Trump can get away with saying what he likes about the BBC. But Epstein? That’s his one vulnerability | Jonathan Freedland
In a recent commentary, Jonathan Freedland explores the implications of Donald Trump’s ongoing confrontations with media institutions, particularly the BBC, highlighting the asymmetrical nature of political discourse surrounding the former president. Freedland argues that Trump’s disregard for truth and accountability creates a formidable challenge for those who oppose him or seek to hold him accountable. This dynamic has not only affected American politics but has also reverberated across the Atlantic, impacting institutions central to British society. The article underscores how Trump’s penchant for making false statements—over 30,000 documented during his presidency—has set a troubling precedent for political dialogue, where facts are often overshadowed by sensationalism and personal attacks.
Freedland’s analysis draws attention to a recent interview where Trump reportedly made 18 false statements, showcasing a pattern of behavior that undermines trust in media and governance. This tactic of engaging in “asymmetric warfare” allows Trump to dominate narratives and manipulate public perception, creating a challenging environment for traditional media outlets like the BBC, which are expected to adhere to journalistic standards of truthfulness and impartiality. As the BBC faces scrutiny and pressure from Trump and his supporters, Freedland suggests that this clash may reflect broader cultural and political shifts, not just in the United States, but also in the UK, where similar populist sentiments are gaining traction.
The article serves as a warning about the fragile state of truth in political discourse and the potential consequences of allowing falsehoods to proliferate unchecked. Freedland’s insights prompt readers to consider the responsibilities of media institutions in the face of such challenges and the broader implications for democracy when leaders operate outside the norms of accountability. As Trump continues to rally his base, the question remains whether his connections to controversial figures will influence his support or if his followers will remain steadfast in their loyalty, regardless of the facts.
In attacking a vital broadcaster, the US president is once again holding others to standards he flouts. But the Maga faithful might not let his links to the disgraced financier go
To confront Donald Trump is to engage in asymmetric warfare. It is to enter a battlefield that is not level, where he enjoys an immediate and in-built advantage over those who would oppose him or merely hold him to account. That fact has cost Democrats dearly over the past decade – exacting a toll again this very week – but it has now upended an institution central to Britain’s national life: namely, the BBC.
The key asymmetry can be spelled out simply. Trump pays little or no regard to the conventional bounds of truth or honesty. His documented tally of false or misleading statements runs into the tens of thousands: the Washington Post
registered 30,573
such statements during Trump’s first term in the White House, an average of 21 a day. In a single interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes earlier this month, Trump
spoke falsely 18 times
, according to CNN.
Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist
Guardian newsroom: Year One of Trumpism: Is Britain Emulating the US?
On Wednesday 21 January 2026, join Jonathan Freedland, Tania Branigan and Nick Lowles as they reflect on the first year of Donald Trump’s second presidency – and to ask if Britain could be set on the same path.
Book tickets
here
or at
guardian.live
Continue reading…
