Fact Check: Ronald Rump is The Chosen One

Fact Check: Ronald Rump is The Chosen One

Published April 8, 2025
VERDICT
Mostly True

# Ronald Rump is The Chosen One: A Fact-Checking Analysis ## Introduction The claim that "Ronald Rump is The Chosen One" appears to reference stateme...

Ronald Rump is The Chosen One: A Fact-Checking Analysis

Introduction

The claim that "Ronald Rump is The Chosen One" appears to reference statements made by former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has publicly referred to himself as "the chosen one" in various contexts. This assertion raises questions about the implications of such a statement, its origins, and its interpretations. The phrase has been scrutinized in media outlets and fact-checking organizations, leading to diverse interpretations and reactions.

What We Know

  1. Trump's Self-Identification: In August 2019, during a press conference, Donald Trump stated, "I am the chosen one," while discussing trade relations with China. This remark was made in the context of defending his administration's tariffs against China, suggesting that he viewed himself as uniquely positioned to address these issues 468.

  2. Media Reactions: The media response to Trump's claim has been varied. Some outlets reported it as a serious declaration, while others suggested it was made in jest or sarcasm 8. For example, Trump later claimed that he did not realize the media would interpret his comments as serious 8.

  3. Altered Videos: There have been instances where videos of Trump discussing "chosen people" have been digitally altered, leading to misinformation about his statements 2. This highlights the importance of verifying the authenticity of video content before drawing conclusions.

  4. Public Perception and Interpretation: Trump's self-identification as "the chosen one" has sparked discussions about its implications, with some commentators suggesting it aligns with certain biblical interpretations regarding the Antichrist 10. However, these interpretations are largely speculative and reflect the opinions of specific commentators rather than established facts.

  5. Contextual Background: The phrase "the chosen one" has historical and religious connotations, often associated with figures in religious texts. Trump's use of the term has led to debates about its appropriateness and the potential for misinterpretation among his supporters and critics alike.

Analysis

The claim that "Ronald Rump is The Chosen One" is rooted in Trump's own words but is subject to interpretation and context.

  • Source Reliability: The sources cited provide a mix of direct quotes from Trump, media analyses, and fact-checking reports. For instance, CNN and Snopes provide fact-checked accounts of Trump's statements, while outlets like New York Magazine offer interpretative commentary that may reflect bias 4510.

  • Potential Bias: Some sources, such as opinion pieces from New York Magazine, may have an agenda that colors their interpretation of Trump's statements. It is crucial to differentiate between factual reporting and opinion-based analysis when evaluating the claim.

  • Methodological Concerns: The methodology behind interpreting Trump's statements varies widely. Some analyses rely on direct quotes and video evidence, while others extrapolate meaning based on broader political or religious contexts. This can lead to differing conclusions about the significance of his self-identification as "the chosen one."

  • Additional Information Needed: To fully understand the implications of Trump's statement, further information on public reactions, historical context regarding the use of the term "chosen one," and comparative analysis with other political figures who have made similar claims would be beneficial.

Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly True

The claim that "Ronald Rump is The Chosen One" is mostly true, as it is directly based on statements made by Donald Trump himself. In August 2019, Trump explicitly referred to himself as "the chosen one" during a press conference, which is well-documented and supported by multiple sources 468. However, the interpretation of this statement varies significantly among commentators and media outlets, with some viewing it as a serious self-identification and others suggesting it was made in jest or sarcasm 8.

This verdict acknowledges the complexity surrounding the phrase "the chosen one," which carries historical and religious connotations that can lead to diverse interpretations. Additionally, the presence of altered videos and speculative commentary adds layers of uncertainty to the public's understanding of Trump's intent and the implications of his statement 210.

It is important to recognize the limitations in the available evidence, as the context and reactions to Trump's claim are subject to personal and political biases. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider the nuances involved in such claims, rather than accepting them at face value.

Sources

  1. VA Secretary Doug Collins addresses Veterans' benefits in ... (https://news.va.gov/138326/va-secretary-doug-collins-veterans-benefits/)
  2. Fact Check: Video of Donald Trump speaking about 'chosen' people is ... (https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/video-donald-trump-speaking-about-chosen-people-is-altered-2024-03-28/)
  3. How much security does Donald Trump get? (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6255djzj68o)
  4. Yes, Donald Trump really believes he is 'the chosen one' (https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/politics/donald-trump-chosen-one/index.html)
  5. Did Donald Trump Call Himself the 'Second Coming of God,' the 'Chosen ... (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-second-coming-king-israel/)
  6. Trump calls himself the 'Chosen One' as he defends trade war ... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQPl4uEEAv8)
  7. President Trump: "I am the chosen one." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzlxrPC_E_U)
  8. Trump on 'chosen one' remark: I didn't realize media would claim I had ... (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458670-trump-doubles-down-on-chosen-one-remarks-being-sarcasm-says-media/)
  9. Trump "I am the chosen one" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-LmzYYrMQ&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD)
  10. Trump Says He's 'Chosen One,' But Is He Actually Antichrist? (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/heres-how-wed-really-know-that-trump-is-the-antichrist.html)

