Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 190#Add another position to infobox

Move Assessments Section

If you look at the top level sections for this article, Assessments clearly is not fitting in with the others. Part of this is because they are really just assessments of his first term. I propose making it a subsection of the first presidency. The small poll that covers the second presidency can be incorporated as a sentence or two there. Czarking0 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, the Assessments section is in the place it would normally be found in President biography articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::I have worked on several GA presidency articles with no assessment section at all. Do you believe there is a guideline on this? If not I don't see how your "normally" is indicative of any consensus. Czarking0 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::For some elaboration on the history of edits in this section. The section contains material which would normally be included in a Legacy section, though since Trump is still living and now in a second term office, then it seemed better to use the section title of Assessments. The section ought to also include upcoming edits on his performance in the second term. I'm thinking that once the second term is over that the section shall have the name changed to Legacy. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I think what you are proposing is reasonable but we should not keep the article in a temporary state for 4 years. I think my original idea is better in the interim Czarking0 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Image of Proud Boys in "Violence and hate crimes subsection"

File:George Floyd protests in Columbus, 2020-07-18 (9466).jpg]

I am not going to pull up diffs, but I removed this photo and someone has added it back. I object to this photo because it violates the spirit of BLP, and more specifically BLPCRIME. Unless there is reliable sourcing that all three men in this photo have been convicted for a violent act or for a hate crime the photo should be removed because readers could insinuate from the placement and context that they are criminals. Also, do we even know definitively that these men are Proud Boys? Because if one of them it is not we are literally suggesting they are part of organization that is characterized in the thumbnail as white supremacist. These are non-public figures who are being insinuated as violent, racist, criminal, etc. and we don't even know who they are or what their history is. Furthermore, this photo is just tangibly relevant to Trump himself, and may not be appropriate not even considering my BLP objections. R. G. Checkers^talk 03:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:One of them is carrying a Proud Boys flag and all of them are wearing the shirts the group commonly wears. Their identification as members is secure. The PB are recognized as a hate group by experts, so we are clear on that. Nothing in the caption states that the PB, much less these individuals, have committed any particular crimes.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::We may could assume the one with the flag is PB, but the other two is less clear. But still no reliable sources for any of them. If they haven’t committed crimes then why are they in a subsection about violence and hate crimes? I’m failing to see the reason for inclusion or relevancy, and the BLP concerns still hang. The insinuations that go along with this image and more specifically its placement is unethical to those in it. I’m going to remove the image until a consensus is reached per WP:BLPRESTORE. R. G. Checkers^talk 23:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::No, the burden is on those wishing to remove longstanding content from the page. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you can remove it and then everyone else has to prove to you why the content should remain. BLP does not apply in this instance. If you disagree that these people are even Proud Boys, then you should go to all the other pages where this image appears and identifies them as Proud Boys and contest removal there as well. BootsED (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@R. G. Checkers, you have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1273561777 reverted] this image again claiming BLPRESTORE. To be frank, BLPRESTORE does not apply in this instance. There is no individual person who is identified in this image, and no claims are being made against them.

::::Do you also object to this image's use in the page Identity politics#White identity politics or on the main Proud Boys page about them using violence against BLM protestors?

::::Under your stated logic above, an image of Klansmen cannot be included in a page about the KKK because the specific hooded members in an image may not actually be Klansmen because no source verifies the identity of all of them or states they have committed a crime. BootsED (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is not "long-standing" text in any sense, as you said earlier. You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1265118077 added this on December 25], and I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1268732409 contested this since January 11]. It was added back by someone before I reverted it. The ONUS is on those seeking to include this image.

:::::Your comments were an insufficient counter to my BLP concern. What about "all the other pages where this image appears and identifies them as Proud Boys" is not a valid argument. You made no address to the placement implying crimes by these individuals. R. G. Checkers^talk 23:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Nor have you explained why this image is DUE in this article. The image has nothing to do with Trump and does not depict him. This a summary level article. R. G. Checkers^talk 23:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The Proud Boys are a well documented violent hate-group and pro-Trump group. That is not an opinion.

:::::::The image shows members of the Proud Boys all wearing matching Proud Boys shirts and one holding a Proud Boy flag.

:::::::The Proud Boys in the image are wearing Trump MAGA hats.

:::::::The section clearly talks about how Trump has embraced militia movements and conspiracy theories, and how he is linked to an increase in hate crimes.

:::::::The caption mentions Trump's refusal to condemn the Proud Boys during his 2020 presidential debate and his comment "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by" which was attributed to increased group recruitment. The group literally made a new logo because of Trump's comments.

:::::::Trump pardoned all J6 rioters including Proud Boys, and specifically commuted the leader of the Proud Boys.

:::::::The inclusion is due. BootsED (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I did? There are no individuals in this image who are being accused of a crime. Two other editors agree with me on this point. You are the only one who has raised this objection so far. I think you are confusing WP:BLPCRIME with this image. BootsED (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Czarking0 did not exactly agree with you. He said "{{tq|However, the section is violence and hate crimes so we should be cautious from a BLP standpoint}}". I'm not saying a direct accusation is being made, because it is not. I am suggesting that the context and placement in the "Violence and hate crime" subsection implies that these men are violent, hateful people, which is something that is not verifiable. Thus, this image and its placement violates the spirit of BLPCRIME by insinuating through context criminal activity. A similar thing is done, in regards to BLPCRIME, with mugshots. Mugshots are not to be the infobox photo of someone who has not been convicted of a crime because mugshots insinuate criminal activity, even though the caption of them may not say anything about being accused of a crime. Also, we do not need an image for every subsection of this article because it not meant to have a lot of detail, especially images that demonstrate something that is not Trump the man. R. G. Checkers^talk 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The Proud Boys are a violent hate group, so even if, as you say, the article insinuates that these anonymous PB individuals are violent and hateful, I don't really see an issue here.

::::::::This picture is not a mugshot, and Trump's mugshot is not included here because of copyright reasons, not because of policy (otherwise it would definitely be on the page in the appropriate section). There is no rule that pictures on biographies have to include the individual in question. Several pictures on this page do not include Trump in them: see the picture of the "Trump Taj Mahal", his Hollywood Star, the J6 attack, or the classified documents found at his home, to name a few. BootsED (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::The caption does not say they committed crimes. However, the section is {{xt|violence and hate crimes}} so we should be cautious from a BLP standpoint here. Overall, I do not think this subsection is doing a good job at whatever it is trying to do. Maybe that is another discussion. Czarking0 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::The caption is reliably sourced and IMO would be better as text in the section, but how does WP:BLPCRIME apply in this case? What context - saying the Proud Boys are white supremacists? The people in the photograph are unnamed, masked individuals, possibly identifiable by friends and family and their fellow Proud Boys but otherwise anonymous. The photo of the MAGA-hatted Trump supporters in the Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric section doesn't add any more information to the article than this one. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 23:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Unless there is something new to add, this will be my last comment on this matter unless an RfC comes along. I've articulated the BLP concern ad nauseam above. The photo of the MAGA hat people may should be removed because of WEIGHT, but that is not the topic of this discussion. But, most importantly, the MAGA hat photo doesn't have the criminal insinuation of the image under discussion. R. G. Checkers^talk 00:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"Clean out Gaza" proposal

The two sentences on [https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250128-france-says-trump-s-plan-to-forcibly-displace-gazans-is-unacceptable his proposal to "clean out" Gaza Strip and forcibly displace Gazans to Jordan and Egypt], widely described as a [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/26/trump-resumes-sending-2000-pound-bombs-to-israel-undoing-biden-pause proposal for ethnic cleansing], should be reinstated. The idea that it isn't forced displacement is spurious. --Tataral (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that RS indicate he is promoting ethnic cleansing in Gaza. However, the coverage here clearly would not pass a WP:10YEARTEST. Instead I suggest summarizing how (if) his second term's stance on Gaza has changed relative to the first term. Czarking0 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:The sources say that forced moves would be illegal. None of them specifically say that this it's what Trump has currently proposed, because while that might be what he's dog whistling for, it's not what he actually said. Golikom (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::As with before, if specific wording is the issue, I'm not sure why blanket reverts are particularly helpful. He is of course dog whistling it, so the wording should be delicate and clear. Trump made no specific suggestions other than the vague idea to "clean out" the Gaza Strip, which has been widely interpreted as suggesting policy that potentially violates the Geneva Conventions. I'm happy to reword it on behalf of Tataral if we can conclude as such? FBryz (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, feel free to reword. The thing here is that "cleaning out" an entire population of millions is, by definition, forced displacement, as defined by UNHCR as displacement "as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations", regardless of the rhetoric politicians use when proposing it. --Tataral (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Well, he's said it now. Today Donald Trump:

::1. Said that Palestinians in Gaza have no real choice but to leave.

::2. Said that the United States will "take over" Gaza.

::3. Said, when asked if that meant sending U.S. troops to Gaza, that the U.S. would do whatever is "necessary".

::[https://www.reuters.com/world/palestinians-have-no-alternative-leaving-gaza-trump-says-2025-02-04/ Trump suggests permanently displacing Palestinians from Gaza | Reuters]

::[https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-won-t-rule-out-deploying-troops-to-support-rebuilding-gaza-sees-long-term-u-s-ownership/ar-AA1yoSqO?ocid=BingNewsSerp Trump won't rule out deploying troops to support rebuilding Gaza, sees 'long-term' U.S. ownership] (Los Angeles Times on MSN) NME Frigate (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:You can mention it, but I would put it in the relevant child article first before adding it to this page. Time will tell how important it is. BootsED (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a "constitutional crisis"?

I'm seeing that phrase used more and more often over the past few days in regard to Donald Trump's second presidency. Admittedly it's often being used by critics of Trump, but this criticism is being reported in mainstream outlets and may be worth citing here. Here are some examples:

1. "Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis" (Jan. 29).

source: [https://apnews.com/article/trump-presidential-power-executive-congress-grants-freeze-60fa3a9fabf6328f9aa3c45ed34e2cc3 Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis | AP News]

Excerpt: "Legal experts noted the president is explicitly forbidden from cutting off spending for programs that Congress has approved. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate money and requires the executive to pay it out. A 50-year-old law known as the Impoundment Control Act makes that explicit by prohibiting the president from halting payments on grants or other programs approved by Congress."

2. "Finally, a Democrat screams, ‘This is a Constitutional crisis’ created by billionaires" (Feb. 3).

source: [https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/02/finally-a-democrat-screams-this-is-a-constitutional-crisis-created-by-billionaires.html Finally, a Democrat screams, ‘This is a Constitutional crisis’ created by billionaires - nj.com]

Excerpt: "'Let's not pull any punches about why this is happening. Elon Musk makes billions off of his business with China. And China is cheering at this action today. There is no question that the billionaire class trying to take over our government right now is doing it based on self-interest,' [Sen. Chris] Murphy [of New Jersey] said at a press conference on Monday."

3. "What we have learned from Donald Trump's first constitutional crisis. Five lessons from the debacle the president has sparked by trying to freeze federal and foreign aid" (Feb. 3)

source: [https://www.ft.com/content/37a7a038-bbc5-400d-acf7-33da789346ee What we have learned from Donald Trump’s first constitutional crisis] (Financial Times)

Excerpt: "But last week, Trump’s order to have the White House Office of Management and Budget 'temporarily pause' grants, loans and federal financial assistance programmes to ensure they aligned with the president’s priorities sparked an immediate — and successful — response from Democrats. The move, which most likely violated a law preventing presidents from blocking funding that has already been authorised by Congress, would have affected things that really touch average people’s lives: kindergarten programmes, veteran’s benefits, workforce training, rural broadband access, etc."

https://www.ft.com/content/37a7a038-bbc5-400d-acf7-33da789346ee

Even commentators whose politics lean right and who support making significant cuts to federal expenditures, like Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute and Alan Cole of the Tax Foundation, are using the term "constitutional crisis" to describe what's currently underway:

Cole: "I don't mind cutting USAID significantly, but ... focus on it is a missed opportunity to look for more impactful fiscal prudence measures in larger budget items [and] the process for it is a genuine constitutional crisis. Pass a law!"

source: https://x.com/AlanMCole/status/1886441116230144355

Riedl: "It is absolutely a constitutional crisis. The president has zero legal authority to 'shut down,' defund, or otherwise cripple a $50 billion agency. Audit it, identify unnecessary expenditures, draft reform or rescission proposals, and then go to Congress to PASS A LAW."

source: https://x.com/Brian_Riedl/status/1886447518302560351

I understand concerns about recentism and the fact that news about Trump moves too quickly to keep up with (so by the time everyone agrees there was a constitutional crisis, it may have been resolved), and I understand if there's a preference to wait for more sources before using what may seem like loaded language. (Another word that's being used, by the way, although not yet in as many mainstream sources, is "coup," mainly in relation to Elon Musk's team taking control of servers they may have no legal right to access.) If the phrase is to be used, it would probably fit best in the section Second presidency > Federal bureaucracy.

NME Frigate (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:Not yet. Some are saying it is, or could be, or will be. But it's not (yet) a widely used, uncontested label among RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:One correction to what I wrote above: Chris Murphy is a U.S. Senator from Connecticut not New Jersey. NME Frigate (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:I am not sure if a President claiming a power he may not have is enough to constitute Revangarde568 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::Is he only claiming it? Or is he acting on it? His employee, Elon Musk, has announced that the executive branch is in the midst of several actions that clearly violate the Constitution. NME Frigate (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:# says possible crisis which to me means WP should not say that there is a crisis. I look to WP:CRYSTALBALL for how the possible should be covered

:# I don't think should be given weight. This is statements from an opposition party politician

:# Basically says there would have been one or more likely could be one. This is similar to my first point

:# I wish you would add a number point to your post as it is misleading the way it currently is. Twitter is not RS so I don't think these should be given weight

:Czarking0 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::There are many sources that describe Trump's actions as breaking federal law and the Constitution, but there is not a "constitutional crisis" as of this date per most sources. Trump's actions that break the Constitution have been halted so far, so he did attempt to violate the Constitution, but there is not a "crisis" as such attempts have been stalled for the time being. BootsED (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::USAID is being shut down without Congressional approval. He can't do that. That's illegal and unconstitutional. The "crisis" ends when USAID is restored. NME Frigate (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Playing devil's advocate here, congressional legislation only says that there needs to be an agency to handle foreign aid, not that USAID needs to be that agency. Regardless, we can't act on your comment or mine here because WP:NOR is policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate the careful response.

::(I will note that in the past few days, at least one department of the United States government has said that, henceforth, all its official announcements will be made exclusively on Twitter (X). How should Wikipedia address that point, if statements on X are not a reliable source?) NME Frigate (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::How wikipedia in general should address that point is not a subject for this talk page. You can address that at the village pump Czarking0 (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'll note one more piece:

::5. [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/trump-musk-congress-constitution/681568/ The Constitutional Crisis Is Here - The Atlantic] ("The Constitutional Crisis Is Here. If Congress won’t stop Donald Trump and Elon Musk from arrogating its power over federal spending, who will?") NME Frigate (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Short description

In default view, a user will only see a short description in the search bar. In this way, an SD is used to disambiguate between similarly-titled articles in searches. It is important that the entire SD be visible, when possible.

