Why Donald Trump and his officials call Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas'
The remark, widely seen as another swipe at Warren's past claims of Native American ancestry, revives a political feud that began during her 2012 Senate run. With fresh attention on this issue, it's worth examining how this nickname began, why it struck a nerve, and what it reveals about political discourse today.
The beginning of the 'Pocahontas' controversy
The controversy centers around Warren's long-standing claim of partial Native American ancestry. During her tenure at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School in the 1980s and 1990s, Warren identified as Native American in a national faculty directory.
Critics questioned whether this influenced her hiring, though both universities publicly denied that her heritage played any role.
Warren has always defended her identification, saying it was based on family stories passed down by her parents and grandparents. 'This is our lives,' she told NPR in 2012. 'And I'm very proud of it.'
Why Donald Trump gave this nickname to Elizabeth
President Trump began calling Warren 'Pocahontas' during his 2016 campaign, a name meant to mock her ancestry claims and portray her as dishonest.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting
Luxeartisanship
Buy Now
Undo
The reference is to the real historical figure Pocahontas, a Powhatan woman involved in early colonial history. Trump's use of her name in this context has been widely criticized as racially insensitive and disrespectful.
He once mocked Warren by pointing to her mention of high cheekbones as evidence of Native ancestry. Trump even publicly challenged her to take a DNA test, promising to donate $1 million to a charity of her choice if the results confirmed her claim.
Who was Pocahontas, really?
Pocahontas, born Amonute and also known as Matoaka, was the daughter of Chief Powhatan and a prominent figure in early American colonial history. Her life has been romanticized, especially through her association with English settler John Rolfe and her portrayal in films like Disney's Pocahontas.
Many Native Americans argue that her story has been distorted to erase the violence of colonization. Using her name in a political insult, they say, reduces a significant cultural and historical figure to a tool for mockery.
In 2018, Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. condemned the use of the nickname, calling it disrespectful and inappropriate.
The DNA test and Trump's response
In 2018, Warren took Trump up on his challenge and released DNA test results. The report showed strong evidence of a Native American ancestor 6 to 10 generations ago. She asked Trump to follow through on his $1 million promise and suggested he donate to the National Indigenous Women's Resource Center.
Trump dismissed the test, mocked the percentage of Native ancestry as insignificant, and later claimed that his pledge only applied if Warren became the Democratic nominee and debated him directly. He refused to make the donation, calling the entire situation a 'scam and a lie.'
Resurgence of the Autopen allegation
The nickname resurfaced this week after David Sacks, now a White House advisor and President Trump's Crypto and AI Czar, accused Warren of wielding power during the Biden presidency by controlling the use of his autopen. The claim, posted on X, was picked up by Trends Newsline and further amplified by some accounts
There is no concrete evidence supporting the accusation, and it appears to be another politically motivated attempt to cast doubt on Warren's integrity and influence.
Still, it brought the "Pocahontas" nickname back into the spotlight.
President Trump's use of 'Pocahontas' as a nickname for Elizabeth Warren may seem like a simple jab, but it reflects much deeper issues about how heritage, identity, and race are used in American politics. While Warren's claims of ancestry have been debated for years, Trump's repeated mockery and the nickname's recent revival show how political figures can weaponize cultural identity.
Ultimately, this controversy continues to distract from more important conversations. Native communities have long asked for attention to real issues affecting them, not political name-calling. It's time to shift the focus toward meaningful change and respect for Indigenous voices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
17 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Brash US ambassador pick for Malayasia marks a turning point in diplomatic ties
President Donald Trump's pick to be the United States' next ambassador to Malaysia has raised more than a few eyebrows in the Southeast Asian nation. Right-wing influencer Nick Adams, a naturalised American born and raised in Australia, is, by his own account, a weightlifting, Bible-reading, 'wildly successful' and 'extremely charismatic' fan of Hooters and rare steaks, with the 'physique of a Greek God' and 'an IQ over 180.' Such brashness seems at odds with the usually more quiet business of diplomacy. The same could be said about Adams' lack of relevant experience, temperament and expressed opinions – which clash starkly with prevailing sentiment in majority-Muslim, socially conservative Malaysia. Whereas the US usually sends a career State Department official as ambassador to Malaysia, Adams is most definitely a 'political' nominee. His prior public service, as councilor, then deputy mayor, of a Sydney suburb ended abruptly in 2009 amid displays of undiplomatic temper. Yet far more problematic for his new posting is his past perceived disparaging of Islam and ardent pro-Israel views – lightning rod issues in a country that lacks diplomatic relations with Israel and whose population trends strongly pro-Palestinian. So it was little surprise when news of Adam's nomination on July 9, 2025, prompted angry pushback among the Malaysian public and politicians. Whether or not Malaysia would officially reject his appointment, assuming Adams is confirmed, remains uncertain, notwithstanding strong domestic pressure on Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to do so. But regardless, the nomination marks a turning point in US-Malaysian diplomatic relations, something I have been tracking for over 25 years. In my view, it communicates an overt US disregard for diplomatic norms, such as the signaling of respect and consideration for a partner state. It also reflects the decline in a relationship that for decades had been overwhelmingly stable and amicable. And all this may play into the hands of China, Washington's main rival for influence in Southeast Asia. Trump wedge in ties The US and Malaysia have largely enjoyed warm relations over the years, notwithstanding occasional rhetorical grandstanding, especially on the part of former longtime Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Having successfully battled a communist