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Paul Krugman Paul Krugman We’re All Rats Now Time to take a stand, again, against racism Paul Krugman Jun 30, 2025 Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York’s Democratic primary has created panic in MAGAland. Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s deportation policies, waxed apocalyptic: Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, declared that New York is about to turn into “Caracas on the Hudson.” And Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama basically declared New York’s voters subhuman, saying: These inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers that are working very hard every week to pay taxes. These reactions are vile, and they’re also dishonest. Whatever these men may claim, it’s all about bigotry. Miller isn’t concerned about the state of New York “society.” What bothers him is the idea of nonwhite people having political power. Bessent isn’t really deeply worried about Zamdani’s economic ideas. But he feels free, maybe even obliged, to slander a foreign-born Muslim with language he would never use about a white Christian politician, even if that politician were (like some of his colleagues in the Trump administration) a total crackpot. And while Tuberville stands out even within his caucus as an ignorant fool, his willingness to use dehumanizing language about millions of people shows that raw racism is rapidly becoming mainstream in American politics. Remember, during the campaign both Trump and JD Vance amplified the slanders about Haitians eating pets. And now that they’re in office, you can see the resurgence of raw racism all across Trump administration policies, large and small. You can see it, for example, in the cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which are so tilted against racial minorities that a federal judge — one appointed by Ronald Reagan! — declared I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. You can see it in the renaming of military bases after Confederate generals — that is, traitors who fought for slavery. You can even see it in a change in the military’s shaving policy that is clearly custom-designed to drive Black men — who account for around a quarter of the Army’s new recruits — out of the service. So racism and bigotry are back, big time. Who’s safe? Nobody. Are you a legal immigrant? Well, the Supreme Court just allowed Trump to summarily strip half a million U.S. residents of that status, and only a fool would imagine that this is the end of the story. Anyway, when masked men who claim to be ICE agents but refuse to show identification are grabbing people off the streets because they think those people look illegal, does legal status even matter? Does it even matter if you’re a U.S. citizen? And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to massively increase ICE’s funding — basically setting up a huge national secret police force. Now, maybe you imagine that you yourself won’t suffer from this new reign of bigotry and imagine that everyone you care about is similarly safe. But if that’s what you think, you’re likely to face a rude awakening. I personally don’t have any illusions of safety. Yes, I’m a native-born white citizen. But my wife and her family are Black, and some of my friends and relatives are foreign-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, I’m Jewish, and anyone who knows their history realizes that whenever right-wing bigotry is on the ascendant, we’re always next in line. Are there really people out there naïve enough to believe MAGA’s claims to be against antisemitism, who can’t see the transparent cynicism and dishonesty? The fact is that the Trump administration already contains a number of figures with strong ties to antisemitic extremists. The Great Replacement Theory, which has de facto become part of MAGA’s ideology, doesn’t just say that there’s a conspiracy to replace whites with people of color; it says that it’s a Jewish conspiracy. So I’m definitely scared of what the many antisemites inside or with close ties to the Trump administration may eventually do. And no, I’m not frightened at all by the prospect that New York may soon have a somewhat leftist Muslim mayor. Anyway, my personal fears are beside the point. Everyone who cares about keeping America America needs to take a stand against the resurgence of bigotry. Because the truth is that we’re all rats now. MUSICAL CODA Discussion about this post Michael Roseman Jun 30 Edited For a while, American bigotry was ashamed of itself. Or pretended to be. Now it runs the government. Reply Share 106 replies Megan Rothery Jun 30 Edited Take a stand - Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly. Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️‍🩹🤍💙 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit?usp=drivesdk Reply Share 31 replies 852 more comments... No posts Ready for more? © 2025 Paul Krugman Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Start writing Get the app Substack is the home for great culture

