An Extensive Guide To The Fact Checks, Debunks, And Criticisms Of Trump’s Various Problematic Policy Proposals

Over the course of the 2016 presidential primary, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has laid forth a series of problematic policy proposals and statements -- ranging from his plan to ban Muslims from entering the United States to his suggestion that the United States default on debt -- that media have warned to be “dangerous,” “fact-free,” “unconstitutional,” “contradictory,” “racist,” and “xenophobic.” Media Matters compiled an extensive list of Trump’s widely panned policy plans thus far along with the debunks and criticism from media figures, experts and fact-checkers that go along with them.

Trump Suggests Defaulting On Debt And Buying It Back At Discounted Rate Would Erase Debt

Trump Suggests “Swashbuckling” Approach To Renegotiating U.S. Debt, Including Buying Debt At Discounted Rate. During part of an hour-long CNBC interview ostensibly focused on the Federal Reserve’s domestic monetary policy decisions, Donald Trump hyped concerns of runaway interest rate inflation for trillions of dollars of outstanding U.S. Treasury bonds while declaring himself “the king of debt.” Trump expressed concern that interest rates on the Treasury bond market might spike by two to five points at some point in the future. After being pressed by co-hosts Becky Quick and Andrew Ross Sorkin, Trump suggested that the “swashbuckling” approach he had used to renegotiate private debt deals could be employed to “refinance debt” owed by the United States Treasury. [CNBC, Squawk Box, 5/5/16]

Experts Said Trump’s “Insane” Debt Plan Would “Tank” The Economy

Business Insider: Trump’s Proposed Debt Restructuring Is “An Insane Idea That Would Tank The American Economy.” Business Insider senior editor Josh Barro slammed the presumptive GOP nominee for promising to “approach financing the US government as if it's one of his failing casinos.” Barro noted that Trump’s plan to renegotiate American debt obligations would not function like the “corporate finance deals” to which Trump alluded. Rather than shedding some debt obligations, Trump’s plan would immediately undermine investor confidence, “spark a crisis in the Treasury markets,” and drive interest rates even higher. [Business Insider, 5/6/16]

Bloomberg: Bond Expert Calls Trump’s Idea “Stupid And Ridiculous.” Bloomberg reported that U.S. bond traders dismissed Trump’s idea to renegotiate debt, which no Treasury secretary in the history of the country has ever done. David Adler, head of government-bond strategy for CRT Capital Group, said the idea is “stupid,” “ridiculous” and “never going to happen.” [Bloomberg, 5/6/16]

Vox: Trump Is Proposing “A Bankruptcy Of The United States Federal Government That Would Incinerate The World Economy.” Vox editor Matthew Yglesias noted that Trump’s plan to renegotiate debt obligations toward only partial repayments would amount to “a bankruptcy of the United States federal government that would incinerate the world economy.” Yglesias slammed Trump’s “dangerous ignorance” about monetary policy while highlighting the inherent problem of approaching the day-to-day functions of government as if it were a private business. Yglesias concluded his argument by pointing out that Trump’s debt default proposal would not be necessary in any “conceivable circumstance” because the United States Treasury can produce “instantly and in infinite quantities” all of the American dollars it needs to repay any amount of debt. [Vox, 5/6/16]

CNBC’s Ron Insana: “This Is Potentially The Most Catastrophic Thing A Presidential Nominee Can Say.” CNBC senior analyst Ron Insana decried Trump’s comments, saying that “among all the things that Donald Trump has said to date, this is potentially the most catastrophic thing a presidential nominee can say.” Insana explained that Trump’s proposal “would be a historic blunder, and one that would throw world markets into a very serious tizzy.” Isana concluded that the proposal “would shake the bond market to its very core,” and “cause interest rates to skyrocket.” [MSNBC, Weekends with Alex Witt, 5/7/16]

USA Today’s David Cay Johnston: “This Is Further Evidence That Donald Has Not A Clue To What He’s Doing.” USA Today columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston criticized Donald Trump’s comments, saying “this is further evidence that Donald has not a clue to what he's doing.” On the May 6 edition of MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, Johnston explained that Trump’s plan proposes to “raise the cost of borrowing and to make the dollar no longer the world reserve currency.” [MSNBC, All In with Chris Hayes, 5/6/16]

NY Times’ Paul Krugman: Trump Wants To Run U.S. Treasury “Like A Failing Atlantic City Casino.” Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that “Donald Trump’s suggestion that he’ll negotiate forgiveness on U.S. debt” would mean he would be running the country “like a failing Atlantic City casino,” and he said it demonstrates that the presumptive Republican nominee simply “doesn’t look at economic data” or “employ anyone who can” explain it to him. Krugman explained that data show interest payments on the debt are down, asking, “See the crisis? Neither do I.” [The New York Times, 5/7/16]

Trump Suggests Printing Money To Pay Down The National Debt

After Claiming To “Understand Debt Better Than Probably Anybody,” Trump Suggested “Print[ing] The Money” To Pay Down National Debt. Trump told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that The New York Times and other publications had misrepresented his previous hint at defaulting on the national debt. Trump claimed he never said he would default on debt because the U.S. government can “print the money” it needs to cover obligations. [CNN, New Day, 5/9/16]

Media And Experts Trash Trump's Proposal As “Disastrous For The Economy”

CNN: Experts Say Printing Money To Buy Back Debt Would Be “Disastrous For The Economy.” CNN chief business correspondent Christine Romans lambasted Trump’s ideas about the federal debt on the May 10 editions of CNN’s Early Start and New Day, describing his proposal to renegotiate outstanding federal debt as “alarming.” Romans reported that experts say “Trump doesn't have a coherent idea of what he’s talking about” and that printing money to pay debts would be “disastrous for the economy.” [Media Matters, 5/10/16]

MSNBC: “Trumponomics” Is “Playing With Fire.” Bloomberg Politics editors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann attempted to outline Trump’s shifting positions on tax policy, the minimum wage, and the national debt during a segment emblazoned with the on-screen headline “Trumponomics.” Heilemann asked if Trump “is playing with fire on economic and business-related issues,” and Halperin said yes, adding that Trump is “alienating people on the right and left” and “alienating people in the business community” due to his statements on the economy. [MSNBC, With All Due Respect, 5/9/16]

CNN: Trump’s Money-Printing Solution Would End Independence Of The Federal Reserve, Removing “The Foundation Of Our Economic Success.” During an interview with CNN, conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), warned that if Trump, as president, ordered the Federal Reserve to print money to buy debt, it would “break the independance of the Fed” and undermine a Federal Reserve System that “has been the foundation of our economic success.” After host Jake Tapper noted that Trump supporters have attempted to push back on fears of Trump’s “print the money” solution, Holtz-Eakin assured him that printing money to buy back federal debt would certainly lead to high rates of inflation. [CNN, The Lead, 5/9/10]

