A Blaze of Euphemisms
If you’ve been following the mainstream media’s coverage of Donald J. Trump, you’ve probably noticed a strange phenomenon. News outlets that should be calling out blatant lies and destructive policies are instead tiptoeing around with language that paints Trump as “muscular,” “bold,” or “unconventional.” That is a full-on sane-washing of an administration whose actions have repeatedly undermined democratic norms.
To understand why mainstream outlets keep sane-washing Trump’s most destructive actions, we need to look at who owns these media empires. The Washington Post, for example, is controlled by Jeff Bezos through Amazon’s vast influence. The New York Times, while still family-run, relies heavily on billionaire investors and hedge funds that thrive under political stability—meaning their editorial stance often leans toward keeping the establishment intact, even if it means sanitizing an authoritarian.
Corporate media exists to protect the status quo the ultra-wealthy have built. It’s no coincidence that newsrooms increasingly adopt centrist, or even right-centrist, toned-down language when discussing Trump’s policies. Billionaire owners have no interest in radical pushback—whether against Trump’s tariff chaos, environmental rollbacks, or outright democratic erosion—because instability, not justice, threatens their bottom line. That’s why we keep seeing “muscular” instead of “destructive” or “bold” instead of “reckless” and “controversial” instead of “dangerous.”
The legacy press is not failing; it’s functioning as designed—keeping billionaire interests safe while the rest of us deal with the fallout.
The New York Time’s Sugarcoating of Trump’s Executive Orders
In his NYT piece, Chairlie Savage wrote, "On Monday, as Mr. Trump took the oath of office to begin his second term, he asserted a muscular vision of presidential power." There’s nothing “muscular” about slamming the door on refugees, rolling back environmental protections, or flirting with outright unconstitutional travel bans. "Punitive” or “draconian,” is closer to the mark. “Muscular,” as if Trump is flexing his biceps rather than acting like a wannabe strongman.
Here’s why that matters: words shape perception. When these moves masquerade as displays of strength, the actual impact—people losing crucial protections, fragile international alliances on edge—gets blurred. It shifts public discourse from “Is this policy ethical or lawful?” to “Isn’t the President showing leadership by being so decisive?” One of these questions holds Trump accountable; the other gives him a free pass.
Ezra Klein’s Muddled Arguments in “Don’t Believe Him”
In The New York Times, Ezra Klein penned a piece titled “Don’t Believe Him.” Frankly, the title alone deserves a second look. Here’s the thing: we actually should believe Donald Trump precisely because he’s so bizarrely transparent about his intentions—even when those intentions are harmful or self-serving. He floated punitive tariffs against our closest allies, cozied up to tyrannical regimes like Russia, and took pleasure in upending decades of diplomatic norms. If his statements seem fantastical, that’s because they reflect the very real fantasies he has—and the terrifying part is that he’s got enough power to make some of them real unless the courts or Congress manage to block him.
The real problem with Klein’s piece isn’t that he questions Trump’s honesty. How he hides the urgent truth in a cloud of scholarly-sounding language makes everything feel ambiguous. Instead of sounding the alarm, Klein sometimes slips into academic dissection, as though unable to pin down Trump’s ever-shifting claims. But come on, sometimes Trump’s flat-out lying or steamrolling ahead on yet another misguided crusade. It doesn’t need couching in paragraphs of theoretical framing. We should believe what Trump says because it’s usually a preview of what he’ll try to do for better or (most often) for worse.
The GOP’s Lockstep Support, Despite Grassroots Resistance
It’s not just the so-called liberal media that keeps giving Trump a pass. The Republican Party itself has lined up right behind him, no matter how off-the-rails his policies get. Sure, we’ve witnessed some spirited town hall protests in deep-red districts—voters voicing concerns about healthcare, government overreach, and reckless foreign policy. Yet most Republican lawmakers seem more terrified of Trump’s Twitter wrath than they are concerned about representing the very people who elected them. They may occasionally mumble disagreement, but in the end, they fall in line, backing Trump’s judicial nominations and rubber-stamping his executive orders with a shrug that abandons any semblance of checks and balances. The GOP used to pretend at least to care about fiscal conservatism or moral values. Now, they’re backing a president who tears down allies and coddles authoritarian regimes. These are not the principles the party claimed to champion for decades, but apparently, fear of Trump’s ire—and fear of losing seats to primaries—has overridden any sense of principle.
Why Language Matters More Than Ever
Let’s be clear: We live in a time when democracy can feel precarious. When influential outlets downplay authoritarian behavior as “unconventional” or “muscular,” they do more than tone-police the conversation—they normalize a political style that shreds democratic norms. Suddenly, the fact that a legally embattled man is the sitting president doesn’t feel alarming; it becomes part of the background noise.
We rely on the press to hold leaders accountable. When that press gets timid—choosing gentle or indirect words to critique blatantly oppressive or illegal policies—it fails in its responsibility. Sure, journalists may harbor bias, and that’s the nature of the beast. But “bias” against authoritarian power grabs isn’t a flaw. It’s called doing your job.
How to Combat Sane-Washing
So, what do we do about all this sane-washing? First, recognize it for what it is. Pay attention to how reporters and commentators describe Trump’s actions. If the words “unprecedented,” “chaotic,” or “dangerous” mysteriously morph into “assertive” or “muscular,” call that out. Second, stop trying to parse Trump’s statements for hidden meaning. He usually says what he wants—whether it’s feasible, moral, or even sane. Lastly, remember that democracy works best when we stay engaged. If the media doesn’t ring the alarm bells loudly enough, we’ve got to do it ourselves. Write letters, show up at town halls, and support independent media that call things by their real names.
No, Trump’s policies aren’t “muscular.” He’s vindictive, impulsive, and willing to steamroll constitutional boundaries if it benefits him politically or financially. Without the press using clear, forceful language to describe that, catastrophic actions are too easy to pass as mere “experiments” in governance. Words matter, especially when democracy is at stake—and it sure as hell is right now.
We must do it ourselves if the legacy press won’t do the job. Our democracy might depend on our ability to cut through the euphemisms and speak out about the stark reality. Don’t settle for sanitized headlines and hedged takes. Demand honest, unflinching reporting—and spread the word yourself if that’s what it takes.
