Trump speaking to one of the many groups favoring him and a total ban on abortions everywhere.
Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

There is no exercise more exhausting and probably futile than examining a Donald Trump speech or social-media post for lies, half-truths, and incoherent self-contradictions. But it’s important on occasion to highlight some very big whoppers he tells that are central to his political strategy. It’s well known that Trump’s own position on abortion policy has wandered all over the map, and it’s plausible to suggest his approach is entirely transactional. But now that he’s staked out a “states’ rights” position on abortion that is designed to take a losing issue off the table in the 2024 presidential election, he’s telling two very specific lies to justify his latest flip-flop.

The first is his now-routine claim that “both sides” and even “legal scholars on both sides” of the abortion debate “agreed” that Roe v. Wade needed to be reversed, leaving abortion policy up to the states:

This claim was the centerpiece of Trump’s April 9 statement setting out his position on abortion for the 2024 general election, as CNN noted:

In a video statement on abortion policy he posted on social media Monday, Trump said: “I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended.” Later in his statement, Trump said that since “we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint,” states are free to determine their own abortion laws.

This is clearly and demonstrably false. The three “legal experts” on the Supreme Court who passionately dissented from the decision to reverse Roe are just the tip of the iceberg of anguish over the defiance of precedent and ideological reasoning underlying Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Society of American Law Teachers immediately and definitively issued a “condemnation” of the Dobbs decision. When the case was being argued before the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association filed an amicus brief arguing the constitutional doctrine of stare decisis required that Roe be left in place. None of these views were novel. Back in 1989 when an earlier threat to abortion rights had emerged, 885 law professors signed onto a brief defending Roe.

Sure, there was a tiny minority of “pro-choice, anti-Roe” liberals over the years who claimed resentment of the power of the unelected judges who decided Roe would eventually threaten abortion rights (not as much, it turns out, as the unelected judges that decided Dobbs). And yes, there have always been progressive critics (notably Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) of the particular reasoning in the original Roe decision, but by no means have any of them (particularly Ginsburg) favored abandoning the federal constitutional right to abortion even if they supported a different constitutional basis for that right. So Trump’s claim is grossly nonfactual and is indeed not one that any self-respecting conservative fan of Dobbs would ever make.

The second big lie that Trump has formulated to defend his latest states’-rights position is that he’s just supporting the age-old Republican stance on the subject, as he has just asserted at Truth Social:

Sending this Issue back to the States was the Policy of the Republican Party and Conservatives for over 50 years, due to States’ Rights and 10th Amendment, and only happened because of the Justices I proudly Nominated and got Confirmed.

Yes, of course a growing majority of Republicans have favored reversal of Roe as a way station to a nationwide ban on abortion, but not as an end in itself. The GOP first came out for a federal constitutional amendment to ban abortion from sea to shining sea in its 1980 party platform, and every single Republican presidential nominee since then has backed the idea. There have been disagreements as to whether such a constitutional amendment should include exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. But the last GOP presidential nominee to share Trump’s position that the states should be the final arbiter of abortion policy was Gerald R. Ford in 1976, as the New York Times reported at the time:

[Ford] said that as President he must enforce the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that forbids states to ban abortions. But he has come out in favor of a constitutional amendment that would overturn that ruling and return to the states the option of drawing up their own abortion laws.

Ronald Reagan, who challenged Ford’s nomination in 1976 and was already a proponent of a “pro-life” constitutional amendment, and the GOP formally adopted that position in 1980; four years later, it adopted its long-standing proposal that by constitutional amendment or by a judicial ruling the protection of fetal life under the 14th Amendment should be recognized and imposed on the country regardless of what states wanted. Anti-abortion leader Marjorie Dannenfelser noted this well-known history in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Trump’s revisionist history, as NBC News reported:

“Since 1984, the GOP platform has affirmed that 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn babies and endorsed congressional action to clarify this fact through legislation,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to NBC News. “Republicans led the charge to outlaw barbaric partial-birth abortions federally, and both chambers have voted multiple times to limit painful late-term abortion. The Senate voted on this most recently in 2020. In January 2023, House Republicans also voted to protect infants born alive during an abortion.”

It’s pretty clear that anti-abortion activists know Trump is lying about both Roe v. Wade and the GOP tradition and will support him anyway. But the rest of us should take due notice that the once and perhaps future president’s word on this subject, including his current pledge to leave abortion policy to the states, cannot be trusted for even a moment. Absent the abolition of the Senate filibuster (which, lest we forget, Trump backed as president out of impatience with the Senate’s refusal to bend the knee to his every demand), there isn’t going to be a complete federal ban on abortion in the foreseeable future. But Trump can be counted on to use the powers of the presidency to make life miserable for women needing abortion services, among the many “enemies of the people” he wants to punish.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That’s why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we’ll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can’t find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Can’t afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

With the criminal trial of Donald Trump and campaigning for the U.S. presidential election in full swing, you may have noticed the more frequent use of the words “lie” and “liar” by journalists. I was surprised by the first two lines of The Atlantic’s Tuesday newsletter, commenting on the testimony of Mr. Trump’s former fixer: “Michael Cohen is an admitted liar and a convicted felon who is openly fuelled by a thirst for revenge against Donald Trump.”

The Globe’s U.S. correspondent, Adrian Morrow, is also reporting on the trial. He, too, uses the L-word, but in a much more considered fashion. For instance, the first paragraph of his May 16 report on the proceedings hits quite differently: “Donald Trump’s lead defence lawyer accused star prosecution witness Michael Cohen of lying on the stand about a conversation with Mr. Trump over a payoff to a porn star, in the most confrontational moment so far at the former president’s criminal trial.”