insurgency during the mid-20th century, Malaysia remained reliably anti-communist throughout the Cold War, much to Washington's liking. Malaysia also occupies a strategically important position along the Strait of Malacca and has been an important source of both raw materials such as rubber and for the manufacturing of everything from latex gloves to semiconductors. In return, Malaysia has benefited both from the US security umbrella and robust trade and investment. But even before Trump's announcement of his ambassadorship pick, bilateral relations were tense. The most immediate cause was tariffs. In April, the US announced a tariff rate for Malaysia of 24%. Despite efforts to negotiate, the Trump administration indicated the rate would increase further to 25% should no deal materialise by August 1. That the White House released its revised tariff rate just two days before announcing Adams' nomination – and just over a month after Ibrahim held apparently cordial discussions with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore – only added to Malaysia's grievance. Malaysia may reap some benefit from the new US trade policy, should Trump's broader agenda results in supply chains bypassing China in favor of Southeast Asia, and investors seek new outlets amid Trump's targeted feuds. But Malaysia's roughly US$25 billion trade surplus with the U.S., its preference for ' low-profile functionality ' in regard to its relationship with the U.S., and the general volatility of economic conditions, leave Malaysia still vulnerable. Moreover, trade policy sticking points for the US include areas where Malaysia is loath to bend, such as in its convoluted regulations for halal certification and preferential policies favoring the Malay majority that have long hindered trade negotiations between the two countries. End of the student pipeline The punishing tariffs the White House has threatened leave Malaysia in a bind. The US is Malaysia's biggest investor and lags only China and Singapore in volume of trade. As such, the government in Kuala Lumpur may have little choice but to sacrifice domestic approval to economic expediency. Nor is trade the only source of angst. The White House's pressure on American institutions of higher education is effecting collateral damage on a host of its ostensible allies, Malaysia included. Although numbers have declined since the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, the US has remained a popular destination for Malaysians seeking education abroad. In the 1980s, over 10,000 Malaysians enrolled in US colleges and universities annually. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, numbers stabilised at around 8,000. But after, enrollments struggled to recover – reaching only 5,223 in 2024. Now, they are falling anew. In the first Trump administration, the visa approval rate for Malaysian students remained high despite Trump's 'Muslim ban' exacerbating impressions of an unwelcoming environment or difficult process. Now, economic uncertainty from trade wars and a struggling Malaysian currency, coupled with proliferating alternatives, make the comparatively high expense of studying in the U.S. even more of a deterrent. Yet what propelled Anwar's administration to announce that it will no longer send government-funded scholarship students to the US – a key conduit for top students to pursue degrees overseas – was specifically the risks inherent in Trump's policies, including threats to bar foreign students at certain universities and stepped-up social media screening of visa applicants. Looking beyond a US-led order Clearly, Malaysia's government believes that deteriorating relations with the US are not in its best interests. Yet as the junior partner in the relationship, Malaysia has limited ability to improve them. In that, Kuala Lumpur has found itself in a similar boat to other countries in the region who are likewise reconsidering their strategic relationship with the United States amid Trump 2.0's dramatic reconfiguration of American foreign policy priorities. When sparring with China for influence in Southeast Asia, the US has, until recently, propounded norms of a Western-centric ' liberal international order' in the region – promoting such values as openness to trade and investment, secure sovereignty and respect for international law. Malaysia has accepted, and benefited from, that framework, even as it has pushed back against U.S. positions on the Middle East and, in the past, on issues related to human rights and civil liberties. But amid the Trump administration's unpredictability in upholding this status quo, a small, middle-income state like Malaysia may have little option beyond pursuing a more determinedly nonaligned neutrality and strategic pragmatism. Indeed, as the US sheds its focus on such priorities as democracy and human rights, China's proffered ' community with a shared future ', emphasising common interests and a harmonious neighborhood, cannot help but seem more appealing. This is true even while Malaysia recognises the limitations to China's approach, too, and resists being pushed to 'pick sides'. Malaysia is, after all, loath to be part of a sphere of influence dominated by China, especially amid ongoing antagonism over China's claims in the South China Sea – something that drives Malaysia and fellow counterclaimants in Southeast Asia toward security cooperation with the US. That said, Anwar's administration seemed already to be drifting toward China and away from the West even before the latest unfriendly developments emanating from Washington. This includes announcing in June 2024 its plan to join the BRICS economic bloc of low- and middle-income nations. Burning bridges Now, the more bridges the US burns, the less of a path it leaves back to the heady aspirations of the first Trump administration's ' Free and Open Indo-Pacific' framework, which had highlighted the mutual benefit it enjoyed and shared principles it held with allies in Asia. Instead, Malaysia's plight exemplifies what a baldly transactional and one-sided approach produces in practice. As one ruling-coalition member of parliament recently described, Adams would be the rare US ambassador with whom Malaysian politicians would be loath to pose for photos. And that fact alone speaks volumes about diplomacy and evolving global strategic realities in the MAGA era.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Zelensky arrives at White House in formals after 'wear a suit' jibe
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has arrived at the White House for his meeting with US president Donald Trump. As Trump received the president, the Ukrainian leader was spotted in formal attire. President Donald Trump greets Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House(AP) The attire even took Trump for a surprise as he noted that Zelensky was 'all dressed up today.'
