Opinion - Trump's tariff gaslighting has a name: It's DARVO
When asked about the impact of his tariffs, Trump largely brushes off concerns. Over the weekend, he claimed the tariffs have made the U.S. 'much stronger' and touted an 'economic revolution.' Downplaying and denying economic consequences, Trump continues to sing the praises of his wide-reaching tariffs.
The president has also been on the attack. Taking to social media, Trump called anyone worried about economic volatility a 'PANICAN,' a term he defined as 'A new party based on Weak and Stupid people!'
According to the president, the problem isn't the tariffs — it's the people who are upset about them. And, in usual Trump fashion, he also made sure to attack former U.S. presidents ('Our past 'leaders' are to blame for allowing this,' he wrote on social media) and snapped at a reporter who asked about the stock market's steep decline.
Going after U.S. trading partners, the president has also repeatedly claimed other countries are 'abusing' the U.S. via their trade policies. He even made the provocative claim that the U.S. has been 'looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far' to justify his tariffs.
This isn't just bluster, Trump is employing a psychological strategy called DARVO: Deny, attack and reverse victim and offender. DARVO is used to dodge accountability by shifting blame, silencing critics and reframing oneself as victim.
This is the strategy Trump and his team have been using for years to distort reality.
We are psychology researchers who first named and now study DARVO. Our research reveals that DARVO is a common manipulation tactic that distorts how people view wrongdoing.
In the case of Trump's tariffs, the president has accused both critics and U.S. trading partners of bearing all fault and argued that the U.S. is the real victim.
Each component of this tactic layers manipulation with confusion, making it harder to perceive reality accurately. Denial is the foundation of deceit. It urges people to dismiss clear evidence, creating an alternative reality that some will inevitably accept.
Attacks on credibility go further by discrediting victims and critics, effectively exploiting the human tendency to doubt or even blame those who speak out.
Finally, reversing victim and offender distorts reality entirely. In this part of DARVO, the wrongdoer is cast as the true victim while the actual victims are portrayed as aggressors.
This role reversal doesn't just muddy the waters, it fosters apathy. When people see a tangled, contradictory narrative, people may retreat into uncertainty: 'I guess we'll never know who's to blame.'
Trump has used this playbook before, as when he blamed Ukraine for Russia's invasion, discredited women who had accused him of sexual assault and deflected blame during 'Signalgate.' Because DARVO has been a central strategy in Trump's political playbook for years, it has undoubtedly contributed to distorted perceptions of what is true and what is 'fake news.' When leaders like Trump weaponize DARVO, the public becomes more disengaged and confused.
But DARVO can also be defanged. Our research indicates that being informed about DARVO can reduce its persuasive effects.
In other words, people who can spot DARVO are less likely to fall for it. Much like how vaccines protect against diseases, having knowledge about DARVO inoculates against its effects.
Recognizing DARVO in action is therefore the first step to resisting its influence. The next step is refusing to let it rewrite reality.
Trump's attempts to deflect responsibility and blame for the results of his tariffs are not just political maneuvers. They are calculated efforts to distract and confuse you. By exposing DARVO for what it is, we can ensure that his gaslighting does not win out over the truth.
