Stop The Donald Trump

He's a fascist, authoritarian, racist, sexist, and the former Republican President of the United States of America.

This site is a database of over 4,000 articles of every controversial statement made by Donald Trump and to help you when debating family, friends, and strangers on why this man is the most dangerous candidate and president this country has ever seen.

You can search for articles, or find a set of articles from a categorized list.

Under "Rebuttals" you can also find in-depth articles reviewing the policies of Donald Trump and how they can help or (most likely) harm you.

Trump’s Dismissive Response to Political Violence Highlights Indifference to Democratic Safety

During a press conference in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump displayed his ignorance regarding the recent murder of Melissa Hortman, the Democratic Speaker of the Minnesota House, who was killed by a right-wing extremist. While addressing the press, Trump was quick to deflect responsibility and instead blamed the “radical left” for inciting violence, echoing a familiar narrative he has pushed since taking office.

When asked about lowering the flag in honor of Hortman, who was tragically shot alongside her husband and dog in June, Trump’s shocking response was simply “The who?” This dismissive attitude highlights his lack of awareness and indifference toward the violence faced by Democrats, a concerning trend that undercuts the fabric of public safety and decency in political discourse.

The discussion also touched upon the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing figure whose death has further polarized political conversations. Trump, despite acknowledging occasional right-wing violence, still resorts to blaming the left for the overarching issues, reinforcing a dangerous narrative that absolves his supporters from accountability. Such rhetoric serves only to inflame tensions and foster division among the citizenry.

In an attempt to justify his inaction, Trump remarked that he hadn’t been approached by Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz about lowering the flags for Hortman. This misses the broader responsibility leaders have in recognizing and responding to acts of violence, particularly those motivated by ideological beliefs. The implications of such violence, notably when stemming from right-wing extremism, highlight the urgency for political leaders to foster unity rather than sow division.

Trump’s failure to acknowledge the full spectrum of violence, including attacks on prominent Democrats who have faced aggression in recent years, exemplifies a concerning trend where only certain narratives are amplified. This raises significant questions about how violence is perceived and politicized in today’s charged environment, contributing to a cycle of blame that endangers public safety and legitimizes extremist actions under the guise of political discourse.

{“title”:”Trump on Recent Violence”,”imageSearchTerm”:”Trump Violence”,”categories”:[],”success”:true,”error”:””}

Uncategorized

Trump Scolds Reporter Over Wealth Corruption Question

During a recent press conference on the White House lawn, Donald Trump reacted furiously to a question from an Australian reporter regarding his rising wealth while in office. The inquiry came amid reports suggesting that the Trump family had earned an astonishing $5 billion from a cryptocurrency venture. Rather than addressing the potential impropriety of mixing personal business with the responsibilities of the presidency, Trump deflected, claiming that his children manage his businesses.

Trump attempted to divert attention by boasting about a luxurious new ballroom project at the White House, projecting a cost upwards of $250 million. He framed this extravagant renovation as a patriotic act, insisting it would serve the country despite the extensive personal profit he stands to gain from his ongoing business activities. Such comments highlight Trump’s prioritization of personal gain over ethical governance, cementing suspicions of corruption.

This confrontation underscores a pattern of Trump’s dismissiveness toward inquiries that challenge his integrity or financial dealings. As he escalated his rhetoric against the reporter, Trump accused him of being detrimental to Australia’s interests, threatening to relay this perception to Australia’s leadership. This reaction not only evades legitimate scrutiny but also illustrates Trump’s authoritarian tendencies in punishing those who oppose or question him.

By attempting to silence dissent with aggressive language, Trump demonstrates a troubling disregard for the principles of accountability that underpin democratic governance. His administration’s ongoing mix of personal and presidential matters raises significant ethical questions about the integrity of his actions and the implications for American democracy.

Overall, this incident reflects Trump’s consistent approach of portraying himself as a victim whenever his legitimacy is questioned, while simultaneously advancing his personal interests at the cost of ethical governance. Such behavior is emblematic of the authoritarian tactics he employs, whereby criticism is met with hostility rather than an effort to engage constructively.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-attacks-reporter-asking-about-his-making-money-in-office-you-are-hurting-your-country-right-now/)

Trump Threatens ABC’s Karl Amid Controversial Hate Speech Crackdown

Donald Trump verbally threatened ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl during a press engagement, escalating tensions over an anticipated crackdown on “hate speech.” This crackdown follows the murder of activist Charlie Kirk and comments from Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi about pursuing individuals who she claims engage in hate speech, which has garnered widespread criticism. Trump asserted his concerns about fair treatment by the media while expressing a desire to regulate what he deems unacceptable speech.

When asked by Karl how the administration’s approach aligns with the free speech arguments made by some of Trump’s allies, Trump’s response was combative and dismissive. He accused Karl of harboring hatred, reflecting his ongoing hostility toward journalism and reporters who challenge him. Trump’s remarks illustrate a dangerous shift in rhetoric, indicative of authoritarian impulses aimed at silencing dissent and criticism.

Trump referenced a recent lawsuit settlement with ABC, claiming the network had previously wronged him while openly suggesting that the network could face similar scrutiny under the proposed hate speech initiatives. This aligns with broader efforts by Trump and his allies to define and suppress so-called hate speech, which critics argue could lead to an erosion of free speech rights and a chilling effect on journalistic integrity.

The conversation took place as Trump was departing for London, highlighting his penchant for using public platforms to deliver thinly veiled threats against the press. His comments came amidst ongoing controversies about the treatment of media outlets that criticize his administration, further solidifying a pattern of behavior that undermines democratic principles and the role of the press as a check on power.

By framing the opposition in extreme terms, Trump strives to mobilize his base while attempting to eliminate any accountability for his administration’s actions. Such behavior signals his commitment to an authoritarian approach that disregards norms of governance and the foundational elements of American democracy.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/trump-threatens-abcs-jon-karl-to-his-face-amid-grilling-on-hate-speech-crackdown/)

J.D. Vance on Charlie Kirk’s Show Targets Liberals

During a recent appearance on The Charlie Kirk Show, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a chilling speech, transitioning from honoring the late Kirk to issuing a stark warning about leftist violence. Vance, speaking from the White House, suggested a significant threat from political extremism on the left, characterizing it as a serious issue of terrorism, and vowed to unify the nation against it.

Vance began the show by praising Kirk’s contributions to the MAGA movement, framing him as an idealist committed to conservative values. However, his tone shifted drastically in his final monologue, where he labeled the left as a singular source of violent extremism. He asserted, “this is not a both-sides problem,” indicating a belief in a uniquely malignant threat posed by liberals and journalists, whom he held partially responsible for Kirk’s death.

As his remarks escalated, Vance hinted at a crackdown on left-wing groups, highlighting a supposed network of NGOs involved in fomenting violence. He claimed there was a coordinated domestic terror movement utilized by the left and suggested that the political climate could justify more aggressive measures against dissenters, conflating critical speech with violence.

Despite the ostensibly respectful tone toward Kirk earlier in the show, Vance’s comments indicated a dangerous intertwining of political rhetoric with threats of violence. He proclaimed that critical voices from the left were creating conditions ripe for killings, using Kirk’s murder as a rallying point to stoke fear and justify potential authoritarian measures against opposition parties and their supporters.

The closing statements made by Vance align with a broader trend among Republican leaders where division is emphasized, and opposition is not only discouraged but framed as a potential justification for violence. This shift towards equating political dissent with domestic terrorism signals a troubling development within the party, posing a potential threat to civil liberties and freedom of expression in the United States.

(h/t: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/charlie-kirk-jd-vance-show-podcast-death.html?pay=1758030734996&support_journalism=please)

Trump’s $15 Billion Lawsuit Against The New York Times Threatens Free Press Amid Authoritarian Tactics

Donald Trump has initiated a $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times, accusing the publication of long-standing defamation that he claims serves the “Radical Left Democrat Party.” In a vehement announcement shared via Truth Social, Trump labeled the Times as one of the “worst and most degenerate newspapers” in U.S. history, asserting that its coverage constitutes an illegal campaign contribution, particularly referring to an endorsement of Kamala Harris.

Trump’s angry tirade follows a report by the Times that scrutinized Steve Witkoff, a key envoy in the White House’s Middle East policy, implicating him in dubious business dealings linked to Trump. In his post, Trump suggested a coordinated agenda of misinformation aimed at tarnishing his reputation and the “America First Movement,” presenting himself as the victim of what he calls a malicious media campaign.

Previously, Trump has had notable legal victories against media outlets, including a $16 million settlement from Paramount related to a 60 Minutes segment and a $15 million payout from ABC News over defamation claims. This lawsuit against the Times adds to a growing catalog of litigation targeting various media organizations that Trump claims have defamed him.

Moreover, the timing of this lawsuit coincides with Trump’s ongoing legal battles, including a pending suit against the Wall Street Journal, concerning a letter he allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, which Trump denies writing despite evidence to the contrary. Such actions further shed light on Trump’s contentious relationship with the media and his willingness to use the judicial system to address perceived slights.

Critics argue that Trump’s litigious approach towards media organizations is an alarming tactic that threatens free press principles in America. His repeated claims of defamation and efforts to silence dissent speak to a broader pattern of authoritarian impulses from Trump and his administration, which prioritize loyalty over truthful reporting.

Trump Demands RICO Charges Against Protesters For Free Palestine Shout

Donald Trump recently called for federal action against protesters who vocalized their opposition during a dinner in Washington, D.C. The incident, which involved protesters shouting “Free Palestine,” led Trump to suggest that Attorney General Pam Bondi investigate the possibility of charging these individuals under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

During a news conference, Trump characterized the protesters as “paid agitators” and claimed their actions were subversive. He expressed frustration that his administration’s achievements, especially regarding Middle East peace efforts, were being disrupted by those he labeled as disruptive forces. “She started screaming,” Trump stated, emphasizing his disdain for what he perceived as unjustified public outbursts.

The RICO Act, originally designed to combat organized crime, has become Trump’s proposed tool to silence dissent and retaliate against vocal opposition to his policies. His comments underscore a troubling trend where political dissent is framed as criminal behavior, further eroding the principles of free speech and democratic discourse in America.

Critics argue that such rhetoric not only misuses legal frameworks but also reflects an authoritarian impulse to stifle opposing voices. By labeling peaceful protesters as criminal elements, Trump continues to push a narrative that legitimizes harassment and punishment of dissenters under the guise of maintaining order and security.

As Trump navigates a politically charged environment, his call for RICO charges reveals a dangerous willingness to employ government resources against citizens exercising their right to protest. This act reinforces the perception that Trump is not only out of touch with the realities faced by marginalized communities but also actively seeks to weaken the foundations of democratic engagement in America.

(h/t: https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2673996811/)

Trump and Bondi Blame Left-Wing Radicals for Charlie Kirk’s Death

Attorney General Pam Bondi has made a controversial claim regarding the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, stating that “left-wing radicals” are responsible for his death. This assertion comes during an interview in which Bondi declared that those involved would be held accountable, reflecting a clear attempt to shift blame and politicize the tragic event without providing substantial evidence or motive related to the suspect, Tyler Robinson.

In her remarks, Bondi mentioned that Robinson is currently in custody and facing charges of assassinating Kirk but avoided discussing any additional suspects or motives at this time. This lack of clarity raises questions about the motivations behind her statements. Bondi’s rhetoric parallels broader narratives circulated by the Trump administration, which continues to foster a culture of blame directed toward the political left.

Bondi also indicated federal charges would be sought against Robinson while stressing a commitment to pursuing violent crime regardless of the perpetrator’s political alignment. Trump’s administration has employed similar language, labeling violence on the left as a rampant issue in an effort to galvanize support among right-wing constituents.

Despite the gravity of the situation, Bondi’s comments reflect a pattern established by Trump, who consistently exploits tragedies to serve political ends, manipulating public perception and fostering division. In addressing the broader implications of Kirk’s murder, Bondi recalled an unrelated incident involving Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to highlight violence as a universal issue, possibly diverting attention from the specific circumstances of Kirk’s assassination.

In a moment of personal reflection, Bondi indicated her friendship with Kirk, urging the nation to unite in the face of violence. While she called for unity, her decisions and statements continue to reflect a strategy that deepens ideological divides rather than fostering harmony in the aftermath of such violent acts.

(h/t: https://abcnews.go.com/US/attorney-general-pam-bondi-claims-left-wing-radicals/story?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dhfacebook&utm_content=null&id=125604411&fbclid=IwdGRleAM11NpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHkLYv-nu22SPsVElKQLysLoWxdD4FrVV2l7itng3xmIXkgDTbGh3DzAVtz_F_aem_XA6sd1JZoklDwseq8LWk6Q)

Trump Orders Military Strike on Drug Traffickers, Killing Three

The U.S. military conducted a lethal strike against a vessel in international waters, allegedly linked to drug trafficking from Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. This second strike, ordered by President Donald Trump, reflects his administration’s aggressive stance on what Trump labels “narcoterrorists” threatening national security.

In a message on Truth Social, Trump stated that the military action targeted “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels,” claiming these groups pose a severe risk to U.S. interests and safety. The operation follows a recent earlier strike that killed eleven supposedly related to the Tren de Aragua gang, heightening scrutiny and skepticism regarding the administration’s justifications for military engagement in such contexts.

Despite these claims, criticism emerged about the legality and evidence supporting the strikes. Senator Jack Reed, attending to oversight duties, noted that there is no confirmed evidence necessitating such military action against what were civilian vessels. This raises significant legal concerns under both U.S. and international law regarding the use of force against non-combatants.

The escalation in military readiness correlates with increasing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, underscoring an aggressive U.S. foreign policy approach under Trump. While U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, assert that ongoing operations are justified, the lack of transparency surrounding intelligence and operational details fuels further scrutiny of their motives and methods.

As the situation develops, this aggressive posturing may have implications for U.S.-Venezuelan relations, with Venezuelan officials asserting their desire to avoid conflict. The ramifications of these military actions could lead to increased tensions and challenges in achieving diplomatic resolutions.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics/trump-strike-international-waters)

Memphis Mayor Refutes Trump’s False Claims on National Guard Support

Memphis Mayor Paul Young publicly rejected President Trump’s assertion that he is “happy” about the deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis, emphasizing his deep concerns about the situation. Young made it clear that he does not support federal intervention and the manner in which it has been proposed to curb crime in the city.

In an interview, Young expressed his belief that the authority to call in the National Guard lies with the governor and the president, leaving local leaders with limited influence over the decision. He stated, “it is something that we don’t have a choice in,” underscoring the mayor’s discontent with Trump’s framing of the deployment as welcomed.

Trump’s comments during a Fox News interview suggested that both Young and Tennessee Governor Bill Lee were enthusiastic about the plan, which Young categorically denied. The mayor highlighted that, while additional assistance is always welcome, the city is actively working to reduce crime through its own initiatives, demonstrating significant progress in recent years.

Young reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring the National Guard’s involvement aligns with the community’s needs. This response comes amid Trump’s broader initiative that has targeted other Democrat-led cities, positioning their leadership as supportive of authoritarian measures.

As Memphis faces challenges linked to crime rates, the mayor’s insistence on maintaining local control over safety measures intends to resist Trump’s narrative and approach, already criticized as heavy-handed and out of touch with community needs.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5503919-national-guard-deployment-memphis/)

Trump Threatens National Emergency Over ICE Cooperation in D.C.

Donald Trump announced intentions to declare a national emergency in Washington, DC, if local police refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In a recent post on his Truth Social platform, he claimed that previous emergency measures had successfully reduced crime in the district, suggesting non-compliance from local law enforcement would lead to a resurgence in crime rates. This statement comes after the expiration of a similar emergency declaration he made in August.

Trump’s proposed actions, which involve the potential use of National Guard troops, have been labeled as a “dangerous power grab” by critics who fear that such tactics could infringe on local governance and civil rights. Despite claims of reduced crime during his previous federal intervention, statistics indicate that crime has not vanished entirely, contradicting Trump’s assertions. The mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser, rejected the notion that a federal emergency was necessary for law enforcement strategies, maintaining that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) would not participate in immigration enforcement.

In her September 2 order, Bowser made it clear that the MPD would revert to its standard practices and would not assist ICE. She highlighted the importance of protecting community trust and the separation of local law enforcement from federal immigration policies. Trump’s rhetoric contrasts sharply with Bowser’s stance, as he cited her leadership as contributing to crime in the capital while previously praising her for cooperating with federal agencies.

This latest proclamation from Trump indicates a shift in his relationship with Bowser, suggesting a political strategy aimed at portraying Democratic leadership as ineffective in crime reduction. By threatening to federalize local law enforcement, Trump aims to consolidate power and assert control over cities led by Democratic officials, furthering the narrative of incompetence he often directs toward liberal governance.

The implications of Trump’s threats reveal a broader agenda that seeks to undermine local jurisdictions while perpetuating fear as a platform for authority. His remarks not only challenge the autonomy of DC’s local government but also signal a continuation of his administration’s aggressive immigration policies that disproportionately affect immigrant communities.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics/trump-washington-dc-emergency-ice)

1 2 3 … 462