PDF Summary:Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth, by Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly

In this examination of Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth, authors Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly scrutinize former President Trump's frequent dissemination of inaccurate information during his term in office. The book reveals how Trump persistently attacked political opponents and representatives of the media with baseless assertions, exaggerations, and conspiracy theories. It also explores Trump's misleading claims about immigration, social policies, economic matters, diplomacy, his impeachment, and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors utilize factual evidence to contrast Trump's rhetoric with reality, emphasizing his proclivity for reshaping intricate details to fit a predetermined narrative. This impartial account provides insight into the spread of misinformation during Trump's presidency and its potential consequences.

(continued)...

The authors highlight how Trump often associates the Democratic stance on immigration and sanctuary cities with violent offenses committed by undocumented immigrants in the United States. President Trump frequently accuses Democratic lawmakers of supporting cities that shield individuals irrespective of their immigration status, and he holds these municipalities accountable for deliberately releasing violent and dangerous non-citizens, thereby assigning to them the blame for criminal acts.

Research suggests that immigrants have a lower likelihood of imprisonment and generally participate in criminal activities to a lesser extent. Trump has provided no substantiation, like statistics, research, or documentation, to support a link between jurisdictions that generally do not obstruct federal law enforcement's efforts to detain individuals and a rise in crime. He cited cases where immigrants were responsible for homicides to support his claims.

Practical Tips

• Create a personal "evidence checklist" for assessing the validity of claims you come across in the media. This checklist might include criteria such as the source's credibility, the presence of supporting data, the existence of peer review, and the identification of logical fallacies. Use this checklist whenever you read news articles or listen to reports, which will help you develop a systematic approach to evaluating the strength of different claims.
• Engage in conversations with people who have differing views to understand the reasons behind their perspectives on immigration. Approach these discussions with openness and the intent to listen rather than debate. This can broaden your understanding of the issue and reduce the polarization often fueled by political rhetoric.
• Start a blog or social media page dedicated to discussing and analyzing immigration policies in different cities. This platform would allow you to research, compare, and contrast how various cities handle immigration enforcement, providing a resource for others interested in the topic and fostering informed public discourse.
• You can foster a more inclusive community by volunteering with local organizations that support immigrant integration. By participating in activities such as language tutoring, cultural exchange events, or job readiness programs, you help create an environment where immigrants can thrive and contribute positively, which aligns with the research indicating their lower likelihood of criminal behavior.
• You can critically evaluate statistics by comparing reported data with official crime statistics from government databases. When you come across claims about crime rates or specific incidents, look up the corresponding data on government websites like the FBI's Crime Data Explorer or the Bureau of Justice Statistics. This will help you understand the context and verify the accuracy of the claims.

Trump made exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the economy, foreign commerce, and international diplomacy.

President Trump frequently credits his administration's policies for the significant economic growth, despite indications that this positive economic trajectory began before his term started.

Trump often highlighted his efforts to transform international trade and his economic accomplishments as primary evidence of his business savvy and to cultivate a positive image of his time in office. He claims to have transformed a chaotic environment and sluggish economy into an unmatched economic victory for the country, but data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, along with evaluations from the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department, contradict this claim. His claims of having negotiated some of the most outstanding, exceptional, and possibly unparalleled deals in history with nations like China, Mexico, and Canada are exposed as exaggerations of modest achievements following tough and at times fruitless negotiations with various nations.

The authors offer convincing evidence that challenges Trump's assertions regarding economic matters and demonstrates his propensity for distorting fiscal data.

Trump overstated the impact and consequences of his tax cuts compared to those enacted by previous administrations and falsely claimed they generated unparalleled income.

Trump often distorts actual data to create a misleading narrative, a tactic observed by Kessler and his co-authors. The repeated claims by Trump that he enacted the largest tax cuts in history, despite clear evidence to the contrary, are a clear demonstration of this pattern. The tax cut implemented during his administration in 2017 was substantial, but it did not exceed the magnitude of reductions approved during previous presidential terms. Trump began to repeat his baseless claim even before the bill was formulated, and he escalated this position after its passage by Congress.

