The Rhetoric of Numbers: How Trump Deploys Data to Sway Opinion
The former president’s use of statistics isn’t about accuracy; it’s about impact. Donald Trump’s public discourse has long been scrutinized for it’s stylistic quirks, but a deeper examination reveals a calculated strategy: the manipulation of numbers not as tools for objective analysis, but as rhetorical objects designed to evoke emotion and bypass critical thought.
As Columbia university statistician Andrew Gelman observes, Trump doesn’t treat numbers as quantities to be “added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided.” Instead, he wields them to create an impression, often prioritizing a compelling narrative over factual precision. This tactic was prominently on display during a recent televised address, where Trump made a series of sweeping claims – including that President Biden’s immigration policies had allowed “11,888 murderers” into the country, that his trade deals generated “$18 trillion of investment,” and that negotiated drug price reductions reached as high as 400, 500, and even 600 percent.
These figures, as Gelman succinctly put it, “don’t make a lot of sense but they kinda sound good.”
requests to the White House for substantiation of these claims went unanswered. The exploitation of statistics for partisan gain is not a new phenomenon, however.It echoes tactics employed decades ago by Senator Joseph McCarthy,who infamously fluctuated his estimates of communists within the State Department – from 57 to 205 to 81 to 207 – tailoring the number to resonate with different audiences. McCarthy’s goal wasn’t to present verifiable data, but to instill a sense of pervasive threat, regardless of the specific count.
Recent reporting has highlighted similarly implausible statistics emanating from the Trump administration regarding healthcare, mortgages, and inflation. This pattern underscores a purposeful strategy, one rooted in the understanding that many are ill-equipped to critically assess large or complex data sets.
Consider these examples: In a recent interview with politico, Trump asserted that “We save 25,000 people every time we knock out a boat.” The interviewer, Dasha Burns, did not challenge the assertion, and the White House offered no validation when asked for supporting data. Similarly, on his 100th day in office, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi declared April 29th National Fentanyl Awareness Day, claiming that since Trump’s inauguration, authorities had seized over 22 million fentanyl-laced pills, “saving over 119 million lives” – a figure equating to nearly one in three Americans.After widespread criticism, Bondi revised the claim to 258 million lives saved, representing 75% of the U.S. population.
This revised figure stemmed from a Drug Enforcement Administration calculation that 22 million pills represented 119 million fatal doses, predicated on the assumption that each pill would be shared by five users, all of whom would have died without intervention. The claim that “trillion of investment” is unsubstantiated. The White House website lists $9.6 trillion in “total U.S. and foreign investments” during his term, a figure reduced to $7 trillion by Bloomberg, including “amorphous pledges.” The administration has collected $200 billion from “tariff enforcement,” but economists point out that tariffs are largely paid by U.S. consumers through higher prices. Trump’s promise of $2,000 “dividend checks” funded by tariff revenue would cost an estimated $600 billion, far exceeding available funds.
These assertions, while audacious, serve a clear purpose: to overwhelm audiences with large numbers, obscuring the lack of factual basis. As Gelman notes, the problem isn’t merely the innumeracy itself, but “the blithe disregard for it, the idea that being off by multiple orders of magnitude…just doesn’t matter.” Trump’s strategy relies on dismissing dissenting data as “fake news” and hoping voters will accept his claims at face value.
The trend suggests that Trump’s numerical exaggerations will likely escalate. But as gelman suggests, “actual math can be a harsh mistress,” and the inherent absurdity of these claims may eventually become undeniable.
