Donald Trump’s Imaginary “They” – A Satirical Analysis of Vague Pronouns and Grandiose Claims

Donald Trump has long had a habit of invoking a mysterious “they” in his speeches and interviews. From “they told me” and “they said” to “they had a meeting”, the president frequently refers to unspecified people who apparently give him information, praise (most often), or warnings. These unnamed figures pop up throughout Trump’s public life, serving as foils, supporters, or even villains in his narratives. This article takes a satirical yet analytical look at Trump’s recurring use of vague pronouns – “they” – and explores how this rhetorical quirk contributes to ambiguity, exaggeration, and the cult-of-personality aura surrounding him. Along the way, we’ll examine possible reasons (strategy or spontaneity?).

The Phantom “They” in Trump’s Quotes

Trump’s speeches and remarks are peppered with references to “they” that often leave listeners wondering: Who exactly are “they”? This vagueness is not a one-time slip; it’s a pattern that stretches across his career. The most recent one I can think of was when he said, “They had a meeting this morning.” When pressed for details about supposed U.S.-China trade talks, Trump insisted, “They had a meeting this morning... It doesn’t matter who they [are]”​. In this instance, “they” were presumably Chinese officials or intermediaries—but Trump pointedly declined to clarify, adding an extra layer of mystery. By saying “it doesn’t matter who ‘they’,” he effectively told the public to take his word on faith, without any concrete source. It’s as if “they” were secret confidants only he is privy to, enhancing his self-portrayal as the man with insider knowledge.

Trump loves to recount how “they” doubted him, only to be proven wrong. In his 2021 farewell address, touting the speedy development of COVID-19 vaccines, he bragged: “They said it couldn’t be done but we did it. They call it a medical miracle”. Who are they in this context? Possibly experts, critics, or just a generic chorus of naysayers. By defeating this unspecified “they”, Trump casts himself as the ultimate victor over conventional wisdom. The lack of a clear antagonist allows “they said it couldn’t be done” to sound grandiose—everyone doubted, but Trump prevailed. It’s ambiguity leveraged for self-congratulation.

If you look closely, frequently, Trump introduces anecdotes with “they told me” or “they said” to lend weight to his point. In one early address as President, he described meeting Harley-Davidson executives, saying, “They told me... that it’s very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate. They said that in the case of another country, they taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent”​. Here, “they” actually refers to identified people (Harley-Davidson employees). Yet, Trump’s phrasing still makes it sound like they are a unified voice of authority verifying his worldview. By prefacing statements with “they told me,” he implies credible folks have informed me, so you should believe this claim. It’s a rhetorical flourish that adds a sheen of legitimacy, whether or not they said exactly what he claims.

On the campaign trail and in interviews, Trump often invokes “they” as adoring fans or grateful citizens showering him with praise. A satirical highlight came in 2024, when Trump told Fox News that “I have steel people, that every time they see me, they start to cry. They hug me. They said, ‘You saved our industry.’”. These steelworkers remain nameless, of course, and exist only in Trump’s anecdote. The imagery is almost cinematic: burly, blue-collar “steel people” reduced to tears and embracing him like a savior. If it sounds a bit fantastical, that’s because it likely is – Trump has recycled this “crying tough guys” story many times. In fact, he has a whole repertoire of mythical admirers: in 2019, Trump claimed a big, strong man cried and told him, “Sir, you give me back my life and my property”​; in 2018, another supposedly wept, saying, “Mr. President, thank you for saving America”. None of these emotional episodes were ever corroborated by footage or named individuals, but “they said” it happened, so that’s that. The they in these tales function like imaginary friends validating Trump’s greatness—pop-up characters who conveniently deliver compliments and vindication on cue.

Just as often as “they” appear as cheerleaders, they also play the enemy in Trump’s narratives. During a 2019 rally, Trump cast “they” as an ominous alliance of Democrats, media, and bureaucrats conspiring against him and his supporters. “The Democrats, the media, and the deep state are desperate to stop us… they want to stop us because they know we are here...draining the swamp”​, he thundered. By collapsing all opponents into a vague “they”, Trump creates a broad-brush villain for his base to rally against. It is the us (patriots) vs. them, with “they” embodying everything from political rivals to shadowy insiders. This nebulous scapegoating fuels ambiguity (who exactly is “they” this time?) but also intensifies the sense of struggle and persecution. If they are everywhere and nowhere, lurking in every institution, then Trump can portray himself as the lone bulwark protecting “us” from “them.”