The current SD for this article is rendered as

President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–pre...

getting cut off. WP:ACRO lists "US" as a valid abbreviation for "United States". A shorter SD that doesn't get cut off would be

US president (2017–2021, 2025–present)

or if that is hopelessly informal,

President of the US (2017–2021, 2025–present)

Wizmut (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Thrakkx Curious to hear your input on how to trim the character count. Wizmut (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::The guidelines for short descriptions don’t set a hard rule on length. At 56 characters (and at 53 when "present" is replaced with the end year of his term), the short description here falls within the implied acceptable range, between 40 and 60. Now on the dates. Since this is a biography page and the subject's period in office is most important, the dates should be included. But the guideline's examples don't help us, since the period in office isn't continuous. Grover Cleveland's short description is "President of the United States (1885–1889, 1893–1897)", which I feel is an acceptable way to try to meet the spirit of the guideline. The fact that it is partially cut off on certain views isn't a compelling argument to make it shorter, in my opinion. There are plenty of articles whose short descriptions are appropriately short but are cut off in the search view. It makes sense that this article should match the style of all the other presidents, which use the full title of the office, and match the style of Cleveland on the dates. Thrakkx (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::To give an example of other articles whose short descriptions are cut off: the short description of Stephen Harper is cut off to "Prime Minister of Canada from 2006 to 20…" (which follows the short description guidelines to the letter) and I don't feel it would be appropriate to shorten "Prime Minister" to "PM" or other shorthands in order to remedy something that isn't really a problem. Thrakkx (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Is there a place where a non-logged in user would see the full description?

:::The Cleveland and Harper SDs don't get cut off on my screen. Wizmut (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Mobile screens such as iPhones (which I use) cuts off everything after 50 characters if there is a header/infobox image. Thrakkx (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Good to know. On Android it just goes to the next line, seemingly it will show everything. Wizmut (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It's content being shown to users, not displaying correctly. I think that's a problem. The SD shows correctly if you click edit and look at the wikitext, but this is not how people actually view the site. Wizmut (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't know what screen you use then because desktop users, not logged in (which is the majority of readers), don't see any short descriptions at all. Mobile users, regardless of whether there is an account logged in, see short descriptions in full when viewing an article, and the description even falls onto new lines when it's long. Your description doesn't match that. Thrakkx (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I just dusted off Edge and opened it to a wikipedia page and searched for Donald Trump. The SD shows up in the search bar. It shows one more letter than Firefox, but still gets cut off.

:::::On my Android phone, I am not logged in, and the SD does not show up once the article loads. As I said before it shows everything in the search bar, even the SD of Martin Boonzaayer or Velopharyngeal consonant.

:::::I think, to the extent we disagree on this topic, a lot of the difference may be influenced by our devices. :) Wizmut (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Note that the first proposal should perhaps be "US president (2017–2021, 2025–present)" (with a lowercase "p") because "US president" is a modified title. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 19:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:: {{fixed}} thanks Wizmut (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing a real problem here. Even cut off, what remains is more than enough for anyone to determine whether this is the article that they are looking for. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Due weight in first presidency section

This article, as many have noted, is currently too long. And a big part of that is the "first presidency" section, which I believe doesn't follow WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SUMSTYLE. In theory, such a high-level article should mainly contain very broad and concise summaries. This is shown in the "first presidency" section, where only four paragraphs are devoted to his domestic policy and two to his foreign policy. However, I believe these principles are broken in the "Immigration" section (seven paragraphs) and the three sections related to investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election (six paragraphs in all). I have trouble seeing how giving such extreme weight to those two topics isn't UNDUE in comparison to the rest of its article and its needs. I'd propose trimming them dramatically, and can work on an example if people want to see what it could look like, but I'd like to seek consensus first. DecafPotato (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Wikipedia as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Immigration, and the other on Investigations which itself appears to have 6 further paragraphs as {{u|DecafPotato}} points out. Both Immigration and Investigations in the First Presidency section have their own fully developed articles on Wikipedia, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agree in principle. Way too much detail on presidency in this biography, for way too long. I don't care that other presidential BLPs have similar detail on presidencies. Some of them are just wrong in my opinion, and not all consistency is good consistency. To my knowledge, none of those former presidents have a library of Wikipedia articles approaching the size of Trump's. And none of them are Trump and we should avoid one-size-fits-all. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

=Trim section in First Presidency=

:@ErnestKrause and @Mandruss — I've made User:DecafPotato/Trump trim draft to show what I think the trim of the first-presidency "Immigration" and "Investigations" sections could look like. You could definitely cut a lot more but I didn't want to make too dramatic of a change. Is there any objections to putting this in the article? DecafPotato (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like {{u|DecafPotato}} is very close to a useful trim to these two sections on "Immigration" and "Investigations". It might be worth even trimming further; for the "Immigration" section I'm seeing no reason not to go to a 2 paragraph version by joining the first two paragraphs together and the last two paragraphs together, and then trimming some of the numbers and statistics data which duplicates what is already shown in the main article links. For the "Investigations" sections, basically the same approach: to first remove the subsection division for Russia and then trim the Russian paragraphs into a single paragraph. Then combine that single Russian paragraph into a merge of the 2 paragraphs at the top of the section into one section; a two paragraph version results with the main article links pulled up to the top of the section. DecafPotato's version looks very good thus far and I'm pretty much on board for bringing it into the main space. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@ErnestKrause — I've implemented your suggestions to cut it down more. Let me know if you have any issue with the current wording, but I'll put this into main space now. DecafPotato (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Responding to ping. Now you're in the area that is not my forte. I know trimming is needed, but I don't know how to do it. So I leave that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm late but I fully support trimming the article down. To be honest, when another article exists, there's no reason to have more than one paragraph or two summarizing the highest level points here. The problem is that for good things Trump did or had a part in (like the discussion re: Abraham Accords), people want to try and hide them in sub articles. But for anything even slightly negative he did, there's a quick consensus to include it in his main article, because obviously this is the only article a significant majority of people will read about him. It's a NPOV issue, but there's no easy solution since it takes significant energy (see: the Abraham Accords discussion) to actually ensure summary style is being followed. Ultimately, trimming is ideal at this point - basically, blow it up and start over, and everyone involved push back more against listing any "specifics" at this article unless they are truly insanely important. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::A consensus item would help considerably in that effort, if this could be codified. We've found that vague consensuses aren't very effective. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd agree that basically the whole article needs to be trimmed. Wikipedia has a standalone article for basically everything that Donald Trump has ever done and even if I may disagree with that fact we should make use of it in making this article as concise as possible. WP:SUMSTYLE exists for a reason. DecafPotato (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Some of us have been saying similar things for, I don't know, 6 or 8 years. It's gratifying to finally see some real support. Per #Tracking article size, the article is down 18% since the election, but that's not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

=Trim section on Inter-presidency=

Here is a condensed version for the 4 Legal issues subsections there being combined into 2 paragraphs for purposes of replacing those four subsection. Then add the main article links at the top and condense the whole section further. This is a first pass for the condensed version for now:

On December 19, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended criminal charges against Trump for obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and inciting or assisting an insurrection.{{cite web |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=December 19, 2022 |title=It's Unclear Whether the Justice Dept. Will Take Up the Jan. 6 Panel's Charges |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/politics/jan-6-trump-justice-dept.html |access-date=March 25, 2023 |work=The New York Times}} In August 2023, a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury indicted Trump on 13 charges, including racketeering, for his efforts to subvert the election outcome in Georgia.{{cite news |last1=Lowell |first1=Hugo |last2=Wicker |first2=Jewel |date=August 15, 2023 |title=Donald Trump and allies indicted in Georgia over bid to reverse 2020 election loss |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/14/donald-trump-georgia-indictment-2020-election |access-date=December 22, 2023 |work=The Guardian}}{{cite news |last=Drenon |first=Brandon |date=August 25, 2023 |title=What are the charges in Trump's Georgia indictment? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66503668 |access-date=December 22, 2023 |work=BBC News}} Between 2006 and 2007, Trump allegedly had affairs with Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels. During the 2016 election, Michael Cohen arranged payments to them in exchange for their continued silence:{{cite news |last=Bump |first=Philip |date=August 21, 2018 |title=How the campaign finance charges against Michael Cohen implicate Trump |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/21/how-the-campaign-finance-charges-against-michael-cohen-may-implicate-trump |access-date=July 25, 2019 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} for this he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws in 2018. Despite Trump's denial of falsifying records, evidence that he reimbursed Cohen for the payments in 2017 led to investigations, and finally a conviction in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.{{cite web |last1=Harding |first1=Luke |last2=Holpuch |first2=Amanda |date=May 19, 2021 |title=New York attorney general opens criminal investigation into Trump Organization |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/19/new-york-investigation-into-trump-organization-now-criminal-says-attorney-general |access-date=May 19, 2021 |work=The Guardian}}{{Cite news |last1=Protess |first1=Ben |last2=Bromwich |first2=Jonah E |last3=Haberman |first3=Maggie |author-link3=Maggie Haberman |last4=Christobek |first4=Kate |last5=McKinley |first5=Jesse |last6=Rashbaum |first6=William K |date=May 30, 2024 |title=Trump Convicted on All Counts to Become America's First Felon President |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/nyregion/trump-convicted-hush-money-trial.html |access-date=January 22, 2024 |work=The New York Times}}

In 2019, journalist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s and sued him for defamation over his denial.{{Cite news |last=Ransom |first=Jan |date=November 4, 2019 |title=E. Jean Carroll, Who Accused Trump of Rape, Sues Him for Defamation |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/nyregion/jean-carroll-sues-trump.html |access-date=January 24, 2024 |work=The New York Times}} In September 2022, another civil lawsuit was filed against Trump, this time by the attorney general of New York. In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified.{{cite web |last1=Lybrand |first1=Holmes |last2=Cohen |first2=Marshall |last3=Rabinowitz |first3=Hannah |date=August 12, 2022 |title=Timeline: The Justice Department criminal inquiry into Trump taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago |url=https://cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/doj-investigation-trump-documents-timeline/ |access-date=August 14, 2022 |work=CNN}} In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers. On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret.{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Devlin |last2=Dawsey |first2=Josh |author-link2=Josh Dawsey |date=August 12, 2022 |title=Agents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago seized 11 sets of classified documents, court filing shows |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/12/trump-warrant-release/ |access-date=August 12, 2022 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite web |last1=Haberman |first1=Maggie |author-link1=Maggie Haberman |last2=Thrush |first2=Glenn |author-link2=Glenn Thrush |last3=Savage |first3=Charlie |author-link3=Charlie Savage (author) |date=August 12, 2022 |title=Files Seized From Trump Are Part of Espionage Act Inquiry |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/trump-espionage-act-laws-fbi.html |access-date=August 13, 2022 |work=The New York Times}} The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and Trump's re-election appeared to set aside prosecution of many of the cases against him.{{cite news |last1=Hawkins |first1=Derek |last2=Jacobs |first2=Shayna |last3=Berman |first3=Mark |date=January 10, 2025 |title=What Trump's unconditional discharge sentence means in the hush money case |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/10/trump-criminal-sentence-unconditional-discharge-no-penalty/ |access-date=January 11, 2025 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} In July 2024, judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, ruling that it was brought unconstitutionally.{{cite news |last=Tucker |first=Eric |date=July 15, 2024 |title=Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor's appointment |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c |access-date=July 15, 2024 |work=AP News}} Similarly, after Trump's re-election, both the 2020 election case and the classified documents case were dismissed without prejudice due to Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.{{cite news|last1=Stein|first1=Perry|last2=Hsu|first2=Spencer S.|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/25/trump-cases-motion-to-dismiss-jack-smith/|title=With D.C. case dismissed, Trump is no longer under federal indictment|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=November 25, 2024|access-date=November 26, 2024}}

Does this draft provide a useful condense of those 4 subsections. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:I do feel like I get whiplash reading it, I would be interested in hearing from others. The Stormy Daniels stuff is insufficiently summarised. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::I've added some for the Stormy Daniels material; the entire condense is now down to 2 paragraphs for all 4 subsections. You can feel free to adjust and adapt this first draft as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|DecafPotato}} and {{u|Berchanhimez}}: I've placed above a first draft of a trimmed section for the Inter-presidency section, based upon the comments and successful edits you made (DecafPotato) for the First Presendency section. There seems a chance that something similar to what you did in First Presidency section might work in the Inter-presidency section as well. Does it looks like a possible direction to take to further trim the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@ErnestKrause: I'd add a bit more information about how the cases were set aside; Trump v. U.S., Cannon's dismissal, dismissal without prejudice, and the unconditional discharge are all worth mentioning, even if pretty briefly. I think currently it might be a bit confusing for readers to see all of these cases with no explanation about how they ended. But for the most part I really like this — great job! DecafPotato (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{u|DecafPotato}}: I've taken up your comments and done a small addition to the end of the second paragraph. Is it getting closer. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::ErnestKrause: Yeah, I think that's great. Here's my version, basically the same as what you wrote but just a little bit shorter.

