Trump now claims that civil rights protections left white people “very badly treated,” his clearest embrace yet of the right-wing fantasy that white men are the real victims of discrimination.
And major media outlets, led by The New York Times, largely treated the remark as a political viewpoint rather than the racist lie it is.
The comments came in a Jan. 11 interview with the Times and were framed as insight into Trump’s governing philosophy, even as they echoed decades-old white grievance politics and contradicted mountains of evidence.
Trump told the Times that civil rights-era protections amounted to “reverse discrimination,” arguing that white people were unfairly blocked from colleges and jobs because of policies like affirmative action. He acknowledged civil rights “accomplished some very wonderful things,” but said they ultimately harmed people who “deserve to go to a college or deserve to get a job.”
Trump is leaning fully into the narrative that civil rights — won through generations of Black struggle — somehow oppress white Americans. It’s a central pillar of his second-term project: erasing DEI, gutting civil rights enforcement, and recasting equality as a threat to his base.
The article notes that civil rights leaders strongly dispute Trump’s claim and quotes the NAACP saying there is “no evidence” white men were harmed by the Civil Rights Act. It also details Trump’s dismantling of DEI programs and his administration’s effort to redirect civil rights enforcement toward claims brought by white men.
THE PROBLEM: The Times reported the facts — but framed Trump’s remarks as a belief to be evaluated, not a lie to be confronted.
This is sanewashing in practice: presenting extremist or factually baseless claims inside the language of reasonable policy debate.
HOW THE SANEWASHING WORKS:
• LANGUAGE CHOICE
Trump’s assertion is repeatedly described as something he “believes,” rather than something that is false. That framing subtly legitimizes a claim rooted in racial resentment and historically debunked myths about meritocracy.
• BOTH-SIDES STRUCTURE
The article sets up a familiar dynamic: Trump says civil rights harmed white people; civil rights leaders disagree. That framing suggests symmetry where none exists — as if the harms of discrimination and the grievances of the already-powerful are competing interpretations of the same reality.
• EUPHEMISM OVER CLARITY
Trump’s agenda is described as a “crusade against diversity policies” and “racial politics,” rather than what it functionally is: a rollback of civil rights enforcement and an attempt to re-center white dominance in law and policy.
• DELAYED REBUTTAL
The strongest pushback appears well into the article, after Trump’s framing has already been laid out in detail. Many readers won’t reach the corrective context at all.
WHY THIS MATTERS: Trump’s comments are not rhetorical filler. They are the ideological justification for concrete actions: shutting down DEI offices, halting enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, and encouraging white men — and only white men — to file discrimination claims with the federal government.
Treating those claims as just another side of a debate obscures the real stakes: the federal government is being repurposed to protect power, not to challenge discrimination.
THE BIGGER MEDIA FAILURE: The Times did not endorse Trump’s view. But by declining to clearly label it as false and racist, it helped normalize it.
This is the same dynamic that has followed Trump for years: his most extreme ideas are laundered through neutral tone, careful phrasing, and the assumption that readers will sort out truth from fiction on their own.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Trump is telling the country, plainly, that civil rights went too far — and that white grievance should now guide federal policy.
This narrative is central to MAGA ideology: recasting progress as persecution. It’s why Trump and JD Vance amplify claims of “reverse discrimination,” and why billionaires like Elon Musk cheer efforts to dismantle DEI — because the more public resources shift away from equity, the more corporate power goes unchecked.
When that claim is treated as a “belief” instead of a distortion of history, journalism doesn’t just describe reality.
It softens it.