Debunking or Confirming? The Controversy Over Claims Trump Can’t Read

On June 1, 2025, a provocative report surfaced, claiming that the White House had admitted President Donald Trump is unable to read, igniting a firestorm of speculation, mockery, and heated debate across political divides. The allegation, amplified by viral posts on X and a widely shared YouTube video, suggests that Trump’s aversion to reading is so severe that aides have resorted to transforming complex intelligence briefings into picture-heavy, simplified formats to accommodate his preferences. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, addressing the controversy, stated that Trump simply favors concise, visually engaging materials over lengthy documents, a practice she described as aligning with his efficient decision-making style. Yet, the claim that Trump “can’t read” has fueled a narrative that questions his cognitive capacity and fitness for office, while supporters dismiss it as a malicious distortion of his well-documented preference for oral communication.

The controversy traces back to reports from Trump’s first term, which highlighted his reluctance to engage with the President’s Daily Brief (PDB), a classified document summarizing critical intelligence from global hotspots. Former aides, including National Security Council officials, noted that Trump rarely, if ever, read the PDB, preferring oral briefings supplemented with maps, charts, and graphics. By 2018, intelligence officials had adapted by condensing briefings into single-page summaries and strategically inserting Trump’s name to maintain his attention. These adjustments, initially framed as catering to his “style of learning,” have been reinterpreted by critics as evidence of a deeper inability to process written information. The recent claim, however, escalates this narrative, with some asserting that Trump’s reading difficulties extend beyond disinterest to functional illiteracy.

Public reaction, particularly on X, reflects a polarized landscape. Some users have seized on the report to mock Trump, with posts suggesting that the White House is “jazzing up” briefings with cartoon-like visuals to compensate for his alleged illiteracy. Others argue that the claim is exaggerated, pointing out that Trump’s business career, authorship of multiple books (albeit with co-writers), and active engagement on social media demonstrate at least a baseline ability to read and write. One X user speculated that Trump’s disinterest in briefings stems from laziness rather than an inability to read, while another dismissed the report as a recycled smear from his first term. The hashtag #TrumpCantRead trended briefly alongside #FakeNews, capturing the intensity of the debate.

Skeptics of the illiteracy claim point to Trump’s public record. He graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, an institution known for its rigorous academic standards, and has claimed to have excelled academically. His books, including The Art of the Deal, while ghostwritten, required collaboration and review, suggesting some engagement with written material. Trump’s prolific use of X, where he posts detailed messages, further undermines the notion that he is wholly illiterate. Supporters argue that his preference for oral briefings aligns with his background as a television personality and dealmaker, where quick, verbal exchanges often take precedence over dense reports. They note that other presidents, like Richard Nixon, also deviated from traditional briefing formats without facing similar scrutiny.

Critics, however, draw on anecdotes from former aides to paint a different picture. During Trump’s first term, his then-National Economic Council director reportedly described him as unwilling to read even one-page memos, often losing focus midway through meetings. Intelligence briefers faced challenges keeping Trump on topic, as he frequently veered into tangents or relied on gossip from conservative media figures. By 2020, reports indicated that Trump’s briefings were reduced to twice-weekly sessions, with Vice President Mike Pence taking on a more active role in reviewing the PDB. These accounts, while not conclusive proof of illiteracy, suggest a profound disengagement with written information, which critics argue hampers his ability to address complex global issues.

The current controversy gained traction amid Trump’s second term, where his administration has faced scrutiny over transparency and competence. The White House’s decision in May 2025 to replace official transcripts of Trump’s remarks with select videos raised concerns among historians, who argued that the move obscures the public record. This context has amplified suspicions about the reading claim, with some interpreting the shift to visual briefings as an attempt to conceal cognitive limitations. Leavitt’s defense—that Trump processes information quickly and prefers “killer graphics”—has done little to quell speculation, particularly as the administration pushes ambitious policies like the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which requires detailed legislative analysis.

The claim’s origins remain murky. A YouTube video by political commentator Keith Edwards, posted on June 1, 2025, appears to have popularized the narrative, citing unnamed White House sources. While the video garnered significant attention, its reliance