That’s the message on the shirt I’m planning to wear to Saturday’s “No Kings” demonstration at the Hawaii State Capitol.
It’s a direct reaction to a president who is, in the words of a federal judge last week, “unteathered to the facts.”
What’s the best explanation?
Is he:
(a) Delusional
(b) Simply a pathological liar
(c) A cynical pervayor of politically useful falsehoods
I don’t know which explanation is the most frightening. All bode ill for the future of the American democratic polity.
I asked Google’s Gemini AI assistant to sift through explanations that have been offered.
This was the reply.
Numerous political analysts, journalists, and psychologists have offered explanations for why President Donald Trump frequently describes conditions in American cities in ways that are starkly at odds with verifiable data.
There is no single answer. The most comprehensive explanation is likely a combination of all these factors: a calculated political strategy executed through a unique communication style, reinforced by a partisan media ecosystem, and enabled by his personal psychological disposition and the influence of his ideological advisors.
These explanations are not mutually exclusive and often overlap, falling into several broad categories.
1. Political and Campaign Strategy
This is one of the most common explanations. The portrayal of cities as dystopian, crime-ridden landscapes is seen as a deliberate tactic to achieve specific political goals.
• Mobilizing the Base: This rhetoric appeals directly to his political base, which is predominantly suburban and rural. It creates an “us versus them” narrative, painting urban centers—which are typically more diverse and overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party—as alien, dangerous, and culturally opposed to “real” America.
• Creating a “Law and Order” Narrative: By exaggerating or inventing crises of crime and chaos, he positions himself as the only leader strong enough to restore order. This was a central theme of his “American Carnage” inaugural address and continues to be a staple of his rallies. He fabricates a problem that he can then promise to solve.
• Attacking Political Opponents: Since most major American cities are governed by Democratic mayors and city councils, attacking the conditions in those cities is an indirect way of attacking the Democratic Party’s ability to govern effectively. He uses cities as foils to argue that Democratic policies lead to decay and disaster.
2. Communication Style and Media Ecosystem
This explanation focuses on his unique communication methods and the media environment that supports them.
• Rhetorical Hyperbole: President Trump’s speaking style has always relied on superlatives, generalizations, and dramatic, often exaggerated, language. Describing cities in apocalyptic terms is consistent with his broader communication pattern of presenting things as either the “best ever” or a complete “disaster.”
• The Power of Repetition: By repeatedly stating that cities are failing, regardless of evidence to the contrary, the claim becomes more believable to his supporters. This technique, when amplified by a sympathetic media ecosystem, creates a powerful feedback loop where the narrative becomes more important than the underlying reality.
• Conservative Media Feedback Loop: He often sources his claims from segments on conservative news outlets that highlight isolated, negative events in cities. He then repeats and amplifies these anecdotes from his platform, which in turn becomes a major news story covered by the same outlets, creating a self-reinforcing and insulated information bubble.
3. Psychological Interpretations
Many observers, including some mental health professionals who have commented from a distance, have offered psychological explanations. These should be viewed as interpretations rather than clinical diagnoses.
• Disregard for Factual Truth: This view posits that Trump may not be “lying” in the traditional sense, which implies a knowing concealment of a truth he privately accepts. Instead, he may operate in a “post-truth” framework where his statements are driven by what feels true or what is most effective for him at that moment. The goal is to create a desired impression in his audience, and objective facts are secondary to that goal.
• Confirmation Bias: He is surrounded by advisors and consumes media that confirms his pre-existing beliefs about urban decay and liberal mismanagement. He may genuinely believe his descriptions because he is never presented with, or outright rejects, information from sources he deems hostile (i.e., “fake news” or government statistics), which might challenge his worldview.
• Narcissistic Worldview: Observers have frequently noted that his public behavior aligns with traits of narcissism. From this perspective, his reality is defined by his own perceptions and needs. If data (like falling crime rates) contradicts his narrative, the data must be wrong or a conspiracy, because his perception is paramount. His descriptions of cities are not meant to reflect reality, but to project a reality that serves his image and goals.
4. Influence of Ideology and Advisors
This explanation centers on the hardline ideologies of some of his key advisors.
• Ideological Goals: Advisors, such as Stephen Miller, hold a deeply ideological view of American cities as hubs of crime, uncontrolled immigration, and moral decay. Portraying them in the worst possible light helps justify policies like aggressive federal law enforcement intervention, strict immigration enforcement, and defunding of urban programs. The rhetoric is a necessary precondition for the policies they wish to enact.