:::::{{talkquote|The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and Trump's re-election appeared to set aside prosecution of many of the cases against him.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/10/trump-criminal-sentence-unconditional-discharge-no-penalty/] In July 2024, judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, ruling that it was brought unconstitutionally.[https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c] Similarly, after Trump's re-election, both the 2020 election case and the classified documents case were dismissed without prejudice due to Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/25/trump-cases-motion-to-dismiss-jack-smith/][https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gvd7kxxj5o]}}

:::::If you have any changes you want to make to that part go ahead, but I think if we add this to the rest of what you've written it's ready to be added to the article. DecafPotato (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{u|DecafPotato}}: That's looks like a good trim to those sentences which I've now added to the two paragraph summary above. I'm also in agreement that with your improvement it means its ready to be added to the article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Between presidencies (2021–2025)

{{See also|Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump|Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president}}

Upon leaving the White House, Trump began living at his Mar-a-Lago club, establishing an office there as provided for by the Former Presidents Act.{{cite web |last=Wolfe |first=Jan |title=Explainer: Why Trump's post-presidency perks, like a pension and office, are safe for the rest of his life |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-benefits-explai-idUSKBN29W238 |work=Reuters |date=January 27, 2021 |access-date=February 2, 2021}} Trump's continuing false claims concerning the 2020 election were commonly referred to as the "big lie" by his critics, although in May 2021, with his supporters he began using the term to refer to the election itself.{{cite web |last=Solender |first=Andrew |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/05/03/trump-says-hell-appropriate-the-big-lie-to-refer-to-his-election-loss/ |title=Trump Says He'll Appropriate 'The Big Lie' To Refer To His Election Loss |work=Forbes |date=May 3, 2021 |access-date=October 10, 2021}}{{cite web |last=Wolf |first=Zachary B. |url=https://cnn.com/2021/05/19/politics/donald-trump-big-lie-explainer/ |title=The 5 key elements of Trump's Big Lie and how it came to be |work=CNN |date=May 19, 2021 |access-date=October 10, 2021}} The Republican Party used his election narrative to justify imposing new voting restrictions in its favor.{{cite news |last=Balz |first=Dan |author-link=Dan Balz |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-big-lie-elections-impact/2021/05/29/d7992fa2-c07d-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html |title=The GOP push to revisit 2020 has worrisome implications for future elections |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=May 29, 2021 |access-date=June 18, 2021}}{{Better source needed|reason=Analysis insufficiently reliable per WP:NEWSOPED|date=January 2024}} As of July 2022, he continued to pressure state legislators to overturn the election.{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/trump-wisconsin-election-call.html |title=Trump Recently Urged a Powerful Legislator to Overturn His 2020 Defeat in Wisconsin |last1=Bender |first1=Michael C. |author-link1=Michael C. Bender |last2=Epstein |first2=Reid J. |date=July 20, 2022 |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 13, 2022}}

Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; a 2022 profile in The New York Times described him as a modern party boss.{{cite web |last=Goldmacher |first=Shane |date=April 17, 2022 |title=Mar-a-Lago Machine: Trump as a Modern-Day Party Boss |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/us/politics/trump-mar-a-lago.html |access-date=July 31, 2022 |work=The New York Times}} He continued fundraising, raising a war chest containing more than twice that of the Republican Party, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on party governance and installing in key posts officials loyal to him. In the 2022 midterm elections, he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices.{{cite web |last=Paybarah |first=Azi |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/us/politics/trump-endorsements-midterm-primary-election.html |title=Where Trump's Endorsement Record Stands Halfway through Primary Season |work=The New York Times |date=August 2, 2022 |access-date=August 3, 2022}}

In February 2021, Trump registered a new company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), for providing "social networking services" to U.S. customers.{{cite web |last=Lyons |first=Kim |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/6/22820389/sec-trump-spac-deal-investigation-truth-social-media-platform-public |title=SEC investigating Trump SPAC deal to take his social media platform public |work=The Verge |date=December 6, 2021 |access-date=December 30, 2021}}{{cite web |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1934403D:US |title=Trump Media & Technology Group Corp |work=Bloomberg News |access-date=December 30, 2021}} In March 2024, TMTG merged with special-purpose acquisition company Digital World Acquisition and became a public company.{{cite news |last=Harwell |first=Drew |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/25/truth-social-trump-media-stock-market-billions/ |title=Trump Media soars in first day of public tradings |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 26, 2024 |access-date=March 28, 2024}} In February 2022, TMTG launched Truth Social, a social media platform.{{cite web |last=Bhuyian |first=Johana |date=February 21, 2022 |title=Donald Trump's social media app launches on Apple store |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/21/donald-trumps-social-media-app-truth-social-launches-on-apple-store |access-date=May 7, 2023 |work=The Guardian}}

Legal issues

Classified documents

{{Further|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)}}File:Classified intelligence material found during search of Mar-a-Lago.jpg

In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified.{{cite web |last1=Lybrand |first1=Holmes |last2=Cohen |first2=Marshall |last3=Rabinowitz |first3=Hannah |date=August 12, 2022 |title=Timeline: The Justice Department criminal inquiry into Trump taking classified documents to Mar-a-Lago |url=https://cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/doj-investigation-trump-documents-timeline/ |access-date=August 14, 2022 |work=CNN}} In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers. On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret.{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Devlin |last2=Dawsey |first2=Josh |author-link2=Josh Dawsey |date=August 12, 2022 |title=Agents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago seized 11 sets of classified documents, court filing shows |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/12/trump-warrant-release/ |access-date=August 12, 2022 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite web |last1=Haberman |first1=Maggie |author-link1=Maggie Haberman |last2=Thrush |first2=Glenn |author-link2=Glenn Thrush |last3=Savage |first3=Charlie |author-link3=Charlie Savage (author) |date=August 12, 2022 |title=Files Seized From Trump Are Part of Espionage Act Inquiry |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/trump-espionage-act-laws-fbi.html |access-date=August 13, 2022 |work=The New York Times}} In November 2022, federal prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed to take over the investigation, which, in June 2023, resulted in a federal grand jury indicting Trump on 31 counts of "willfully retaining national defense information" under the Espionage Act, among other charges.{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Devlin |last2=Dawsey |first2=Josh |author-link2=Josh Dawsey |last3=Stein |first3=Perry |last4=Alemany |first4=Jacqueline |author-link4=Jacqueline Alemany |date=June 9, 2023 |title=Trump Put National Secrets at Risk, Prosecutors Say in Historic Indictment |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/09/trump-tape-classified-documents/ |access-date=June 10, 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite news |last=Schonfeld |first=Zach |date=July 28, 2023 |title=5 revelations from new Trump charges |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4124168-revelations-from-new-trump-charges/ |access-date=August 4, 2023 |work=The Hill}} Trump pleaded not guilty.{{cite web |last1=Greve |first1=Joan E. |last2=Lowell |first2=Hugo |date=June 14, 2023 |title=Trump pleads not guilty to 37 federal criminal counts in Mar-a-Lago case |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/13/trump-arraignment-not-guilty-charges-mar-a-lago-documents-court |access-date=June 14, 2023 |work=The Guardian}} After delays, the assigned judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed the case on July 15, 2024, ruling Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.{{cite news |last=Tucker |first=Eric |date=July 15, 2024 |title=Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor's appointment |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-smith-c66d5ffb7ba86c1b991f95e89bdeba0c |access-date=July 15, 2024 |work=AP News}} Multiple outlets highlighted that Cannon had been appointed by Trump.{{cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |author-link=Charlie Savage (author) |date=June 9, 2023 |title=A Trump-Appointed Judge Who Showed Him Favor Gets the Documents Case |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-documents-judge-aileen-cannon.html |newspaper=The New York Times}}

2020 election

{{Main|United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack|Georgia election racketeering prosecution|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)}}

On December 19, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended criminal charges against Trump for obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and inciting or assisting an insurrection.{{cite web |last=Feuer |first=Alan |date=December 19, 2022 |title=It's Unclear Whether the Justice Dept. Will Take Up the Jan. 6 Panel's Charges |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/us/politics/jan-6-trump-justice-dept.html |access-date=March 25, 2023 |work=The New York Times}} In August 2023, a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury indicted Trump on 13 charges, including racketeering, for his efforts to subvert the election outcome in Georgia.{{cite news |last1=Lowell |first1=Hugo |last2=Wicker |first2=Jewel |date=August 15, 2023 |title=Donald Trump and allies indicted in Georgia over bid to reverse 2020 election loss |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/14/donald-trump-georgia-indictment-2020-election |access-date=December 22, 2023 |work=The Guardian}}{{cite news |last=Drenon |first=Brandon |date=August 25, 2023 |title=What are the charges in Trump's Georgia indictment? |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66503668 |access-date=December 22, 2023 |work=BBC News}} He surrendered, was processed at Fulton County Jail, and was released on bail.{{cite web |last1=Pereira |first1=Ivan |last2=Barr |first2=Luke |date=August 25, 2023 |title=Trump mug shot released by Fulton County Sheriff's Office |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-mug-shot-released-georgia-sheriffs-office/story?id=102544727 |access-date=August 25, 2023 |work=ABC News}} He pleaded not guilty.{{cite web |last=Rabinowitz |first=Hannah |date=August 31, 2023 |title=Trump pleads not guilty in Georgia election subversion case |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/31/politics/trump-not-guilty-plea-fulton-county/index.html |access-date=August 31, 2023 |work=CNN}} In March 2024, the judge dismissed three of the 13 charges.{{cite news |last=Bailey |first=Holly |date=March 13, 2024 |title=Georgia judge dismisses six charges in Trump election interference case |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/13/trump-georgia-election-case-charges-dropped/ |access-date=March 14, 2024 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

In August 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. He was charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S., obstruct the certification of the Electoral College vote, and deprive voters of the right to have their votes counted, and obstructing an official proceeding.{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Devlin |last2=Hsu |first2=Spencer S. |last3=Stein |first3=Perry |last4=Dawsey |first4=Josh |author-link4=Josh Dawsey |last5=Alemany |first5=Jacqueline |author-link5=Jacqueline Alemany |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/trump-indictment-jan-6-2020-election/ |title=Trump charged in probe of Jan. 6, efforts to overturn 2020 election |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=August 2, 2023 |access-date=August 2, 2023}} He pleaded not guilty.{{cite web |last1=Sneed |first1=Tierney |last2=Rabinowitz |first2=Hannah |last3=Polantz |first3=Katelyn |last4=Lybrand |first4=Holmes |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/arraignment-trump-election-interference-indictment/index.html |title=Donald Trump pleads not guilty to January 6-related charges |work=CNN |date=August 3, 2023 |access-date=August 3, 2023}} On November 25, the judge dismissed the case without prejudice after the prosecution filed a motion to dismiss citing Department of Justice policy.{{cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Perry |last2=Hsu |first2=Spencer S. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/25/trump-cases-motion-to-dismiss-jack-smith/ |title=With D.C. case dismissed, Trump is no longer under federal indictment |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=November 25, 2024 |access-date=November 26, 2024}} The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dropped Trump from the appeal on the classified documents case.{{cite news |last=Halpert |first=Madeline |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gvd7kxxj5o |title=Special counsel's last criminal case against Trump dismissed |date=November 26, 2024 |work=BBC News |access-date=November 30, 2024}} In January 2025, the Justice Department released the special counsel's report, which found that Trump engaged in an "unprecedented criminal effort" to overturn the 2020 election.{{cite news |last1=Goudsward |first1=Andrew |last2=Lynch |first2=Sarah N. |date=January 14, 2025 |title=Special counsel report found Trump engaged in 'criminal effort' to overturn 2020 election |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-dept-releases-report-trump-attempt-overturn-2020-election-2025-01-14/ |access-date=January 14, 2025 |work=Reuters}}

2016 campaign fraud case

{{Main|Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York|Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal}}

{{See also|Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump#Payments related to alleged affairs|Karen McDougal#Alleged affair with Donald Trump}}

Between 2006 and 2007, Trump allegedly had affairs with Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels. During the 2016 election, Michael Cohen arranged payments to them in exchange for their continued silence:{{cite news |last=Bump |first=Philip |date=August 21, 2018 |title=How the campaign finance charges against Michael Cohen implicate Trump |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/21/how-the-campaign-finance-charges-against-michael-cohen-may-implicate-trump |access-date=July 25, 2019 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} for this he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws in 2018. Cohen said he arranged these at Trump's direction to influence the election.{{cite web |last1=Neumeister |first1=Larry |last2=Hays |first2=Tom |date=August 22, 2018 |title=Cohen pleads guilty, implicates Trump in hush-money scheme |url=https://apnews.com/article/74aaf72511d64fceb1d64529207bde64 |access-date=October 7, 2021 |work=AP News}} Despite Trump's denial of falsifying records, evidence that he reimbursed Cohen for the payments in 2017 led to investigations. Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.{{cite web |last1=Harding |first1=Luke |last2=Holpuch |first2=Amanda |date=May 19, 2021 |title=New York attorney general opens criminal investigation into Trump Organization |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/19/new-york-investigation-into-trump-organization-now-criminal-says-attorney-general |access-date=May 19, 2021 |work=The Guardian}}{{Cite news |last1=Protess |first1=Ben |last2=Bromwich |first2=Jonah E |last3=Haberman |first3=Maggie |author-link3=Maggie Haberman |last4=Christobek |first4=Kate |last5=McKinley |first5=Jesse |last6=Rashbaum |first6=William K |date=May 30, 2024 |title=Trump Convicted on All Counts to Become America's First Felon President |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/nyregion/trump-convicted-hush-money-trial.html |access-date=January 22, 2024 |work=The New York Times}} On January 10, 2025, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge, upholding the felony conviction without imposing further punishment. With this, he became the first U.S. president or president-elect to be a felon.{{cite news |last1=Hawkins |first1=Derek |last2=Jacobs |first2=Shayna |last3=Berman |first3=Mark |date=January 10, 2025 |title=What Trump's unconditional discharge sentence means in the hush money case |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/10/trump-criminal-sentence-unconditional-discharge-no-penalty/ |access-date=January 11, 2025 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

Civil lawsuits

{{Main|E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump|New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization}}

In 2019, journalist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s and sued him for defamation ("Carroll I") over his denial.{{Cite news |last=Ransom |first=Jan |date=November 4, 2019 |title=E. Jean Carroll, Who Accused Trump of Rape, Sues Him for Defamation |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/nyregion/jean-carroll-sues-trump.html |access-date=January 24, 2024 |work=The New York Times}} In September 2022, another civil lawsuit was filed against Trump, this time by the attorney general of New York. The lawsuit accused Trump, three of his children and the Trump Organization of inflating the organization's net worth to gain an advantage from lenders and banks.{{cite web |last1=Scannell |first1=Kara |date=September 21, 2022 |title=New York attorney general files civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, some of his children and his business |url=https://cnn.com/2022/09/21/politics/trump-new-york-attorney-general-letitia-james-fraud-lawsuit/index.html |access-date=September 21, 2022 |work=CNN}}{{cite web |last1=Bromwich |first1=Jonah E. |last2=Protess |first2=Ben |date=February 17, 2024 |title=Trump Fraud Trial Penalty Will Exceed $450 Million |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-civil-fraud-trial-ruling.html |access-date=February 17, 2024 |work=The New York Times}} Later that year, Carroll sued Trump again over defamation for comments made since the filing of "Carroll I" and added a battery charge ("Carroll II"),{{Cite news |last=Weisser |first=Benjamin |date=November 17, 2022 |title=Writer Who Accused Trump of Rape to File New Defamation Lawsuit |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/nyregion/donald-trump-jean-carroll-lawsuit.html |access-date=January 24, 2025 |work=The New York Times}} the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in that case, ordering him to pay $5 million.{{cite web |last1=Sullivan |first1=Becky |last2=Bernstein |first2=Andrea |last3=Marritz |first3=Ilya |last4=Lawrence |first4=Quil |date=May 9, 2023 |title=A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E. Jean Carroll trial |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict |access-date=May 10, 2023 |work=NPR News}} After Trump contested whether the jury had found him liable for rape and countersued Carroll for defamation, the judge in the two cases ruled against him, finding the rape accusation "substantially true".{{Cite web |last=Scannell |first=Kara |date=August 7, 2023 |title=Judge dismisses Trump's defamation lawsuit against Carroll for statements she made on CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/07/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed/index.html |access-date=August 7, 2023 |work=CNN}} Trump appealed both decisions.{{cite web |last=Orden |first=Erica |date=July 19, 2023 |title=Trump loses bid for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/19/trump-loses-bid-new-trial-carroll-00107025 |access-date=August 13, 2023 |work=Politico}}{{cite web |last=Stempel |first=Jonathan |date=August 10, 2023 |title=Trump appeals dismissal of defamation claim against E. Jean Carroll |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-appeals-dismissal-defamation-claim-against-e-jean-carroll-2023-08-10/ |access-date=August 17, 2023 |work=Reuters}}