The tax cuts enacted under Trump's leadership were not as substantial in relation to the GDP as those during Reagan's term. The assertion by Trump that the federal government's revenue has been increased due to tax cuts does not withstand detailed scrutiny. Following the bill's implementation, there was an increase in tax revenue, which corresponds with the steady yearly growth noted by the Congressional Budget Office since World War II concluded. The anticipated revenue goals were not met following the bill's implementation.

Context

• Politicians often use hyperbole to emphasize their achievements. Trump's claim about the tax cuts fits a broader pattern of political leaders framing policies in the most favorable light, sometimes at odds with factual data.

Other Perspectives

• The claim that the tax cuts generated unparalleled income could be seen as an exaggeration rather than a complete falsehood if considering certain metrics or time frames where income or economic indicators improved.
• The assertion that Trump creates a misleading narrative could be seen as subjective, depending on one's political perspective or economic philosophy.
• The 2017 tax cuts could be seen as the largest for corporations, as they included a significant reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.
• The nominal value of Trump's tax cuts could be argued to be substantial, even if they are smaller as a percentage of GDP compared to Reagan's.
• The short-term versus long-term effects of tax cuts on revenue can differ, with possible initial drops in revenue potentially offset by longer-term economic growth.
• The increase in tax revenue could be disproportionately coming from certain segments of the economy or population, which may not reflect the overall tax burden distribution.
• Revenue goals are projections that can be influenced by a wide range of economic factors beyond tax policy, such as global economic conditions, which could have contributed to the shortfall.

Trump exaggerated the increase in job creation, particularly in the manufacturing and automotive sectors, claiming that new plants were being built and current ones expanded, despite lacking proof for these assertions.

Trump often made questionable claims about the rise in employment among the working class. He has falsely declared that his administration was largely responsible for creating millions of new manufacturing and auto-industry jobs, even though job growth in these sectors was even stronger during the Obama administration.

The investigation by the authors also documents the propensity of the ex-president to exaggerate or fabricate tales regarding the initiation or expansion of new manufacturing facilities, attributing them to the successes of his administration's policies. After US Steel halted specific operations at the close of 2015, leading to the layoff of 2,000 workers, Trump took credit for the resurgence of parts of those operations in mid-2018. He also declared that the company had told him about the initiation of six to eight new plants, a statement that was soon shown to be false, since publicly-traded companies must immediately share such news with their investors.

Context

• Public perception of manufacturing success can be influenced by political rhetoric, which may not always align with statistical realities or industry reports.
• The construction of new manufacturing plants can have significant economic implications, including job creation, increased local investment, and potential shifts in market dynamics. Such announcements are closely watched by investors and analysts.

Other Perspectives

• The nature of announcements for new plants or expansions in the manufacturing and automotive sectors can be complex and may not always be immediately public due to negotiations and planning stages, which could explain a delay in evidence supporting Trump's claims.
• While the exact numbers may be disputed, it is not uncommon for presidents to highlight the positive economic developments during their tenure, and some job growth in manufacturing and automotive sectors did occur while Trump was in office.
• The metrics used to assess job growth can vary, and different methodologies can yield different conclusions about which administration saw stronger growth in these sectors.
• US Steel's resurgence in operations could be attributed to market dynamics and industry trends rather than any single individual's influence.

Trump regularly disseminated misleading and inaccurate details about trade matters, including the impact of tariffs and the intricacies of trade deals such as NAFTA and USMCA.

The book emphasizes the discrepancy between Trump's claims of enhancing the nation's economic standing through the modification of unfair trade deals and the imposition of significant tariffs, and the actual situation as illustrated by empirical data. Trump often disseminates inaccurate details about trade issues, including his estimations of trade deficits with different countries and his claims about the impact of tariffs.

Trump significantly overstated the magnitude of the United States' trade imbalances with countries like China, Mexico, and the European Union, and falsely claimed that these nations were taking advantage of the United States.

Trump frequently reshaped intricate economic data to support his preferred storyline. Trump often describes the United States as suffering from economic exploitation by other countries, a viewpoint that is especially clear in his assessment of the goods trade deficit, which he sees as a sign that the country is losing money. This approach takes advantage of the widespread yet erroneous assumption that significant trade imbalances lead to a reduction in employment opportunities.

