What exactly did Rob Reiner say about the Trump shooting?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
President Donald Trump posted and then publicly defended a series of remarks about the murder of filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife that blamed Reiner’s outspoken opposition to Trump and invoked the pejorative phrase “Trump derangement syndrome,” prompting bipartisan condemnation; Trump repeated and amplified those remarks in the Oval Office when questioned by reporters . News organizations report that Trump suggested, without evidence, that the couple’s killing was “reportedly due to the anger he caused others” and characterized Reiner as “deranged” and “bad for our country,” while some Republicans and many Democrats called the comments inappropriate and disrespectful given that police were still investigating .
1. What Trump actually posted and how he phrased it
In a Truth Social post published the day after Rob and Michele Reiner were found dead, Trump wrote that the deaths were “very sad” but then proceeded to attack Rob Reiner personally, calling him “tortured and struggling” and asserting the couple’s deaths were “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME,” a phrase Trump and his allies frequently use to disparage critics . Multiple outlets quoted or excerpted the post and noted that Trump closed the message with “May Rob and Michele rest in peace,” framing the broader statement as both condolence and political attack [1].
2. How Trump reiterated the comments in person
When pressed by reporters later the same day, Trump doubled down from the White House, calling Reiner “a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned” and saying he “was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all, in any way, shape or form,” and repeating that Reiner was “very bad for our country” and had driven people “crazy” with his “raging obsession” over Trump; these oral remarks reiterated the attribution of motive and character judgment that courts and law enforcement had not established .
3. The factual basis — what newsrooms say the president offered and what is not established
News organizations uniformly report that Trump offered no evidence connecting Reiner’s political views to the killings and that law enforcement had not ascribed any political motive; the Los Angeles sheriff’s records and reporting cited that the Reiners’ son, Nick Reiner, had been arrested and booked on suspicion of murder and that authorities were investigating — not concluding — motive . Reuters, The New York Times and others emphasize Trump’s claim was unsubstantiated and that he was injecting partisan rhetoric into an active homicide investigation .
4. The reaction: bipartisan and cultural condemnation, and limited GOP dissent
Coverage records swift condemnation across the political spectrum: Republicans including Rep. Thomas Massie and Rep. Mike Lawler called the post inappropriate or wrong, while Democrats and cultural figures labeled it sick, disgusting or a new low, with late-night hosts and commentators likewise castigating the president for exploiting the family tragedy [1]. Some conservative commentators and outlets defended or amplified Trump’s framing, but many mainstream outlets and lawmakers publicly criticized the timing and substance of the remarks .
5. How outlets characterize Trump’s language and its political framing
News organizations describe Trump’s language as blaming the victim by suggesting a political cause — using the specific trope “Trump derangement syndrome” to medicalize and delegitimize Reiner’s dissent — and as a departure from presidential norms of condolence during a homicide; opinion outlets and columnists went further, calling the remarks gloating or vindictive, while conservative-friendly outlets presented his comments as an extension of long-running attacks on Reiner .
6. Limits of reporting and unresolved questions
Reporting makes clear what Trump said and repeated, and that his statements lacked evidentiary support tying Reiner’s politics to the killings, but the sources do not supply any law-enforcement conclusion linking motive to political views; any claim beyond what Trump posted and how officials described the ongoing investigation would exceed current reporting . The factual record in these articles is therefore limited to the president’s public words, the recorded arrest and booking of the son, and the immediate political and cultural fallout.