Business Insider: “Another Potentially Alarming Option For Debt Management.” Business Insider criticized Trump’s comment that he could pay for the federal debt by printing money, saying the statement is “technically true,” but the resulting inflation would be “as big of a mess as his initial plan of offering an overt haircut to creditors.” [Business Insider, 5/9/16]

Slate: “Donald Trump Is Still Lost In A Forest Of Nonsense” On Debt Policies. Slate senior business correspondent Jordan Weissmann reported that “Trump is right” when he says the United States can print money to buy debt, but he cautioned readers not to “pay too much attention to the trees” because Trump “is still lost in a forest of nonsense” on real-world policy implications. He called Trump’s initial proposal to buy back U.S. debt at a discount “crazy talk” and noted that printing money to buy U.S. debt would avoid a technical default, but the “severe inflation” it would induce “can be the equivalent of a default.” [Slate, 5/9/16]

Trump Claims He Can Erase The Debt In Eight Years

Trump Predicts He Can Erase $19 Trillion National Debt In Two Terms As President By Renegotiating Trade Deals. During a March 31 interview with The Washington Post, Trump claimed he could eliminate the country's $19 trillion national debt “over a period of eight years” while still pushing a “very big tax cut.” According to the Post, Trump claimed “economic growth he foresees as a consequence of renegotiated deals would enable the United States to pay down the debt.” [The Washington Post, 4/2/16]

Fact-Checkers, Economists And Reporters Call Trump’s Claim To Eliminate The Debt “Impossible,” “A Fantastical Notion”

Wash. Post Fact-Checker: Trump's Proposal Is “A Fantastical Notion.” Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave Trump's claim that he can eliminate the debt in eight years “4 Pinocchios” -- the highest rating for the most egregiously incorrect claims -- saying, “We regret we have only Four Pinocchios to give for this whopper” in an April 2 article. To back up this rating, Kessler pointed to “basic math” to explain “why this is a fantastical notion,” noting that first, Trump would need to eliminate the deficit, which is set to increase over the next eight years. Then, even if he reduced discretionary spending, renegotiated trade deals, and increased revenues, it would still not eliminate the debt in eight years. [The Washington Post, 4/2/16]

CNN’s Christine Romans: Trump's “Psychotic” Plan To Eliminate National Debt Is Part Of A “Magical Mystery Tour Of Math.” On the April 4 edition of CNN Newsroom with Carol Costello, CNN anchor and chief business correspondent Christine Romans called Trump’s plan to eliminate the national debt in eight years “the magical mystery tour of math,” noting that others had labeled the plan “psychotic” and “impossible. [CNN, CNN Newsroom with Carol Costello, 4/4/16]

NBC's Peter Alexander: “Most Economists” Consider Trump's Claim “Impossible.” NBC national correspondent Peter Alexander noted that “most economists consider” Trump's plan to eliminate the national debt in eight years “impossible” during the April 4 edition of NBC’s Today. [NBC, Today, 4/4/16]

CNBC's Ben White On Trump's Debt Proposal: “None Of It Adds Up.”CNBC contributor and Politico chief economic correspondent Ben White pointed out that Trump wants to “eliminate the national debt while not cutting any programs” and while “cutting taxes by $10 trillion over 10 years,” adding that “None of it adds up” during the April 4 edition of CNBC’s Squawk Box. [CNBC, Squawk Box, 4/4/16]

Fox Business’ Gerri Willis: “I Have To Tell You … I Don’t Think He Can Do It.” Fox Business host Gerri Willis admitted that “we’d be in big trouble” if Trump followed through with his proposal to eliminate the national debt while appearing on the April 4 edition of Fox News’ The Real Story. [Fox News, The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson, 4/4/16]

Trump Claims Across-The-Board Tax Cuts Will Benefit Everyone, Without Adding To National Debt

Trump Announces Plan To Cut Taxes, Including For The Wealthiest And Corporations. Trump announced his tax plan on September 28, in which, according to a Wall Street Journal article, Trump said he would “eliminate income taxes for millions of households, lower the tax rate on all businesses to 15% and change tax treatment of companies' overseas earnings.” The Journal additionally summarized that, “Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.” [The Wall Street Journal, 9/28/15]

Economists, Media Note Trump’s Tax Plan Would Benefit The Rich And Balloon The Deficit

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Calls Out Trump’s Contradictory Tax Proposals. ABC host George Stephanopoulos confronted Trump about his published tax plan, which overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, and his later contradictory statements suggesting he would raise taxes on the wealthy, saying, “You said recently again that you believe in raising taxes on the wealthy, including yourself. But your plan gives a massive tax cut to the wealthy.” Stephanopoulos pressed Trump on his contradictions nearly 10 times. [ABC, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 5/8/16]

Economist Chad Stone: Trump’s Tax Plan Benefits Millionaires The Most. Economist Chad Stone of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) wrote that Trump’s proposed tax plan would disproportionately benefit millionaires and would not necessarily lead to economic growth, writing, “Under the Trump ... Millionaires would get nearly 40 percent of Trump's tax cut, compared with less than a third for the bottom 80 percent.” Stone added, “Forget claims that these tax cuts would spur enormous economic growth that would benefit people of all incomes. Though tax cut proponents proclaim otherwise, there's little to no evidence that tax cuts unleash such economic growth, and promises of benefits at all income levels are belied by decades of rising inequality. [U.S. News & World Report, 4/29/16]

CNN: Trump's Tax Plan “A Boon For The Wealthiest Americans.” According to CNN, while Trump's plan does reduce income taxes for millions of Americans across the income spectrum, “the proposal would also be a boon for the wealthiest Americans like Trump.” [CNN, 9/28/15]

Wash. Post: Trump's Tax Policies Do Not “Soak The Rich ... Not Even A Little Bit.” In a post on The Washington Post's Wonkblog outlining Trump's tax policy proposal, Jim Tankersley explained why some people might mistakenly consider it “a populist plan,” and noted that Trump “did not promise, in so many words, a huge tax cut for … very rich people, but he delivered one anyway.” Tankersley explained that Trump’s proposed top income tax rate and top corporate tax rate are “both lower than what other Republicans had proposed,” and that “Those rate cuts will almost certainly offset the extra taxes most high earners and their companies would pay under Trump's plan, and then some.” [The Washington Post, Wonkblog, 9/28/15]

CNN's Errol Louis : Trump Tax Plan “Really Starts To Collapse” On Closer Inspection. CNN’s Errol Louis said on the September 29 edition of CNN’s New Day that Trump’s tax plan “really falls apart” under scrutiny and fails to provide proof that it will create the economic growth it promises. Louis said that Trump “is talking about something that is just extraordinary. There are those of us who feel that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is not extraordinary proof. It's just kind of an outline of a lot of ideas that have been hashed around before, have gone absolutely nowhere.” [CNN, New Day, 9/29/15]