The book highlights Trump's propensity for overstating trade imbalances by exclusively emphasizing the goods deficit while disregarding the services surplus, which generally favors the United States. Moreover, they stress that trade imbalances do not represent a monetary profit or deficit for nations. The counts simply record the trade of products between the two countries without specifying which party gains the most advantage.

Other Perspectives

• The emphasis on trade deficits with specific countries might be intended to underscore the need for renegotiating trade agreements to be more favorable to the United States.
• The assertion that trade imbalances equate to a country losing money is a misinterpretation of how trade deficits work; they do not directly correlate with economic loss or gain.
• Political leaders frequently use economic indicators to highlight their policy successes; this could be seen as a standard practice rather than a deliberate misrepresentation.
• The United States benefits from the import of lower-cost goods, which can reduce prices for consumers and increase their purchasing power.
• Focusing solely on the trade balance as a scorecard can lead to policies that might harm the economy, such as protectionism, which can lead to trade wars and higher prices for consumers.
• Trade deficits can be influenced by a variety of factors, including currency exchange rates, economic growth rates, and consumer preferences, which are not directly related to employment levels.
• The services surplus may not fully offset the goods deficit, particularly if the goods deficit is substantial, which could be a reason to concentrate on the goods deficit.
• The context in which trade occurs, including trade policies, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers, can affect the benefits derived from trade, suggesting that trade counts alone do not provide a complete picture of advantage.

Trump depicted the USMCA trade agreement as a major departure from NAFTA, yet in reality, it largely preserved existing conditions.

President Trump frequently touted the USMCA, a trade pact he unveiled at the beginning of 2020, as a uniquely significant accord in the realm of trade agreements. He characterized the pact as a major revamp of the 1994 accord, commonly referred to as NAFTA, and asserted that it corrected long-standing imbalances resulting from unfair trading measures. The reality is significantly less sensational.

The authors' analysis indicates that Trump's characterizations of his trade agreement are greatly exaggerated. While the USMCA introduced significant revisions such as improved wages in the automotive sector, strengthened safeguards for the environment and labor, and measures to tackle issues in digital commerce, the core structure of the agreement largely mirrors that of NAFTA. During the 2018 midterm elections, Trump took credit for finalizing an agreement that was actually settled prior to his presidency.

Context

• The renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA involved complex discussions among the three countries, with significant input from various stakeholders, including labor unions, environmental groups, and industry representatives, to address contemporary trade issues.
• Economists and trade experts often note that the economic impact of the USMCA is modest compared to NAFTA, with changes affecting specific industries rather than the overall trade balance significantly.
• Some of the notable changes included stricter rules of origin for automobiles, requiring a higher percentage of car parts to be made in North America, and new labor provisions aimed at improving workers' rights in Mexico.
• Trump’s portrayal of the USMCA as a major overhaul was part of his broader political strategy to appeal to voters who felt disadvantaged by globalization and trade policies.
• The USMCA introduced new rules for digital trade, reflecting the growth of the internet and e-commerce, which were not covered under NAFTA.
• The wage and content requirements were phased in over several years, allowing automakers time to adjust their supply chains and production processes.
• The agreement encourages public participation in the implementation of environmental laws, allowing for greater transparency and accountability.
• The USMCA encourages cooperation among member countries to enhance cybersecurity measures, aiming to protect critical infrastructure and digital networks from cyber threats.
• Both agreements provide protections for investors from the member countries, although the USMCA revised some of these provisions, particularly in relation to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).
• Politicians often claim credit for trade agreements to highlight their achievements in office. Critics argue that such claims can oversimplify complex negotiations that involve multiple stakeholders and lengthy discussions.

Trump often spreads incorrect information about international diplomacy, including false claims about NATO funding and the particulars of his dialogue with North Korea's Kim Jong Un.

The authors determined that Trump's approach to foreign policy is marked by grand pronouncements, exaggerated claims, and a tendency to amplify his triumphs while downplaying the concerns of other countries. He often conflates his own interests with America's. President Trump frequently overstates the level of financial and military assistance provided by the United States, particularly in relation to countries like South Korea, and asserts that he has secured extra contributions, even though these agreements were put in place by prior administrations.

