Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who first popularized the idea that Donald Trump is not human?
Executive summary
There is no single, well-sourced origin that “first popularized” the idea that Donald Trump is “not human”; the notion appears in multiple cultural and analytic registers — psychological scholarship that frames him as a persona rather than a full, narrative person and media/online caricature that treats him as inhuman — but available sources do not point to a single originator of the meme (not found in current reporting). Psychological accounts by Dan McAdams and commentary in outlets like New Lines Magazine explicitly describe Trump as more a “persona” or “superhero”‑like than a conventional human subject, language that critics and some cultural commentators have amplified into metaphors of him being “not human” [1] [2].
1. Academic framing: “persona” and narrative identity
Northwestern psychologist Dan McAdams’ book and related interviews argue that Trump lacks a continuous narrative identity and often functions as a public persona rather than an inwardly narrated person; McAdams writes that “in his own mind, he is more like a persona than a person” and compares him to a primal force or superhero, language that invites metaphors of diminished “humanness” [1]. New Lines Magazine summarized and extended that line of analysis, noting claims that Trump “is not troubled by a complex inner life” and can be seen as one‑dimensional or mythic — again, analytic metaphors that feed the broader popular trope that he is, in effect, not fully human [2].
2. How academic metaphors became popular rhetoric
Scholarly descriptions like McAdams’ are intended as psychological diagnosis and metaphor, but reporters, commentators, satirists and social‑media users often convert academic metaphors into cruder claims: cartoons, viral posts and opinion pieces that portray Trump as robotic, alien, or a “superhero”‑type figure. Available sources document the academic language and popular commentary exist side‑by‑side, but they do not claim a single individual first spread the specific phrase “not human” about Trump [1] [2]. Therefore, causation — i.e., who “first popularized” the exact meme — is not established in the materials provided (not found in current reporting).
3. Political rhetoric and dehumanizing language: a separate track
There is an important distinction in the record between metaphorical claims about Trump’s inner life and overt dehumanizing rhetoric used by or about him toward others. Reporting shows Trump has used explicitly dehumanizing language about immigrants, calling some “animals” and “not human” in campaign speeches; that is a different phenomenon (Trump as speaker applying dehumanization) than people saying Trump himself is “not human” [3] [4]. Conflating these two threads obscures who is doing the dehumanizing and why.
4. Cultural drivers: satire, conspiracy and tech
Outside academic analysis, satire, conspiracy communities, and AI/deepfake culture accelerate visual and textual metaphors of inhumanity. Wired’s reporting on AI and viral content notes an “eerie” aesthetic around generative AI videos of Trump, which can feed uncanny, non‑human impressions; likewise, public fascination with aliens and UAPs — and Trump’s own remarks that “there could be” alien life — add a cultural backdrop where alien metaphors feel topical [5] [6]. But none of the provided sources identify a single viral post or author who originated the “not human” label for Trump (not found in current reporting).
5. Competing explanations and agendas
Different actors have motives: academics frame “persona” to explain behavior and personality; critics and satirists use inhuman metaphors to delegitimize or ridicule; supporters sometimes push back, treating such language as political attack. News outlets present psychological interpretations as explanation, while commentators may weaponize them for persuasion. Readers should note the implicit agendas: scholars seek explanatory models, media seek attention‑grabbing frames, and political actors aim to mobilize supporters or opponents [1] [2].
6. What the available sources do and do not say
Available reporting documents the existence of influential psychological and cultural language portraying Trump as lacking ordinary “human” interiority [1] [2]. The sources do not identify who first coined the literal claim “Donald Trump is not human” nor do they provide evidence tracing a single origin or viral spark for that exact phrasing (not found in current reporting). Where the record is clear, it distinguishes metaphorical psychological diagnoses from explicit dehumanizing rhetoric used by Trump toward others [3] [4].
If you want, I can search more widely for the earliest uses of the exact phrase “not human” applied to Trump (for example, social‑media threads, opinion columns or satire archives) and trace its diffusion; say whether you prefer scholarly, journalistic or social‑media sources for that hunt.