In January 2024, the jury in "Carroll I" found against Trump, ordering him to pay $83.3 million in damages.{{cite news |last1=Neumeister |first1=Larry |last2=Sisak |first2=Michael R. |date=December 30, 2024 |title=An appeals court upholds a $5 million award in a sexual abuse verdict against President-elect Trump |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-carroll-lawsuit-defamation-trial-78e4196024539653a6de492312770ff2 |access-date=December 31, 2024 |work=AP News}} The next month, Trump was found liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth and ordered to pay $350 million plus interest, he and his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, were barred from serving in senior positions in New York businesses, and an independent monitor installed in the Trump Organization was extended for three years. In December, the appeals court in "Carroll II" upheld the jury's finding and the $5 million award. As of December 2024, Trump faced multiple civil lawsuits at the trial level.{{cite news |last=Polantz |first=Katelyn |date=December 13, 2024 |title=Trump's many civil cases won't stop just because he's president. Here's what to know |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/trump-civil-cases-presidency/index.html |access-date=January 10, 2025 |work=CNN}}

Between presidencies (2021–2025)

{{Main|Georgia election racketeering prosecution|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)|Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)|Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York|E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump|}}

{{See also|Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump|Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president}}Upon leaving the White House, Trump began living at his Mar-a-Lago club, establishing an office there as provided for by the Former Presidents Act.{{cite web |last=Wolfe |first=Jan |title=Explainer: Why Trump's post-presidency perks, like a pension and office, are safe for the rest of his life |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-benefits-explai-idUSKBN29W238 |work=Reuters |date=January 27, 2021 |access-date=February 2, 2021}} Trump's continuing false claims concerning the 2020 election were commonly referred to as the "big lie" by his critics, although in May 2021, with his supporters he began using the term to refer to the election itself.{{cite web |last=Solender |first=Andrew |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/05/03/trump-says-hell-appropriate-the-big-lie-to-refer-to-his-election-loss/ |title=Trump Says He'll Appropriate 'The Big Lie' To Refer To His Election Loss |work=Forbes |date=May 3, 2021 |access-date=October 10, 2021}}{{cite web |last=Wolf |first=Zachary B. |url=https://cnn.com/2021/05/19/politics/donald-trump-big-lie-explainer/ |title=The 5 key elements of Trump's Big Lie and how it came to be |work=CNN |date=May 19, 2021 |access-date=October 10, 2021}} The Republican Party used his election narrative to justify imposing new voting restrictions in its favor.{{cite news |last=Balz |first=Dan |author-link=Dan Balz |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-big-lie-elections-impact/2021/05/29/d7992fa2-c07d-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html |title=The GOP push to revisit 2020 has worrisome implications for future elections |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=May 29, 2021 |access-date=June 18, 2021}}{{Cite news|last1=Izaguirre|first1=Anthony|last2=Coronado|first2=Acacia|date=January 31, 2021|title=GOP lawmakers seek tougher voting rules after record turnout|url=https://apnews.com/article/bills-voting-rights-elections-coronavirus-pandemic-voter-registration-0e94844d72d2a2bf8b51b1c950bd64fc |access-date=January 17, 2023 |work=AP News}}{{Cite news|last=McCaskill|first=Nolan D.|date=March 15, 2021|title=After Trump's loss and false fraud claims, GOP eyes voter restrictions across nation |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/15/voting-restrictions-states-475732 |access-date=January 17, 2023 |work=Politico}} As of July 2022, he continued to pressure state legislators to overturn the election.{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/trump-wisconsin-election-call.html |title=Trump Recently Urged a Powerful Legislator to Overturn His 2020 Defeat in Wisconsin |last1=Bender |first1=Michael C. |author-link1=Michael C. Bender |last2=Epstein |first2=Reid J. |date=July 20, 2022 |work=The New York Times |access-date=August 13, 2022}} Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; a 2022 profile in The New York Times described him as a modern party boss.{{cite web |last=Goldmacher |first=Shane |date=April 17, 2022 |title=Mar-a-Lago Machine: Trump as a Modern-Day Party Boss |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/17/us/politics/trump-mar-a-lago.html |access-date=July 31, 2022 |work=The New York Times}} He continued fundraising, raising a war chest containing more than twice that of the Republican Party, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on party governance and installing in key posts officials loyal to him. In the 2022 midterm elections, he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices.{{cite web |last=Paybarah |first=Azi |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/us/politics/trump-endorsements-midterm-primary-election.html |title=Where Trump's Endorsement Record Stands Halfway through Primary Season |work=The New York Times |date=August 2, 2022 |access-date=August 3, 2022}} In February 2021, Trump registered a new company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), for providing "social networking services" to U.S. customers.{{cite web |last=Lyons |first=Kim |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/6/22820389/sec-trump-spac-deal-investigation-truth-social-media-platform-public |title=SEC investigating Trump SPAC deal to take his social media platform public |work=The Verge |date=December 6, 2021 |access-date=December 30, 2021}}{{cite web |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1934403D:US |title=Trump Media & Technology Group Corp |work=Bloomberg News |access-date=December 30, 2021}} In March 2024, TMTG merged with special-purpose acquisition company Digital World Acquisition and became a public company.{{cite news |last=Harwell |first=Drew |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/25/truth-social-trump-media-stock-market-billions/ |title=Trump Media soars in first day of public tradings |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 26, 2024 |access-date=March 28, 2024}} In February 2022, TMTG launched Truth Social, a social media platform.{{cite web |last=Bhuyian |first=Johana |date=February 21, 2022 |title=Donald Trump's social media app launches on Apple store |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/21/donald-trumps-social-media-app-truth-social-launches-on-apple-store |access-date=May 7, 2023 |work=The Guardian}}

I challenged the bold edit. Two people agreeing on it after a discussion that lasted less than two days does not make a consensus. I'll follow up on this later. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 14:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:What exactly is the nature of your objection? Reverting and saying you'll 'follow up on this later' is not exactly best practice. Riposte97 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::It's a bold edit that was challenged. It's up to the bold editor to make the case for the massive removal of long-standing material. It'll take me a while to go through all the changes. My first impression:

::*Removing the subheadings and arranging the text in three long paragraphs: big walls of text without structure. Who's going to want to read that?

::*Mar-a-Lago documents section.{{tq2|File:Classified intelligence material found during search of Mar-a-Lago.jpg In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified.[8] In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers.[8] On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret.[9][10] In November 2022, federal prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed to take over the investigation, which, in June 2023, resulted in a federal grand jury indicting Trump on 31 counts of "willfully retaining national defense information" under the Espionage Act, among other charges.[8][25][26] Trump pleaded not guilty.[27] After delays, the assigned judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed the case on July 15, 2024, ruling Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.[12] Multiple outlets highlighted that Cannon had been appointed by Trump.[12][28]}}

:::The trim removed the iconic picture of classified intelligence material stored at Mar-a-Lago and the three sentences left over after the culling ({{tq|In September 2022, another civil lawsuit was filed against Trump, this time by the attorney general of New York. In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified.[8] In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers.[8] On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret.[9][10]}}) ended up in a sequence of sentences beginning with E. Jean Carroll accusing and suing Trump (I vaguely remember a civil trial and a multi-million-dollar sentence but, hey, what do I know).

:::Following the three sentences on the classified documents case is a newly added sentence on how the SC's presidential immunity ruling "appeared to set aside prosecution of many of the cases against thim". It fails verification — the cited sources is about the hush money case and mentions the SC only in one sentence: "If he loses the appeal, the matter could wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court."

:::Then we jump back to the classified documents with the sentence that Judge Cannon {{tq|dismissed the classified documents case, ruling that it was brought unconstitutionally}} — misleading simplification.

::I haven't finished reviewing the before and after versions. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 15:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The failed verification on the SC ruling isn't a huge deal; it can be reworded to better match the sources and other sources (including [https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-seeks-presidential-immunity-civil-lawsuit-filed-state/story?id=118157889 this one] and I'm sure many others) better reflect what the sentence said. The image removal similarly isn't a case against the trim, because it can just be added back (no one ever opposed keeping it). The same goes for the "{{tq|three long paragraphs}}" that "{{tq|no one wants to read}}." If your opposition is to the structure, your keyboard comes with an {{code|Enter}} key that is made for making paragraphs shorter and easier on the eyes. DecafPotato (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I have to say I’m with my tuberous friend on this one. Although I’m not sure the image is 'iconic', that can be argued about separately. The one point you may have is that the Carroll verdict should be included - I think that and the appeal are relevant. Nevertheless, I support making the change to the next text, and potentially making those tweaks afterwards. I see consensus here for the change. Riposte97 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agree, this seems like a net improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1273601221 restored the trim], but with four slightly shorter paragraphs instead of three longer ones, more information on the Carroll suit, and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents image restored. Hopefully that satisfies everyone's requests. DecafPotato (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There are more factual errors. I've started correcting them, but it's a slog. We've had an unwritten agreement on this page that people wouldn't make massive trims or reorganizations but do it piecemeal. But I guess that's all gone out the window now. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 19:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

=Trim sections on Impeachments=

From the discussion above, it might be useful to consider a trim to the current four paragraph version of the two Impeachment sections which follow one another in the First presidency section. It seems that 4 paragraphs may be a little long and could be combined into a single paragraph since both Impeachments did not move forward. Then they could be merged into a single section called "First and Second Impeachments", for a significant space trim. Pinging {{u|DecafPotato}} and {{u|Riposte97}} if this might be useful to look at. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:My view is that if it looks like it can be shortened, then it should be. I don't know if I'll have the time to help do it for this section but I definitely support consolidating into one short paragraph. DecafPotato (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. I've made deep cuts. There was plenty there that was no longer justifiable. Riposte97 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

=Trim sections on Political practice and rhetoric=

From previous discussion above, it appears that it might be useful to trim the current large section with its 6 subsections in "Political practice and rhetoric" which appears towards the end of the article. Wikipedia already has an article on the Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and these 6 sections in the main Trump biography article here appear to reduplicate much of the material which is already available in the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article. It seems that these 6 subsections could all be summarized into a single paragraph and added to the one paragraph preface already there which starts this section; then all of the links and redirects can be collected and put at the top of the section, for a significant space trim. Pinging {{u|DecafPotato}} and {{u|Riposte97}} if this might be useful to look at for a useful space trim. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Canvassing much? Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::Canvassing much? All Talk page editors invited. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

(All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others and get pinged?) What exactly are you proposing to cut, and how are you proposing to put {{tq|all of the links and redirects}} — three main articles, five "further reading", and numerous inline Wikilinks — at the top of the section? I just gave the section a quick read without looking at the cited sources, and that's Trump as he lives and breathes (and rants). Space4TCatHerder 🖖 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

=Does Wikipedia really need 6 large sections reduplicated here=

It appears that one of the closing sections in the main article for "Trump Rhetoric and Politics" is including 6 large subsections which are being reduplicated in this article from the separate set of many sibling articles which already cover these topics on Wikipedia. It seems like it might be more useful to trim and combine all of the sections into one or two paragraphs and then add the redirects at the top of the section. This would substantially reduce the section size in the main article, and any reader interested in the details can link to any one of the full sized sub-articles which already exist on Wikipedia. Here is a first draft of the trimmed version of that large section near the bottom of the article on "Trump's Rhetoric and Political Positions" for comment by other Wikipedia editors:

Political practice and rhetoric

{{Main|False or misleading statements by Donald Trump|List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump}}

{{Further|Trumpism|Political positions of Donald Trump|Rhetoric of Donald Trump|Social media use by Donald Trump}}

{{See also|First presidency of Donald Trump#Relationship with the news media|Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump}}

Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism.{{cite news |last=O'Brien |first=Timothy L. |author-link=Timothy L. O'Brien |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-11-01/trumpism-has-deep-roots-in-american-history-and-it-will-outlast-trump |title=The Peculiarly American Roots of Trumpism |work=Bloomberg News |date=November 1, 2024 |access-date=November 26, 2024}} Trump's political positions are populist,{{sfn|Ross|2024|p=298|loc="In 2016, a populist won the presidential election in the United States."}}{{sfn|Urbinati|2019}} more specifically described as right-wing populist.{{sfn|Campani|Concepción|Soler|Savín|2022}}{{cite news |last=Chotiner |first=Isaac |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/redefining-populism |title=Redefining Populism |magazine=The New Yorker |date=July 29, 2021 |access-date=October 14, 2021}} He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream.{{cite news |last=Bierman |first=Noah |date=August 22, 2016 |title=Donald Trump helps bring far-right media's edgier elements into the mainstream |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-media-20160820-snap-story.html |access-date=October 7, 2021}} Many of Trump's actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding.{{sfn|Parker|Towler|2019|p=505; 513|loc="The rise of Donald Trump, however, forces scholars to apprehend why the country is trending toward authoritarianism, complete with a renegade executive and party loyalists willing to permit him to govern as he sees fit. Again, this is not the first time the United States has confronted authoritarianism. ... We must also say something about the much-discussed topic of authoritarianism and the election of Donald Trump. By now, several books, including How Democracies Die, have identified Trump as an authoritarian."}}{{sfn|Kaufman|Haggard|2019}} His political base has been compared to a cult of personality.{{efn|name=Cult|Attributed to multiple sources:{{sfn|Sundahl|2022|loc="[In] a model for distinguishing between popularity and personality cults based on three parameters covering a representational and social practice dimension... Trump and Putin belong in the domain of personality cults"}}{{sfn|Franks|Hesami|2021|loc="Results of the current study... may lend credence to accusations that some Trump supporters have a cult-like loyalty to the 45th president"}}{{sfn|Adams|2021|p=256}}{{sfn|Reyes|2020|p=869}}{{sfn|Diamond|2023|p=96|loc="The cult of Trumpism fosters and exploits paranoia and allegiance to an all-powerful, charismatic figure, contributing to a social milieu at risk for the erosion of democratic principles and the rise of fascism"}}{{sfn|Hassan|2019|p=xviii|loc="...Trump employs many of the same techniques as prominent cult leaders"}}{{Cite news |last=Ben-Ghiat |first=Ruth |author-link=Ruth Ben-Ghiat |date=December 19, 2020 |title=Op-Ed: Trump's formula for building a lasting personality cult |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-12-09/donald-trump-strongman-personality-cult |access-date=October 4, 2023 |work=Los Angeles Times}}}} Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative.{{sfn|Ross|2024|p=299|loc="Through his rhetoric and action, Trump inflamed anger and exacerbated distrust in a way that deepened the divide between the "us" and the "them""}} Trump explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities,{{sfn|Stephens-Dougan|2021|p=302|loc="Trump, however, managed to achieve electoral success in 2016 despite routinely using racial appeals that openly and categorically disparaged racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, or what the racial priming literature refers to as explicit racial appeals. ... Throughout his campaign and subsequent presidency, Trump continued to traffic in similar explicit racial appeals"}} and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump.{{sfn|Berman|2021|p=76|loc="In the United, States scholars consistently find that "racial animus," or attitudes regarding "blacks, immigrants, Muslims" are the best predictors of support for President Trump"}} Trump's rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy.{{Cite news |last=Haberman |first=Maggie |author-link=Maggie Haberman |date=September 11, 2024 |title='The End of Our Country': Trump Paints Dark Picture at Debate |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/us/politics/trump-debate-dark-picture.html |access-date=September 25, 2024 |quote=Fear-mongering, and demagoguing on the issue of immigrants, has been Mr. Trump's preferred speed since he announced his first candidacy for the presidency in June 2015, and he has often found a receptive audience for it.}}{{Cite book |last=Mercieca |first=Jennifer R. |author-link=Jennifer Mercieca |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mwy2ywEACAAJ |title=Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump |date=2020 |publisher=Texas A&M University Press |isbn=978-1-62349-906-8}} The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration.{{cite news |last=Weigel |first=David |author-link=David Weigel |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/racial-realists-are-cheered-by-trumps-latest-strategy/2016/08/20/cd71e858-6636-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html |title='Racialists' are cheered by Trump's latest strategy |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=August 20, 2016 |access-date=June 23, 2018}}{{cite news |url=https://cnn.com/2016/08/25/politics/alt-right-explained-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/ |title=Clinton is attacking the 'Alt-Right' – What is it? |first=Gregory |last=Krieg |access-date=August 25, 2016 |date=August 25, 2016 |work=CNN}}{{cite news |last=Pierce |first=Matt |title=Q&A: What is President Trump's relationship with far-right and white supremacist groups? |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-09-30/la-na-pol-2020-trump-white-supremacy |work=Los Angeles Times |date=September 20, 2020 |access-date=October 7, 2021}} He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists,{{sfn|Perry|Whitehead|Grubbs|2021|p=229}} and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric and agenda of Christian nationalism.{{Cite news |last=Peter |first=Smith |date=May 18, 2024 |title=Jesus is their savior, Trump is their candidate. Ex-president's backers say he shares faith, values |url=https://apnews.com/article/trump-christian-evangelicals-conservatives-2024-election-43f25118c133170c77786daf316821c3 |access-date=November 23, 2024 |work=AP News}}

Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist.Multiple sources:

{{cite web |last=Lopez |first=German |date=February 14, 2019 |title=Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019 |url=https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history |access-date=June 15, 2019 |work=Vox}}
{{cite news |last=Desjardins |first=Lisa |date=January 12, 2018 |title=Every moment in Trump's charged relationship with race |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race |access-date=January 13, 2018 |work=PBS NewsHour}}
{{cite news |last=Dawsey |first=Josh |author-link=Josh Dawsey |date=January 11, 2018 |title=Trump's history of making offensive comments about nonwhite immigrants |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting/2018/01/11/bfc0725c-f711-11e7-91af-31ac729add94_story.html |access-date=January 11, 2018 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}
{{cite news |last=Weaver |first=Aubree Eliza |date=January 12, 2018 |title=Trump's 'shithole' comment denounced across the globe |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/12/trump-shithole-comment-reaction-337926 |access-date=January 13, 2018 |work=Politico |ref={{harvid|Weaver|2018b}}}}
{{cite news |last1=Stoddard |first1=Ed |last2=Mfula |first2=Chris |date=January 12, 2018 |title=Africa calls Trump racist after 'shithole' remark |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-reaction/africa-calls-trump-racist-after-shithole-remark-idUSKBN1F11VC |access-date=October 1, 2019 |work=Reuters}} Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in America, both for and against him.{{Cite news |last=Baker |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Baker (journalist) |date=September 16, 2024 |title=Trump, Outrage and the Modern Era of Political Violence |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/16/us/politics/trump-violence-assassination-attempt.html |access-date=January 20, 2025 |quote=At the heart of today's eruption of political violence is Mr. Trump, a figure who seems to inspire people to make threats or take actions both for him and against him. He has long favored the language of violence in his political discourse, encouraging supporters to beat up hecklers, threatening to shoot looters and undocumented migrants, mocking a near-fatal attack on the husband of the Democratic House speaker and suggesting that a general he deemed disloyal be executed.}}{{sfn|Nacos|Shapiro|Bloch-Elkon|2020}}{{sfn|Piazza|Van Doren|2022}} Before and throughout his presidency, Trump promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama birtherism, the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory movement QAnon, the Global warming hoax theory, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, that Osama bin Laden was alive and Obama and Biden had members of Navy SEAL Team 6 killed, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections.{{cite web |last1=Fichera |first1=Angelo |last2=Spencer |first2=Saranac Hale |date=October 20, 2020 |title=Trump's Long History With Conspiracy Theories |url=https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trumps-long-history-with-conspiracy-theories/ |access-date=September 15, 2021 |work=FactCheck.org}}{{cite web |last1=Subramaniam |first1=Tara |last2=Lybrand |first2=Holmes |date=October 15, 2020 |title=Fact-checking the dangerous bin Laden conspiracy theory that Trump touted |url=https://cnn.com/2020/10/15/politics/donald-trump-osama-bin-laden-conspiracy-theory-fact-check/ |access-date=October 11, 2021 |work=CNN}}{{cite web |last=Haberman |first=Maggie |author-link=Maggie Haberman |date=February 29, 2016 |title=Even as He Rises, Donald Trump Entertains Conspiracy Theories |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories.html |access-date=October 11, 2021 |work=The New York Times}}{{cite news |last=Bump |first=Philip |date=November 26, 2019 |title=President Trump loves conspiracy theories. Has he ever been right? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/26/president-trump-loves-conspiracy-theories-has-he-ever-been-right/ |access-date=October 11, 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite web |last=Reston |first=Maeve |date=July 2, 2020 |title=The Conspiracy-Theorist-in-Chief clears the way for fringe candidates to become mainstream |url=https://cnn.com/2020/07/02/politics/trump-conspiracy-theorists-qanon/ |access-date=October 11, 2021 |work=CNN}}As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks{{cite news |last=Finnegan |first=Michael |date=September 25, 2016 |title=Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-false-statements-20160925-snap-story.html |access-date=October 10, 2021 |work=Los Angeles Times}} to an extent unprecedented in American politics.{{cite web |last=Glasser |first=Susan B. |author-link=Susan Glasser |date=August 3, 2018 |title=It's True: Trump Is Lying More, and He's Doing It on Purpose |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose |access-date=January 10, 2019 |magazine=The New Yorker}}{{cite web |last=Konnikova |first=Maria |author-link=Maria Konnikova |date=January 20, 2017 |title=Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain |url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658 |access-date=March 31, 2018 |work=Politico Magazine}} Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack.{{cite web |last1=Conger |first1=Kate |last2=Isaac |first2=Mike |date=January 16, 2021 |title=Inside Twitter's Decision to Cut Off Trump |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/technology/twitter-donald-trump-jack-dorsey.html |access-date=October 10, 2021 |work=The New York Times}} In June 2017, the White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements.{{cite web |last=Landers |first=Elizabeth |date=June 6, 2017 |title=White House: Trump's tweets are 'official statements' |url=https://cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-official-statements/ |access-date=October 10, 2021 |work=CNN}} After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checks in May 2020.{{cite news |last=Dwoskin |first=Elizabeth |date=May 27, 2020 |title=Twitter labels Trump's tweets with a fact check for the first time |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/26/trump-twitter-label-fact-check/ |access-date=July 7, 2020 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} In response, he tweeted that social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down".{{cite news |last=Dwoskin |first=Elizabeth |date=May 27, 2020 |title=Trump lashes out at social media companies after Twitter labels tweets with fact checks |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/27/trump-twitter-label/ |access-date=May 28, 2020 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} In the days after the storming of the Capitol, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms.{{cite web |last1=Fischer |first1=Sara |last2=Gold |first2=Ashley |date=January 11, 2021 |title=All the platforms that have banned or restricted Trump so far |url=https://www.axios.com/platforms-social-media-ban-restrict-trump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html |access-date=January 16, 2021 |work=Axios}} The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events{{cite news |last=Timberg |first=Craig |date=January 14, 2021 |title=Twitter ban reveals that tech companies held keys to Trump's power all along |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/14/trump-twitter-megaphone/ |access-date=February 17, 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}{{cite web |last1=Alba |first1=Davey |last2=Koeze |first2=Ella |last3=Silver |first3=Jacob |date=June 7, 2021 |title=What Happened When Trump Was Banned on Social Media |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/06/07/technology/trump-social-media-ban.html |access-date=December 21, 2023 |work=The New York Times}} and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter.{{cite news |last1=Dwoskin |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Timberg |first2=Craig |date=January 16, 2021 |title=Misinformation dropped dramatically the week after Twitter banned Trump and some allies |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/ |access-date=February 17, 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press.{{cite web |last=Parnes |first=Amie |date=April 28, 2018 |title=Trump's love-hate relationship with the press |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/385245-trumps-love-hate-relationship-with-the-press |access-date=July 4, 2018 |work=The Hill}} In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/14/this-harvard-study-is-a-powerful-indictment-of-the-medias-role-in-donald-trumps-rise/ |title=This Harvard study is a powerful indictment of the media's role in Donald Trump's rise |first=Chris |last=Cillizza |author-link=Chris Cillizza |date=June 14, 2016 |access-date=October 1, 2021 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

:Possibly other editors can comment ({{u|QuicoleJR}} and {{u|Rollinginhisgrave}}) if it looks like this might be a useful trim to that large section and many subsections on Rhetoric and Politics in the current main Trump article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|ErnestKrause}} Perhaps. A rambling answer ahead. Apologies this isn't the answer you want, my impression of the section is dominated by how weak it is: to describe Trump's politics as "right-wing populist" when we have a whole page, Donald Trump and fascism, discussing one position (whether his political practice has an affinity with fascism) in another article (the split of only one position into a SAL without an equivalent page on Trump and populism, and much of the page functioning as evidence for such a position being a major failure of NPOVFORK), it's a failure of WP:YESPOV. The sourcing for "He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream." remains inadequate. Some other applicable tags include {{by whom}} for "described as racist".

::On the summary, I think it's an immensely hard job you've undertaken. I think the extent of the significance of his social media use as "he tweeted a lot while president" is inadequate, it doesn't tell me why we're mentioning it. I organized material into a political practice section a few months ago, taking elements of the page and sorting them under a better organizational banner, but I didn't claim that it effectively summarized his political practice or that the most important things to his political practice were Social Media, Truthfulness, Links to violence and hate crimes etc. I think that was a bit more clear with the previous version, where it was split into sections. I do think the relationship with the media section could be more sophisticated, and I generally am of the opinion that his relationship with the media would merit a stand-alone article, although when I tried to do that I stopped after having issues around the relationship of such an article with Media career of Donald Trump. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Add another position to infobox

I’m not entirely sure how relevant this is, but given that Donald Trump was Co-Chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission, which was established by New York mayor Ed Koch in 1982 to finance the construction of the Veterans Memorial Plaza, it is a public service position that could be included in the infobox. Jasper Chu (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Doesn't justify infobox space. Debatable whether it warrants space in the body prose; I suspect not simply because of a shortage of RS coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::RS coverage? Jasper Chu (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::RS = reliable sources. First paragraph at WP:NPOV:{{tq2|All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.}} At this article, "proportionate" to only a few reliable sources generally means omission; we simply don't have room for more. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I still think it would be misleading not to mention or include it, as the current content gives the impression he’s had no prior public experience, when in fact he did, which I feel is best mentioned or explained under Political career of Donald Trump. The co-chairmanship he was appointed to was under the NY city government after all under Ed Koch. Jasper Chu (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps this {{tq|prior public experience}} is not worth noting in a space-constrained, one-page biography of a 78-year life. I'm going with that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::He was named to this commission, but what did this experience actually consist of? What did he, specifically, and the commission as a whole do? Or was he simply a well known figure (with lots of money of his own and lots of friends and associates with money) who was picked simply because he could draw attention (and dollars) to the project just by having his name mentioned? Show us sources that are more than a list of names. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Exclude, as the infobox is long enough. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Exclude, not noteworthy. The NYC Parks & Recreation [https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/vietnam-veterans-plaza/history webpage of the memorial] doesn't mention Trump. He's mentioned in [https://web.archive.org/web/20150525081415/http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/08/magazine/the-expanding-empire-of-donald-trump.html?pagewanted=8 this 1984 NYT article], and he doesn't appear to have been popular with the other members of the commission or particularly involved in the commission's work. (The direct link to page 8 of the archived version may take a couple of minutes to open.) Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Supersede consensus item 30 and item 51?

The original sentence was "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic."

I think this is outdated, and should be simplified as "He has made racist and misogynistic comments and actions." This can neatly be merged in the next sentence. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:I do not see a need for any change. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:Can you explain what outdated it? Mere passage of time is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::The child article states that both the scholars and the public have viewed his comments and actions as such, I don't think we need to put weasel words in the lead anymore. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah, understood now. I'm persuaded unless somebody un-persuades me. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Which ones are the weasel words in that sentence? Space4TCatHerder 🖖 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:Were actions "made" or "taken"? –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::Apologies, it can be reworded as "made comments and took actions that are racist and misogynistic." Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:By changing the wording. We'd be suggesting that everybody considers his comments to be racially charged, racist & misogynistic. We don't have proof that everybody does. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::We don't have proof that everybody considers his statements to be false or misleading either, that does not stop us from calling a spade a spade in the next sentence. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll have to oppose your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The current sentence does not say "everybody". It does say that Trump made many comments that were characterized to be racist etc., and the body has numerous RS to back that up. You're proposing to tone it down (whitewash?) to say, in effect, he made the occasional racist and misogynistic comment (subtext "and who hasn't in an unguarded moment"?). You'd also have to add a verb to go with actions. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The word "many" can be retained, but I would prefer merging this sentence with the next, which said "to an unprecedented degree". Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see how that's the case. I see that we're moving from discussing what his actions are perceived as, to making a discrete comment on the nature of his actions and comments. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe this discussion resulted consensus to remove "racially charged" for being [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/if-it-s-racist-call-it-racist-associated-press-stylebook-n989056 just being a nice way to say "racist"] and a descriptor that isn't present in the article body at all. So my preferred version of the sentence is "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic."

