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.
Is trump an asshole?
Executive Summary
The direct question—“is Trump an asshole?”—is a normative judgment that different observers answer differently, but empirical and philosophical sources converging across the record describe a pattern of entitled, abrasive, and attention-seeking behavior consistent with Aaron James’s philosophical definition of an “asshole,” while polls and personality studies show broad international and domestic perceptions of arrogance and low agreeableness. Philosophical critique and journalistic accounts identify specific episodes and traits that justify the label for many commentators, whereas public-opinion data and psychological assessments present mixed but largely negative characterizations without deploying that crude epithet outright [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Why a philosopher called him an ‘asshole’ and what that means now
Aaron James’s 2016 book frames Donald Trump within a philosophical taxonomy: an “asshole” is someone who feels entitled to special treatment, takes advantage of others, and resists accountability, and James applies that framework to Trump’s public conduct and rhetoric. The book’s publishers explicitly describe Trump using that term and argue the characterization is widely agreed even among some supporters [1] [2]. A contemporary magazine analysis used colorful language—“ass-clown”—to argue the same behavioral pattern, citing incidents such as the alleged treatment of Alicia Machado and a persistent refusal to apologize as emblematic of entitlement and attention-seeking [7]. Those sources present a normative claim grounded in a philosophical definition tied to observable behaviors rather than mere insult.
2. What opinion polls and international surveys actually show about public perception
Systematic polling does not use the coarse label but offers quantitative evidence of negative impressions: a 2024 Pew survey reported only 34% of Americans saw Trump as a good role model and more than half said he did not care about ordinary people, with mixed ratings for honesty and temperament [3]. A 2025 multi‑nation Pew snapshot found medians of 80% viewing Trump as “arrogant” and 65% as “dangerous,” while a plurality still considered him qualified in some contexts—highlighting that many people judge temperament and risk more sharply than technical competence [4]. Personality research summarized in the sources identifies consistently high extraversion and narcissism and very low agreeableness and emotional stability, a profile associated with antagonistic, self-focused behavior but not a clinical moral verdict [5].
3. Behavioral episodes and third‑party reports that strengthen or complicate the label
Journalistic accounts compiled through 2024–2025 catalogue episodes that critics cite as evidence: bizarre public appearances and lapses in coherence that raise doubts about mental acuity, anecdotes of rudeness in diplomatic settings such as reported reactions from Queen Elizabeth, and other public interactions that appear discourteous or attention-seeking [6] [8]. These accounts bolster claims of abrasive or entitled behavior but also introduce non‑moral, empirical concerns—for example, whether observed behavior stems from strategy, personality, or cognitive decline—dimensions that complicate a simple moral label. Access limitations to some sources mean not every reported episode could be independently verified [9].
4. Contrasting interpretations and the role of agenda in sources
The available sources include a philosophical treatise, opinionated magazine pieces, international polls, and psychological research summaries, each with different aims. James’s book advances a normative thesis by design, magazine pieces intend to persuade and entertain, polls seek to measure public attitudes, and personality studies aim for descriptive assessment; each brings a different standard for calling someone an “asshole.” That variance creates predictable agendas: philosophers and critics frame moral condemnation, pollsters quantify perceptions without moral language, and researchers caution against equating personality measures with moral labels. Readers should weigh whether a source asks a moral question, measures impressions, or diagnoses traits [1] [3] [5].
5. What the evidence supports and what it leaves unresolved
Empirical and philosophical materials up to mid‑2025 provide converging evidence that Donald Trump exhibits traits—entitlement, low agreeableness, narcissism, and frequent abrasive conduct—that justify the “asshole” label for many observers under Aaron James’s definition, while public-opinion data and academic caution prevent a universal or clinical verdict. The question ultimately rests on normative criteria: if the standard is James’s philosophical definition, the evidence supports the label; if the standard requires neutral, clinical, or legal criteria, the evidence is descriptive and mixed. Important unresolved issues include motivations behind behavior (strategic vs. dispositional) and the limits of public polling and anecdote as moral evidence [7] [1] [3] [4] [5] [6].