MSNBC’s Benjy Sarlin: “Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Is Great For Donald Trump.” MSNBC political reporter Benjy Sarlin reported September 28 that “Trump’s plan looks like a windfall for the wealthiest of the wealthy and for big corporations” and that his proposed changes to income and estate taxes “would likely benefit people like Trump and businesses like his own in a major way.” [MSNBC.com, 9/28/15]

Tax Policy Center Analysis Finds Trump’s Tax Policy Would Generate Massive Debts. Fortune magazine reporter Jonathan Chew wrote, “An analysis of Donald Trump’s tax plan by a research institute [that] reveals two interesting points: the U.S. government would get a lot poorer, and the wealthy would get a lot richer,” because “Trump’s plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade, and an additional $15.0 trillion over the next 10 years.” [Fortune.com, 12/23/15]

Foreign Policy

Trump Calls For “America First” Foreign Policy That Completely Reshapes Long-Standing Alliances

Trump Gives Foreign Policy Speech With An “America First” Approach, Threatens U.S. Involvement In NATO. In a foreign policy speech on April 27, Trump criticized foreign policy decisions made by the Obama administration and promised to enact a foreign policy that will put “America first” including by convening summits in Europe in Asia “to overhaul NATO and rebalance nuclear security arrangements with Japan and South Korea.” [The New York Times, 4/27/16]

NY Times: Trump’s Opinions On Nuclear Proliferation, Long-Standing Alliances “Reflect Little Consideration For Potential Consequences.” The New York Times reported on March 26 that Trump said in an interview with the Times that as president, “he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies,” he “would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals” and he would be willing to renegotiate “many fundamental treaties with American allies.” The Times' David Sanger and Maggie Haberman wrote that Trump's positions “reflect little consideration for potential consequences.” [The New York Times, 3/26/16]

Trump Previously Refused To “Rule Out” Using Nuclear Weapons To Fight ISIS. Trump said he would not “rule out” using nuclear weapons in the Middle East to combat ISIS fighters during an April 28 interview on NBC’s Today. [Politico, 4/28/16]

Media Slam Trump’s “Dangerous” Foreign Policy Views As An “Embarrassment”

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria Called Out Trump’s “Jacksonian” “Embarrassment” Of A Foreign Policy Speech. CNN host Fareed Zakaria slammed Trump’s foreign policy speech as “populist pandering masquerading as strategy,” saying the “Jacksonian” “embarrassment” of a speech was a “a meandering collection of slogans that were mostly pablum” and contained “repeated contradictions.” [CNN, Fareed Zakaria GPS, 5/1/16]

USA Today: “Trump Vividly Portrayed A World That Does Not Exist.” The USA Today editorial board compared Trump’s speech to reality television, whose “correlation to actual reality is tenuous.” The board wrote in an April 27 editorial that “Trump vividly portrayed a world that does not exist” and that in his worldview, “things happen because he says they will.” The board also criticized his choice of naming his foreign policy America First, noting “the America First movement got its name espousing an isolationist approach at exactly the wrong moment, urging the United States to stay out of World War II as Adolf Hitler was rampaging through Europe.” [USA Today, 4/27/16]

NY Times: Trump’s Speech “Did Not Exhibit Much Grasp Of The Complexity Of The World.” The New York Times' editorial board criticized Trump’s speech, explaining that it “did not exhibit much grasp of the complexity of the world, understanding of the balance or exercise of power, or even a careful reading of history” in an April 27 editorial. The board wrote that Trump “did not display any willingness to learn or to correct his past errors,” which is “inexcusable” for the next president, and noted that Trump’s “views on America’s role in the world have until now been expressed in tweets, interviews and remarks at rallies that have alarmed nearly every foreign ally of the United States.” [The New York Times, 4/27/16]

Sacramento Bee: Trump’s Speech Was “Rambling, Vague And Incoherent.” In an April 27 editorial, headlined “Donald Trump shows dangerously incoherent foreign policy,” the Sacramento Bee characterized Trump’s speech as “full of platitudes and contradiction.” The editorial board wrote that “voters looking for reassurances about Trump as commander in chief can’t feel that much more comfortable” after his speech, noting that “his vision conflicts with a political consensus in support of alliances such as NATO.” [The Sacramento Bee, 4/27/16]

NY Daily News: Trump’s Foreign Policy Views Were “Incoherent, Internally Inconsistent, And Ultimately Dangerous.” The New York Daily News’ editorial board criticized Trump’s foreign policy vision, writing, “His nostrums for the world stage were incoherent, internally inconsistent, and ultimately dangerous,” in an April 28 editorial, adding that Trump “maintained his standing as a vacuous ignoramus.” [New York Daily News, 4/28/16]

Wash. Post: Trump’s “Proposals Were Loose, Frequently Contradictory And Embedded In A Bucket Of Falsehoods.” The Washington Post editorial board criticized Trump’s foreign policy proposals as “loose, frequently contradictory and embedded in a bucket of falsehoods” in an April 28 editorial. The board concluded, “It’s a good bet that the United States under a President Trump” would be unpredictable “to the peril of itself, and the rest of the world.” [The Washington Post, 4/28/16]

Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf: Trump’s “Ill-considered” Speech Was “Incoherent” And “Fact-Free.” Foreign Policy CEO and editor David Rothkopf derided Trump’s foreign policy speech as “incoherent” and “fact-free” on the April 27 edition of CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, adding that the speech “deserves to be ridiculed.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, 4/27/16]

NY Times: Trump Falsely Claimed Obama Has “Allowed China To Continue Its Economic Assault” On The United States. New York Times China correspondent Michael Forsythe noted that Trump's criticism of the Obama administration’s foreign policy toward China ignored the fact that the “administration has launched a volley of punitive trade actions against imports from China since 2009, including on tires, and, last month, on certain types of steel.” [The New York Times, 4/27/16]

NY Times' UN Bureau Chief: Trump’s Plans To Cooperate With Russia Are “Easier Said Than Done.” The New York Times' United Nations bureau chief Neil MacFarquhar explained that Trump’s call to have Russia and the United States “cooperate in fighting terrorism globally” ignored that “the Obama administration has been trying to figure out for months whether the Kremlin sincerely wants to fix the problem in Syria, or is merely trying to shore up its main Middle Eastern ally” and that the answer to that question “remains ambiguous.” [The New York Times, 4/27/16]

Politico: “Trump Fails To Impress Foreign-Policy Experts.” On April 27, Politico senior foreign affairs correspondent Michael Crowley reported that “even among natural allies, Trump's speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn” from the very audience it aimed to persuade. [Politico, 4/27/16]

Council On Foreign Relations’ Max Boot: “This Is Not Somebody Who Should Be Handed The Nuclear Codes.” Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot called Trump’s foreign policy speech a “tantrum that had a teleprompter” as well as “contradictory” and “bizarre” on the April 27 edition of MSNBC’s MTP Daily. [MSNBC, MTP Daily, 4/27/16]

