Trump and Milei, the “Troll Presidents”
What will determine their success or failure?
Silvio Waisbord: “Jeff Bezos’ Capitulation at the Washington Post is Concerning”. A major challenge for the press, institutions, and leadership.
By Carlos F. Chamorro (Confidencial)
HAVANA TIMES – Argentine sociologist Silvio Waisbord, a professor at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University in the United States, is a specialist in political communication and the author of a dozen books on journalism, politics, and communication. He has also conducted several critical analyses of the political communication style of Donald Trump and Javier Milei, whom he labels the “Troll Presidents.”
During a conversation on the program Esta Semana, broadcast on CONFIDENCIAL’s YouTube channel due to television censorship in Nicaragua, I asked him what determines the effectiveness of “Troll Presidents.” These leaders promote a style of political confrontation, spread fake news, and cultivate personality worship, even when reality does not align with their official discourse. I also asked what citizens and independent media can do to counter them.
Waisbord spoke about “journalism that documents reality” in response to the avalanche of lies from leaders and audiences living in their own bubbles. He also highlighted the capitulation of businessman Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, who aligned himself with the Trump administration, calling it “a worrying sign.”
The expert acknowledged the importance of institutions and democratic culture in resisting authoritarian regression. However, he warned about the crucial role of political leadership and how these leaders respond to threatened democratic institutions. “In the United States, you have a tradition of democratic institutions, cultures, and norms that go back more than two centuries. It is striking how, in the case of Trump, someone who disregards that tradition, who violates norms of civility and democratic coexistence, can bring about so much change in such a short time,” he warned.
The return of Donald Trump to power in the United States has ushered in a leadership style characterized by political confrontation. You have described him as a “Troll President.” What exactly is a “Troll President”?
Silvio Waisbord: A ‘Troll President’ is someone who glorifies insults, mockery, and the humiliation of others. It’s a political communication style that is instrumental or necessary for achieving their goals. This style originates from digital culture, where online trolls mock others, ridicule them, and refuse to acknowledge their humanity. Unfortunately, President Trump is emblematic of this style.”
During his electoral campaign and from the very first day of his presidency, Trump has consistently spread not only exaggerations and manipulations but also outright lies. How can he be effective and convincing if he is so disconnected from reality in certain areas?
Clearly, it’s because a significant portion of the population continues to support him. There is a cult of personality around Trump that transcends his lies, exaggerations, insults, and unconstitutional behavior. In recent weeks, he has maintained a strong electoral base.
He has also attracted votes from people who were legitimately dissatisfied with certain economic issues during Biden’s administration. However, his core base, which has supported him for a long time, since during his first presidency, either tolerates, accepts, or simply doesn’t care about many of the issues you mentioned.
This “Troll President” style also appears in other leaders across the world, Milei in Argentina, Orbán in Hungary, and even here in Costa Rica, a country with strong democratic institutions, under President Rodrigo Chaves. Is this a political-ideological trend, or is it a communication model?
It is a presidential communication model that complements a political project aimed at dismantling the state and promoting policies that benefit specific groups in society. It is instrumental, above all else, and relatively new, partly because it reflects digital culture.
There are several cases where it’s not just about similar policies but also about a presidential communication style that involves throwing out ideas without much concern for their truthfulness, making statements that they later retract, and countering arguments with lies. And there doesn’t seem to be any significant political or public consequences for doing it.
In the face of these new types of leadership, how do you assess the challenge and role of independent media, which has traditionally held power accountable and fostered public debate?
There is some journalism that tries to maintain an equally distant position from these presidencies and political regimes, but it is operating under far more difficult circumstances than 20 or 30 years ago in Latin America or even in the United States. The conditions for practicing journalism and funding news organizations are much tougher than they were historically.
There are differences between countries regarding the ability to conduct independent journalism in regimes like these. However, I am quite concerned about the fact that these presidencies are actively working to undermine the foundations necessary for independent and critical journalism—journalism that is not aligned with any political stance but instead aims to ensure government transparency.
During Trump’s first presidency, there was strong resistance from major media outlets. Now we see that the owners of some emblematic outlets, such as The Washington Post, led by businessman Jeff Bezos, have openly declared their support for Trump’s policies. How do you explain this capitulation?
Capitulation is the right word, and there has been a 180-degree shift in several media outlets. Others, like The New York Times, continue to investigate and scrutinize official actions. But Bezos and the major Silicon Valley companies—Meta, Google, and Elon Musk—are now fully aligned with Trump’s government. This is concerning.
And let’s not forget that even The Wall Street Journal, which cannot be accused of being a liberal newspaper in the United States sense of the word, has published articles warning about some of Trump’s policies, such as tariffs. Trump immediately attacked and dismissed it, despite the fact that The Wall Street Journal has historically been part of a group propping up his political career.
Trump is setting the agenda in United States society. What ability do the media have to counteract or compete with this imperial presidency?
I think you’ve identified the key issue. Trump has an incredible ability to constantly generate topics and news, multiple times a day. This makes journalism especially difficult, not only because of the challenging conditions we discussed earlier but also because it becomes hard to define what the most important news is. Should the media focus on refuting or fact-checking Trump’s statements when he continuously bombards the public with information, much of which is false, misleading, or simply attacks on journalists, politicians, and members of Congress? After just eight weeks of this relentless onslaught, journalism is already struggling to keep up.