Perhaps the most telling use of “they” is when Trump positions himself as the proxy target for attacks on his followers. He told the crowd at a June 2023 rally following his indictment: “At the end of the day, they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in the way.”​. In this formulation, “they” represents the justice system or political establishment that dared charge him, and Trump casts the situation as they vs. you, with himself as the human shield. It’s a powerful piece of cult-of-personality theater: Trump suggests that “they” hate the American people so much that “they” will persecute him to get to you. This dramatic victim-hero inversion turns an indictment of Trump into an attack on his supporters, further binding the base to their leader. After all, if “they” are out to get you, and Trump is “just standing in the way,” then any criticism or legal action against Trump must be fiercely opposed as an assault on the movement. By using “they” in this manner, Trump effectively gaslights his audience, encouraging them to see him as the selfless protector and to view objective reality (e.g., evidence of wrongdoing) as just “them” trying to hurt “us.”

These examples show the range of Trump’s nebulous “they”: sometimes they are purported insiders giving him information or accolades; other times they are faceless antagonists thwarting him and his supporters. In every case, though, “they” remains conveniently undefined. This deliberate vagueness lets Trump amplify a story or claim without pinning it to a verifiable source. It’s ambiguity as a feature, not a bug, of his communication style.

Why Does Trump Say “They”? – Possible Explanations

Trump’s recurring use of an unspecified “they” raises the question: why does he do it? Is it a calculated communication tactic or an off-the-cuff habit born of his psyche? Several (not mutually exclusive) interpretations emerge:

Communication Strategy (Strategic Ambiguity): 

One school of thought is that Trump uses “they say” and similar phrases as a deliberate rhetorical strategy. By attributing claims to “a lot of people” or “they,” he can introduce rumors or exaggerations while distancing himself from them​. As the Washington Post noted during his 2016 campaign, Trump frequently couches controversial ideas with qualifiers like “a lot of people are saying…” – it gives him plausible deniability if the claim backfires​. In other words, vague “they” statements allow him to float conspiracy theories or dubious information (“Many people are saying X”) without owning the responsibility. If the claim gains traction, he takes credit; if it’s disproven, he shrugs that he was repeating what “they” said. This strategic ambiguity keeps his options open and his base intrigued. No single “they” can be definitively debunked, because Trump never gives enough detail to pin it down.

Compulsive Exaggeration or Confabulation: 

Another explanation leans towards Trump’s personal temperament – he has a showman’s flair for exaggeration and, arguably, a tenuous relationship with factual accuracy. Using “they” might be a habit of embellishment. It’s as if his mind constantly produces confabulations – a term in psychology for filling in gaps in memory or facts with fabricated stories one believes to be true. Trump may genuinely believe “they” told him or “they” said something, because it feels true or makes for a better story. For instance, the vivid anecdotes of crying strangers thanking him could be a form of self-aggrandizing storytelling he compulsively deploys to validate himself. Whether he knows these accounts are invented or has talked himself into believing them is anyone’s guess. The result is the same: a lot of unverifiable tales starring a nameless “they.” Viewed kindly, this could be seen as Trump’s imaginative way of communicating (albeit detached from reality); viewed critically, it’s habitual fabrication. Either way, it certainly contributes to his legend. After all, if throngs of unnamed people “told him” he’s right, then it must be true, right?

Delusions of Grandeur (Self-Mythologizing): 

Trump’s use of “they” often feeds his narrative of himself as a singular heroic figure. Grandiose statements like “They said it was impossible, but I did it” and endless “they praised me” anecdotes point to what psychologists might call delusions of grandeur (an inflated sense of one’s importance and powers). By constantly claiming “they” – be it experts, veterans, farmers, whoever – are in awe of him or astonished by his achievements, Trump effectively mythologizes himself. It’s almost as if he has an imaginary fan club or a Greek chorus chanting his greatness. Need evidence of his brilliance or strength? Just trust that “they” (somewhere out there) have confirmed it. This habit could be a calculated ego boost but might also reflect a genuine belief. Trump has long portrayed himself as larger-than-life; “they” become supporting characters in Trump’s epic, there to voice admiration or express shock that only he could accomplish such feats. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a child inventing imaginary friends who all agree he’s the coolest kid in school. Humorous, yes—but also quite effective for maintaining a cult of personality where facts are beside the point.