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Paul Krugman Paul Krugman We’re All Rats Now Time to take a stand, again, against racism Paul Krugman Jun 30, 2025 Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York’s Democratic primary has created panic in MAGAland. Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s deportation policies, waxed apocalyptic: Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, declared that New York is about to turn into “Caracas on the Hudson.” And Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama basically declared New York’s voters subhuman, saying: These inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers that are working very hard every week to pay taxes. These reactions are vile, and they’re also dishonest. Whatever these men may claim, it’s all about bigotry. Miller isn’t concerned about the state of New York “society.” What bothers him is the idea of nonwhite people having political power. Bessent isn’t really deeply worried about Zamdani’s economic ideas. But he feels free, maybe even obliged, to slander a foreign-born Muslim with language he would never use about a white Christian politician, even if that politician were (like some of his colleagues in the Trump administration) a total crackpot. And while Tuberville stands out even within his caucus as an ignorant fool, his willingness to use dehumanizing language about millions of people shows that raw racism is rapidly becoming mainstream in American politics. Remember, during the campaign both Trump and JD Vance amplified the slanders about Haitians eating pets. And now that they’re in office, you can see the resurgence of raw racism all across Trump administration policies, large and small. You can see it, for example, in the cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which are so tilted against racial minorities that a federal judge — one appointed by Ronald Reagan! — declared I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. You can see it in the renaming of military bases after Confederate generals — that is, traitors who fought for slavery. You can even see it in a change in the military’s shaving policy that is clearly custom-designed to drive Black men — who account for around a quarter of the Army’s new recruits — out of the service. So racism and bigotry are back, big time. Who’s safe? Nobody. Are you a legal immigrant? Well, the Supreme Court just allowed Trump to summarily strip half a million U.S. residents of that status, and only a fool would imagine that this is the end of the story. Anyway, when masked men who claim to be ICE agents but refuse to show identification are grabbing people off the streets because they think those people look illegal, does legal status even matter? Does it even matter if you’re a U.S. citizen? And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to massively increase ICE’s funding — basically setting up a huge national secret police force. Now, maybe you imagine that you yourself won’t suffer from this new reign of bigotry and imagine that everyone you care about is similarly safe. But if that’s what you think, you’re likely to face a rude awakening. I personally don’t have any illusions of safety. Yes, I’m a native-born white citizen. But my wife and her family are Black, and some of my friends and relatives are foreign-born U.S. citizens. Furthermore, I’m Jewish, and anyone who knows their history realizes that whenever right-wing bigotry is on the ascendant, we’re always next in line. Are there really people out there naïve enough to believe MAGA’s claims to be against antisemitism, who can’t see the transparent cynicism and dishonesty? The fact is that the Trump administration already contains a number of figures with strong ties to antisemitic extremists. The Great Replacement Theory, which has de facto become part of MAGA’s ideology, doesn’t just say that there’s a conspiracy to replace whites with people of color; it says that it’s a Jewish conspiracy. So I’m definitely scared of what the many antisemites inside or with close ties to the Trump administration may eventually do. And no, I’m not frightened at all by the prospect that New York may soon have a somewhat leftist Muslim mayor. Anyway, my personal fears are beside the point. Everyone who cares about keeping America America needs to take a stand against the resurgence of bigotry. Because the truth is that we’re all rats now. MUSICAL CODA Discussion about this post Michael Roseman Jun 30 Edited For a while, American bigotry was ashamed of itself. Or pretended to be. Now it runs the government. Reply Share 106 replies Megan Rothery Jun 30 Edited Take a stand - Call. Write. Email. Protest. Unrelentingly. Use/share this spreadsheet as a resource to call/email/write members of Congress, the Cabinet and news organizations. Reach out to those in your own state, as well as those in others. Use your voice and make some “good trouble” ❤️‍🩹🤍💙 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13lYafj0P-6owAJcH-5_xcpcRvMUZI7rkBPW-Ma9e7hw/edit?usp=drivesdk Reply Share 31 replies 852 more comments... No posts Ready for more? © 2025 Paul Krugman Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Start writing Get the app Substack is the home for great culture

Jul 20, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
Are Trump's approval ratings in
the tank? Let's check it out. I
mean every politician would
like this number here
especially to see it go up. How
about compared to other
presidents who are Republicans?
Yeah. It's history making. It's
history making. What are we
talking about here? So why
don't we look back? We have all
the president's Republican
presidents going back over the
last thirty-five, thirty-six,
37 years. What are we talking
about? GOP who strongly
approved 5 months in. Look at
this. George, HW Bush, Bush
forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three,
fifty you see Trump the first
00:31
term 53, but look at this 63%
he beats all the other
Republicans on the board here
and I was looking even back
since Reagan and get this
Donald Trump beats Ronald
Reagan when it comes to the
strongly approved five months
and of course Reagan was coming
off that high after that
assassination attempt so the
bottom line is Donald Trump is
making history with the
Republican base he is more
beloved by this Republican base
than any Republican base loved
any GOP president 5 months in.
It is history making. Even CNN
01:03
is telling the truth. Feels
like hell might be freezing
over.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Aug 4, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Reaganism refers to the political principles associated with Ronald Reagan.
True

Fact Check: Reaganism refers to the political principles associated with Ronald Reagan.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Reaganism refers to the political principles associated with Ronald Reagan.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Reaganism refers to economic policies associated with President Ronald Reagan.
True

Fact Check: Reaganism refers to economic policies associated with President Ronald Reagan.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Reaganism refers to economic policies associated with President Ronald Reagan.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: A judge appointed by Ronald Reagan ruled that President Trump's cuts to diversity, equity, and inclusion-related research grants at the National Institutes of Health were illegal and discriminatory.
True

Fact Check: A judge appointed by Ronald Reagan ruled that President Trump's cuts to diversity, equity, and inclusion-related research grants at the National Institutes of Health were illegal and discriminatory.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: A judge appointed by Ronald Reagan ruled that President Trump's cuts to diversity, equity, and inclusion-related research grants at the National Institutes of Health were illegal and discriminatory.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Ronald Rump is The Chosen One | TruthOrFake Blog