“There may be no single word that causes more editorial paroxysms in political coverage than ‘lie.’” Adrian told me in an e-mail. “The reason, I believe, is twofold. For one, lying implies not only the promulgation of a falsehood, but a specific intent to deceive. If you can’t see inside someone’s head, the thinking goes, can you really know that they are lying, as opposed to simply mistaken? The second, and I think more pervasive, is a desire for fairness and impartiality. ‘Lie’ is a strong term and a good many journalists fear that using it would make it seem they are putting a thumb on the scale against whomever they are describing as a liar.”

He continued: “All of this may be somewhat academic in the case of Michael Cohen. He has pleaded guilty to making false statements to a financial institution and a congressional committee, and in both cases has made clear he knew full well that he wasn’t telling the truth. During testimony at Trump’s hush-money trial last week, he admitted to deliberately deceiving a special counsel investigation, journalists and his bank. Describing such actions as ‘lying’ is perfectly fair and impartial: it’s an objective truth that Mr. Cohen has told lies many times to many people.”

Even so, Adrian added – and this is where the conversation gets really interesting from the perspective of journalistic practice and ethics – the way the word is used matters. Compare these two paragraphs, which Adrian provided as examples:

• “Michael Cohen is an admitted liar who pleaded guilty to lying and is now accused by Donald Trump’s defence team of telling even more lies.”
• “Michael Cohen has admitted to lying to Congress about a real estate project in Moscow and to a bank about his finances. He broke campaign contribution laws in a bid to cover up Donald Trump’s alleged extramarital affairs. But testifying for the prosecution at Trump’s hush-money trial, he insists he is now telling the truth. Trump’s defence team argues he is not.”

Both paragraphs are true, Adrian noted. “The first paragraph, however, robs the word ‘lie’ of its power by using it repeatedly without specifics. The second gives the reader a more precise picture of what exactly Mr. Cohen did and why it is relevant. It doesn’t shy away from saying he has previously lied – which he clearly has – but by using the term once and immediately explaining it, it reinforces the significance, accuracy and full force of the word.”

The Globe’s Style Book offers this definition: “To lie, in the sense of telling an untruth, means to make a statement that the speaker knows is false, with an intent to deceive.” That puts a heavy burden of proof on any journalist who uses the word to describe the actions of someone who has not, like Mr. Cohen, admitted to lying. If you can’t prove that intent, says Patrick Brethour, The Globe’s editorials editor, you can only state that the speaker is wrong.

Attribution isn’t sufficient cover, either. The Style Book states: “Even when we are quoting someone else as alleging a lie by an identifiable person, the person referred to could well take libel action. If we know a statement is false, descriptions based on such words as untrue and inaccurate convey this without getting into speculation on the speaker’s knowledge or intent.”

The Editorial Board tackled the subject on April 26, inspired by other news organizations’ seeming acceptance of the “liar” label that federal Health Minister Mark Holland attached to Pierre Poilievre. On April 18, the Conservative Leader said he would not support the government’s pharmacare plan, which he warned would replace private group health coverage. Mr. Holland later told a reporter that Mr. Poilievre’s statement amounted to “out-and-out lies,” and on a CBC broadcast said: “It’s the dishonesty to me that is so reprehensible.”

This coverage activated the Editorial Board’s spidey sense. Was Mr. Poilievre’s assessment of the legislation intentionally dishonest, or even factually incorrect? “We did some digging and it turns out at the very least Mark Holland was on very thin ice in saying Pierre Poilievre was a liar,” Patrick says.

Bill C-64 states: “The purpose of this Act is to guide efforts to improve, for all Canadians, the accessibility and affordability of prescription drugs and related products, and to support their appropriate use, in collaboration with the provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders, with the aim of continuing to work toward the implementation of national universal pharmacare.” (Italics mine.)

Could that reasonably be inferred as a plan to replace private health coverage? It could, yes, the Editorial Board concluded, assuming legislation continues down this path. So, Mr. Poilievre may be guilty of exaggeration and distortion, but not an outright lie, as characterized by some news outlets. It’s a step that cannot be taken selectively, says Patrick. “If you start to do that, boy, you’d better be omnidirectional in what you’re looking at, otherwise it becomes a partisan exercise, whether you intended it as partisan or not.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland forcefully pushes back on “false” narratives he claims are being spread about the Department of  Justice, ABC News reported. 

The AG chided Republicans for their “extremely dangerous falsehoods” attacks on the DOJ. During his appearance before a House panel led by Trump’s allies, he told Republicans — who are seeking to hold him in contempt for not handing over records related to Biden’s handling of classified documents after his vice presidency — that he will “not be intimidated.” 

The House Judiciary Committee hearing was used by Republicans as an excuse to push their claim that Biden weaponized the department against Trump, a theory that might have held more going for it if Biden’s son, Hunter, was not himself on trial for federal firearms charges. However, Trump has continued to paint himself as a victim of a “rigged” legal system, a distortion that elected Republicans have eagerly embraced.

Garland condemned Republicans’ “conspiracy theory” that the department was responsible for Trump’s criminal conviction in New York, which was a state-level prosecution led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Garland called the GOP’s claims “baseless,” the Associated Press reported.

“Certain members of this Committee and the Oversight Committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining — for no legitimate purpose — sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations,” Garland said in his opening statement, ABC News reported. “This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department’s work.”

Garland also slammed Trump’s false claim that the FBI agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate had been “authorized to shoot.” Last week, the FBI issued a statement noting that its agents followed “standard procedure.”

Garland said the lies about the FBI “raises the threats of violence” and noted that the language highlighted by Trump and others, authorizing force if certain conditions are met, “was part of the package for the search of President Biden’s home as well.”