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg: Trump Has “No Understanding Of The Post-War International Order That Was Created By The United States.” Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg criticized Trump for having “no understanding of the post-war international order that was created by the United States” on the March 27 edition of CBS’ Face the Nation, and added that it is “really remarkable to imagine that someone who shows so little interest in understanding why the world is organized the way it is organized is this close to the presidency of the world's only superpower.” [CBS, Face the Nation, 3/27/16]

NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Trump Is “Completely Uneducated About Any Part Of The World.” NBC’s chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said that Trump “is completely uneducated about any part of the world” on the March 27 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, explaining that Trump's foreign policy proposals, including his acceptance of the possibility that “Japan and South Korea go nuclear,” would go against “American policy for decades since World War II.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 3/27/16]

Wash. Post's Eugene Robinson: “Trump's Ignorance Of Government Policy, Both Foreign And Domestic, Is Breathtaking.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on March 24 that Trump's ignorance on foreign policy is “breathtaking,” adding that Trump “appears to know next to nothing about the issues that would confront him in the job.” Robinson called Trump ”vague and vapid" on foreign affairs, and questioned “whether it’s conceivable to put a man who knows so little in charge of so much.” [The Washington Post, 3/24/16]

CNN's David Gregory: “There's A Lot” In Trump's “World View That Is Not Very Well-Defined.” On the March 28 edition of CNN's New Day, CNN political analyst David Gregory said “There's a lot” in Trump's “world view that is not very well-defined, including how he would approach some of these very difficult decisions.” Gregory also pointed out that Trump has “been rather cozy in his respect for authoritarianism” in China and Russia. [CNN, New Day, 3/28/16]

The Atlantic's Steve Clemons: Trump's Proposals Show “A Real Ineptitude And Naiveté About How Foreign Policy Works.” Atlantic correspondent Steve Clemons slammed Trump's foreign policy “ineptitude and naiveté” on the March 27 edition of MSNBC Live, criticizing his threat to cut oil purchases from Saudi Arabia for ignoring the “history we have with the Saudis” and “the decades of alliance” between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Clemons ultimately called out Trump for having “no knowledge” of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. [MSNBC, MSNBC Live, 3/27/16]

Daily Beast's Jonathan Alter: Evidenced By His “Dangerous-Sounding” Foreign Policy Interview, “There Are Serious Consequences To A Donald Trump Presidency.” Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter slammed Trump's “dangerous-sounding” interview with the Times on the March 27 edition of MSNBC Live, stating, “There are serious consequences to a Donald Trump presidency,” and his lack of knowledge “about major parts of American history” threatens, among other things, “more than four million American jobs,” according to some estimates. [MSNBC, MSNBC Live, 3/27/16]

Newsday's Ellis Henican: “When It Comes To Foreign Policy, Donald Trump, He's Just Saying Stuff.” Newsday columnist Ellis Henican ripped Trump's lack of foreign policy expertise, saying “I'm not sure that ... he's really thought about it that much,” and that “he's just saying stuff” on the March 28 edition of MSNBC’s First Look. Henican further added that he and others are still “waiting for the list” of Trump's “best and brightest” foreign policy advisers. [MSNBC, First Look, 3/28/16]

CNN's Christiane Amanpour: Trump's Foreign Policy “Doesn't Make Sense When He Talks About” NATO, And He “Puts On Its Head Decades Of The United States And Its Pacific Allies' Security Relationship.” CNN anchor and chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour said Trump was wrong about the U.S. relationship with NATO and Asian allies on the March 28 edition of CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin. [CNN, CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, 3/28/16]

Daniel Drezner: Trump “Did Not Offer Much In The Way Of Clarity” On His Foreign Policy Positions. In a March 22 post, Tufts University international politics professor and Washington Post PostEverything blog contributor Daniel Drezner criticized Trump for “contradicting” himself on world affairs, asking “why should any person, foreign or American, trust anything you say about foreign policy?” [The Washington Post, PostEverything, 3/22/16]

McCain Institute's Erik Brattberg: Trump's “Doctrine” Is A “Radical Departure” From U.S. Foreign Policy. In a March 24 CNBC.com column, McCain Institute senior fellow Erik Brattberg argued that Trump's “scapegoating of allies and isolationist rhetoric” amounts to “lousy foreign policy for the United States.” [CNBC.com, 3/24/16]

PolitiFact Gave Trump Two “False” Ratings For Statements He Made During Foreign Policy Speech. On April 27, PolitiFact discredited Trump’s claims that he warned war in Iraq would “destabilize the Middle East” and that ISIS is “making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil.” [PolitiFact, 4/27/16; 4/27/16]

Trade

Trump Favors A 45 Percent Tariff On Chinese Exports To The United States

Trump: “I Would Tax China On Products Coming In. … I Would Do A Tariff.” Trump told the New York Times editorial board that he “would tax China on products coming in” at a 45 percent rate, saying, “I would do a tariff.” [New York Times, 1/7/16]

Experts Warn Trump Could Start Destructive “Trade Wars” With Trading Partners

NY Times: “Experts Warn Of Backlash In Donald Trump’s China Trade Policies.” The New York Times noted that “a range of experts agree that Mr. Trump’s proposals are more likely to deepen” America’s economic pains, “particularly if China or other targeted nations retaliate.” The Times quoted J .W. Mason, a professor of economics at John Jay College and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, who said of Trump’s tariff proposal, “‘There’s no way a tariff of this kind could deliver the kind of benefits that he’s talking about, and it’s quite wrong to think that the big problem for American workers has been foreign trade.’” Mason also said Trump’s proposed tariff “could be very destructive for the rest of the world.” [The New York Times, 5/2/16]

CNN Economic Analyst: Trump's Trade Proposals Are “Either A Bad Idea Or Impossible.” CNN global economic analyst Rana Foroohar called Trump’s trade proposals “either a bad idea or impossible,” adding that “slapping tariffs penalizes everybody, it makes stuff more expensive, it tends to create trade wars.” Foroohar added that Trump’s “plans are not going to get us the jobs. He's not going to renegotiate trade deals with China and bring back jobs en masse to the U.S.” because “There is no way Xi Jinping is going to roll over and let Donald Trump say what the next trade deal is going to look like.” [CNN, New Day, 5/6/16]

Reuters: Trump’s Plan Could “Spark Trade Wars” And “Financial Market Turmoil.” Reuters reporters David Lawder and Roberta Rampton slammed Trump’s tariff plans, saying that “they would likely backfire, severely disrupting U.S. manufacturers that increasingly depend on global supply chains.” Lawder and Rampton wrote that according to former trade negotiators, trade lawyers, and economists, Trump’s proposed tariffs “would spark financial market turmoil and possibly even a recession.” [Reuters, 3/24/16]

