WTF! Donald Trump and the politics of the F-bomb
Content warning: This article contains language that some may find offensive.
'Language!'
We've all heard that exclamation shouted by an exasperated parent when a child is being foul-mouthed.
But when it comes to expletives uttered by politicians, who are supposed to mind their usage of profanity and set a good example, what hope do parents or any other role models have? Especially when that locution is the controversial, flexible and ubiquitous four-letter word 'fuck'.
The range-covering swear word was uttered by Donald Trump on Tuesday as he lashed out at both Israel and Iran, accusing both countries of violating a ceasefire he tried to broker.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump said he was very unhappy with Israel after they "dropped a load of bombs" on Iran after the truce to end almost two weeks of fighting was announced.
"We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing,' he railed.
By dropping what is commonly refered to as the 'F-bomb' - a term playing on the nickname for the hydrogen bomb and utilised when 'fuck' is used in an unexpected setting like public media – Trump shocked the press. Especially because he has always been mindful when it comes to expletives.
Only last week, Trump wouldn't say the word 'erection' while construction crews were installing new flag poles on the White House lawn.
'Let's have a good... They call it a lifting,' said Trump in front of the crew. 'They also use another word, but I'm not going to use that word... The word starts with an 'e' - You know what the word is? If I ever used it, I'd be run out of town by you people' - referring to the members of the press he was talking to.
Indeed, it's not every day that an English-speaking head of state exclaims the third-most-severe profanity, according to Andrea Millwood Hargrave's 2000 study of the attitudes of the British public. (In case you were wondering, number 2 in the most severe ranking is 'motherfucker' and number 1 is the dreaded 'cunt'.)
Despite trigger words that cross the line differing from language to language, Trump's "fuck" would be the equivalent of French President Macron exclaiming 'Putain!' or Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez angrily declairing 'puta de mierda'.
But is Trump the first to use the word 'fuck' in front of the press?
Before we answer that question, let's dive into the history of the swear word.
The origins of 'fuck'
The word's roots remain somewhat mysterious.
For the longest time, rumour had it that 'fuck' was a backronym – an acronym formed from an already existing word by expansion of its letters into the words of a phrase - of 'For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge' or 'Fornication Under Consent of the King'.
The first refers to a royal permission allegedly granted during the Middle Ages, as the scarcity of resources caused by the Black Death meant that population growth was an issue. Therefore, permission to engage in intercourse was required. The second concerns the royal permit, issued by a magistrate or lord, for a couple to consume their union. Once approved, the couple were granted a sign that read 'F.U.C.K.' to hang on their house, a symbol of their compliance and the King's favour.
Both of these have been proven to be false etymologies, as 'fuck' is thought to have come from the German word 'fricken', which means 'to hit', and the Swedish dialectal word 'ficka', which means 'to strike' or 'to copulate'.
Historians generally agree that 'fuck' became a familiar word for sexual intercourse around the 15th or 16th century.
However, in 2022, a British historian stumbled upon what he believed to be the earliest known use of the word 'fuck' in a sexual context.
Paul Booth, a research fellow at the UK's Keele University, found the name 'Roger Fuckebythenavele' ('one who fucks via the naval') in a 1310 court document in the UK National Archives.
Otherwise, the earliest occurrence of 'fuck' as a swear word comes from a British poem written anonymously around 1475 in both English and Latin. Titled 'Fleas, flies and friars', the poem criticised the Carmelites friars of the town of Ely.
One line of the poem reads: 'Non sunt in coeli, quia gxddbov xxkxzt pg ifmk fvccant vvivys of heli' which, post-decoding, means: 'They (the friars) are not in heaven, since they fuck the wives of Ely.'
So, elusive though its origins may be, 'fuck' has travelled through time to become commonplace – especially in Martin Scorsese films, as it was dropped a grand total of 569 times in 2013's The Wolf of Wall Street according to Guiness World Records.
Fucking standards
Back to Trump, who is hardly the first US politician to utter the word 'fuck' in a public sphere. However, every time it was used, controversy was never far.
One of the earliest uses of the word by a US president was in 1965, when Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson said the following to Greek ambassador Alexandros Matsas, who took issue with American plans in Cyprus: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fellows continue itching the elephant they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good".
Ouch.
In June 2004, US Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic senator Patrick Leahy: 'Go fuck yourself", while John McCain told US Sentor John Cornyn: 'Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room' when Cornyn objected to McCain's perceived intrusion upon a Senate meeting on immigration.
Another 'fuck' that got people upset happened on 23 March 2010, when then-Vice President Joe Biden thought he couldn't be heard and 'whispered' into President Barack Obama's ear: "This is a big fucking deal" - referring to the US health care reform bill.
All instances led to outcry, criticism and in some cases, formal apologies.
The fact that profanity isn't new in politics is hardly surprising, as a 2009 study revealed the cathartic effect that swearing can have. And considering everything that is going on in the world of late, it's borderline astonishing that politicians – regardless of their political alliances - don't 'fuck' this and 'fuck' that on a daily basis.