How do you compare the Trump phenomenon in the United States with what’s happening in Argentina with Milei?
In the case of Milei and Trump, there is an intellectual and political marriage—a shared worldview. The idea of the chainsaw, which President Milei gifted to Elon Musk, is emblematic of this vision of destroying, dismantling, and collapsing the state, particularly in areas like education, science, and rights programs. There is both political and even personal empathy between them. Another key factor is their aggressive political communication style, in which both leaders are closely aligned.
Trump has a much stronger electoral base than Milei. Milei’s rise was largely due to Argentina’s extreme inflation crisis, which allowed him, as the anti-Peronist candidate, to win the election. However, if Milei fails to keep inflation under control during his presidency, his political prospects could be much more precarious. Some speculate that his position could be in jeopardy if the economy spirals out of control, but it is still too early to predict what will happen.
Can presidents’ post-truth and alternative realities replace facts if economics, politics, and society are headed in a different direction?
Unfortunately, I believe they can. These leaders live in a bubble, making it difficult, both due to their personalities and their commitments, to acknowledge mistakes. Even if they reverse course, they are unlikely to admit it publicly. They will remain stubborn on certain issues. I don’t see either of these two figures as the type to recognize errors, correct them, and realign their policies for the greater benefit of society.
Unfortunately, given their personalized leadership styles, the way they make decisions, the advisors they surround themselves with, and the limited consultation they engage in, I do not see them as leaders who can overcome difficulties stemming from their own mistakes.
In addition to confronting these styles of authoritarian presidencies, the independent press must counter the fake news and misinformation prevalent on social media. Is there an antidote to surviving, in terms of press credibility?
There is no foolproof or quick antidote. Disinformation and fake news persist, and the situation continues to worsen. People live in very different realities, despite the excellent work many journalists do to document facts, verify the truth, and counter lies with evidence.
That work remains crucial, even if it does not necessarily solve the problem. Journalism leaves a record of the truth, regardless of whether people, politicians, or various figures are willing to accept it, especially when it contradicts their own view. So, while there is no quick or effective solution, journalism still plays a fundamental role in establishing what is and isn’t reality.
What role do citizens and civil society play in holding these leaders and the media accountable?
It varies, just as trust in journalism does. In Latin America, trust in journalism has remained low for quite some time. However, when people are asked about specific media outlets, their opinions tend to be more nuanced, with some outlets receiving significantly more trust than others.
Ultimately, the responsibility does not rest solely with journalists. Citizens themselves must adopt a more cautious, critical approach to the information they consume. They must recognize that what appears on social media, or even in certain media outlets, does not represent the full reality.
While communications media bear a great deal of responsibility, it is crucial to emphasize that, in the end, citizens decide what is true and what is not. To do so effectively, they must be more discerning about the quality of the information they consume.
Beyond This pessimistic outlook, there is a crisis in the media industry. The sustainability of media organizations is a major challenge, not just in the United States and Latin America, but worldwide.
This crisis has deepened significantly over the past few decades. Those of us who have followed this situation for years know that it is not entirely new, but the severity of the crisis is alarming. Journalism has yet to find a viable alternative to the collapse of advertising revenue in traditional media. Efforts to seek alternative funding sources have not been sufficient to bridge the massive deficits that exist.
This is a critical issue, which exacerbates concerns about post-truth and the rise of media outlets that do not prioritize or respect the truth.
It is impossible to think in terms of alternatives, but instead of broad solutions. Over the past few decades, we have seen isolated efforts by various media outlets to develop sustainable financial models. However, this crisis extends beyond individual media organizations, it even affects longstanding outlets in most of our countries.
In Latin America, beyond the three dictatorships—Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela—there is a general trend of democratic regression and the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies. However, two countries have historically stood out due to the strength of their democratic institutions: Uruguay and Costa Rica. In Costa Rica, for example, there are growing concerns that authoritarian tendencies could threaten these institutions and even undermine the historically strong press. How do you see these two exceptions?
There is an important lesson to be learned from what is currently happening. On the one hand, the tradition of strong democratic institutions is fundamental to understanding the cases of Costa Rica and Uruguay. These institutions remain crucial and explain the persistence of democratic culture in both countries.
However, what we have witnessed in recent years underscores the importance of political leadership. This is not just a structural or historical phenomenon, leadership matters. The stance that leaders take toward democratic institutions is critical.
I draw a parallel with the United States. It has a tradition of democratic institutions, culture, and norms spanning over two centuries. Yet, the case of Trump is striking, how can someone who disregards and violates those norms of civility and democratic coexistence effect such drastic change in such a short time? This is fundamentally a leadership issue, one tied to personalities and political communication.
In Costa Rica and Uruguay, as long as leaders respect these traditions, refrain from unconstitutional measures, and uphold norms of tolerance and coexistence among different political factions, democracy will endure. If not, the situation becomes uncertain, where a leader who came to power democratically begins to undermine and disregard the very traditions that sustain democracy.
Ultimately, the key question is whether a democracy’s institutional “antibodies” are strong enough to resist attacks on its foundations. Will the opposition be strong and resilient enough to withstand these assaults? That is why I emphasize the importance of leadership.
First published in Spanish by Confidencial and translated and posted in English by Havana Times.