Wash. Post’s Jim Tankersley: “The United States Would Fall Into Recession” And Millions “Would Lose Their Jobs” With Trump’s Proposed Tariffs. Washington Post economic reporter Jim Tankersley reported that an “economic model of Trump's proposals, prepared by Moody's Analytics” showed that “if Trump levied his proposed tariffs” and China and Mexico retaliated with tariffs of their own “the United States would fall into recession” and “Up to 4 million American workers would lose their jobs.” The model also projected that the U.S. economy “would be 4.6 percent smaller by the end of 2019 if America levies tariffs on China and Mexico and those countries respond, compared to where it would be with no tariffs” and that “the unemployment rate would hit 9.5 percent in the middle of 2019.” [The Washington Post, Wonkblog, 3/25/16]

WSJ: “Trump’s Hard Line On Trade Could Backfire.” The Wall Street Journal’s Bob Davis reported that projections conducted by Brandeis University economist Peter Petri found Trump’s tariff plans “would trigger reverberations around the world,” adding that the transition to Trump’s plan “could cost the U.S. even more than the one million jobs economists say are at risk.” Petri said that following Trump’s tariffs would be “likely to unsettle global markets,” further noting that while the models aren’t exact “they give an idea of the economic pain the nation would suffer.” [The Wall Street Journal, 3/24/16]

NFAP Report: Trump's Tariff Plan Puts Undue Burden On Low-Income Households. The National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) detailed the economic dangers that Trump's proposed tariffs against China and Mexico pose to low-income Americans, explaining that “the impact would hit poor Americans the hardest.” The report states that Trump's proposed tariffs “would be as if the United States imposed a new tax of 53% on the lowest 10% income decile and a 20% tax on the next lowest decile.” [NFAP, May 2016]

Second Amendment And Gun Safety

Trump Advocates For Getting Rid Of Gun-Free Zones And Arming More People With Guns

Trump Says He Will “Get Rid Of Gun-Free Zones On Schools” And Military Bases. During a January 7 campaign rally in Vermont, Donald Trump vowed to “get rid” of “gun-free zones” on schools and military bases if he were to become president, saying a “gun-free zone” is “bait” to a “sicko.” Trump claimed that the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, CA, “would be a whole different story” if more “good guys” were armed. [The Hill, 1/7/16]

Media And Experts Note Most Mass Shootings Are Not In “Gun-Free Zones,” More Guns Are Linked To More Gun Violence, And There Is No Evidence Civilians Carrying Firearms Stop Shootings

Wash. Post: “Little Data” Supports Trump's Claim About “Gun-Free Zones.” The Washington Post's Christopher Ingraham debunked Trump's debate assertion that places that do not allow guns attract mass shooters, concluding that ”little data supports this claim." As Ingraham explained, an analysis of public mass shootings shows that gunmen do not choose their targets because of gun policies but rather “you typically find that gunmen have a grievance attached to a particular location” that forms the motive for the shooting. Ingraham also cited an analysis of 110 mass shootings that occurred between January 2009 and July 2014 that “found that only 14 percent of those shootings took place in a so-called 'gun-free' zone.” [The Washington Post, 10/29/15]

Study: Only 13 Percent Of Mass Shootings Between 2009 And 2015 Took Place In So-Called “Gun-Free Zones.” An analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety looked at the 133 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 and found that only 13 percent of those mass shootings took place in a “gun-free zone,” while the vast majority of shootings took place where carrying a gun is legally permitted. [Everytown for Gun Safety, 8/20/15]

Mother Jones: There Is “Zero Evidence To Support” Claims That Shooters Target “Gun-Free Zones” Or That Armed Civilians Stop Mass Attacks. A Mother Jones investigation into public mass shootings in America found that none of 62 mass public shootings over a 30-year period analyzed by the magazine were stopped by citizens with firearms, and that “in cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed.” The investigation also revealed that “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” [Mother Jones, 4/1/13]

Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy And Research: Concealed Carry Laws Most Consistently Linked To Increase In Aggravated Assault. An October 2012 report from the Center for Gun Policy and Research summarized existing research on concealed carry laws and found that looser restrictions on carrying firearms in public resulted in a “one to nine percent increase in aggravated assaults.” [Johns Hopkins University, Center for Gun Policy and Research, October 2012]

Harvard Injury Control Research Center: “In Homes, Cities, States And Regions In The US, Where There Are More Guns,” There Is A Higher Risk Of Gun Homicides. According to a series of peer-reviewed studies published by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, higher levels of gun ownership are associated with higher homicide rates at the city, state, and national level in the United States and other developed nations. The literature review notes that “where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.” [Harvard Injury Control Research Center, accessed 12/3/15]

Stanford University Research: “Totality Of The Evidence” Suggests Concealed Carry Laws Increase Violent Crime. Research conducted at Stanford University found associations between laws allowing concealed guns to be carried in public with increased rates of rape, murder, aggravated assault, and robbery, providing “the most convincing evidence to date that right-to-carry laws are associated with an increase in violent crime.” The research noted, “The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent - and this may actually be understated.” [Stanford University, 11/14/14]

Reproductive Rights

Trump Said Women Should Be Punished For Having An Abortion

Trump: “There Has To Be Some Form Of Punishment” For Abortion. Trump said that “there has to be some form of punishment” in response to host Chris Matthews' question “Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?” during a March 30 MSNBC town hall. [Media Matters, 3/31/16]

Trump’s Abortion Comments Decried As “Unhinged,” A “Disaster,” And “Mind-Bending”

Rachel Maddow: Trump’s Abortion Comments Are “So Out Of Touch And So Facile … It Is Mind-Bending.” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow slammed Trump’s comments that women seeking abortion should be punished, calling his comments “so out of touch and so facile right now it is mind-bending.” [Media Matters, 3/31/16]

Wash. Post’s Philip Bump: “Donald Trump Took 5 Different Positions On Abortion In 3 Days.” The Washington Post’s Philip Bump created a timeline of Trump’s shifting position on abortion, noting that not only did he change his abortion stance several times after his comments to Matthews, but that Trump “has held multiple contradicting positions” going as far back as 1989. [The Washington Post, 4/3/16]

Slate’s Christina Cauterucci: “Trump Will Be Glad To Hear That Women Seeking Abortions Are Already Punished.” Slate reporter Christina Cauterucci undercut Trump’s argument that women seeking abortions should be punished by noting nine different ways women “are already punished here in the United States of America,” including: “Women are fed misleading information and outright lies by doctors,” “women must walk through gantlets of protesters calling them murderers,” “women seeking abortions at 20 weeks gestation or later are forced to take anesthetic drugs, even if it’s against their will,” and “women must make two separate visits to a clinic, requiring extra time and money for transportation, time off work, child care, and travel expenses.” [Slate, 3/30/16]

Wash. Post’s Ruth Marcus: Trump’s Abortion Comments Reveal His “Unreadiness” And “His Party’s Intellectual Dishonesty.” The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus slammed Trump’s abortion comments as a “disaster” that “revealed … his own unreadiness for prime-time,” as well as “his party’s intellectual dishonesty” on the issue of abortion. [The Washington Post, 3/31/16]