Gaslighting and Blame-Shifting: 

The flip side of praise is blame, and Trump expertly uses “they” to shift blame or dismiss inconvenient facts. When confronted or criticized, he often points to some “they” who are lying or maltreating him. Calling the press “they” and labeling them “fake news” is a classic example. Trump constantly urges his followers to ignore what “they” in the media say or show, urging people to trust him as the sole source of truth. This veers into gaslighting – getting people to doubt their own perceptions in favor of the leader’s version of reality. By vilifying “they” (journalists, whistleblowers, analysts, etc.), Trump attempts to invalidate any negative coverage or fact-checks preemptively. Similarly, “they” serves as a handy dumping ground for blame: if something went wrong, it’s because “they” (Congress, the Fed, China, the “Deep State,” take your pick) screwed it up. This reflects a possible external locus of control in Trump’s rhetoric, where responsibility for failures is always externalized. He never truly fails or errs; they sabotaged it. For a self-styled winner, admitting personal fault is anathema, so “they” are useful scapegoats. From election losses (“they stole the election”​) to legal troubles (“they’re witch-hunting me”), Trump frames outcomes as the work of nefarious “they”, keeping his image intact in the eyes of supporters.

Lack of Clarity (Speaking Off-the-Cuff): 

Finally, it’s worth noting that Trump’s speaking style is famously rambling and non-linear. Linguists have observed that he often uses vague pronouns and unfinished thoughts when he goes off-script, expecting the audience to “get it” from context or insinuation​. In many cases, “they” might pop out simply because Trump hasn’t bothered (or remembered) to specify who they are. It could be a symptom of thinking out loud, where “they” is a placeholder for “whatever person or group I have in mind at this second.” This lack of precision can confuse his rhetoric, but it also gives it a kind of everyman bluntness. To a casual listener, “they” might mean “the usual suspects”. Trump assumes his base shares his perceptions, so he doesn’t need to spell out who they are every time. In this view, the ambiguity is less than strategic—it’s just a product of his impromptu, conversational speech. He knows what he means by them, and he assumes you know who they are too (hint: whoever Trump dislikes at the moment). If clarity suffers, so be it; Trump has never been one to obsess over polished phraseology. The upside of this vagueness is that it leaves room for interpretation (or misinterpretation), which Trump can later exploit if needed.

In reality, all these factors likely intertwine. Trump’s “they”-speak can be seen as a multi-purpose tool: it energizes his base with us vs. them passion, inflates his accomplishments through alleged testimonials, and muddies the waters enough to evade accountability. It’s both a communication strategy and a reflex rooted in personality. Whether by crafty design or impulsive storytelling, Trump has found that invoking “they” pays off in keeping narratives flexible and followers fired up.

Like Imaginary Friends: Satirical Comparisons

To add a dash of humor, one might liken Trump’s ubiquitous “they” to a troupe of imaginary friends that always accompany him. Remember childhood, when having an invisible friend could validate your feelings or take the blame for spilled milk? Trump’s “they” often perform similar roles on a grander stage:

Imaginary Advisers:

Picture a cartoon version of Trump with tiny advisors perched on his shoulders, whispering “Sir, go for it, you can’t fail!” and “Sir, this deal is the best ever!” When Trump says “they told me” something incredulous or flattering, it almost sounds like he has an army of yes-men ghosts only he can see. It’s as if whenever he needs expertise or affirmation, an imaginary committee convenes in his head and unanimously approves: “They had a meeting,” he assures us, “and they said I’m absolutely right.” It’s both hilarious and a bit uncanny—like an emperor who invents an oracle to legitimize his decrees.

Make-Believe Fans:

Similarly, Trump’s recurring anecdote of tough guys crying could be seen as a fairy tale he tells himself. These stories have all the hallmarks of a kid’s fantasy: the strongest, coolest figures (steelworkers, big farmers, etc.) break down in tears of joy and gratitude, professing Trump’s extraordinary heroism (“You saved us!” they sob). It’s almost sweet in a bizarre way; he’s basically imagining fan fiction where he’s the beloved protagonist. Comedian Sarah Cooper famously joked that Trump’s “sir” stories (where random people call him “Sir” and say dramatic things) sound like encounters with imaginary friends, because real people just don’t behave that way on cue. The sheer repetition of these unlikely tearful thank-yous invites satire: one might envision a parody children’s book, “Donald and His Invisible Admirers,” where a new anonymous friend applauds Donald’s accomplishments on each page. The fact that Trump seems to earnestly expect us to believe these yarns is part of what makes them darkly comedic.

The Omniscient “They”:

In some instances, Trump uses “they” almost like an omniscient narrator or an all-knowing source of truth. “They say…” often prefaces his wildest assertions. They say the election was stolen; they say the economy’s never been better; they say everyone is out to get Trump. Listening to him, “they” appear to have intel on everything under the sun, yet they remain faceless. This brings to mind a scene from Peter Pan where Tinkerbell is only visible if you believe hard enough. Trump implicitly asks his followers to believe in “They.” If you trust him, then naturally “they” (the good they) are constantly complimenting him or confirming his claims, and the evil “they” are plotting against him. It’s a bit like Santa’s elves—working unseen, but you accept they’re real if you have faith in Santa Trump. Satirically, one could imagine Trump at a rally shouting, “Do you believe in They? If you believe, they will make our enemies disappear!” The crowd roars, and in that moment, the actual identity of “they” truly does not matter.

