recommendations in a landmark report about young people and work.
- This year, the UK topped for the first time since 2013.
- According to research from the independent think-tank The Resolution Foundation, if Britain’s Neet rate mirrored the Dutch rate, 600,000 more young adults would be in work.
- In The Netherlands, , whereas in Britain, support is generally for unemployment and centralised via the universal credit benefits system.
High anxiety levels
Figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) rank the UK at the top of the charts for anxiety levels among younger people, but The Netherlands comes in second.
Milburn highlighted how this doesn’t lead to low participation levels, adding: “Just because you’ve got a condition, or even because you’ve got the diagnosis, shouldn’t mean that you aren’t able to work.”
A growing problem
Nearly a quarter – around 250,000 – of young people who are classed as Neets are estimated to have mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, according to Department for Work and Pensions data.
The number of young people claiming Personal Independence Payments (PIP) for mental health conditions such as anxiety and neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD has also increased.
The three lucky recipients were Margo Martin, a White House communications adviser; Chamberlain Harris, a White House receptionist in Trump’s first term, who now helps oversee the President’s ballroom renovation; and – inevitably – Natalie Harp, Trump’s aide and close confidante, who was only just starting to drop out of the headlines. (Walt Nauta, the director of Oval Office operations, received a $20,000/£14,755 gift.)
Let’s be honest: three gifts of $45,000 is nothing to Trump, a billionaire who has dramatically increased his own net worth and that of his family during the time he’s been in office. But to each of the three women receiving the “gifts”, it represents almost four months of their salary. Harp, Martin and Harris make $150,000 (£110,669) annually while Nauta earns $175,000 (£129,114) a year, the White House’s salary disclosure report to Congress said.
That would be a distinctly weird gift for any boss to give to members of their team – especially when they manage a huge team and singled out mainly a handful of women to be the subjects of his generosity. Trump has always liked to cultivate an image of himself as a benevolent rich man, often promising lavish sums to charitable causes while on camera during (sums which, it later emerged, were never once shown to have come from Trump’s own pocket).
But these gifts will look different to some people, coming as they do from a man who used to operate the Miss Universe Organisation, and who has a documented history of crossing women’s boundaries. Others may be concerned to see federal employees – whose loyalty is supposed to be to the US and its citizens, not the president personally – festooned with personal largesse.
Others, possibly including First Lady Melania, may simply raise an eyebrow to see yet another level of weirdness and compromise added to Trump’s already complex relationship with Natalie Harp, the aide who wrote the President devotional notes allegedly reading, “you are all that matters to me”, who ran alongside his golf carts rather than leave him to play without her, and rode along in the boot of a car instead of face the prospect of travelling separately.
The White House insists that there is nothing unusual about Trump’s gifting. “The President has a long-standing practise of giving Christmas gifts to people in his orbit,” it said in a statement, which later went on to explain that “the gifts at issue here have nothing to do with any of these individuals’ official government duties, and, therefore, are entirely permissible under relevant legal and ethical standards”.
Trump’s team are caught between what federal ethics rules require, and what looks straightforwardly weird to any outside observer. Isn’t it weird for any boss – let alone the President of the United States – to give tens of thousands of dollars to three of his employees, supposedly for reasons that have nothing to do with work?
Whatever the actual intent behind Trump’s gifts, they serve to represent yet another way Trump is turning himself into an American king – with the White House staff as his royal court, and Mar-a-Lago increasingly resembling Versailles. Trump is even gluing elaborate gold decorations onto everything that moves to match that aesthetic.
We mostly remember Versailles today as a lavish and beautiful – if over-elaborate – building. But at the time it had political intent: the French kings were intentionally pulling their court away from the rest of society, where they could be constantly monitored, and where their prospects relied entirely on their relations with the king himself.
In the world of courtly politics, lavish gifts showed who was in favour, and what kind of behaviour the king was looking for from everyone else. Looked at through that lens, the fourth gift from Trump to Walt Nauta, the long-time aide who was for a time charged in connection to Trump’s classified documents case, might also raise eyebrows. The charges were dropped by the US special counsel after Trump won the 2024 election because of Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president. Then last year an appeals court granted a request by prosecutors to drop the case.
Versailles was a gilded cage, but it was one that shut off not just the French king, but everyone with access to him, from the outside world. They grew increasingly unaware of the problems and mounting misery of the country they led – which in time led to the spectacular ructions of the French Revolution.
Trump and his courtiers might be enjoying, for now, their recreation of Versailles. But they might do well to bear in mind how that ended the first time around.