What did Rob Reiner actually say about Trump in interviews or social posts in 2025?

1. What Trump actually wrote and posted

Trump’s initial public statement appeared on his Truth Social account and framed the Reiners’ deaths as connected to Rob Reiner’s vocal opposition to him, saying the couple died “reportedly due to the anger he caused others” and labeling Reiner as “tortured and struggling” with “TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME” ^{[6] [1]}. Multiple outlets quote the post closely and report the White House’s Rapid Response account re‑posted it to X, spreading the text beyond Truth Social ^{[1] [6]}.

2. How he repeated and expanded the remarks in person

When reporters questioned him at the White House, Trump reiterated the core claim and used harsher language: he said he “was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all,” called Reiner “a deranged person,” and said Reiner was “very bad for our country” — comments outlets report came after his Truth Social post and were offered as a public doubling down ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

3. Media and political fact context: investigators’ position and contested linkage

News organizations emphasize that law enforcement had not tied the killings to politics. Reporters noted police were still investigating and had not indicated that the victims’ political views motivated the homicide; outlets described Trump’s suggestion as “unsubstantiated” or “without evidence” ^{[3] [1] [4]}. Coverage frames Trump’s claim as an assertion not grounded in publicly available investigative facts ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Reactions across the spectrum

Trump’s post and comments prompted immediate, cross‑aisle criticism: Republican Rep. Thomas Massie called the remarks “inappropriate and disrespectful” ^[1], and several media and entertainment figures condemned the president as well ^{[7] [8]}. Some pro‑Trump commentators and influencers defended or contextualized the attack, saying Reiner had long criticized Trump and that Trump’s words were deserved or understandable ^{[2] [6]}. Reporting highlights both bipartisan outrage and a smaller current of support among Trump allies ^{[2] [6]}.

5. How outlets characterized the tone and potential motive

News outlets uniformly described the tone as unusually harsh for a president responding to an apparent homicide. The AP and PBS framed the post as “shocking” and a “drastic departure” from typical presidential condolence, while Reuters and others stressed that the claim politicized a family tragedy ^{[3] [1]}. Some coverage further noted the political utility of the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” within Trump’s rhetorical arsenal ^{[6] [9]}.

6. What the reporting does and does not show

Reporting documents the text of Trump’s Truth Social post and his Oval Office remarks verbatim or nearly so, and records the immediate political and celebrity fallout ^{[6] [3] [8]}. Available sources do not mention any law‑enforcement finding that connects the Reiners’ politics to the killings; outlets label Trump’s linkage unsubstantiated ^{[3] [4] [1]}. Sources do not provide evidence that Trump retracted or apologized for the comments; they instead report he doubled down ^{[3] [2]}.

7. Why this matters — public office, rhetoric and consequence

News coverage places this episode in the broader frame of presidential responsibility and political polarization: multiple outlets argue that a sitting president weaponizing a family tragedy risks inflaming supporters and undermines norms of offering condolences ^{[3] [4]}. At the same time, some commentators and conservative voices defended the president’s critique of a high‑profile critic, illustrating how partisan lenses shape reception ^{[2] [6]}.

Sources used in this summary: Reuters, The Guardian, CNN, Axios, PBS/AP, The New York Times, Daily Caller, NBC, Deadline, Vulture, CNBC and Forbes as reflected in the provided excerpts (p1_s1–^[7]5).