All joking aside, these comparisons underscore a serious point: Trump’s “they” habit blurs reality and fiction. It asks supporters to accept narratives on Trump’s authority alone, much as a child receives a make-believe story. The ambiguity is the point – it invites the audience to fill in the blanks with whatever aligns with their hopes or fears. If you’re inclined to trust Trump, “they” can be considered credible insiders backing him up. If you’re in his camp, “they” (the bad guys) can be projected onto whichever opponent you loathe most. The vagueness gives “they” a chameleon quality, adaptable to each listener’s imagination. It’s a rhetorical trick that is laughably transparent and disturbingly effective.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s recurring use of the pronoun “they” – in phrases like “they told me,” “they said,” and “they had a meeting” – is more than a quirky grammatical tic; it’s a window into his unique brand of communication. Satirically speaking, “they” are Trump’s ever-present, ever-malleable sidekicks: sometimes imaginary friends who sing his praises or confirm his suspicions, other times shadowy foes he can blame and battle against. Analytically, this vagueness serves multiple functions. It lets Trump inject hearsay and hyperbole into the discourse with minimal accountability​. It bolsters his exaggerations and feeds his need for adulation (since “they” are always saying wonderful things about him, or marveling at his feats). It also strengthens his cult-of-personality narrative by framing events as Trump vs. They, where supporters are encouraged to join him in defying “them” – whoever “they” need to be at that moment​.

The result is a political discourse often untethered from concrete reality and floating instead on anecdotes and assertions. This article has highlighted quotes spanning Trump’s public life to illustrate how pervasive and adaptable this “they” rhetoric is. From the campaign trail to the Oval Office to post-presidency rallies, “they” have been constant companions to Trump’s oratory, contributing to ambiguity and exaggeration in his messaging. We can chuckle at its absurdity– the way “they” sometimes seem like Trump’s imaginary playmates – but we also must acknowledge its impact. By keeping “them” undefined, Trump can galvanize belief and dismiss criticism in one stroke. Ambiguity becomes a tool of persuasion, freeing him from the pesky constraints of specifics.

In closing, understanding Trump’s use of “they” offers insight into the mechanics of his persuasive style and the mindset of his fervent base. It shows how simple words can create an air of authority or victimhood without naming a single name. This satirical exploration underscores that when Trump says “they”, it often says more about him than any actual people. The vague pronoun becomes a mirror reflecting Trump’s desires, fears, and strategies. And perhaps the ultimate irony is that we are left debating who “they” are, which means the tactic worked, keeping all eyes on Trump at the center of the story.

References:

1. Reuters – Jeff Mason & Jarrett Renshaw (April 24, 2025). “Trump refutes China’s claim of no trade talks.” (Quote: “They had a meeting this morning… It doesn’t matter who ‘they’ is.”)​reuters.com

2. White House Archives – Donald J. Trump (Jan 19, 2021). “Remarks by President Trump in Farewell Address to the Nation.” (Quote: “They said it couldn’t be done but we did it… a ‘medical miracle.’”)​trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

3. HuffPost – Ed Mazza (Feb 5, 2024). “Trump’s ‘Weird’ New Boast Is Literally Bringing Tears To People’s Eyes.” (Quotes: Trump claiming steelworkers cried and said “You saved our industry”​tapatalk.com; past anecdotes like “He said, ‘Sir, you give me back my life…’”​tapatalk.com and “He said, ‘Mr. President, thank you for saving America.’”​tapatalk.com)

4. The Washington Post – Jenna Johnson (June 13, 2016). “‘A lot of people are saying . . .’: How Trump spreads conspiracies and innuendo.” (Analysis of Trump using phrases like “a lot of people are saying” to introduce claims without evidence)​washingtonpost.com​washingtonpost.com.

5. The American Presidency Project – Transcript (Nov 1, 2019). “Remarks at a ‘Make America Great Again’ Rally in Tupelo, Mississippi.” (Quotes: “The Democrats, the media, and the deep state are desperate to stop us… they want to stop us because they know we are here…draining the swamp.”)​presidency.ucsb.edu

6. Atlanta Journal-Constitution – David Wickert (June 10, 2023). “Trump: ‘I’m just standing in the way.’” (Quote: “They’re not coming after me… They’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in the way.”)