Yes – claims Trump said civil rights caused mistreatment of white people
Executive summary
Yes — President Donald Trump told The New York Times that civil-rights-era protections and policies have left white people “very badly treated,” explicitly framing the 1960s reforms as producing “reverse discrimination” in areas like college admissions and hiring [1]. His comments have been widely reported, prompted swift rebukes from civil‑rights leaders and outlets across the political spectrum, and align with his administration’s active rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion programs [1] [2].
1. The claim and the quote: what Trump actually said
In an interview published by The New York Times, Mr. Trump was asked whether protections that began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “resulted ultimately in the discrimination against white men,” and he replied that “a lot of people were very badly treated,” saying the law “accomplished some very wonderful things, but it also hurt a lot of people” and citing college admissions and job opportunities as examples [1] [2].
2. How the media reported it: broad consensus on the takeaway
Major national outlets from The New York Times to USA Today, Salon, The Independent and regional press summarized the same exchange, using the phrase “very badly treated” and the framing of “reverse discrimination” to characterize Trump’s comments, producing broad coverage that emphasized both the quote and its link to his anti‑DEI agenda [1] [3] [2] [4].
3. Civil‑rights groups and experts: unanimous pushback in the coverage
The NAACP’s president, Derrick Johnson, is quoted across multiple outlets saying there is “no evidence that white men were discriminated against as a result of the civil rights movement” and directly rebutting Trump’s characterization, reflecting the immediate institutional response documented in reporting [1] [3] [4].
4. Policy context: the remarks fit an ongoing executive agenda
Reporters repeatedly place Trump’s remarks alongside concrete administration moves — dismantling federal DEI offices, halting enforcement of parts of the Civil Rights Act according to the Times’ reporting, and an EEOC outreach to white men — signaling that the comments are not isolated rhetoric but consistent with policy shifts documented by the press [1] [2] [5].
5. The evidentiary dispute: Trump’s anecdotal claim versus measurable data
Coverage highlights a core dispute: Trump frames consequences for individual white applicants and workers, while civil‑rights advocates argue that measurable nationwide data do not support the idea of systemic “anti‑white” discrimination as a result of civil‑rights enforcement; outlets cite leaders and experts who say the Civil Rights Act expanded protections for historically excluded groups and also protects some white Americans under gender and religion provisions [3] [6].
6. Political utility and messaging: who benefits from the narrative
Analyses in the coverage, including opinion and reporting, tie the “reverse discrimination” line to a political strategy that mobilizes resentment among white voters and justifies rolling back DEI and enforcement mechanisms, with critics saying that the rhetoric serves a partisan agenda to reshape federal civil‑rights priorities [2] [7].
7. Alternative interpretations and limits of reporting
Reporting reliably documents the quote and the linked policy actions, but the sources do not provide new empirical studies proving or disproving large‑scale anti‑white discrimination caused by the Civil Rights Act; therefore, while the press record shows Trump made the claim and elicited institutional rebuttals, these articles do not settle the deeper empirical question beyond presenting expert commentary and political context [1] [3] [2].
8. Bottom line: direct answer and why it matters
The factual record in major outlets is clear: President Trump did say civil‑rights protections resulted in white people being “very badly treated,” an explicit embrace of the “reverse discrimination” framing [1] [4]. The statement has immediate political effects because it reinforces and legitimizes administration moves against DEI and civil‑rights enforcement even as civil‑rights organizations and many experts publicly dispute the underlying claim [2] [1].