'Facts be damned': Analyst goes inside the mind of 'moron' Trump's dysfunction

31 August

Donald Trump at a MAGA rally in Rome, Georgia on March 9, 2024 (Phil Mistry/Shutterstock.com)

In an article published Sunday, HuffPost White House correspondent S.V. Date invoked the long‑rumored dismissal of President Donald Trump's intelligence by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to argue that the president's dysfunction has had tangible consequences.

Date used this framing to launch into a broader appraisal of how Trump's impulsive, fact‑resistant leadership undermined U.S. governance.

Date highlighted a now‑infamous moment: in or around a July 20, 2017, Pentagon meeting, Trump reportedly proposed dramatically increasing the U.S. nuclear arsenal — an idea widely regarded as both reckless and unworkable. Following that meeting, Tillerson allegedly referred to Trump as “a moron,” a claim he never outright denied.

Trump, in response, lambasted the report as "fake news," then theatrically challenged Tillerson to an IQ contest.

Date argued that this exchange wasn't just tawdry political theater, but it exposes a deeper crisis. Tillerson's implied sentiment, encapsulated in that scathing label, was rooted in frustration over Trump's impulsiveness, lack of discipline, and disdain for facts.

Tillerson later described it was “challenging for me… to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read… but rather just kind of says, ‘This is what I believe.’”

Further illustrating the fallout, Date noted how this personal clash presaged the erosion of diplomatic cohesion under Trump. Key State Department posts remained unfilled, and co‑ordination between foreign policy decision‑makers became increasingly disjointed.

Trump’s public undermining of Tillerson, for instance, dismissing his attempts to negotiate with North Korea as “wasting his time” — deepened the dysfunction, per the reporter.

S.V. Date further argued that Tillerson’s alleged “moron” comment wasn't merely a snarky insult. He described it as an understandable expression of exasperation from someone steeped in procedure and policy toward a leader marked by spontaneity and showmanship.

Date noted that the real damage isn’t just the insult — it’s how it reflects a broader transformation in the workings of the presidency. In the early years, he said, at least some advisers dared to tell Trump when he was wrong.

“The willingness of at least some advisers to tell Trump he was wrong is likely the starkest contrast between his first four years and now, when his aides seem more keen to prove their loyalty by telling him what he wants to hear,” Date wrote.

He added: "Likely exacerbating that is Trump’s embrace of autocracy and his eagerness to impose major policies without the approval of Congress or the states — meaning that Trump may well be even more willing to plow ahead with his ideas, facts be damned."

From Your Site Articles