Trump inaccurately claimed that his administration was the pioneer in forging a connection with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, implying that they had developed a relationship.

Trump frequently emphasizes his distinctive relationship with the autocratic ruler of a country known for severe human rights abuses, showcasing this as evidence of his unconventional approach to international relations. Trump characterized Kim as a smart person and mentioned that a solid relationship was formed between them. Trump frequently makes the incorrect assertion that Obama, unlike previous presidents, sought to initiate conversations with Kim but was rejected.

The authors' research disputes this claim, emphasizing that Obama would not consider discussions with Kim unless the country ceased its nuclear ambitions. Moreover, they note that Trump's substantial diplomatic endeavors with Kim resulted in a pact that lacked clear definition, and which Kim continued to disregard while he proceeded to develop and test long-range weaponry.

Context

• The Obama administration, along with international partners, imposed sanctions on North Korea to pressure the regime into abandoning its nuclear program.

Other Perspectives

• It's possible to argue that the nature of the connection forged by Trump was pioneering in its style and substance, differing from the more formal and less personal diplomatic efforts of previous administrations.
• While Trump may have had interactions with Kim Jong Un, it is debatable whether these interactions constituted a substantive diplomatic relationship that achieved any long-term strategic goals.
• Emphasizing a personal relationship with an autocratic leader does not necessarily translate into progress on key issues such as denuclearization or human rights improvements.
• The approach could be criticized for lacking a clear strategy or for failing to secure commitments on denuclearization, which is a critical aspect of relations with North Korea.
• Some may counter that characterizing Kim Jong Un as smart does not acknowledge the repressive nature of his regime and the suffering of the North Korean people.
• A solid relationship between two leaders is subjective and can be perceived differently by each party involved.
• Direct communication between leaders, even without preconditions, can be a valuable tool in international relations and can lead to breakthroughs that traditional diplomacy might not achieve.
• The pact, while lacking clear definition, may have served as a starting point for further negotiations and could be seen as a symbolic step towards de-escalation.
• The pact may have been too vague or lacked the necessary enforcement mechanisms, which could have led to differing interpretations of compliance by the involved parties.

Trump falsely claimed he had the capability to broker advantageous trade and defense deals with nations such as Saudi Arabia.

Trump frequently claims to have brokered agreements that are unmatched in their benefits, highlighting the substantial economic improvements and employment growth within the United States. He often boasts of such achievements, and as time progressed, his claims have grown more and more hyperbolic. In this sense, Trump's boasts about foreign policy and trade agreements are similar to the false claims he has made about his business career.

The authors detail the frequent boasting by Trump about deals with Saudi Arabia, which he claims have a value of $450 billion and involve a key partner in the Middle East, and are expected to create numerous employment prospects in the United States. He also claimed that certain elements of the agreement might result in the creation of half a million employment opportunities, a figure that he later augmented to one million and eventually to one and a half million positions. The probe conducted by Kessler, Rizzo, and Kelly into the alleged dealings with Saudi Arabia revealed that Trump's claims were greatly exaggerated. Numerous agreements were, in essence, informal pledges indicating intent without concrete timelines for execution or defined funding strategies. During the Obama administration's term, negotiations and decisions centered around deals with an estimated value of around 28 billion dollars.

Other Perspectives

• The actual process of negotiating trade and defense deals is typically conducted by a team of experts, and the role of a leader is often to set the tone and direction rather than to negotiate every detail.
• The creation of employment opportunities is a complex process that depends on the implementation of agreements and the actual investment made by companies, which may not always align with the projected figures touted by political figures.
• The effectiveness of Trump's negotiation tactics with countries like Saudi Arabia could be measured in terms of geopolitical influence or strategic partnerships, which may not be directly quantifiable in economic terms but still significant.
• The benefits of the deal to the U.S. economy should be weighed against any potential negative consequences, such as increased military involvement in the region or the impact on U.S. foreign policy and relations with other countries.
• The process of formalizing agreements with foreign nations can be complex and protracted, with initial informal pledges being a customary part of international negotiations before they are finalized.
• Concrete timelines and funding strategies may not be immediately established in early stages of negotiation, as these details often require extensive discussion and coordination between the parties involved.
• The figure of $28 billion might not fully capture the total value of the deals, as it may only include finalized contracts and not those under negotiation or pending.