Immigration

Trump Advocates For Mass Deportation And Ending Birthright Citizenship

AP: Trump's Immigration Plan Would Deny Citizenship To The Children Of Undocumented Immigrants Born In The U.S. In an immigration plan announced in August, Donald Trump called for the end of birthright citizenship, expanded immigration enforcement efforts such as “deportation for millions” of undocumented immigrants, and a permanent border wall, which he would “make Mexico pay for.” [Associated Press, 8/17/15; DonaldJTrump.com, accessed 5/9/16]

Media Call Out Trump’s “Impractical,” “Clueless,” And “Inhumane” Immigration Plan

Bloomberg: Trump’s “Impractical” Immigration Plans Would Cost Billions Of Dollars To Implement. Bloomberg outlined four reasons that Trump’s immigration proposal is “impractical” and noted that the plan wasn’t likely to become a reality because his policy prescriptions are “impractical, expensive and may violate NAFTA as well as the U.S. Constitution, according to experts.” [Bloomberg, 8/17/15]

USA Today’s Raul Reyes: Trump's “Clueless” Immigration Plan Is “Impractical At Best And At Worst Inhumane.” In a CNN.com op-ed, Raul Reyes, an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors, explained that Trump's immigration policy plan is full of ideas that “are impractical at best and at worst inhumane,” adding that “his plans could well stunt our economic growth.” Reyes also referred to the idea that Mexico would pay for a border wall as “laughable.” [CNN.com, 8/17/15]

Wash. Post Editorial Board: “Trump's Immigration Plan Would Wreak Havoc On U.S. Society." The Washington Post's editorial board wrote on August 17 that Trump’s immigration proposal “is nothing less than manufacturing a humanitarian upheaval on a scale rivaling the refugee crisis in Syria.” The board referred to the proposal as “nativist rhetoric” and noted that the labor markets in construction, hospitality, child care and landscaping would be “severely disrupted.” [The Washington Post, 8/17/15]

Univision's Jorge Ramos: Trump's Deportation Plan “Would Create Massive Human Rights Violations” And Cost Billions. On August 17, Fusion and Univision anchor Jorge Ramos called Trump’s plan to build a wall “absurd and a waste of money,” noting that most undocumented immigrants come by plane. Ramos also noted that Trump’s deportation plans would cost billions and would “create massive human rights violations.” [Twitter.com, 8/17/15; 8/17/15]

CNN En Español's Juan Carlos Lopez: Trump's Proposals “Don't Make Sense.” CNN En Español host Juan Carlos López pointed out that Trump's proposals “don't make sense” during the August 17 edition of Directo USA, adding that the plan isn't feasible as it would violate current free-trade agreements and require a constitutional amendment which is unlikely to pass. [Translated from CNN en Español, Directo USA, 8/17/15]

La Opinión: Trump's Massive Deportation Plan: “Huge Expenditure” And “Economic Decrease.” La Opinión cited a March 2015 study by the conservative American Action Forum to state that Trump's plan would raise federal spending by $600 billion, while “notoriously reducing” the size of the American economy. [Translated from La Opinión, 8/17/15; American Action Forum, 3/6/15]

NY Times: Experts Say Trump's Immigration Plans “Would In Many Ways Defy The Logic Of Science, Engineering And Law.” The New York Times reported that many “Former senior immigration and border officials are skeptical” of Trump's immigration plans, saying experts “warn that [the plans] would come at astronomical costs” and “in many ways would defy the logic of science, engineering and law.” The Times report categorizes Trump’s plan for mass deportations as “adding chaos to dysfunction” and notes that experts warn not only that “Finding those immigrants would be difficult,” but also that “wholesale deportations could make it easier for immigrant gang members and drug traffickers to escape detection.” Additionally, when it comes to Trump’s plan to build a wall, experts say “building it would be a daunting task and cause more problems than it would solve.” [The New York Times, 5/19/16]

Trump Praised Eisenhower’s Deportation Program During November Debate

Trump Praises Eisenhower's Deportation Procedures: “You Don't Get Nicer, You Don't Get Friendlier.” During the November 10 Fox Business Republican debate, Trump praised Dwight Eisenhower's deportation program, which moved “a million and a half illegal immigrants out of this country.” Trump claimed, “you don't get nicer, you don't get friendlier” than Eisenhower, while failing to disclose the name of the program, “Operation Wetback.” [Fox Business, Republican Presidential Candidates Debate, 11/10/15]

Media Slam Trump For Invoking “An Unabashedly Racist Program” As A Model For His Immigration Plans

Slate: The “Brutal” Program Cited By Trump Was “Not Exactly A Proud Moment In American History.” A November 11 Slate article said that the program Trump “loves so much” was “brutal.” Slate elaborated on the methods used during “Operation Wetback,” which included transporting immigrants on cargo boats “that a Congressional investigation likened to an '18th century slave ship'” and "[t]rain-lifts across the borders ... described by observers as 'indescribable scenes of human misery and tragedy." The article concluded that the deportation program was “not exactly a proud moment in American history.” [Slate, 11/11/15]

Wash. Post: The Program “Trump Intends To Follow” Has Been Considered By Many Scholars “A Painful Part Of National History.” The Washington Post reported that “the deportation model that Donald Trump says he intends to follow,” which included migrants being "'brought like cows' into the desert," has been “considered by many immigration scholars as a painful part of national history because of the documented abuse that Mexican migrants suffered during and after their deportations.” [The Washington Post, 11/11/15]

Rolling Stone: Trump Endorsed “An Unabashedly Racist Program In Which Nearly A Million Human Beings Were Terrorized By Our Government.” Rolling Stone condemned Trump for “reviv[ing] his execrable anti-immigrant politics” by endorsing an “unabashedly racist program” where nearly a million immigrants were “treated with less dignity than farm animals.” The article pointed out that the “policy that Trump praised” created “an indelible stain on our history.” [Rolling Stone, 11/10/15]

Newsweek: The Policy Trump Cited As “An Example Of Successful Deportation” Has Been Called “Dehumanizing” By Historians. Newsweek reported that, although Trump's “suggestion sounded compassionate,” a deportation program like Eisenhower's “could have harsh implications for the undocumented today.” The article noted that “historians have questioned both the efficacy and the ethics of the 1950s policy” that Trump cited “as an example of successful deportation.” [Newsweek, 11/11/15]

The New Republic: Trump “Turned A Horrific Episode In American History Into Kind Of A Fairytale.” The New Republic described how Trump “tried to make mass deportation seem almost folksy” by turning “a horrific episode in American history into kind of a fairytale.”[The New Republic, 11/10/15]

Univision's Jorge Ramos: The Eisenhower Plan Trump Cited Was A “Tragedy, Useless and Unfair.” Fusion and Univision anchor Jorge Ramos denounced the flaws in Trump's deportation plan, tweeting that it can't be done in “two years without human rights violations.” He called Eisenhower's “Operation Wetback” -- which Trump cited as a blueprint for his own plan -- a “tragedy, useless and unfair.” [Twitter.com, 11/11/15]