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump advisor criticises India over Russian oil, says tariff to hit where it hurts
WASHINGTON: White House trade advisor Peter Navarro sharply criticised India for purchasing Russian energy and defence equipment, pledging to 'hit India where it hurts' in order to change New Delhi's policy. In an opinion piece for the Financial Times, Navarro termed India's oil trade with Russia 'opportunistic' and 'corrosive' to global efforts being made to isolate the Russian economy. White House trade counselor Peter Navarro walks outside the White House after a television interview, on July 31, 2025, in Washington. (AP FILE) A former economics professor who emerged as a major trade adviser to US President Donald Trump in his first administration, Navarro is seen as a major force behind the US's retaliatory tariffs on trading partners. In his article, Navarro sought to link what he termed as India's 'high' trade tariffs and 'financial support' for Russia's war in Ukraine. 'As Russia continues to hammer Ukraine, helped by India's financial support, American (and European) taxpayers are then forced to spend tens of billions more to help Ukraine's defence. Meanwhile, India keeps slamming the door on American exports through high tariffs and trade barriers. More than 300,000 soldiers and civilians have been killed, while Nato's eastern flank grows more exposed and the west foots the bill for India's oil laundering,' wrote Navarro. In negotiations with the US for a Free Trade Agreement, India has refused to budge on protections for its agriculture, dairy and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) sectors from unfettered American imports. Trump on July 30 announced punitive tariffs of 25% on Indian goods shipped to America. He subsequently added another 25% levy, which is scheduled to come into effect next week, for purchasing Russian oil. India's foreign ministry has termed the tariffs as 'unreasonable' and 'extremely unfortunate'. Navarro also attacked Indian refiners for 'profiteering' by purchasing Russian discounted oil and exporting the processed petroleum products to Europe, Africa and Asia, stating that the surge in crude oil imports from Russia after 2022 was not for meeting domestic consumption. 'The Biden administration largely looked the other way at this strategic and geopolitical madness. The Trump administration is confronting it,' Navarro said of Trump's tariffs on India that have left the country's exports to the US at a significant disadvantage with those from competing nations. 'This two-pronged policy will hit India where it hurts — its access to US markets — even as it seeks to cut off the financial lifeline it has extended to Russia's war effort,' Navarro said. 'If India wants to be treated as a strategic partner of the US, it needs to start acting like one.' Navarro's criticism marks the latest recrimination of India's ties with Russia from a senior member of the Trump administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have also taken issue with New Delhi's relationship with Moscow. Navarro also added to earlier criticisms of India in a new direction, by taking aim at defence technology transfers from US firms to India. In his view, building factories in India and transferring sensitive technologies does not help improve Washington's trade balance with New Delhi. Navarro also charged India with 'cozying up to both Russia and China'. Former US officials have questioned Navarro's assertions about the India-Russia relationship. 'The larger issue is that the secretary of State and other principals authorized this piece. So those who know better and are supposed to balance American interests either agree with it, don't agree with it but authorized it anyway, or just don't care,' says Evan Feigenbaum, a former diplomat who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia under George W Bush. 'This completes a strange narrative arc from Washington and has finally shifted U.S. policy from a trade war and strategic friction with China to a trade war and strategic friction with India instead. I'll say it flatly: that is just strategic malpractice,' adds Feigenbaum, who helped negotiate the India-US civilian nuclear deal during the mid-2000s.