Throughout his impeachment and the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump's dissemination of inconsistent and manipulated information was evident.

During his impeachment, Trump issued a multitude of incorrect assertions about the process and the charges against him.

In the time leading up to the House's decision to impeach him for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress," President Trump expressed his discontent with what he called the "impeachment hoax" on Twitter, spreading various deceptive narratives. He branded the procedure as "illegal," rejected the informant's account as untruthful, and maintained that the allegations against him were not indicative of criminal conduct. The electorate faced challenges in distinguishing between reality and fabrication, as these messages received reinforcement from supportive media pundits.

Trump consistently maintained that his dialogue with the leader of Ukraine was impeccable, despite evidence and testimonies indicating the contrary.

Trump often claims that his July 25 discussion with Zelensky was perfect, portraying himself as a victim of an unfair attack while reinforcing his claims of innocence. How could the call be deemed illicit or constitute a basis for his impeachment if it truly was flawless?

The authors highlight that the conversation's details, as confirmed by the transcript the administration published weeks after the whistleblower's disclosure, contradicted Trump's claims. Officials with knowledge of national security matters expressed concern over Trump's apparent attempts to pressure the government of Ukraine into investigating Biden.

Other Perspectives

• The concern from national security officials indicates that there may have been elements of the conversation that were problematic from a national security perspective.
• Trump's portrayal as a victim could be seen as a strategic political move to garner sympathy and support from his base, rather than an accurate reflection of the situation.
• The act of consistently claiming innocence does not necessarily equate to being innocent, as it could also be a strategy to sway public opinion or to maintain political support.
• The transcript may be open to interpretation, and what some view as contradictions could be seen by others as consistent with Trump's claims.
• Concerns expressed by officials do not necessarily equate to wrongdoing; they could be preemptive or based on incomplete information.

Trump falsely claimed the impeachment was based on "no crime" and that the whistleblower's account was totally inaccurate.

Throughout his impeachment proceedings, Trump persistently distorted the facts to bolster his defense. To convince his supporters he was innocent, he falsely claimed the impeachment was based on "no crime" and that the whistleblower's complaint was riddled with errors.

The authors' inquiry challenged these claims, showing that Trump's conduct might be considered "bribery" and corroborated the whistleblower's thorough narrative of the dialogue between Trump and Zelensky. The initiation of impeachment proceedings does not depend on the performance of an action that is legally classified as a crime.

Context

• The whistleblower's identity was protected under U.S. law, which allows individuals to report government misconduct without fear of retaliation.

Other Perspectives

• Legal scholars often debate the meaning of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," with some arguing that this phrase was intended to include serious abuses of power that may not necessarily fall under the umbrella of criminal law.
• Trump's statements during the impeachment proceedings were consistent with his long-standing defense strategy, which he believed was truthful and not a distortion of facts.
• Some might suggest that Trump was not only trying to convince his supporters but also trying to sway undecided individuals or moderate voters by questioning the legitimacy of the impeachment process.
• The definition of "bribery" under U.S. law is specific and requires proof of a quid pro quo; it is possible that the actions attributed to Trump do not meet this legal threshold.
• The whistleblower's account may have been based on second-hand information, which could introduce inaccuracies or misinterpretations.
• Some legal scholars argue that an impeachable offense should be an indictable crime to maintain a clear standard and avoid overly politicized impeachment processes.

Initially, Trump downplayed the gravity of the COVID-19 outbreak and consistently issued inaccurate claims about the measures his administration had implemented.

During the initial phase of the 2020 coronavirus outbreak, Trump continued to use strategies of misinformation and denial. Initially, he downplayed the severity of the emerging crisis, asserting that it was under control and that it would vanish with the arrival of April. As the pandemic worsened and the death toll rose, he shifted blame to previous government officials and Democratic Party associates, condemning their failure to establish adequate testing measures.