NBC Latino Contributor: Trump Brought “Radical Notions” To Mainstream Politics, Invoking Program That “Led To Massive Civil Rights Abuses And Even Deaths.” Providing commentary on the debate as part of a Latino panel, NBC Latino contributor and USA Today board of contributors member Raul Reyes chastised Trump for bringing “radical notions into the mainstream of politics” noting that it was “astonishing” that Donald Trump would invoke “Operation Wetback.” [NBCNews.com, 11/11/15]

Trump Says He’ll Force Mexico To Pay For A Border Wall By Cutting Off Remittances

Wash. Post: Trump Would “Cut Off The Flow Of Billions” In Remittances Sent To Mexico As Leverage To “Force Mexico To Pay For A Border Wall.” According to an April 5 Washington Post report, Trump said he “would seek to force Mexico to pay for his 1,000-mile border fence” by “threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country.” [The Washington Post, 4/5/16]

Media, Experts Criticize Trump’s Remittance Plan As “A Mistake,” Question Its Legality

CNN's Chris Cuomo Asks Whether Trump's Plan To Block Remittances Would Be “Abusing The Victims.” On the April 5 edition of CNN's New Day, host Chris Cuomo asked Trump campaign representative Healy Baumgardner whether Trump's proposal to block immigrant remittances as leverage would be “abusing the victims,” noting that the recipients of remittances are often “incredibly impoverished families.” [CNN, New Day, 4/5/16]

ABC's Tom Llamas: “It’s Unclear” If Trump's Proposal To Block Remittances As Leverage Is “Even Legal.” ABC correspondent Tom Llamas raised doubts about Trump's plan, saying it would “choke the Mexican economy.” “It's unclear if that's even legal and it would definitely fracture our relationship with a key ally and a trading partner,” said Llamas on the April 5 edition of ABC’s Good Morning America. [ABC,Good Morning America, 4/5/16]

Univision Noticias: Expert Explained That Trump's Plan To Block Remittances “Is Not Feasible.” In a report updated on April 5, Univision Noticias' Damià S. Bonmatí slammed Trump's plan, explaining that according to an expert on remittances, Manuel Orozco, the plan “is not feasible.” [Translated from Univision Noticias, accessed 4/5/16]

ABC News Cites Experts Who Say “Blocking Money Transfers” To Mexico “Would Be A Mistake.” In an April 5 article, ABC News' Susanna Kim explained the consequences of implementing Trump's plan. Kim cites Aaron Klein, a Brookings Institution fellow, who said the plan “would be a pretty sharp departure from current practice” and that the laws that Trump intends to change -- the Patriot Act and the Dodd-Frank bill -- “were never intended to be used to threaten to cut off the flow of migrant worker remittances for foreign policy aims.” According to another expert, Michael Clemens, senior fellow with the Center for Global Development, “Mr. Trump's notions about remittances offer one of many examples of his outright ignorance about economics, and even worse, his lack of interest in basing policy on facts.” [ABCNews.com, 4/5/16]

Slate: Trump's Timeline For Plan Is Not “How The Painstaking Process Of Federal Rulemaking Typically Works.” In an April 5 article, Slate senior business and economics correspondent Jordan Weissman poked holes in Trump's plan to block remittances as a way to pressure Mexico to pay for a border wall, saying Trump's three-day plan “is not how the painstaking process of federal rulemaking typically works,” and that remittance service providers would probably litigate the plan “and lock this issue up in court for years.” [Slate, 4/5/16]

Fox News Latino: Experts “Questioned The Legality” Of Trump's Plan, Called It “A Large Expansion” Of What The Patriot Act Allows. On April 5, Fox News Latino's Andrew O'Reilly wrote that Trump's plan “raises complicated legal questions.” Experts he quoted enumerated concerns with Trump's proposal to block remittances to Mexico, including “driv[ing] more people into the illicit economy,” and they raised questions about the legality of expanding the reach of the Patriot Act, as well as potential damage to the American economy. [Fox News Latino, 4/5/16]

Univision's Detector De Mentiras: Experts Say Trump's Plan “Would Be Extreme And Outside Of Current Legal Parameters.” On April 5, Univision's fact-checking division, Detector de Mentiras, considered whether the president of the United States would have the power to implement Trump's plan to block remittances to Mexico. According to experts they consulted, including former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela, Trump's “absurd measure” has no “legal or political basis.” [Translated from Univision.com, Detector de Mentiras, 4/5/16]

Religious Profiling

Trump Calls For “A Total And Complete Shutdown Of Muslims Entering The United States”

Trump: Muslims Should Be Banned From Coming Into The United States “Until Our Country's Representatives Can Figure Out What's Going On.” On December 7, Trump published a press release saying he is “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.” Trump's statement claimed that “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population,” and said, “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” [DonaldJTrump.com, 12/7/15]

Media Figures Denounce Trump's “Dangerous,” “Fascistic” Ban On Muslims Entering The U.S.

NBC Veteran Journalist Tom Brokaw Blasts Trump's “Dangerous Proposal” To Ban Muslims. Veteran journalist Tom Brokaw slammed Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims as “a dangerous proposal that overrides history, the law, and the foundation of America itself” on the December 8 edition of NBC Nightly News. Brokaw compared Trump’s proposal to previous instances where “the consequences of paranoia [overrode] reason,” including the Holocaust and Japanese internment camps. [NBC, NBC Nightly News, 12/8/15]

NBC News' Richard Engel: “This Is Really Not The Country I Know.” NBC News' Richard Engel stated, “This is really not the country that I know,” asserting that Trump's proposal is “a black spot on our collective foreign policy and our conscience” that “also just feeds into the ISIS narrative” on the December 7 edition of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show. [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 12/7/15]

Slate's Josh Voorhees: Trump’s “Xenophobic Plan” Is “As Disgusting As It Almost Certainly Is Unconstitutional.” In a December 7 piece in Slate titled “Donald Trump's No-Muslims-Allowed Policy Is Disgusting -- But Hardly Surprising,” Josh Vorhees wrote, “The shock over Trump's proposal is certainly warranted,” considering that “the Republican Party's long-time polling front-runner [is] putting forth a clearly xenophobic plan that is as disgusting as it almost certainly is unconstitutional.” [Slate, 12/7/15]

Daily Beast's Tim Mak: It Is “Still Neutral To Call A Fascistic Proposal, A Fascistic Proposal.” The Daily Beast's senior congressional correspondent, Tim Mak, responded to Donald Trump's statement by writing on Twitter, “Still neutral to call a fascistic proposal, a fascistic proposal.” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

National Journal's Ron Fournier: “Focus Less On *Whether* Trump's Bigotry & Bullying Will Hurt Him And More On Why It *Should*.” National Journal columnist Ron Fournier condemned Trump's plan, which he labeled as demagoguery, writing on Twitter: “TV Pundits: Can we focus less on *whether* Trump's bigotry & bullying will hurt him and more on why it *should*?” Fournier further encouraged pundits to “denounce demagoguery.” [Twitter.com, 12/8/15]

The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza: “The Trump Internment Camps Are Going To Be Really Classy.” The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza responded to a statement from Donald Trump's campaign defending his position, writing on Twitter, “The Trump internment camps are going to be really classy.” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

Journalist Glenn Greenwald Places Blame For Trump's Anti-Muslim Policy Proposals On “The Toxic Anti-Muslim Polemicists Stoking This Sickness.” Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted that Trump's policy proposal “is the fault of Trump first, but it's also the doing of the toxic anti-Muslim polemicists stoking this sickness.” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson: “Trump's Fascist Call To Ban Muslims Cites A Bogus Poll.” Charles Johnson of the Little Green Footballs blog tweeted that “Trump's fascist call to ban Muslims cites a bogus poll from the far right anti-Muslim Center for Security Policy.” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

The Guardian's Jill Filipovic Asked If “Trump Just Went From Fascist-Lite To Fascist-Fascist.” Guardian columnist Jill Filipovic tweeted, “Trump just went from fascist-lite to fascist-Fascist, right?” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

Mother Jones' David Corn: “Trump: My Kristallnact Will Be The Best Kristallnacht. It Will Be Huge.” Mother Jones D.C. editor David Corn responded to Trump, tweeting,“Trump: ‘My kristallnact will be the best kristallnacht. It will be huge.’” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

Vocativ's Erin Gloria Ryan: “Donald Trump Is A Human ISIS Recruitment Video.” Vocativ deputy editor Erin Gloria Ryan reacted to Trump's suggestion to bar Muslims from entering the United States by calling Trump “a human ISIS recruitment video.” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

Right Wing Watch's Brian Tashman Tweeted That Trump's Announcement Is Proof For “Anyone [Who] Was On The Fence About Whether Trump Is A Fascist Or Not.” Right Wing Watch's Brian Tashman tweeted about Trump's announcement to bar Muslims from entering the United States, “So if anyone was on the fence about whether Trump is a fascist or not… .” [Twitter.com, 12/7/15]

Philadelphia Daily News: Trump Is “The New Furor.” The Philadelphia Daily News ran a photo of Trump with one arm outstretched on the cover of the December 8 print edition of its newspaper, along with the text “The New Furor.” [Twitter, 12/8/15]

NY Times: Trump’s Proposal Is “An Idea More Typically Associated With Hate Groups.” The New York Times’ Patrick Healy and Michael Barbaro called Trump’s proposal “an extraordinary escalation of rhetoric aimed at voters’ fears” and quoted immigration and legal experts who called Trump's proposal “antithetical to the history of the United States” and predicted it would be struck down by the Supreme Court “as an overly restrictive immigration policy under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.” [The New York Times, 12/7/15]

AP: “Legal Experts” Call Trump’s Proposed Ban ”Unconstitutional" And “Impossible To Carry Out.” The Associated Press reported that legal experts say the proposed ban is “not only unconstitutional, but also impossible to carry out.” The AP quotes one law professor saying Trump’s proposal constitutes “an attack on the very foundation of the United States” and another saying the ban ”amounts to a religious test for anyone wanting to enter the country," which would be “unprecedented in U.S. history.” [Associated Press, 12/8/15]

Wash. Post: "Experts: Trump's Muslim Entry Ban Idea 'Ridiculous,' 'Unconstitutional.'" In a December 7 article in The Washington Post, constitutional experts lambasted Trump's proposal. One expert said, “This would not only violate international law, but do so by embracing open discrimination against one religion. It would make the United States a virtual pariah among nations.” [Washington Post, 12/7/15]

NY Times' Frank Bruni: Trump “Has Given The Islamic State ... A Piece Of Propaganda As Big As Any Of His Resorts.” In a December 8 op-ed, New York Times opinion columnist Frank Bruni stated that Trump “has practically collaborated with the enemy by playing into a narrative of Muslim persecution.” [The New York Times, 12/8/15]

NBC News' Richard Engel: Trump's Policy “Just Feeds Into The ISIS Narrative,” And Presents “A National Security Issue.” NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel slammed Trump's proposal to ban foreign Muslims from the United States, saying it “feeds into the ISIS narrative,” and “it is a national security issue.” Engel, who was speaking on the December 7 edition of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, explained that ISIS claims “the world is against Muslims and we, ISIS, are defending Muslims. So here comes Mr. Trump and says ISIS is right.” [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 12/7/15]

NY Times' Thomas Friedman: “By Alienating The Muslim World” Trump “Is Acting As The Islamic State's Secret Agent.” In a December 9 op-ed, New York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman stated that Trump's anti-Muslim proposals alienate Muslims and feed into ISIS' recruiting process, and added, “Lumping all Muslims together as our enemies will only make” defeating ISIS “harder.” [The New York Times, 12/9/15]

American Prospect's Robert Kuttner: “Every Time Trump Disparages Muslims Who Are Not Radicals, He Increases The Chances That Some Will Turn Into Radicals.” In a December 8 article, American Prospect co-founder and editor Robert Kuttner called out Trump for disparaging Muslims, writing that his “collected speeches are like an ISIS recruiting video.” [The American Prospect, 12/8/15]

Boston Globe Editorial Cartoon Depicts ISIS Saying “Trump Is Playing Right Into Our Hands.” In a December 8 editorial cartoon, Boston Globe cartoonist Dan Wasserman depicted ISIS members reading about Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from the United States and saying, “Trump is playing right into our hands” with this proposal. [The Boston Globe, 12/8/15]

ThinkProgress: Trump's “Rhetoric Bolsters The Message Of Extremist Groups Like ISIS.” In a December 8 article, ThinkProgress' Justin Salhani explained that “experts say [Trump's] rhetoric bolsters the message of extremist groups like ISIS.” Salhani wrote that Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy proposals help ISIS gain “support by convincing vulnerable youths prone to ideological radicalization that the west has an aversion to Islam.” [ThinkProgress, 12/8/15]

NBC News: “Donald Trump's Call For Closing America's Door To Muslims Is Opening A Window Of Opportunity For Groups Like ISIS.” In a December 8 article, NBC News' F. Brinley Bruton and Corky Siemaszko said experts have observed that Trump's proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States “is being used by the head-chopping fanatics and other terrorists groups like al Qaeda to attract recruits by painting the land of the free as opposed to Islam.” [NBCNews.com, 12/8/15]

MSNBC Analyst And Counterterrorism Expert: “We Are Standing By Right Now To See An ISIS Video Come Up With Donald Trump.” On the December 8 edition of MSNBC's MTP Daily, MSNBC analyst and counterterrorism expert Malcolm Nance explained to host Chuck Todd that Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric is helping ISIS and jeopardizing U.S. intelligence missions. [MSNBC, MTP Daily,12/8/15]

This post has been updated to include additional examples.