By John Q. Hosedrinker 
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that anything posted on President Trump’s Truth Social account comes “straight from the horse’s mouth” and should be considered official policy. This assertion directly contradicts the White House’s previous explanation for a widely criticized racist post depicting the Obamas as apes, which administration officials blamed on a staffer. While Trump is known for direct posting, access to his Truth Social account is limited to the president and a select group of aides, including Daniel Scavino and Natalie Harp.
Read the original article here
It’s quite a tangled web of statements, isn’t it? On one hand, we have Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson, asserting with a certain finality that every single post appearing on Truth Social originates directly from Donald Trump himself. This is a pretty bold claim, suggesting a direct and unfiltered line of communication from the former president to his social media platform. It paints a picture of Trump as the sole architect of his online pronouncements, with no intermediaries or ghostwriters involved.
However, this assertion comes at a particularly interesting, and frankly, contradictory, moment. It arrives just about a week after an incident where the very same former president, Donald Trump, was faced with backlash for a racist video posted on the platform depicting Barack Obama and his wife. In that instance, the narrative that emerged, or was at least floated, was that a staffer, rather than Trump himself, was responsible for the offensive content. This creates a significant dissonance between the two positions.
If all Truth Social posts are indeed straight from Trump, as Leavitt now claims, then the “staffer did it” explanation for the racist video seems to unravel rather quickly. It raises the question of who, or what, is truly in control of the messaging on Truth Social. Is it Trump, dictating every word, or is there a degree of plausible deniability being manufactured when the content proves problematic?
The contrast between these two statements – the all-encompassing authorship of posts attributed to Trump, and the specific blame placed on a staffer for a particularly egregious one – suggests a strategic effort to manage public perception. When a post is positive or aligns with Trump’s desired narrative, it’s presented as his direct voice. But when a post is offensive, potentially damaging, or lands him in hot water, suddenly there’s a buffer, a supposed third party responsible.
This kind of shifting narrative isn’t exactly new territory when discussing Trump’s political endeavors. There’s a recurring pattern of taking credit for successes and deflecting blame for failures or missteps. It’s as if the platform, Truth Social, is designed to be a fluid entity, adaptable to the prevailing winds of public opinion and legal scrutiny.
The idea that Leavitt’s statement is intended to solidify Trump’s direct authorship of everything, even the problematic content, is a curious tactic. It’s as if the intention is to remove any doubt about who is ultimately behind the words, forcing a confrontation with the content itself, rather than allowing for the “staffer” excuse to be readily available.
This also brings into sharp focus the nature of accountability. If Trump is truly the sole author of all his Truth Social posts, then any controversial or offensive statement is a direct reflection of his own thoughts and intentions. The “staffer” excuse, in light of Leavitt’s current assertion, appears to be a less than convincing attempt to distance him from accountability.
It’s fascinating to consider the internal communication or strategy behind such seemingly contradictory statements. How does one reconcile the idea that every post is Trump’s, while simultaneously pointing fingers at others when those posts are unacceptable? It speaks to a certain level of rhetorical gymnastics that has become almost a hallmark of the political discourse surrounding Trump.
The implication of Leavitt’s statement is that the explanation for the racist Obama video, involving a staffer, was either inaccurate or, at best, a misleading simplification of events. If Trump is the sole author, then the responsibility for that video rests squarely on his shoulders, making the staffer narrative a convenient, albeit now seemingly disproven, deflection.
Ultimately, this situation highlights the ongoing challenge of discerning truth and accountability in political communication. When spokespeople make definitive statements about direct authorship, and these statements are juxtaposed with prior instances of blame deflection, it inevitably raises questions about consistency, credibility, and the genuine intent behind the messaging. The two narratives, when placed side-by-side, create a stark contrast that is difficult to ignore.