The Press Response to Trump's Word Salad Answer on Childcare is Peak Sanewashing
The Press Response to Trump's Word Salad Answer on Childcare is Peak Sanewashing
He rambled for two minutes. You wouldn't know that from a lot of the media coverage.
Earlier this week, I wrote an article for The New Republic (and expanded on it in a post here at TPA) about how the media “sanewashes” Trump. If you missed that, I recommend checking it out.
And then yesterday, we were given a perfect example of this.
Moms First CEO and Founder Reshma Saujani asked Trump: "If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable, and if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?"
It’s an extremely straightforward question with an extremely straightforward answer: “Yes, I will commit to that. This is the specific piece of legislation I support that would do that: [insert specific legislation to be talked about].”
But that’s not how Trump answered. Instead, he gave an incoherent, meandering, nearly two-minute response. Watch for yourself:
Here’s a transcription:
Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care. You have to have it — in this country you have to have it.
But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to — but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take.
I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just told you about.
We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible [country that can] afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people, but we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about Make America Great Again, we have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation, so we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.
Wow. That’s… incoherent.
And yet, here’s how The New York Times’ Michael Gold wrote it up:
After his speech, Donald Trump was asked how he might address rising child care costs. In a jumbled answer, he said he would prioritize legislation on the issue but offered no specifics and insisted that his other economic policies, including tariffs, would “take care” of child care. “As much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in.”
Politico summarized that portion of his pitch:
He also pledged to tackle government inefficiency with a new Elon Musk-inspired commission and to launch a sovereign wealth fund with money collected from tariffs to finance everything from infrastructure projects and child-care costs to paying down the national debt — moves that might ease concerns about the fiscal impact of his agenda.
The Associated Press headlined its article about Trump’s answer, “Trump suggests tariffs can help solve rising child care costs in a major economic speech.”
Newsweek’s “How Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’ Child Care and Family Policies Differ” didn’t exactly capture the spirit of what he said:
The rising cost of child care is a core issue for some American families already grappling with inflation and the cost of living, but where do the presidential candidates stand on lessening the burden for voters?
Former President Donald Trump was pressed on his plans to address child care costs during an appearance before the Economic Club of New York on Thursday, during which the Republican nominee promoted his fiscal policy as a solution to the rising prices of everyday necessities. When asked by Girls Who Code founder Reshma Saujani if he would "commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable" if reelected to office, Trump told the panel of business leaders that his plans to increase taxes on imports could "take care" of rising costs like child care.
"Child care is child care, it's something you have to have in this country," Trump said, who also touted efforts by his daughter, Ivanka, to address child care costs during his first presidency.
And Fortune cleaned up his word salad, headlining its article, “Trump tells business leaders that increasing tariffs on foreign imports will help solve rising child care costs.”
Former President Donald Trump suggested to business leaders Thursday that his plans to increase tariffs on foreign imports would solve seemingly unrelated challenges such as the rising cost of child care in the U.S.
“Both sides” being upset with you does not, in fact, mean you’re doing something right.
Last week, CNN's primetime interview with Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, featured a moment that's stuck with me. It wasn't what Harris said, but rather what CNN's Dana Bash chose to ask. The veteran journalist opted to dredge up Donald Trump's bizarrely racist claim that Harris had "happened to turn Black."
It was a silly question, and one Harris didn’t want to dignify with an answer. She responded, "Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please." Her refusal to engage with Trump's rhetoric was telling, but equally revealing was Bash's decision to broach the topic in the first place.
In the days following the interview, Bash was criticized by people on both sides of the political spectrum. The right attacked her for being too soft on Harris, while the left accused her of amplifying Trump talking points like the bizarre attempt to rewrite Harris’s race.
Bash's response to this barrage of criticism? A disappointingly classic case of journalistic both-sidesism.
"The fact that nobody in their entrenched camps was happy makes me think that I probably was in just about the right place," Bash told The Daily Beast, wearing the criticism as a badge of honor.
This self-congratulatory stance — the idea that if both sides are upset, a journalist must be doing something right — is a common refrain in modern media, a classic “Get Out of Criticism Free” card, an escape hatch. It, of course, is also a fallacious argument that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The flaw in this logic is obvious: Just because two opposing groups are unhappy doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's entirely possible that both sides have legitimate grievances, or that one side's criticism is valid while the other's is not. By falling back on this defense, journalists like Bash risk dismissing valid criticism and avoiding genuine self-reflection.
This stance can lead to false equivalence. In an effort to appear "balanced," journalists might give equal weight to unequal arguments or amplify fringe views for the sake of controversy. In Bash's case, repeating Trump's racist comment could be seen as lending credence to a baseless attack, all in the name of "both sides" journalism.
There's also the question of what really serves the public interest. Is the goal of journalism to make everyone equally dissatisfied, or to provide accurate, contextual information that helps viewers understand complex issues? Bash defended her approach by saying, "My job wasn't to nail her. My job was to illuminate and to get an understanding of her positions, of her sensibility, of her approach and of her goals." But does rehashing provocative statements from political opponents achieve this aim, or does it merely create headline-grabbing moments at the expense of substance?
In other news…
It seems Russia was funding a right-wing media company.
On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed an indictment accusing the Kremlin of spending upwards of $10 million to fund Tenet Media, a right-wing media company based in the U.S. that features pro-Trump commentators like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Lauren Southern, and Benny Johnson.
“New Indictment Alleges Conservative Media Company Took Millions of Kremlin Cash” (Mother Jones, Anna Merlan, 9/4/24)
“How Russian operatives covertly hired U.S. influencers to create viral videos” (NPR, Shannon Bond, Jude Joffe-Block, Caitlin Thompson, 9/5/24)
“US conservative influencers say they are ‘victims’ of Russian disinformation campaign” (The Guardian, 9/4/24)
“MAGA world's reaction to Russian election interference indictment: Conspiracy theories and attacks on law enforcement agencies” (Media Matters for America, Jane Lee, Jason Campbell, 9/5/24)
“We need to know who is funding the creator economy” (
, , 9/5/24)
I’m done. I’m done with the media. My own sanity can’t bear the weight of the gaslighting we are subjected to on a daily basis. Time for me to go touch grass.
Parker, thank you for drilling into this phenomenon. It drives me to screaming when I hear the garbage language and then read about it as coherent policy. Don’t let up!