Did Trump make fun of a disabled reporter
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The preponderance of contemporary reporting and fact‑checks concluded that at a November 2015 rally Donald Trump imitated and ridiculed New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski in a way many observers interpreted as mocking Kovaleski’s disability; Trump denied he was mocking the disability and said he was mimicking the reporter “groveling” after changing a story (BBC; Politifact; Snopes) [1][2][3]. Disability advocates and multiple outlets called the action a clear instance of ableist mockery while Trump’s campaign insisted he did not know what Kovaleski looked like and therefore could not have intended to mock his physical condition [4][3][5].
1. The moment and the immediate reactions: what happened on stage
At a November 24, 2015 rally in Myrtle Beach, Trump described reporting about alleged celebrations in Jersey City after 9/11 and imitated a reporter he said had “backed away” from a story; video and contemporary accounts show Trump contorting his face and arms as he spoke, and news organizations quickly reported that the target was Serge Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis, a condition affecting his right arm and hand [1][5][3]. Major outlets — including the BBC and The Washington Post — reported sharp domestic and international criticism of the imitation, and disability groups publicly condemned the gesture as mocking a person with a disability [1][4][3].
2. The defenses: Trump’s denials and the “I didn’t know him” line
Trump and his campaign offered two defenses: that he was not mocking Kovaleski’s physical condition but rather imitating a reporter “groveling” after changing a story, and that he did not know Kovaleski and therefore couldn’t have known about his disability; Trump publicly denied mocking a disabled person and said Clinton’s ads claiming he had were false [2][3][5]. Fact‑checking organizations and reporters examined those claims and found them inconsistent with the available evidence — noting prior interactions between Trump and Kovaleski, and that the on‑stage mimicry aligned with Kovaleski’s known physical movements — leading many outlets to conclude Trump’s denials did not square with the visual record and the reporting [6][3].
3. How watchdogs and disability advocates read the act
Disability advocates and policy commentators framed the incident as more than a moment of decorum lost: organizations and commentators argued the mimicry reinforced harmful stereotypes, normalized public humiliation of disabled people, and had policy consequences by shaping public attitudes toward disability rights [4][7]. Fact‑checkers and newsrooms described the imitation as mocking even when parsing intent versus effect, with PolitiFact and others concluding that whether or not Trump asserted he intended to mock Kovaleski’s disability, the performance functionally mocked him and was rightly criticized [2][6].
4. The limits of the record and competing interpretations
Sources diverge on motive and precise intent: Trump’s supporters and some conservative outlets stressed his claim about imitating “groveling,” arguing that the episode was political theater aimed at discrediting reporting rather than a personal attack on disability [2][8]. Independent analyses and fact‑checks countered that the visual evidence, Kovaleski’s own rebuttal about prior acquaintanceship with Trump, and the context of the rally point toward a real instance of mockery [5][3]. Reporting and later analyses consistently document the controversy, but cannot read Trump’s inner intent beyond what he said and what video shows; assessments therefore rest on interpretation of those materials [1][3].
5. Bottom line: did he make fun of a disabled reporter?
Contemporaneous news reporting, fact‑checks, disability advocates, and video evidence converge on the conclusion that Trump’s imitation was perceived and widely reported as mocking Serge Kovaleski’s disability, and major fact‑checking outlets judged claims that he did not do so to be inconsistent with the record; Trump denied the charge and offered alternate explanations, but those defenses were judged unpersuasive by multiple independent outlets and advocacy groups [1][2][6][3][4]. The dispute therefore centers less on whether an offensive mimicry occurred — which is well documented — and more on whether that mimicry was intended to target the disability, a question for which public sources supply strong evidence but not incontrovertible proof of motive [5][3].