Deciphering Donald Trump: How his rhetoric sends different messages

Among the critics who posted on X Sunday after my Fox News show was one who made an argument that caught my attention. This critic suggested that we should pay more attention to what President Trump does rather than what he says. This perspective struck me as a unique approach, as politicians are typically judged based on their words and rhetoric.
As someone who has interviewed President Trump numerous times, I can attest to the fact that he is a prolific speaker who often says things that are controversial or inflammatory. Some of his statements are meant to provoke a reaction from the media, while others may be exaggerations or taken out of context. However, there are moments when Trump reveals his true intentions or signals his future actions through his words.
One recent example of this is Trump’s stance on Ukraine. Despite knowing that Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of annexing its territory, Trump has chosen to blame Ukraine for the conflict and has even labeled President Zelenskyy as a dictator. This narrative not only contradicts the facts but also plays into Putin’s hands by deflecting blame from Russia.
It is possible that Trump’s rhetoric towards Ukraine is part of a larger strategy to broker a peace deal with Putin. By shifting blame onto Ukraine, Trump may be attempting to pressure the country into accepting a settlement that favors Russia. This approach is not only misleading but also dangerous, as it undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and emboldens Putin’s aggression.
When questioned about Trump’s rhetoric, his aides and supporters have often deflected or avoided contradicting the president. This evasiveness suggests that there may be a larger strategy at play, one that involves using inflammatory language to achieve political objectives.
In a recent interview with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, he emphasized the complexity of the situation in Ukraine and criticized Trump’s divisive language. Hegseth highlighted the importance of productive dialogue and called for a more nuanced approach to the conflict.
Similarly, when asked about Trump’s comments regarding the District of Columbia, Jason Miller defended the president’s rhetoric as a signal to improve urban safety. Miller suggested that Trump’s words were meant to pressure the city government to address crime and other issues.
Overall, it is clear that Trump’s words hold significance and should not be dismissed lightly. While some of his statements may be meant to provoke or entertain, others may reveal his true intentions or signal his future actions. It is crucial for the media and the public to dissect Trump’s words and decipher their true meaning in order to understand his motives and agenda.