:::I don't like the comparison to the article saying that he has said false or misleading things. I think it's fine to wikivoice Trump saying false things because "Trump says this --> the reliably-sourced truth is actually the opposite --> RSes make connection that Trump said a falsehood when he said that" is verifiable and true to the standards required of a BLP. Whereas something being racist or misogynistic will almost always have some element of subjectivity and so requires a much higher bar when wikivoicing in a BLP. DecafPotato (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I glanced at it before starting this discussion and saw that it appeared to gain traction, but did not look closely on whether it achieved consensus or not. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with this, per my argument in the linked discussion. The "racially charged" descriptor has since been removed from the body entirely, so there is little justification to have it in the lead. Just "racist or misogynistic" is sufficient. — Goszei (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fine with removing 'racially charged' but insist we retain 'characterised as'. He has never ceded that his comments are racist, and reasonable minds can differ. Therefore, attribution required. Riposte97 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

= Piped link =

:::{{u|Kenneth Kho}}, please remove the link you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1273495997&oldid=1273492722 added here]. It's a violation of consensus 30 and 60 and MOS:OVERLINK. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::We're disagreeing a lot, lately. Unless the #30 discussion specifically considered links and decided against them, this edit does not violate it. And it's well past time for us to revisit #60 for clarification of its intent. Not here. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I disagree that it violates consensus 30 or 60 or that it is WP:OVERLINK. I think this is a minor point subject to editorial discretion, so I'll just sit for a few days observing and see where the WP:EDITCON ends up. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Kenneth Kho}}, remove the link, until there's a consensus to add it. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::No, I think somebody needs to challenge by reversion, per the R in BRD. They just need to put a reason for challenge in their edit summary, and "no consensus" is not a valid reason. As I indicated above, ~~I oppose challenge per #30 or #60.~~ I don't think this edit is prohibited by #30 or #60. Therefore, in my view, it's a valid BOLD.{{pb}}This probably seems so nitpicky, but I think we're better off in the long run firming up the BRD process. It would simplify things. No better time to start than now. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Edited 19:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::How much wood would a woodchuck chuck - I would've if I could've. But I can't until tomorrow coz of 3RR. Disagree on 30 and 60 but, aside from that, there's still MOS:OVERLINK. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've removed the article link, per WP:BRD. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Reverted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1273525207] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{Oldsmiley|roll}} Space4TCatHerder 🖖 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Must learn to do emojis. Emoticons are so last decade. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::WP doesn't think there's a difference. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Kenneth Kho's BOLD now challenged with a proper rationale.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1273532108] Proceed to the D in BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I linked it to section in the same article because it appears to be practiced a few times in this article, but I'm cool with linking it to a child article such as Racial views of Donald Trump and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oppose per challenger Shibbolethink. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::And we're back to ye olde "section links in the lead must not look like piped links to other articles" discussion {{Oldsmiley|congrats}}. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Add a paragraph to the lead about his 2nd term?

I wrote this, but then edit conflicted with someone:

:Trump began his second presidency by deploying more soldiers to the Mexico–United States border, implementing a mass deportation program, starting a trade war with Canada and Mexico, removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from the federal government, trying to shrink the size of government via the U.S. federal deferred resignation program and putting most USAID staff on leave, freezing most foreign financial aid, attempting to freeze most domestic financial aid, and withdrawing from some international organizations such as the World Health Organization.

Any interest in adding this to the bottom of the lead? If the WHO part is unimportant that can be removed. I think his anti-LGBT executive orders might deserve a mention if we can think of a good way to say it. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:I recently looked into web guidance about sentence length. One academic source (University of Calgary in Qatar) recommends a maximum of 24 words for most sentences. This guidance is not atypical; long sentences are difficult to read. You have an 82-word sentence there. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

{{atop|1. Misuse of the edit request facility. Per WP:EDITREQ, edit requests are for uncontroversial changes. By definition, uncontroversial changes do not require discussion. So don't discuss in edit requests.
2. Infobox will not include anything not in the body.
3. The same OP already opened a thread about inclusion in the body at #Add President of Kennedy Center to Donald Trump.{{pb}}Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)}}

Edit info box to include Donald Trump’s current role as president of the Kennedy center, look at Michael Kaiser‘s Wikipedia page as example of a President of Kennedy center Opama420 (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

not done. That particular fact is not WP:DUE for this article. As a rule of thumb, when you google "Donald Trump", how many of the articles are talking about his role in serving as chairman of the Kennedy Center? I think it's very few if any. Therefore, not DUE for inclusion here.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 06:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:What’s your definition of how many articles is suitable, and with this logic why does Michael Kaiser have an info box with his service to the Kennedy center? It is clearly an important thing to note because there is precedence for infobox for the president of the Kennedy center. Opama420 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::I think what Shibboleth is trying to say is that when you search up "Michael Kaiser", the top thing that will come up is his role as the President of the Kennedy center, while if you search up "Donald Trump", the only thing that will show up is his role of president. AsaQuathern (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::In that case, former positions held by individuals would also be removed on thousands of Wikipedia pages with this logic being applied with only their position they are known for existing. No one remembers Avril Haines for her role as Deputy National Security Advisor, she is known for being a director of national intelligence. Either the president of the Kennedy center as an info box should be eliminated on all pages where it exists or it should be included in Trump’s info box. Opama420 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Add his criminal status in the intro

{{atop|Settled issue. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)}}

Please add first president to be elected with 34 felonies. This is a fact and first in America history. Why is this not listed? 2601:249:1500:6960:AFF5:DC08:EABF:9986 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Discussed before & the consensus was not to add. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::Just so I have a better under, why so? 2601:249:1500:6960:AFF5:DC08:EABF:9986 (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Because that's the way it turned out. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Is this something different then what's in the lead already? Moxy🍁 04:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I presumed they meant the opening paragraph. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes that is correct. My point was to make it similar to what Richard Nixon has in his intro on his wiki.

::::::

::::::*Nixon's second term ended early when he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal.*

::::::Nixin's scandal was unprecedented and worth mention in his introduction, so why not trump and his felon status. 2601:249:1500:6960:AFF5:DC08:EABF:9986 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:This is a settled issue; see current consensus item 69. If interested, read the discussion that settled it; that discussion is linked in item 69. We don't repeatedly revisit consensuses because users happen along who disagree with them; that would be a terrible waste of editor resources.{{pb}}The article's lead already includes: "He was found guilty of falsifying business records in 2024, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony." That is sufficient for the lead, and there is more in the article's body. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025 (2)

He did not take away transgender rights. That needs to be redacted 2600:1702:EC0:DAD0:B80B:8078:F416:5E88 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Insanely biased

{{atop|Please read WP:TRUMPRCB. Closing per current consensus item 61. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)}}

Neutral based commentary should not literally be consistent of nearly only negative point of views, this exact page could literally be written the exact opposite as it is now with all adequate sources with nearly equal weight to them, and it would be one of the most die-hard trump pages made.

This is not wikipedia. This is a blatant and very clearly opinionated article based entirely on someone's individual views.

Almost nearly every other language writes this page in a more neutral manner than this, I'd suggest a total rewording and remaking of this page, it's inherently biased. 67.85.34.162 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox: 45th & 47th, or 47th & 45th?

Re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1274495600][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1274496622]

I agree with Surtsicna's rationale. GoodDay's editsum is not quite right: 45 comes before 47 numerically, but the 47th info comes before the 45th info. Surtsicna made them agree so a reader doesn't have to spend 15 seconds figuring it out. That's called good design. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Here & at the Grover Cleveland article. Perhaps we should consider putting the first term info, before the second term info? That would be better than the proposed - 47th & 45th, 24th & 22nd, set up? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::You're the one always going on about cross-article consistency. I believe all officeholders have most recent first. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::How are the numerals handle in infoboxes of office holders with non-consecutive terms? This actually covers many bios, even outside the USA. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't know, but I think it's sufficient to do what's optimal for Trump and Cleveland and not worry about others at this point. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Putting his first term & second term in chronological order, would be better. That way, we keep the 45th & 47th order. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::That way, we deviate from the standard, potentially causing some amount of confusion/distraction for readers who look at a lot of officeholders' infoboxen. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:It seems obvious to me that information should be presented chronologically, with more recent offices coming below previous offices. It is confusing enough that we first have Trump preceded by Biden and then succeeded by Biden. But let's at least have it all in the same order rather than mismatched. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'd recommend opening an RFC on this general topic, for all office holders with non-consecutive terms (where numbering is shown), tbh. Would MOS:INFOBOX be the proper place? GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, if you think this kind of consistency, between a minuscule number of articles, is important enough to devote that much editor time to. And we can have a local consensus here pending a community consensus, if any. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I do support the idea of switching the terms of office within the infobox, to line up with 45th & 47th; 22nd & 24th. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Why this is utterly trivial nonsense? Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Per long-standing Wikipedia tradition. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Infobox officeholder

| order = 45th & 47th

| office = President of the United States

| vicepresident1 = JD Vance

| term_start1 = January 20, 2025

| term_end1 =

| predecessor1 = Joe Biden

| successor1 =

| vicepresident = Mike Pence

| term_start = January 20, 2017

| term_end = January 20, 2021

| predecessor = Barack Obama

| successor = Joe Biden

}}

Is this what we're considering? Flipping the non-consecutive terms of office. → — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Who's "we"? You're considering that. I'm not considering that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Infobox officeholder

| order1 = 47th

| office1 = President of the United States

| vicepresident1 = JD Vance

| term_start1 = January 20, 2025

| term_end1 =

| predecessor1 = Joe Biden

| successor1 =

| order = 45th

| office = President of the United States

| vicepresident = Mike Pence

| term_start = January 20, 2017

| term_end = January 20, 2021

| predecessor = Barack Obama

| successor = Joe Biden

}}

:I think this looks better. Or just flip the numbers (47th & 45th). Or, hear me out, remove the numbers altogether. They do not mean anything and are not part of the office. But that's a tall order. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Am I wrong that "most recent first" is the very consistent site-wide convention? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Also, there was a recent discussion in which there was a rough consensus that those headings should occur once per office, not once per term. Trump's two terms are not the same as Obama's three offices, and they shouldn't be treated the same. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I cannot imagine a reader caring how many times the heading occurs. A reader cares only that the information is presented clearly. Switching the numbers should be a relatively painless way to achieve at least some more clarity. Surtsicna (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::If Wikipedia editors asked the question, "Do the readers really care?", they would have half as many things to fret about. Can't have that! ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::I've asked for more input at Village Pump (proposals), concerning this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the only solution that makes sense — to me, at least. It was unfortunately pooh-poohed a couple of weeks ago because Grover Cleveland or because it's the same office or s.th.

| order = 47th

| office = President of the United States

| vicepresident = JD Vance

| term_start = January 20, 2025

| term_end =

| predecessor = Joe Biden

| successor =

| order2 = 45th President of the United States

| vicepresident2 = Mike Pence

| term_start2 = January 20, 2017

| term_end2 = January 20, 2021

| predecessor2 = Barack Obama

| successor2 = Joe Biden

{{Infobox officeholder

| order = 47th

| office = President of the United States

| vicepresident = JD Vance

| term_start = January 20, 2025

| term_end =

| predecessor = Joe Biden

| successor =

| order2 = 45th President of the United States

| vicepresident2 = Mike Pence

| term_start2 = January 20, 2017

| term_end2 = January 20, 2021

| predecessor2 = Barack Obama

| successor2 = Joe Biden

}}

Trump is the 47th president now, he was the 45th president from 2017–2021. The order 45th at the top, incumbent 47th underneath makes no sense. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 19:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:Your version is acceptable. I assume we'd do the same for Cleveland? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::It doesn't really matter in Cleveland's case, IMO, because his terms are both in the past. In Trump's case it matters because he's the incumbent, and the infoboxes of officeholders list the positions they hold/held in reverse chronological order. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Surtsicna's idea of deleting the numberings, would be acceptable. But, only if we deleted numberings from all the US office holder bios. I suspect there'd be much opposition to that idea, however. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding information about transgender focus?

Donald Trump very heavily fixated on transgender people and used them as a main campaign topic, though it isn't mentioned in this page much at all. I do think these are important additions just because of their prominence.

I think key things that could/should be mentioned somewhere in regards to the 2024 campaign/initial actions:

"Overall, the party spent $222 million on anti-trans and LGBTQ ads during the 2024 campaign." https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/11/22/nx-s1-5188573/transgender-gender-affirming-care-trump-abortion-hyde-amendment

"Trump's executive orders include efforts to eradicate "gender ideology," bar trans people from military service and restrict transgender care for minors." https://apnews.com/article/trump-transgender-order-passports-prisons-military-3c14ecbdd10f61618384e81624d090fb

Additionally efforts to ban from sports. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-target-transgender-women-sports-white-house-says-2025-02-05/

I am new to wikipedia so any feedback/thoughts are appreciated. EM 1NH3 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Latest report in The New York Times appears to be yesterday: "N.C.A.A., Following Trump’s Order, Excludes Transgender Athletes From Women’s Sports". The decision, effective immediately, came a day after President Trump signed an order barring transgender girls and women from playing in women’s sports at federally funded educational institutions. By Juliet Macur. Feb. 6, 2025. The article is here: [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/06/us/politics/ncaa-transgender-athletes-ban.html ]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's part of Trump's method of "flooding the zone", propose a solution in search of a problem and keep everyone's attention off Musk and his minions attempting to take over federal agencies. Citing the NY Times article mentioned by ErnestKrause: {{tq|Appearing before Congress last year, Mr. Baker said that there were fewer than 10 transgender athletes among the 500,000-plus students who play N.C.A.A. sports. "It's like taking a bulldozer to knock down the wrong building," said Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia University Law School and an expert on gender and sexuality law, adding that the policy distracts from the serious problem of girls and women not having equal opportunities in sports.}} Space4TCatHerder 🖖 17:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that transgender topics should be included more specifically in the section on Trump's Second Presidency. In everything I write below, I am referring to the section of the article on Trump's Second Presidency.

:Trump's executive actions restricting transgender rights are relevant to his early Presidential actions and his Administration's actions, and are also part of the broader "2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States."

:Trump issued EO 14168, 2025-02090 (90 FR 8615) [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/30/2025-02090/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal [federalregister.gov]] targeting "gender ideology" and defining gender only in terms of two sexes which contradicts decades worth of scientific research and reporting from reliable sources. ( [https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-sign-executive-orders-proclaiming-are-only-two-biological-sexes-rcna188388 [NBC News]], [https://apnews.com/article/trump-transgender-passports-prisons-eggs-sperm-da1d1d280658a8c85c57cfec2f30cefb [AP News]], [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-sign-orders-ending-diversity-programs-proclaiming-there-are-only-two-sexes-2025-01-20/ [Reuters]] ) OPM also drafted a related memo trying to implement that executive order.

