Journalists who write about Trump really need to start adding disclaimers

With a few words that simply state the obvious, news outlets could help their readers understand why all this is happening

A recent post on Bluesky (where you should follow me) reminded me that it was about this time eight years ago that the Washington Post published an unusual and memorable paragraph, the likes of which has not been seen since.

It ran in an article about new evidence that Trump had been lying when he denied knowing about the $130,000 he paid adult-film actress Stormy Daniels to hush up about their reportedly “brief” sexual encounter.

The eighth paragraph is the memorable one:

The episode was just the latest convulsion for a White House that perpetually navigates turbulence, careening from one crisis to another, most of them of the president’s own making. It has become standard operating procedure for Trump and his aides to deceive the public with false statements and shifting accounts.

It’s that second sentence that really stood out for me. I hailed it on Twitter and called for it to become a routine disclaimer.

I mean, why not, right? It’s a statement of fact. It’s short. It’s essential context every time Trump and his aides open their mouths.

How hard is it, really?

Well, too hard, apparently.

Now it’s eight years later, and I don’t recall seeing anything like it again – not in the Post, the New York Times, or in any other major mainstream news outlet.

Anyway, this got me thinking about the value of disclaimers: simple but straightforward acknowledgments of the special circumstances in which we find ourselves with Donald Trump as our president.

What other things – besides the fact that he lies all the time – is it essential for reporters to clearly state to readers so that they may fully understand what is really going on? So that they are not deceived? And, I might add, for political journalists to earn back their trust?

What boilerplate information can reporters provide to their readers to explain not just “what” Trump says or does, but “why”?

I’ve tried to come up with some examples. In many cases, I cribbed language directly from news analyses the Times and the Post have published, but seem to forget in their daily reportage.

Please suggest edits and additions, either in comments or to me directly at froomkin@presswatchers.org.

Not of Sound Mind

When journalists write about Trump saying or posting bizarre, contradictory, and unrealistic things – which he does every day, almost all day long – they should not cast each thing as an isolated incident, or try to sanewash what he says by making it sound reasonable. I think it’s essential to include a disclaimer about his state of mind. Something like:

Trump’s erratic behavior and extreme comments, wild threats, and abrupt reversals have led a growing number of experts and observers to conclude that he is mentally ill and unfit for the presidency.

(Source: “Trump’s Erratic Behavior and Extreme Comments Revive Mental Health Debate,” New York Times, April 13, 2026. See also “The war makes it more urgent for journalists to call out Trump’s derangement,” Press Watch, March 10, 2026.)

Incipient Fascism

When Trump perverts the Department of Justice into a tool to prosecute his enemies, or attacks the press, or sends troops into our cities, or tries to change voting rules, it’s all coming from the same place. I think it’s essential to include a disclaimer about his attempts to replace democracy with autocracy. I propose:

Trump’s tactics fit a disturbing global pattern of autocratic behavior: seizing unprecedented executive power, using law enforcement for personal retribution, punishing or rewarding media companies depending on their allegiances, controlling information, and curbing science. He is also trying to make it impossible for Republicans to lose elections.

(Source: “Threatening Broadcasters, Trump Takes a Page From the World’s Autocrats,” New York Times, September 19, 2025; “Trump’s Efforts to Control Information Echo an Authoritarian Playbook,” New York Times, August 3, 2025; “Historians See Autocratic Playbook in Trump’s Attacks on Science, New York Times, August 31, 2025. See also: “We have become an authoritarian state, and our top newsrooms are in denial,” Press Watch, August 3, 2025.)

Racist to the Core

When journalists write about Trump’s immigration policies, his attacks on diversity, his racist comments, his attempts to erase Black history, and his insults directed at people of color, they shouldn’t cover up for him. I think it’s essential to include a disclaimer about his lifelong racism and belief in white supremacy:

Trump came to office by stoking white resentment and his hostility toward Black and brown people has animated his entire political life. He frequently embraces white supremacist rhetoric and policies, casting white people as victims, and treating nonwhites as invaders.

(Sources: “Trump Casts Himself as a Protector of Persecuted White People,” New York Times, May 21, 2025; “Trump Says He Is the ‘Least Racist’ President. But His Term Echoes a Grim Past.” New York Times, March 1, 2026; Administration Social Media Posts Echo White Supremacist Messaging, New York Times, January 27, 2026. See also: “You can’t cover Washington accurately and not mention white supremacy,” Press Watch, October 16, 2025.)

Omnipresent Corruption

When journalists write about Trump and crypto, or about Jared Kushner’s role in the Middle East, or about Trump’s use of his own properties, or his line of personal products, or his selling of access, they should connect the dots. I think it’s essential to include a disclaimer about the enormous magnitude of the corruption and self-dealing in his second term:

Trump has engaged in a corrupt moneymaking campaign like none in modern American history. His pay-to-play politics have enriched his family as well as important officials and business partners, all in plain sight. His family’s crypto empire is now its most lucrative venture.

(Source: “Trump’s Tangled Web of Deal-Making, Policy and Riches,” New York Times, December 31, 2025; “Anatomy of Two Giant Deals: The U.A.E. Got Chips. The Trump Team Got Crypto Riches.” New York Times, September 15, 2025.)

A Criminal Enterprise

When journalists write about pretty much any new policy initiative, or Trump’s conduct as commander in chief, they shouldn’t leave the impression that what he’s doing is legal. I think it’s essential to include a disclaimer about the endemic lawbreaking in his administration.

Trump’s second presidency has been defined by his conviction that he can disregard the law. He has ordered the military to engage in actions that have historically been considered war crimes, has arbitrarily defunded Congressionally mandated programs, has encouraged federal law enforcement to ignore basic civil rights, has fired government employees despite their legal protections, and has extorted universities and law firms.

(Source: “Trump brushes aside courts’ attempts to limit his power,” Washington Post, April 17, 2025; “Trump’s Iran Threats Look Like Self-Incrimination for Potential War Crimes,” New York Times, April 7, 2026.” See also: “The Trump regime should be covered as a criminal enterprise,” Press Watch, April 22, 2025.)

Stop Hiding the ‘Why’

These – and other -- disclaimers would serve the news media well.

For one thing, it’s good journalism. To the extent that news outlets are trying to fully inform the electorate, situating Trump’s behavior among these broad themes is essential to understanding his day-to-day conduct.

It would also start earning back respect and trust from readers. The most common response I get to my writing, here and on Bluesky, is from readers who insist that because our top political journalists refuse to state the obvious in their daily reporting, they are either stupid or compromised by their owners’ allegiances.

What these readers want is journalism that is more clear-eyed and honest about Trump’s lunacy and extremism. (See: “New York Times editor Joe Kahn misunderstands what the readers want,” Press Watch, December 9, 2025.)

I don’t agree that our most prominent political journalists are stupid or compromised by their ownership (at least not directly).

I think they operate inside corporate cultures where the path of least resistance when it comes to Trump is to report on the “what” and leave the “why” to others – it’s too complicated, it’s too alarmist, it looks too much like “taking sides,” it’s too likely to upset my editor.

But at some point, newsroom leaders have to realize they are selling their readers and viewers short by not putting what Trump says and does in its proper context. Using clear, simple, honest disclaimers would be a great first step in that direction.