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.
What did the Associated Press and Washington Post fact-checks conclude about Trump's gestures toward Serge Kovaleski?
Executive Summary
The Associated Press and The Washington Post concluded that Donald Trump’s recounting of Serge Kovaleski’s 2001 reporting was false or misleading, and that Kovaleski’s original story did not substantiate Trump’s claim of “thousands” celebrating 9/11. The outlets also concluded that Trump’s onstage gestures were widely perceived as mocking Kovaleski’s disability, a characterization Trump denied but one the fact-checks treated as the most credible reading of the evidence [1] [2].
1. What were the core claims at issue — and why they mattered?
The dispute centered on two linked claims: Trump’s assertion that a 2001 Washington Post article by Serge Kovaleski supported his statement that “thousands” of people in New Jersey celebrated the 9/11 attacks, and Trump’s onstage imitation of Kovaleski while repeating that line. The fact-checks extracted two separate factual questions: whether Kovaleski’s reporting corroborated the “thousands” claim, and whether Trump’s gestures were an imitation of Kovaleski’s physical condition. Both questions had tangible reputational stakes — one about reporting accuracy and one about the candidate’s conduct toward a disabled reporter — and both were examined by major fact-check desks [3] [4].
2. What the Associated Press concluded and why it matters
The Associated Press determined Trump’s account was false: Kovaleski’s 2001 reporting did not confirm that thousands celebrated 9/11, and Kovaleski and his co-author explicitly could not verify reports of widespread celebration. The AP emphasized that the article reported claims that were unconfirmed, and that law enforcement officials and local leaders contradicted Trump’s large-number assertion. On the gestures, AP coverage highlighted how many observers interpreted Trump’s arm movements and posture as an imitation of Kovaleski’s disability, while noting Trump’s denial; nevertheless, the AP treated the substance of the reporting error as the central factual finding [1] [3].
3. What The Washington Post concluded — and its stronger language
The Post’s Fact Checker reached similar conclusions about the reporting: Kovaleski’s piece did not support Trump’s “thousands” claim and Kovaleski said he could not confirm such allegations. The Post went further in assessing Trump’s interaction with Kovaleski, calling Trump’s explanation implausible and assigning a harsh credibility judgment to his denials. The Post documented prior interactions between Trump and Kovaleski to counter Trump’s claim of unfamiliarity, and treated the mocking interpretation of the gestures as the more credible explanation given the record of encounters and the physical similarity of the imitation [5] [2].
4. The gestures: disputed intent and the disability context
Fact-checkers dissected the gestures frame-by-frame in the context of Kovaleski’s congenital condition, arthrogryposis, which affects joint mobility. Many observers saw Trump’s jerking-arm motion and hand posture as an attempted caricature of that condition; Trump said he was gesturing to show hesitation or uncertainty and denied knowing Kovaleski. Kovaleski and colleagues contradicted Trump’s unfamiliarity claim by noting repeated past interactions. Fact-checkers therefore viewed Trump’s stated intent as inconsistent with the available evidence, while acknowledging that intent is inherently harder to prove than factual inaccuracies about the 2001 article [4] [6].
5. The disputed 2001 story: what was reported, and what wasn’t
Both the AP and the Post focused on the content of Kovaleski’s 2001 reporting: it relayed allegations that some individuals had been seen celebrating, but it did not establish or verify that “thousands” of people were celebrating. Kovaleski and his co-author explicitly stated they could not confirm large-scale celebration; local officials and later reporting found no evidence to support Trump’s broad numeric claim. The fact-checks treated Trump’s use of the article as misleading amplification of an unverified assertion, rather than a faithful summary of the reporters’ findings [1] [7].
6. The bigger picture — credibility, media framing, and divergent readings
The fact-checks converged on two durable findings: Trump’s numerical claim was unsupported by Kovaleski’s reporting, and the gestures were credibly read as mocking Kovaleski’s disability despite Trump’s denials. Different outlets emphasized different aspects — AP foregrounded the factual inaccuracy, while The Washington Post was more forceful on intent and prior interactions. Readers should note potential agendas: critics framed the episode as proof of pattern behavior; supporters highlighted ambiguity about intent. The fact-checks rely on contemporaneous reporting, Kovaleski’s statements, and visual evidence to reach conclusions that prioritize documented facts over disputed explanations [1] [8] [9].