How have IQ claims about Donald Trump been sourced and verified in news reports?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
News reporting shows no publicly verified, original IQ score for Donald Trump; multiple outlets and fact‑checkers note that Trump has boasted about high IQ claims while specific numeric scores (for example, a widely circulated “73” claim) have been debunked or remain unproven [1] [2]. Recent coverage also documents Trump confusing a clinical cognitive screen with an “IQ test,” and experts have said that screen is not validated as a measure of IQ [3].
1. How reporters source Trump IQ claims — often from Trump himself
Much of the reporting traces IQ assertions back to Trump’s own public boasts and jibes — he has repeatedly called rivals “low IQ” and has claimed higher intelligence for himself — and news stories quote those remarks as the origin of most public IQ claims rather than any released test score [1] [4]. That pattern means many articles present the claim as a statement of the subject (Trump) rather than an independently verified fact [1].
2. What counts as “verification” in coverage — documented test results vs. self‑report
Journalists treat an actual, documented test score as the only strong verification; when no official, verifiable score is produced, outlets mark the claim as unverified or speculative [4]. Some sites collate reporting and commentary about intelligence and behavior, but they acknowledge the absence of an independently confirmed IQ number for Trump [5] [4].
3. How fact‑checkers handled viral numeric claims (the “73” example)
Major fact‑check organizations investigated viral posts asserting Trump scored 73 on an IQ test at the New York Military Academy and concluded the claim was unsupported; Snopes reported the story’s provenance traced to unverified social posts and a recurring internet meme, and it listed prior debunking history [2]. Reporters rely on that kind of chain‑checking (school records, archival claims, named discoverers) and will deem a numeric claim unreliable when the documentary trail is weak or missing [2].
4. Clinical screens and the “IQ test” confusion
In 2025 reporting, Trump told reporters he took an “IQ test” at Walter Reed and touted a perfect result; journalists and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment’s creator clarified he likely meant the MoCA dementia screening, which is not designed or validated as an IQ test and has no established correlation to IQ measures [3]. Coverage flagged this conflation: the physician’s reported MoCA score indicates cognitive screening results, not an IQ metric [3].
5. Polls and perceptions versus measured IQ
Surveys measure public perception of political figures’ intelligence rather than objective IQ. For example, a YouGov poll reported how Americans perceive the IQs of politicians — a popularity and partisan‑lens metric, not measurement of cognitive ability — and journalists distinguish perception polling from documented test scores [6]. Reporting therefore separates perceived “high IQ” in public opinion from verifiable psychometric testing [6].
6. How outlets frame limitations and expert context
Responsible reporting includes expert caveats: Mensa and psychologists quoted in coverage warn that IQ tests capture a narrow set of abilities and are not sole measures of leadership, creativity, or competence — reporting cites experts to explain both the limits of IQ as a concept and the absence of public testing data [1]. This contextualization appears in mainstream pieces to prevent readers from overinterpreting either boasts or debunked figures [1].
7. Where misinformation and rumor persist
Despite debunking, recycled memes and partisan pages continue to spread specific numeric claims and satirical takes, which then get re‑reported or amplified without fresh verification; fact‑check sites and reporting repeatedly trace those items back to anonymous posts or recycled infographics [2] [7]. Journalists treat such sources skeptically and flag them as unverified when there’s no documentary evidence [2].
8. What’s left unaddressed in current reporting
Available sources do not mention any release of an official, independently verified IQ score for Trump or primary‑source test documents; multiple analyses therefore rely on Trump’s statements, cognitive screening reports (MoCA), public perception polls, and fact‑checker investigations of viral numerics [3] [2] [4]. That absence is central: without an original test result, verification defaults to debunking provenance or reporting the subject’s own claims [2] [4].
Bottom line: mainstream reporting distinguishes three things — Trump’s self‑claims, public perceptions from polls, and actual test documentation — and only the last would satisfy independent verification; current reporting and fact‑checks show no such verified IQ score for Donald Trump [1] [2] [4] [3].