:A second executive order, EO 14183, 2025-02178 (90 FR 8757) [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/03/2025-02178/prioritizing-military-excellence-and-readiness [federalregister.gov]], banned openly transgender people from serving in the military, [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/us/politics/trump-transgender-troops.html [New York Times]] which has led to ongoing injunction relief lawsuits in court [https://apnews.com/article/transgender-troops-trump-pentagon-order-c92b17a47574d711efa11fb178ff6ae0 [AP News]]

:A third executive order, EO 14187, 2025-02194 (90 FR 8771) [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/03/2025-02194/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation [federalregister.gov]], banned federal funding to gender-affirming care, which has also led to ongoing injunction relief lawsuits in court. [https://apnews.com/article/trump-transgender-gender-affirming-care-lawsuit-19-cf1467fd53ebb8a125a863c345508e4c [AP News]]

:A forth executive order, EO 14190, 2025-02232 (90 FR 8853) [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/03/2025-02232/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling [federalregister.gov]], attempts to restrict discussion of gender in K-12 schools and funding to those K-12 schools. [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-executive-order-restrict-education-topics/story?id=118239458 [ABC News]], [https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/dei-schools-eo-impact/ [UCLA Williams Institute]]

:A fifth executive order, "Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports" [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/keeping-men-out-of-womens-sports/ [whitehouse.gov]] (it doesn't have an official print yet), banned funding to any education institutions that allow trans women or girls to participate in women and girls' sports. [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/politics/trump-order-transgender-athletes-womens-sports.html [New York Times]], [https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-transgender-athletes-3606411fc12efffec95a893351624e1b [AP News]], House Republicans also recently voted for H.R.28 "Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025" which also restricts transgender women and girls from women and girls' sports. [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/us/politics/house-trans-athletes.html [New York Times]] But the House bill might not need to be mentioned in this article specifically, editors can debate this. Keeping in mind "Is the House bill something relevant enough to Trump specifically, and how likely is it that the bill would be signed into law by Trump?", etc.

:There have been news reports of ongoing Administration actions to eliminate the use of any of the terms "transgender", "gender identity", "non-binary", and more similar terms from federal government websites, similar to the ongoing restrictions on DEI terminology and the current shuttering of government websites and programs in general. [https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/government-agencies-scrub-lgbtq-web-pages-remove-info-trans-intersex-p-rcna190519 [NBC News]], [https://apnews.com/article/government-websites-changes-trump-transgender-dei-orders-383fc983c6ca48804f1404cbc61ee9e9 [AP News]]

:The Executive Orders restricting trans rights and the generally anti-trans rhetoric are part of the wider rollbacks of Title IX, DEI, and other nondiscrimination policies, which are discussed in the article, but the focus on transgender people has been more extensive and contentious both by the Administration and by news agencies, so I think it justifies more specific inclusion in the article, specifically in the section on Trump's Second Presidency.

:One issue to think about, though, is when implementing transgender topics in current politics, following Wikipedia neutral point of view policy and other policies. On a contentious and polarizing issue, editors may have to take extra care to accord to Wikipedia policy as well as not inflict undue harm to a marginalized community.

:Editors can also debate a few things:

:# Which transgender-related topics should or should not be included in the article?

:# Which sources should be cited?

:# How much of the article should be dedicated to transgender-related topics?

:KinnexusOnW (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::This material is already under development at the article for Second presidency of Donald Trump. It might be useful to try to bring it in there first. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Truthfulness

Excellent job compiling the information for this page.

Please consider renaming the header 'Truthfulness' to 'Lies' or 'False or misleading statements' per the Main article: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. Many thanks for your work! Dsalerno (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:"Lies" would violate current consensus item 22. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think 'False statements' or 'Promotion of falsehoods' would be better headers. It accords with the main article of the section and 'Truthfulness' doesn't really share the connotations of the section. Using the term "false" also doesn't imply malicious intent, per item 22. I think most people looking for this information about Trump wouldn't expect him to be compared to truthfulness but rather to be compared to falsehoods. KinnexusOnW (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::It could be better to use to term "misleading statements" as well, as Trump is fact-checked both for statements that are blanket falsehoods as well as statements that lack context, make claims without evidence, or are otherwise misleading. KinnexusOnW (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Also, 'False or misleading statements' would be consistent with the Main article. Thanks for mentioning. Dsalerno (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

[[:Category:American anti-communists]]

Should he be put in this category? Numerous former presidents are included:

I would argue Trump should be included too. His rhetoric against communism, socialism, and Marxism has been a central point of his campaigns, especially the most recent one. See [https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/trump-calls-2024-presidential-election-a-choice-between-communism-and-freedom-/3316641], [https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86e], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/19/trump-harris-communist/], [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/22/donald-trump-red-scare-communism-00102990], [https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-09-02/presidential-election-donald-trump-calls-kamala-harris-a-marxist-a-communist-even-a-fascist-why-his-wild-punches-arent-landing], from the most recent election, and [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/28/trump-wisconsin-rally-touts-economy], [https://socialistworker.org/2019/03/07/so-why-is-trump-railing-against-socialism], and [https://victimsofcommunism.org/donald-trump-anti-communist/ "Donald Trump: Anti-Communist"] from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

Pinging {{ping|User:Mandruss}}, who reverted my edit with the argument that "pretty much goes with the presidency of a capitalist country." Yeah, but even using that standard he's especially outspoken, and the category isn't necessarily very selective (I mean, Martin Luther King Jr. is in there).

Kingofthedead (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:My browser "Find" function finds no occurrence of "communis" in the article. Seems to me you're putting cart before horse. If it isn't significant enough for even a brief mention in the article, it isn't significant enough for a category. And I don't care much about what other articles have done—not all consistency is good consistency—pursuit of cross-article consistency can stifle the evolution of the encyclopedia, put an arbitrary cap on quality, and cause stagnation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Almost all American politicians claim to be anti-communist, but we don't put every single one in this category. We should have some good, solid sourcing that describes Trump as anti-Communist to a greater degree than normal before adding him here. BootsED (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Not a defining characteristic R. G. Checkers^talk 07:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:No. The Victims of Communism piece is a 2017 op-ed on a website where another op-ed calls Pete Hegseth "a bulwark of civil liberty" opposed by the "anti-Christian nationalist-industrial complex". The other sources you cited are about Trump calling his political opponents communists and socialists — has anyone seriously argued that, e.g., Harris is a communist or socialist? Space4TCatHerder 🖖 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::Exactly. It's not so much that Trump claims to be anti-communist, it's that he claims that virtually anyone who opposes him is a communist. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:lol no. there are 5 nominally communist nations remaining, though NK is a hereditary dictatorship and Vietnam & China have a degree of open-market reform. there are virtually no "communists" to be "anti" to anymore, it is not a defining trait for a 21st century president. ValarianB (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think that's a reason (arguably also about anti-communism, and his rhetoric fits category) but isn't he good buddies with Kim Jong-un... kind of contradiction for the category?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Right, at least one of those he seems to have no issue with, no he is not "anti-communist". Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Wouldn't a vast majority of Americans have described themselves as anti-communist during the Cold War? I'm not sure that's even a worthwhile category. But in Donald Trump's case, it's probably not even true. If a communist country offered him a lucrative deal, he'd take it. NME Frigate (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::A vast majority of American would still describe themselves as anti-Communist. But wouldn't be able to really define Communism.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"Trade War" in February 2025?

With regard to the statement: "Trump began his second presidency by implementing a mass deportation program, and starting a trade war with Canada and Mexico." Suggest changing to: Trump began his second presidency by initiating a mass deportation program.

At this point (2/7/25) there is no trade war with Canada & Mexico so that claim should be removed. Re: mass deportation, it remains to be seen if it will be implemented, though it's fair to say a plan has been initiated. 2603:6080:E00:4F67:E94A:5111:7EE6:B855 (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:You mean the 30-day grace period? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:I removed the threatened trade war — Canada and Mexico are off the table for now, and I don't think the sources count another 10% on some exports/imports to and from China as a trade war. I also removed that he has concepts of a plan] to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act . He's been [https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/08/economy/trump-national-economic-emergency-tariffs/index.html considering declaring] a national economic emergency for at least a week now but hasn't done so. I don't know that "mass" is the right qualifier for "deportations" at the moment but left it since ICE and others arrested people very publicly and deported planeloads of shackled people. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:I doubt merely setting tariffs then getting counter-tarrifs--even if it was still all countries he said he'd tariff--is a full-fledged trade war... seems that might need both sides increasing & increasing tariffs, because then it's like they took more action against the other side (might also include aspects similar to a cold war, like criticism or insults or oppositional rhetoric)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Modification to intro's mention of Trumpism

Right now, the first line of the intro's fourth paragraph reads "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism movement". I personally think we should reinstate the earlier "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement" – however, if you guys don't want MAGA mentioned here, we should probably drop the word 'movement' from what we currently have (i.e., it would just read "Trump is the central figure of Trumpism"). Thoughts? WikiEdita65 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:At the time current consensus item 68 was established (last month), it read: "Trump's politics led to the Trumpism movement." That's just FYI, as that was not covered by the consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::Well then, we should probably fix it. It doesn't say "of the Trumpism movement", it says "of Trumpism movement". We need a 'the'. WikiEdita65 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Obvious mistake, fix uncontroversial.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1274786128] ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:How can one person lead two movements that may be the same but not even separate organizations? 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) seems more a slogan or goal, but the acronym (and many similar new ones) might be a movement symbol--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::I would say they are rather synonymous “Trumpism” and “MAGA Movement”, that is. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

[[Donald Trump and fascism]]

We have very substantial coverage and a dedicated, long article on Donald Trump and fascism. This is not a trivial issue but quite a serious and substantial discussion that has existed for almost a decade now. Based on its existing, extensive coverage, it would seem to be appropriate, per WP:LEAD, to include a brief summary in the lead, perhaps somewhere in the existing sentence {{tq|"Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic. He made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics"}}.

For example (the exact phrasing can be discussed); new additions highlighted:

:Version 1: {{tq|"Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic, and many have drawn comparisons to fascist leaders. He made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics"}}."

:Version 2 (shorter): {{tq|"Trump is the central figure of Trumpism and the Make America Great Again movement. Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, misogynistic or fascist. He made false and misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to a degree unprecedented in American politics"}}."

--Tataral (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::That appears to already be done in the 2024 Presidential Election section attributed to multiple sources:[514][515][516][517]. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::As I said, this is about the WP:LEAD. The argument is that it merits being summarized briefly in the lead based on its significance and substantial existing coverage, and that it is (at least) equally prominent as descriptions such as "racially charged, racist, misogynistic." That a topic is addressed in the body is not an argument against it being summarized in the lead; rather, the opposite. --Tataral (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe this can be added to the political practice section. If anything I think the lead should mention how he is described as authoritarian, which has more academic consensus and mentions than the fascist label. One of the big things scholars who refute Trump is fascist say is that he's authoritarian, but not fascist. BootsED (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Both are significant viewpoints among academics and commentators, and broader society, but the point is that the debate is important enough to be summarized in the lead. Perhaps in the form {{tq|"authoritarian or fascist"}}. --Tataral (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:Wasn't this discussed before & the consensus was 'not' to add? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, it was. No need to rehash this. R. G. Checkers^talk 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:MAGA 2600:1008:B130:CA63:0:1B:BF57:9501 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::I do not think his support by MAGA is enough to call him a fascist, we must base that on his actions, not those of his supporters. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, and his rhetoric and actions have been described as fascist. There are lots of sources for it in Donald Trump and fascism, Trumpism, and MAGA articles regarding this EarthDude (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot has happened since then: everything from threats to invade neighboring countries, to the targeting of political opponents and minorities. --Tataral (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:This is not reddit. The consensus was to leave it out. Thank you 2600:4040:1EE4:6100:6030:C13F:DDE6:238F (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Consensus can and should change if the underlying facts change. Might (probably) be too early to tell in this instance Czarking0 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Are you saying Wikipedia should not change when the underlaying facts do so? Bazeon (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Except nothing has changed though, some people called him ‘fascist’ in 2017 and they still do now. The general reasons people state this haven’t changes either. So, no the facts have not changed. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Buddy, the entire concept of Wikipedia is that it is an everchanging and updating encyclopedia EarthDude (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:Doesn't quite match fascism, despite he said he'd be dictator and there'd be no future (presidential?) election (like some fascism), though dictators across authoritarian part of political compass (which should be circular) do so (he switched party affiliation/independence many times, so was more centrist, but clearly to the right on most issues). However, fascism synthesized ideas from capitalism & socialism (while being against both) and used national syndicalism (maybe economic centrism) for corporatism (meaning corporate groups, i.e., parts of society, not corporations, and a type of mixed/social market economy, economic centrist statism): core tenet that society/state, business, labour get equal representatives/organizations in government. He's a businessman running the state (instating more loyalty to party/him, fewer other society/state & labour interests) and the party believes in free-market capitalism (further-right of mixed/social market). His cabinet is billionaires except one who has $500,000,000. Fascism claims to put community/collective over individualism.

:Where's the standard/required fascist corporatism including other collective/society/state, labour interests: did he appoint a single representative of society or labour, rather than capitalism/business? Original/Italian fascism was supported by fair number of trade unions (they partly got their representation) and derivative ideologies claimed to be socialist (but were mixed/social, not centrally-planned socialism). Fascism was often cultural/social conservative, which cleary President Trump is (on many, but not all issues) but I forgot if that's as fundamental to fascism as much as corporatism (for some derivatives, like nazism, it was). In economic sense (on circular political compass), free-market is farthest-right equally between libertarianism & authoritarianism (minarchy, some Libertarian-influenced since Tea Party Caucus) but fascism used corporatism to move upward left there (remaining in authoritarian-right quadrant) and similarly on social issues, though usually considered farther-right socially. As part of that, fascism restricted/nationalized/shutdown companies/corporations/banks considered to be harming society: further-left (in authoritarian-right quadrant) than free-market capitalism which Republicans do opposite: deregulation. Many articles claim 'Trumpist' Republicanism became fascism, but economically they're the world's most extreme far-right ever: again, where's society & labour representation? Italian fascism had that, and derivatives did similar (though got rid of trade unions, were militarist collectivist welfare states for those allowed to be citizens). Is it more realistic to call 'Trumpism' authoritarian cultural/social conservative state-capitalism (except he claims to protect free speech, Social Security, senior healthcare (Medicare, except allowd major increase in medicine prices), right to abortion, which aspects like middle two are supposed to be in fascism, which was usually/always anti-abortion/pro-birth)? Is there actually no standard/required fascist representation of society/state, labour, nor any collectivism, rather than ideology of free-market capitalism with 'rugged individualism' and some focus on nuclear family (more than community/society)?

:That being said, many reliable articles document President Trump (between terms) did 10 or 15+ things fascists always do before getting in power: secondary practice, not primary theory, mostly done by all dictators, including state-capitalists, militarists, Communists. He did mention potentially being militarist imperialist, which original/Italian, most fascism did, but remains to be seen. In order to do so, 1900s fascism was all pro-birth collectivism increasing labour to make some fast-growing strongest economies of the time, which seems unlikely today (except China).

:If he says he's a dictator by all means cite/quote/reference that (or autocrat, authoritarian, etc.) for many reasons including well-documented voter suppression (Wikipedia's wider article on it documents about 3,500,000 votes, costing Democrats the 2024 election) and letting Elon Musk's DOGE control Treasury, and do closing/merging/shrinking 400/500 government departments autocratically bypassing Congress's authority, including Republicans, which most/all departments were created with bipartisanship. Only Congresspeople--mostly Republicans--themselves have authority to tell Treasury what to do and reorganize/close departments (other than a very few created without Congressional authorization). If he implements other aspects of actual fascist philosophy (by Benito Mussolini & Giovanni Gentile, or derived/neofascism) then sure, but I don't see it happening (since his party considers that against free-market).