The authors highlight numerous occasions on which Trump's assertions strayed from the truth and were not factually accurate.

Initially, Trump claimed that the virus would disappear, expecting the cases to dwindle to almost zero, contrary to the guidance of public health experts.

While the situation in China was worsening, the president consistently downplayed the virus's threat, ignoring warnings from his health experts. Presidents frequently strive to offer reassurance and maintain equilibrium, which may cause them to minimize the seriousness of a nascent natural disaster or crisis related to public health. Trump's comments in this instance were a clear demonstration of his propensity to exaggerate.

Kelly and her team meticulously analyzed the situation, revealing Trump's growing conviction that the virus would diminish with the arrival of warmer weather, a view that contradicted cautions from the CDC and other government entities. It took President Trump several weeks to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and concede that the virus had halted the American economy.

Other Perspectives

• The president may have been relying on early, optimistic scenarios presented by some advisors or incomplete data available at the time.
• The approach to communicate a less severe threat might have been part of a broader strategy to maintain economic stability, as fear could have led to economic behaviors that would harm the economy even further.
• Transparency and honesty can foster trust in public leadership, whereas downplaying serious issues may erode public confidence, especially if the situation worsens contrary to reassurances.
• The understanding of the virus's behavior was evolving, and early in the pandemic, there was limited data on how temperature changes might affect its spread, potentially contributing to mixed messages and beliefs.
• The complexity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented nature of the crisis may have contributed to a delay in fully understanding its economic impact, which could have affected not just Trump but leaders worldwide.

Trump claimed there were sufficient tests and that some medications might be able to treat or prevent COVID-19, despite providing no proof for these assertions.

The book describes instances where Trump often claimed that tests, treatments, and vaccines were readily available, basing his statements on speculation rather than on the careful assessments of experts.

To reassure the public and suggest the government was fully responding, Trump falsely claimed that tests for covid-19 were readily available even as public health officials at both the national and local levels said that a shortage of tests was hampering efforts to measure the rate of infection. Moreover, he suggested that flu treatments might be effective against COVID-19; however, this notion was dismissed by specialists in immunology. The emergence of novel drugs and vaccines was critical because the coronavirus represented an unprecedented strain.

Practical Tips

• Verify claims by cross-referencing with official sources to ensure you're getting accurate information. When you hear a statement about the availability of resources like tests or vaccines, check government health department updates or the World Health Organization's announcements to confirm the claim's validity. This helps you stay informed with facts rather than relying on potentially unsubstantiated statements.
• Create a personal "health update" journal to track and reflect on new health information you come across. Whenever you hear about a new medication or treatment, jot it down in your journal along with the date, source, and any notable details. Periodically review your entries and research the latest findings to see if initial claims have been supported or refuted by new evidence.
• Enhance your decision-making process by assembling a "reality-check board" of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Whenever you're faced with a decision that requires expert input, consult this group for their insights. This could be a mix of friends who are knowledgeable in different areas, colleagues from various departments, or even an online community with expertise in the subject matter at hand. Their collective wisdom can serve as a sounding board to ensure your decisions are grounded in a variety of informed perspectives rather than speculation.
• Develop a network with local pharmacies and clinics through their social media pages or newsletters to receive updates on test restocks. By following these outlets, you can be among the first to know when new shipments arrive and plan your testing accordingly. This proactive approach ensures you're not left waiting for resources during critical times.
• Engage in community forums or social media groups focused on evidence-based health discussions. Participate actively by asking questions, sharing verified information, and learning from the insights of healthcare professionals who may be part of these groups. This interaction allows you to be part of a community that values accurate health information and supports each other in making informed decisions.
• Create a personal "treatment tracker" in a spreadsheet to log different treatments you hear about for flu and COVID-19, noting their effectiveness, side effects, and the sources of your information. This will help you to critically evaluate the validity of treatments you come across and avoid conflating flu treatments with those for COVID-19.
• Educate your community about the importance of novel drugs and vaccines by creating simple informational content. Use free graphic design tools like Canva to make infographics that explain how these medical advancements work and why they're important. Share your creations on social media, community bulletin boards, or in local newsletters to help spread awareness.