How have fact-checkers like AP and Reuters addressed claims about Trump wearing diapers?
Executive summary
Fact‑checkers have treated claims about “Trump wearing diapers” as two separate phenomena: doctored images alleging the former president in a diaper were debunked as composites, while reports that some Trump supporters wore diapers at rallies in 2024 were verified as real occurrences in reporting by at least one major fact‑checking outlet (Snopes) [1] [2]. The available reporting does not include AP or Reuters pieces, so firm conclusions about how those two organizations specifically addressed the story cannot be drawn from the provided sources (p1_s1–p1_s3).
1. The viral image of Trump in a diaper: debunked as a composite
A widely circulated photograph purporting to show Donald Trump in a diaper has been repeatedly dismantled by fact‑checkers: Snopes examined that image and concluded it was not a genuine photograph of Trump but a digitally manufactured composite that grafted Trump’s head onto the body of someone else, with the face sourced from a 1991 photo and the body from an unrelated image [1]. That 2017‑era example illustrates the typical pattern—an attention‑grabbing image is created and distributed online, then later traced and labeled as manipulated once forensic comparison and archival sourcing are applied [1].
2. A separate, true story: supporters wearing diapers at rallies in 2024
Independent of doctored photos of Trump himself, Snopes documented that during spring 2024 some supporters at Trump rallies did indeed wear diapers and carry signs reading “Real men wear diapers,” and photographic evidence and on‑the‑ground posts (including an April 24 Dispatches from Trumpland post and a March photo identified by local reporting) supported that conclusion [2]. Snopes included those verified instances in its catalog of noteworthy 2024 fact checks, noting that what initially sounded implausible turned out to be accurate reporting about fringe rally behaviors [3].
3. Limits of the record here: absence of AP and Reuters sourcing in provided material
The question asks specifically how AP and Reuters addressed these claims, but the set of sources provided contains only Snopes items and a Snopes retrospective; there are no AP or Reuters articles among the supplied links, so it is not possible from this file to state definitively what AP and Reuters concluded or how they framed the topic (p1_s1–p1_s3). Without those outlets’ texts, any statement about their approach would be outside the bounds of the available reporting; readers should be warned that conclusions about AP/Reuters require consulting those organizations’ own archives or databases.
4. Why two narratives became conflated and how fact‑checkers separated them
The confusion grew because social posts and blogs mixed imagery, captions, and eyewitness photos—some users republished altered images alongside authentic rally photographs—so the public saw a blurred stream of claims that were not all the same thing; Snopes’ work shows the importance of distinguishing between a digitally altered portrait of the president and bona fide scenes of supporters in diapers at events, with Snopes citing social posts, a Dispatches from Trumpland photo, and local newspaper images as part of its verification [2]. That parsing—treating each claim on its own evidentiary terms—is the consistent method Snopes applied in these instances [2] [1].
5. Political theater, provocation, and the incentive to amplify
Fact‑checkers implicitly flagged the political logic behind both manufactured images and performative rally acts: doctored images provoke outrage and can be weaponized, while supporters dressing in outlandish ways generate viral footage that amplifies narratives about a candidate’s base [2] [1]. Snopes’ year‑end roundup explicitly placed the diaper‑wearing supporters among the “unexpectedly true” items of 2024, signaling that even odd, attention‑seeking behavior can be factual and therefore requires the same verification rigor as more conventional news claims [3].
6. What investigators and readers should do next
Because the supplied reporting is limited to Snopes’ examinations, the prudent next step for anyone seeking a full media‑landscape answer is to consult AP and Reuters directly for any pieces they may have produced on the topic and to apply the same separation of distinct claims—image manipulation versus documented rally behavior—that Snopes demonstrates in these fact checks (p1_s1–p1_s3). Snopes’ dual results—debunking the composite image and verifying diaper‑wearing supporters—underscore that the truth can be both surprising and specific: different claims with similar language need separate verification [1] [2] [3].