:I just really see little/no implementation of fascist philosophy, rather than authoritarian state-capitalism. One might call it proto-fascist, but some conservatives call liberals (proto-)Communist, so terms lose meaning ('everyone I dislike or disagree with') which is unfortunate/misinformation/dangerous on both sides. If he wants/instates corporatism with sufficient collectivism, sure... and some such fascist people/organizations support him, though more often (small fascist American third political parties) condemn both major USA political parties (of course some fascists partly agree and vote Republican... how many? The larger party condemns them). Authoritarian state-capitalism can become militarist imperialism (which he's considering) and remain state-capitalism (sometimes considered military junta... different sociopolitical organization than facism) but sometimes sets conditions for fascism. If that happens, it's unlikely to be Republicans, because they're free-marketists. What's more likely is such conditions (socioeconomic problems) cause major change or replacement of USA's Seventh Party System, which may or not result in future fascism. USA often had the most individualism, as do Republicans and businessmen such as President Trump, so unless the current party system is replaced, it seems unlikely he'd be fascist rather than oligarch/plutocrat dictator, with Republican free-market individualism wanting to avoid social/mixed market collectivism (fascism, etc.). They don't want welfare-type state, society & labour representation (already being restricted to increase free-market) nor supporters/their businesses restricted/nationalized/shutdown if considered to harm society, which all contradicts fascist tenets--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 10:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

demagoguery versus populism?

Some media/news & social science (politics, economics) writers from centre to left have been writing President Trump never has been populist rather than demagogue. Western (and much/most other) politics has conflict between elitism (powerful/rich) & populism (common people, masses). Demagogues focus on speaking to masses in ways they understand, agree/like, but demagogues often are elitists, not populists. Populism involves masses organizing to advance their interests, and elite demagogues say they will, but often don't, or just partly.

Scholarch Plato (Aristocles) of (Classical) Athens criticized Leader/General Pericles of Athens as being demagogue, while others complimented him as populist. I like both Plato & Pericles, regardless which he was. It's true a significant percentage of working-class Americans (even a few labour/trade unions) support President Trump, even as a movement, but that doesn't in the least necessarily make him populist: most/all politicians/parties (typically most elites) have supporters/movements, and his entire cabinet are billionaires, except one who has about $500,000,000 (powerful/rich elite, just with different viewpoints than such involved with and funding Democrats).

If President Trump was populist, he'd have appointed more working-class people, but I doubt he ever appointed one, and he'd have tried to make Republicans focus more/mainly on issues even vast majority of their working-class supporters want (necessities such as affordable housing including for Republican poor, such as homeless veterans, many from rural or industrial poor backgrounds who are steadily losing family farms, or can't afford family/single apartment in any city on one minimum wage, fair wages to help reduction of world's largest wealth inequality (including many rich Democrats/supporters), tax breaks not mainly/regressively for larger rich/companies (which are mass industrial-scale farms, (multinational) corporations, (international) banksters), some the latter two supporting Democrats & anti-isolationism-/nationalism), Social Security, socialized/single-payer healthcare or in addition to private insurance), but Republicans (2016 to 2020) spent more/much time against some/many such issues, such as voting hundreds of times to end even semi-universal healthcare even many working-class Republicans paid taxes into and depend on. Recently (USAID closure) his mostly-rural supporter base lost billions in USA government business that bought farm/ranch products wholesale, and some essential veterans (maybe considered more right-wing group) benefits were cut (last time and planned/done this time) so a fair number of Republicans are concerned/alarmed with conflict between 2000s 'big government Republicanism' (mix of Austrian economic school of thought fiscal responsibility & Keynesian deficit spending since President Bush 2, and what President Trump would have to do to retain these social programs) versus Elon Musk's potential minarchy largely abandoning their mass supporters' necessities/livelihood/subsistence issues. Non-isolationist/-nationalist conservatives (classic Republicans) often consider tariffs an outdated method replaced (even for populism) with free trade, because tariffs' cost is shunted to working-class including small-businesses, many (if not majority) whom support Republicans, but globalist free trade agenda mainly benefits/increases American economy/business (overall, not some sectors) using internatonal labour, such as used by most large Republican donors and his cabinet.

The question is: is President Trump more demagogue or populist? Historically he was Republican, then Democrat, then independent, then Reform (centrist), now Republican, so it's clear he's (some/few ways) more centrist and at least listens to mass/working-class/leftist economic issues such as promised won't cut Social Security nor Medicare (nor abortion) diverging from average conservative/Republican elite (out-of-touch) dogma, but remains to be seen (2025 to 20 2028) whether he'll command/restrain his party to do populism (help working-class) or perhaps recruit educated/knowledgeable working-class Republicans to handle their class issues, rather than only elites.

Various people into politics--on entire political spectrum--prefer populists (associated with Classical democracy) saying they care about the masses, and others caution against them and prefer (educated) elitists (associated with Classical republics) saying elitism focuses more on what keeps society cohesive/functional rather than only mass issues then potential collapse, such as Socrates & Plato & Aristotle said democracy can lead to masses giving themselves too much money (not only for good reasons) from public funds which collapses economy then society (and others said similar in specific modern ideas) and modernly also collapses to populist revolutions, usually hard-left socialist/communist (USSR, PRC, many similar, but rarely also cultural conservative mixed/social market economic populism such as 1922 to 1945 Italy (also when taken over by NSDAP) like what PRC has slowly been becoming since 1980). Both ancient Roman and modern American republics used ideas from Socratic-Platonic-Aristotlean republicanism/meritocracy, and democracy, and the Roman republic had conflict between optimates (patricians/powerful/rich/elitism) & populares (plebeians/disempowered/masses/populism), though when there was power imbalance--even populares getting power--that led to societal collapse (violence & civil war, takeover to become empire).

Reliable historical sources called Pericles either populist or (elitist) demagogue, but I don't know politicians described as such are always clearly one or the other (nor am advocating populism nor demagogue elitism): might be 50%, and though I read several articles from varied sources (left, centre, right, working-class, middle-class mostly non-professors, some sociology professors) saying one or the other, I don't know I have energy/time to re-find those, and strongly avoid political editing, and have no interest to start. Just saying: can Wikipedia check more sources to see if experts overall explain one or the other, or is it not clear-cut, but then cite/quote/reference various views even if reliable ones conflict (as with Pericles' case)?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 05:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:This is word salad. If you have a suggestion to add or change text in the the article, the present sources to support the change. Otherwise, the digressions on Greek are best left to Intro to Philosophy. Zaathras (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::Sure (with no evidence nor reply on details, just logical fallacy baseless attack near bottom of hierarchy of disagreement). You have bad grammar/spelling (word salad) and don't understand what I said. Maybe more knowledgeable people will comment who comprehend or are interested in the difference, which definitions/etymology (and historical ideas that led to USA) date to (relevant) Classical world. Also, no: detailed/obscure political ideas such as 'demagoguery versus populism' don't belong in 'Introduction to Philosophy' rather than a political philosophy/science text (maybe beyond introductory).--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Good luck with that approach. There aren't a lot of students of Classical history around here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia has thousands articles, portals, wikiprojects, wikitaskforces, etc. on such subjects, though those involved might not edit this particular article much (I'd rather study such subjects than edit it) you don't have to be a student of such subjects (just helps with details) to know the difference between demagogue and populist.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|(I'd rather study such subjects than edit this)}} -- Then do so. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:WP:TLDR, Dchmelik. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::You added nothing to the discussion (like Usenet: 'me too'). Ridiculous essay which has redirects to it making no sense. I highly recommend regularly read more (articles, (e)books, (e)periodicals, websites, well-written posts at least starting medium-sized, etc... on Internet's original forums (Usenet) that means 300 to 500 KB))--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Does that high horse come with a stepladder, or do you just close your eyes and jump? Zaathras (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Dchmelik, are you proposing something for this BLP? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::Demagogue and populist are not mutually exclusive terms. BTW, the concept of populism developed in the 19th century. Assigning modern political labels to ancient politicians is problematic. TFD (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2025

Add a section for his legal cases: "In December [2024], ABC settled a defamation suit brought by Trump by making a $15 million donation to his future presidential library. CBS’s parent company Paramount is reportedly in talks to settle a multibillion-dollar lawsuit filed by Trump, who accused 60 Minutes of deceptively editing an interview with Kamala Harris. [They did not edit the interview in a favorable way toward Kamala Harris.] Trump initially sought $10 billion in the lawsuit and is now seeking $20 billion. 'What I see here is media organizations that have the power to fight back against Trump but aren’t doing it. I think that’s a failure of courage,' says [Jameel] Jaffer[, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute ad Columbia University]. 'Every time one of those media organizations settles a case, the next organization finds it more difficult to resist Trump.'[who is making false allegations about how Kamala Harris, himself, and the 2024 election had been covered.] (https://www.democracynow.org/2025/2/11/jameel_jaffer_trump_doge_press_mediaDemocracy Now, February 11, 2025) Willowplusmagnolia (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

2025 US Constitutional Crisis

It is being openly discussed in more venues and reliable sources than I can begin to list. Is it time to acknowledge the elephant (pun intended) in the living room? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:Not yet, as we do not know if anyone will blink yet, its not even been a month. Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::What's the quality of the sources saying there's a constitutional crisis in the United States? Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Well it's currently the lead story at the [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/trump-constitutional-crisis.html New York Times]. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::FWIW this also just crossed my news feed within the last couple minutes... [https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/10/trump-doj-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-pause.html Trump to pause enforcement of law banning bribery of foreign officials]. A [https://www.google.com/search?q=us+constitutional+crisis&sca_esv=d1df69ed15318afd&sxsrf=AHTn8zokzG34sCwaoL1AKU6ODU3upJC8lA%3A1739213700399&source=hp&ei=hEuqZ8iyFrrHp84P1fe_EQ&iflsig=ACkRmUkAAAAAZ6pZlKZhd00pa26QgFnizf-0VBNbCooZ&ved=0ahUKEwjIhLL247mLAxW648kDHdX7LwIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=us+constitutional+crisis&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ihh1cyBjb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBjcmlzaXMyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTIFEAAY7wUyBRAAGO8FSMw2UKIIWL8ucAF4AJABAJgByAGgAc8UqgEGNi4xNy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIZoAKLFagCCsICBxAjGCcY6gLCAgoQIxjwBRgnGOoCwgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICCBAAGIAEGLEDwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMY0QMYxwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICBRAAGIAEwgIREC4YgAQYkQIY0QMYxwEYigXCAhQQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHARiKBcICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGK8BwgILEC4YgAQY0QMYxwHCAhEQLhiABBiRAhjHARiKBRivAcICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIEEAAYA8ICBxAAGIAEGArCAgUQLhiABMICChAAGIAEGLEDGArCAg0QABiABBixAxiDARgKwgILEC4YgAQYxwEYrwHCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABiiBBiJBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEmAMG8QXkmung-6wvjpIHBjYuMTguMaAH_rsB&sclient=gws-wiz Google search] is turning up a lot of discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do we have any academic sources for the scholars the NYT is quoting? Paywall so I couldn't see who the "scholars" were. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/trump-constitutional-crisis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.v04.KDaO.DJfQvKkctKO7&smid=url-share Here is a link to the article]. I have a subscription and am allowed to share a limited number of stories to as many people as I want per month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::You could've just copied the url and looked at archives in the wayback machine to bypass paywalls lol EarthDude (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That doesn't always work with NYT and no longer works at all with WaPo so it's not the best solution. I will admit I didn't try this time. Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::"Trump’s Actions Have Created a Constitutional Crisis, Scholars Say". Scholars say lots of things. What do lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other judiciaries say? Has any actual legal process been started to contest the actions of Trump, or is it just things that some people say? Cambalachero (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, multiple legal processes have been started to contest various actions of Trump, some of which have prevailed in their early stages (much can still change), and Wikipedia has documented these processes. But that in itself doesn't mean a constitutional crisis has been reached: every president faces legal challenges, and every president loses some of those legal challenges. And as far as I know, no U.S. court has ever said, "this is a constitutional crisis." The phrase is a term of art in scholarship. NME Frigate (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:Let's keep in mind, media tend to over-react for the sake of upping readership/viewership. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Ok so the scholar in question is Erwin Chemerinsky. I'm looking to see what he's written about Trump and / or constitutional crises. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The second expert cited is Kate Shaw, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Chemerinsky is preeminent progressive legal scholar, along side Laurence Tribe. That is not to say that his bias is disqualifying, a legal scholar is still a legal scholar, regardless of being a progressive or not. but important to keep in mind. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::This is going to be a real long four years if I have to repeat this ad-nauseam but WP:RS does not come with an ideological test. Him being, in your opinion, "progressive" is not something we consider when determining if he is a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::And a quick look at Google Scholar suggests he's probably the right person to identify an in-progress constitutional crisis. [https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2025&q=erwin+chemerinsky+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5] As a bit of a devil's advocate position it might be WP:TOOSOON and we would have to make sure any fork that addressed the putative constitutional crisis avoided WP:CRYSTAL but there seems to be a grounding that at least some academic experts think the USA is presently in a constitutional crisis that might be the basis for a novel article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I never said that, you are misrepresenting my comment, and in fact I specifically argued against ideological tests: " That is not to say that his bias is disqualifying, a legal scholar is still a legal scholar, regardless of being a progressive or not.". I just thought it may be of interest. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:I support the creation of this. Kinda surprised an article on this hasnt been made already, its pretty front and center now EarthDude (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:There is a Wikipedia article titled "Constitutional crisis," apparently first created in 2005, that includes sections such crises in multiple countries, including a section about the U.S., which lists seven examples, including the current situation, for which four sources are mentioned (in the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and two New York Times articles). NME Frigate (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Constitutional crisis is a pretty generic term that can cover a number of situations. There have been many, mostly in other countries. If we are going to address the present situation with a stand-alone article it should have a name that specifies the who and when aspects of the crisis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Just a quick update: at the moment, that section of the "Constitutional crisis" has been removed. NME Frigate (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, Representative Al Green from Texas, has 'again' called for impeachment. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:This is actually old news from a week ago in the Atlantic article here [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/trump-musk-congress-constitution/681568/] which used this term in the article's title. The Wikipedia article for Constitutional crisis states fairly directly that this is a term used for political debate using the words: "Constitutional crises may arise from conflicts between different branches of government, conflicts between central and local governments, or simply conflicts among various factions within society." ErnestKrause (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Cabinet(s) in the infobox?

I've noticed someone added Trump's two cabinets into his infobox. Do we have cabinets in the infoboxes of his predecessors? Should we have the cabinet(s) in the infobox of bios of US presidents? GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:No. They're not personal details and belong in the Infoboxes of the presidency articles. They were added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=1271155233&oldid=1271145237 on January 22]. I just removed them. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 16:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:Support removal. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Attempted assassination

I think his attempted assassination in Pennsylvania should be mentioned in his general bio around the part about the 2024 election. It gives more context, and still isnt talked a whole lot in the section where it mentions it. Just a suggestion.2600:1011:B170:20AC:D4F9:34D6:4A80:E5E6 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:We already mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)