New York Times Accused of 'Sanewashing' Trump's Controversial Remarks

Critics say the paper is editing out the former president's most unhinged and offensive statements to present a more coherent version of him.

Apr. 9, 2026 at 11:49am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A dimly lit, cinematic painting of an empty New York Times newsroom at night, with warm light streaming in through the windows and deep shadows across the desks and chairs, conveying a sense of solitude and contemplation around the newspaper's reporting practices.The New York Times' practice of 'sanewashing' Trump's most unhinged remarks raises concerns about the media's role in shaping public perception of political figures.NYC Today

The New York Times has been criticized for 'sanewashing' - the practice of omitting or editing out the most controversial and inflammatory parts of former President Donald Trump's statements and social media posts. Critics say the Times and other mainstream media outlets have been doing this for years, leaving readers with an impression of Trump that is far different from his actual rhetoric and behavior.

Why it matters

This issue raises concerns about media bias and the responsibility of news organizations to accurately and fully report on public figures, even when their statements are extreme or offensive. It also speaks to the broader debate around how the media should cover divisive political figures and the potential consequences of 'sanitizing' their words.

The details

According to reports, the Times has been caught removing expletives and other incendiary language from Trump's posts, such as a recent Truth Social message where he told Iran to 'open the F--kin' Strait.' The paper initially left out this language in its coverage before adding it back after social media backlash. The Times has also been accused of omitting other controversial Trump remarks, like when he confused Greenland and Iceland and made the cringeworthy statement that 'they call me Daddy' in Greenland.

  • On Easter Sunday 2026, Trump posted a controversial message on Truth Social.
  • In January 2026, Trump made confusing and offensive comments during an appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
  • In February 2026, Trump made racist remarks about Somali immigrants during his State of the Union address.

The players

The New York Times

A prominent American newspaper known for its in-depth reporting and analysis, but which has been accused of 'sanewashing' Trump's most controversial statements.

Donald Trump

The former president of the United States, whose inflammatory rhetoric and behavior has been a source of controversy and criticism.

Daily Kos

A progressive political blog that has reported on the New York Times' alleged practice of 'sanewashing' Trump's remarks.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The process of 'sanewashing' Trump's remarks has been practiced for years by the mainstream media. This is the practice of reporting on what Trump said, but removing the consistently strange, sexist, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and otherwise offensive context to his remarks.”

— Daily Kos

“For instance, in January when Trump appeared at the World Economics Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he confused Greenland with Iceland during commentary on possible U.S. military action against the sovereign territory. He also made the cringeworthy statement that 'they call me Daddy' in Greenland. The Times purged the 'daddy' comment from its report on Trump and simply noted that he had purportedly ruled out the use of force.”

— Daily Kos

What’s next

The New York Times has not yet commented on the accusations of 'sanewashing' Trump's remarks. It remains to be seen if the paper will address these criticisms and change its approach to covering the former president.

The takeaway

This controversy highlights the ongoing debate around media bias and the responsibility of news organizations to report on public figures accurately, even when their statements are controversial or offensive. It raises questions about the potential consequences of 'sanitizing' a politician's rhetoric and the impact it can have on public perception and understanding.