Fox News interview donald trump on sofa apparently soiling himself

Checked on January 25, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Social media posts after a Fox & Friends appearance claimed former President Donald Trump sat on a black towel because producers were protecting the couch from an incontinence accident; that claim has been debunked by fact-checkers and contemporaneous reporting, which show the dark material was his jacket rather than a towel [1]. The episode illustrates how rapidly visual snippets fuel embarrassing narratives online—amplified by partisan accounts and gossip outlets—even when verification is straightforward [2] [3].

1. What viewers saw and why it went viral

A clip and stills from Trump’s October Fox & Friends appearance showed a dark shape on the white couch under where he sat, prompting X and Threads users to joke that producers “put down a towel” to prevent him from “staining the sofa,” a claim that spread widely on social platforms and in entertainment pages [4] [3] [5].

2. The factual check: it was his jacket, not a towel

PolitiFact reported that Fox News told the outlet the dark material was Trump’s jacket fanned out on the couch, and not a towel placed to guard against incontinence, leading PolitiFact to rate the towel claim “Pants on Fire!” [1], a conclusion repeated by multiple debunking posts and fact-check-style reporting [2] [6].

3. How outlets and commenters framed the story

Tabloid and commentary sites leaned into the salacious angle—Times Now, The List and others relayed viewer jokes about “Depends leakage” and similar quips—amplifying mockery even as fact-checkers contradicted the literal towel claim [4] [3]. Entertainment and gossip forums added speculation and ridicule that kept the story trending despite the debunk.

4. The larger pattern: visual evidence, instant narratives

This incident follows a familiar pattern where ambiguous visuals from a high-profile figure’s live appearance trigger rapid interpretation online: observers fill uncertainty with the most embarrassing explanation, which spreads faster than corrections; several outlets noted that the clip “received massive attention” and produced many mocking posts [2] [3].

5. Alternative viewpoints and what they imply

Some social posts and comment threads insisted the towel explanation “feels” true, reflecting a broader willingness among critics to believe indignifying stories about political opponents, while supporters called the whole episode “fake news” or a setup—both reactions reveal partisan incentives to believe or dismiss embarrassing content [3] [7]. Reporting identifies no verified evidence of actual incontinence incidents tied to this appearance.

6. Limits of available reporting and lingering rumors

Open-source reporting and the fact-checks reviewed address the towel claim specifically and identify the jacket as the source of the dark shape [1], but attribution of motive—whether critics amplified the image intentionally or as organic ridicule—and any isolated, unrelated claims of other incidents (for example, separate online claims about events such as a D‑Day appearance) are reported elsewhere without confirmation in these sources, meaning those broader insinuations remain unverified in this dataset [8].

7. What this episode reveals about media incentives and public perception

The rapid spread of the towel narrative highlights incentives throughout the information ecosystem—social users seeking viral content, partisan accounts weaponizing visuals, gossip outlets monetizing clicks, and fact-checkers racing to clarify—creating a dynamic where the false but funny explanation can do reputational harm before a straightforward correction [2] [3] [1].

Want to dive deeper?
How do fact-checkers verify visual claims from live TV appearances?
What other viral rumors about politicians’ health or incontinence have circulated and how were they debunked?
How do partisan accounts and gossip sites contribute to the spread of misleading images online?