Sarah Harsey, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of psychology at Oregon State University-Cascades. Jennifer J. Freyd, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology retired from the University of Oregon and founder and president of the Center for Institutional Courage.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republican Says He Doesn't 'Buckle Up' in D.C. Amid Fear of Carjacking
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma said he does not "buckle up" when driving in the nation's capital for fears of carjackings and his hindered response time if caught in one. Newsweek reached out to a political analyst via text message Wednesday for additional comment. Why It Matters President Donald Trump's move to federalize Washington, D.C., represents one of the most aggressive uses of federal authority over local law enforcement in recent memory and raised questions on the balance between local control and federal emergency powers in the district. Trump cited the District of Columbia's Home Rule Act in the enabling of federal control for a limited period. In a news conference addressing the administration's decision, district Mayor Muriel Bowser said in part that she believes Trump's view of D.C. was shaped during his first term in office, during and post-COVID, noting the spike in crime during the period. What To Know While speaking with Fox News on D.C. crime, Mullin said that "If you look at car theft only ... if Washington, D.C., was a state, Washington, D.C., would be three times higher than any other state. And we're talking about a city. And we're comparing it to full states." "And by the way, I'm not joking when I say this. I drive around in Washington, D.C., in my jeep and, yes, I do drive myself," the Oklahoma lawmaker continued. "And I don't buckle up. And the reason why I don't buckle up, and people can say whatever they want to, they can raise their eyebrows at me, again, is because of carjacking." Mullin added: "I don't wanna be stuck in my vehicle when I need to exit in a hurry because I got a seat belt around me. And ... I wear my seat belt all the time, but in Washington, D.C., I do not because it is so prevalent of carjacking. ... And I don't want the same thing to happen to me what's happened to a lot of people that work on The Hill." Trump also discussed D.C.'s crime record in comparison to other states Wednesday night on Truth Social, saying in part, "If D.C. were a State, it would have the highest Homicide Rate of any State in America. The Violent Crime Rate in D.C. has worsened, and the Murder Rate has essentially DOUBLED in just over a decade — But these are only the 'official' statistics released by corrupt City Officials." A Newsweek analysis of local and federal data reported violent crime in 2024 had hit a 30-year low in the district, and the Washington Metropolitan Police Department had also reported 2025 decreases in violent crime, including a 37 percent decline in carjackings. Recent incidents, however, did prompt national attention, including the D.C. attack on Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, former employee at the Department of Government Efficiency. What People Are Saying Bowser posted to X on Monday: "Washington, DC is a beautiful city. DC is home to 700K people and welcomes millions every year. We have the #1 park system, fantastic public schools, and a tremendous public transportation system. And we are at a 30-year low in violent crime. It's important for all who live here and visit to know how beautiful our city is and how proud we are of all that we've accomplished." Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma prepares for a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on April 29. (Photo by) Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma prepares for a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on April 29. (Photo by) This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.

Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Chinese Imports Fell During Trump's First Term. It's Happening Again.
President Trump recently delayed for 90 days raising tariffs on China to give the two sides more time to negotiate a trade deal. Where the sides ultimately end up is an open question: The president hasn't said how much more he will impose on China beyond the 30% currently in place if a deal isn't reached. But this much is clear: The U.S.'s reliance on Chinese goods has fallen off since Trump first put tariffs on China in 2018.


New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
Law Firms That Settled With Trump Are Pressed to Help on Trade Deals
Two of the law firms that reached deals with President Trump this year to avoid punitive executive orders were connected in recent months with the Commerce Department about working on trade deals, according to three people briefed on the matter. The firms, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps, were connected to the department by Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, two of the people said. Mr. Epshteyn, who does not hold a government position, played a direct role in brokering the initial deals between Mr. Trump and the law firms, in which the firms agreed to do pro bono work on causes the president has championed, like helping veterans, military families and first responders. His previously undisclosed efforts connecting the firms with the Commerce Department shows how he is seeking to impose Mr. Trump's expansive view of the deals, including recruiting firms to work for the government in advancing the administration's agenda. After Mr. Epshteyn helped connect the firms with the government in recent months, Kirkland and Ellis went on to work on the trade deals the administration struck with Japan and South Korea, which were announced in July, according to three of the people. It is unclear if Skadden Arps has done work for the administration. Earlier this year, after the law firms struck deals with Mr. Trump, the president said that he had a broader understanding of the terms than the firms had let on, saying the pro bono work included helping the administration on trade deals and could even be applied to representing him in a personal capacity. It's unclear whether Kirkland & Ellis did the work for free or charged the Commerce Department. But the revelation of the firm's work marks the first time that it has been publicly revealed that one of the firms that cut a deal with Mr. Trump is now doing work for the administration. Representatives of Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps did not immediately respond to requests for comment. When asked for comment, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, did not directly address the latest developments. Instead, he said, Mr. Trump 'has radically changed the business of discrimination, including by ending D.E.I. in Big Law.' He added: 'Law firms that have for years propelled one-sided justice by providing pro bono resources to those causes that make our nation more dangerous and less free have started serving their nation.' Benno Kass, the director of public affairs for the Commerce Department, said the agency and the secretary, Howard Lutnick, 'are working with some of America's top law firms and legal minds to cement the truly historic trade deals that President Trump negotiated for the American people.' He did not specify which firms or what work they were doing. Mr. Epshteyn would not provide comment. Nine firms reached deals with Mr. Trump to head off executive orders. In total, the firms pledged nearly a billion dollars in pro bono legal work. At least some of the other firms are said to have been connected with the administration to do work for the government, but it's unclear which firms or what issues they were discussing working on. None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump's political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him. The deals have been criticized by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic, and have led to splits inside some of the firms about the wisdom of agreeing to terms with the White House.