Connect with us

Politics

Column: Trump lied incessantly and still won. Should others do the same?

Published

on

Column: Trump lied incessantly and still won. Should others do the same?

Donald Trump said violent crime was exploding across the U.S.

It wasn’t.

He said Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were “eating the dogs. They’re eating the cats.”

They weren’t.

He said the Federal Emergency Management Agency diverted disaster relief money to fund benefits for people in the country illegally.

Advertisement

It hadn’t.

Trump lied incessantly and extravagantly in his bumptious bid for president, after racking up more than 30,500 false or misleading statements during four years in the White House, according to fact-checkers at the Washington Post.

Trump won anyway. Some voters might even have backed him because of his relentless falsehoods.

Which raises several questions.

Is honesty, as in telling the truth, no longer a requirement for seeking and holding public office? Has veracity become one of those quaint relics of a bygone era, like straw boaters and torchlight parades? Should candidates of any and every persuasion feel free to emulate Trump and lie their heads off?

Advertisement

Maybe.

Not necessarily.

First, before we go on, an obligatory nod to the what-about chorus. Yes, politicians of all stripes have been known to lie, fib or shade the truth. It’s been ever thus. But no one in modern memory has done so with the velocity, shamelessness and torrential outpouring of Trump.

Indeed, there may be some hope and comfort in the notion the 45th and soon-to-be 47th president of these United States is sui generis, a one-off, a fabulist political unicorn.

As Kevin Madden, a veteran Republican communications strategist noted, Trump “was a celebrity first and a politician second” after marinating for decades in New York’s saucy tabloid culture, then residing in America’s living rooms as a make-believe boardroom baron in “The Apprentice.”

Advertisement

Simply put, Trump has never been viewed the same way other office seekers are, which is arguably his greatest strength. Even after nearly a decade in which he’s utterly dominated the nation’s political discourse — four of them in its highest elected office — many still don’t see Trump as a politician.

“He’s a unique figure with a unique set of capabilities that defy gravity,” Madden said, and any imitators would find themselves quickly plummeting to earth. “He blocks out the sun against any of his critics. He controls the media cycle with one click on his phone, with one sound bite every single day.”

Does truth even matter?

“Truth always matters,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster and strategist, who said any client thinking otherwise would be shown the door. “That doesn’t mean it always prevails, but it always matters. Reality matters.”

And yet.

Advertisement

An NBC News survey, taken in mid-October, showed Democrat Kamala Harris holding a 10-point lead over Trump on the question of which candidate was viewed as honest and trustworthy. The findings were consistent with other polls conducted throughout the Trump era.

Even so, Trump didn’t just win a second lease on the White House, sweeping all seven of the decisive battleground states. He is on track to narrowly win the popular vote, something he failed to manage in either of his previous two presidential campaigns.

Christine Matthews, a pollster for center-right campaigns and causes, has researched Trump‘s political appeal.

Although certain facts are objectively true — about the crime rate falling, about Haitians not devouring household pets, and so on — Matthews said those truths weren’t necessarily getting through to Trump supporters who took in their information “through highly siloed, very fractured sources. In some cases it’s social media, or memes. It’s YouTube. It’s TikTok. It’s ‘what people are saying.’ ”

And even if they saw Trump’s deceptions for what they were, Matthews said, those inclined to support the GOP nominee — out of concern for inflation, border security or because they didn’t like Harris’ policies or her laugh — found plenty of reasons to excuse his hyperbole and outright lies. Such as: “He exaggerates. He’s a loudmouth. He says things, but he doesn’t really mean them.”

Advertisement

That sound you hear is a thousand fact-checkers, weeping.

Joe Trippi, who has spent decades managing Democratic campaigns from the local to presidential levels, said the party and its candidates can no longer count on conventional media — the three major broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, newspapers such as this one — or most social media to counter the lies and distortions billowing from Fox News, Elon Musk’s execrable X or other assertively pro-Trump outlets.

“Journalism and a party that relies on buying ads to combat the lies doesn’t work,” said Trippi, who has started his own social media platform, Sez Us, in hopes of boosting a media ecosystem that elevates civility, credibility and truth-telling.

Jane Kirtley is a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, who’s spent years writing about those subjects.

She said the erosion of truth-telling standards and the rise of what Kellyanne Conway, the Trump advisor, famously called “alternative facts” have been a long time coming. “The issue goes back decades in terms of lack of media literacy, lack of critical thinking, platforms that are now viewed by many as news delivery systems when they’re little more than propaganda,” Kirtley said.

Advertisement

Despite the challenges — shrinking audiences, political antagonism, a dire economic landscape — she said independent media must continue “to call out lies and call them lies, if that’s what they are” and, whenever possible, refute them “with concrete evidence.”

But she has no illusions. Kirtley has a relative, she said, who shuts down any familial fact-checking by stating, “ ‘I have other sources of information than you do.’” And that ends the discussion.

“It may be insurmountable, and if that’s true, we may as well give up,” Kirtley said of efforts to fight truth decay and make politicians pay a price for flagrantly lying. “But I’m not quite ready to give up.”

Neither am I.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending