“The reason that The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is always negative on TRUMP, and the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars were bringing into our Country through Tariffs, numbers that the U.S.A. has never seen before, is because they are China centric or, at a minimum, Globalists, and they would rather see China and the World, for reasons unknown, WIN, BABY, WIN. If the United States were not able to charge Tariffs to other Countries, it would be Economically defenseless and, of no further force or effect. The only thing that can destroy our Country are Crooked, Radical Left Judges, of which there are many!” @realDonaldTrump

Fact-Check Summary

The Truth Social post by Donald Trump makes several claims: (1) that The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board is always negative toward him and is “China centric” or “globalist”; (2) the U.S. is bringing in “hundreds of billions of dollars” through tariffs—at historic levels; (3) tariffs are crucial national defenses; and (4) the primary threat facing the country is “crooked radical left judges.” The claim about record-high tariff revenue is partially accurate based on current government data, but exaggerates the impact on broader federal finances. The WSJ has both criticized and accommodated Trump at various times, contradicting the blanket assertion of perpetual animus. The “China centric/globalist” accusation is unsupported by the Journal’s actual editorial record or investigative reporting. The arguments about tariffs as essential defenses ignore consensus among economists, who warn of broader economic harms. Finally, the sweeping accusation against the judiciary lacks factual basis and represents divisive, destabilizing rhetoric that undermines public trust in democratic institutions.

Belief Alignment Analysis

This post diverges from democratic principles of civil, inclusive discourse and undermines trust in core institutions. It relies on hyperbolic language (“Crooked Radical Left Judges”) and labels (“China centric,” “globalists”) that foster division rather than promoting serious debate or constructive criticism. By baselessly questioning the integrity of the judiciary and attributing policy disagreements to sinister motives, the post erodes public reason and communal standards of fact-based discussion. The framing does not respect the legitimate diversity of opinion or acknowledge procedural legitimacy in either media or judicial review, and thus does not align with respectful, democratic communication norms.

Opinion

While legitimate policy debate about tariffs, judicial rulings, and media coverage is essential in a democracy, effective debate is undermined by unfounded accusations, ambiguous rhetoric, and personal attacks on institutions or officials. Statements that attribute bad faith to entire institutions or individuals (“crooked judges,” “globalist media”) without evidence only harm public trust and informed debate. For healthy civic engagement, criticism should be specific, factually supported, and avoid demonizing rhetoric.

TLDR

The post contains a mix of partial truths (high tariff revenue), misleading exaggerations (impact of tariffs, perpetual negative coverage), and unsubstantiated, divisive claims (judiciary and WSJ characterizations). It does not align with fair or respectful democratic discourse. TruthScore: 3/10.

Claim: The Wall Street Journal is always negative on Trump because they are “China centric” or “globalists”; tariffs have brought in historic revenue; without tariffs, the U.S. would be undefended; and radical left judges are the only threat to the country.

Fact: Tariff revenue under current policies is at historic highs (over $150 billion in 2025), but this is a small portion of total federal revenue, and economic costs are largely borne by U.S. consumers and businesses. The WSJ has both criticized and, at times, accommodated Trump. There is no credible evidence the WSJ is “China centric” or “globalist.” Most economists do not believe tariffs alone assure economic security. The judiciary accusation is unsubstantiated and reflects rhetoric, not factual assessment.

Opinion: The post uses divisive labeling, unfounded institutional accusations, and ignores nuance in trade and media relations. Such rhetoric undermines democratic debate and trust.

TruthScore: 3/10

True: Tariff revenue has reached absolute record highs.

Hyperbole: Tariffs as crucial economic defense, WSJ always being negative, characterizations of revenue impact, and labels like “China centric” and “globalist.”

Lies: WSJ as “China centric”; judges as primary existential threat; implicit assertion of judicial corruption without credible evidence.