Plus, swearing is normalised for what is referred to as 'blue collar' work sectors – a key demographic when it comes to votes. So, dropping a few f-shaped transgressives into speeches could be considered as judicious.
However, the source of the pearl-clutching is crucial to consider.
For instance, a MAGA supporter would consider Trump's use of language as 'telling it like it is". Conversely, a staunch Democrat would condemn the 'fuck' as not diplomatic and unbecoming of a head of state.
The same divide happened in August 2022, when the mayor of Peterborough, Ontario, Dianne Therrien let out a colourful phrase when having to deal with QAnon conspiracy theorists in her city.
She tweeted: 'Fuck off, you fuckwads.'
MAGA supporters were furious; Democrats defended Therrien, saying that she was reacting out of frustration, and backed her when she framed her swearing as a deliberate mirroring of the disrespect the QAnon crowd showed their critics.
Then there's context.
Since Trump entered the White House for his second term, some Democrats have not shied away from expressing their genuine frustration.
This year, Rep. Jasmine Crockett reacted to Trump's joint address to Congress with: 'Somebody slap me and wake me the fuck up because I'm ready to get on with it', while Rep. Maxine Dexter had this to say: 'I don't swear in public very well, but we have to fuck Trump.' She hastily added: 'Please don't tell my children that I just did that.'
Whether it's authentic outrage at the destruction of policies and public attitudes or a more shoot-from-the-hip moment of 'real talk', a 'fuck' in what can be considered as the wrong contextual condition can seem like a social gaffe. Worse, an inappropriate utterance that shows the politician – whether or not you agree with him / her / they – is overcome by frustration or emotion, and therefore doesn't have the cool head to lead.
When considering the context of war with casualties, the 'fuck' in Trump's 'they don't know what the fuck they're doing' can be percieved as undiplomatic or even outright insulting.
But is it that clear cut, especially when even Trump critics admit that the president's F-bomb flourished phrase was a pretty fair analysis of the situation?
What's sure is that when it comes to language for public officials, a bar has been truly fucking lowered.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
an hour ago
- LeMonde
Supreme Court boosts Trump over federal judges, raising fears of an unchecked presidency
On June 27, the conservative justices of the US Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a political victory, which he loudly celebrated. By restricting federal judges' power to suspend executive orders, the Supreme Court chose to rule against the broader judiciary, of which it is the highest authority. This judicial deference follows that of Congress, where Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives had already relinquished much of their authority in the face of Trump. It is hardly debatable that universal injunctions, which allow a single federal judge to block a presidential order, have always been seen as excessive by the party occupying the White House. The six conservative justices – who in their ruling denounced what they considered an abuse of power, over the objections of the three progressive justices – found nothing to object to when these injunctions targeted orders signed by Democrat Joe Biden between 2021 to 2025. This clear bias is compounded by the context. The Supreme Court had been asked to review the legality of an order abolishing jus soli – the right to citizenship by birthplace – which clearly violates the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution. Rather than ruling on substance, which would have been uncomfortable for the Trump administration, the Court chose to focus on procedure. While it maintained a path for legal challenges by ruling that such an order cannot take immediate effect, allowing for class action suits, this evasive tactic, in addition to the chaos it could create depending on the political leanings of each state, risks further damaging an already tarnished reputation. A trampled past Even before the July 1, 2024, decision granting Trump broad immunity for actions taken during his first term, the conservative majority had consistently worked to strengthen executive power. The new leeway given to the Republican president to dismiss federal agency heads without just cause – except for the Federal Reserve – confirmed this intent. It is troubling that this effort to roll back the American system of checks and balances, especially those added to the US institutional framework following the excesses of Republican President Richard Nixon, coincides with Trump's return to power. From his baseless and outrageous challenge of the 2020 presidential election results to the astonishing hoarding of classified documents at his private residence after his ignominious departure from office, Trump has amply demonstrated his disregard for norms and the law. , the decree overturning jus soli, introduced into the US Constitution in 1868, provided fresh evidence of this contempt. It is, unfortunately, likely that this increase in presidential power will outlast the next change of administration. As long as Congress remains paralyzed by division, it is unlikely that a Democratic president would willingly give up these expanded powers. It is therefore regrettable that a political movement that champions a return to "American greatness" should so trample its own institutional heritage. The US has nothing to gain from this.
LeMonde
3 hours ago
- LeMonde
Iran holds state funeral for military commanders killed in war in Israel
Iran held a state funeral service on Saturday, June 28, for around 60 people, including its military commanders, killed in its war with Israel, after Tehran's top diplomat condemned Donald Trump's comments on supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as "unacceptable." The proceedings started at 8:00 am local time in the capital Tehran, as government offices and many businesses were closed on Saturday for the occasion. The state broadcaster showed footage of thousands of people donning black clothes, waving Iranian flags, holding pictures of the slain military commanders, chanting slogans of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" and trampling the flags of Israel and the US on the ground. Images displayed mock-ups of Iranian ballistic missiles as well as coffins draped in Iranian flags and bearing portraits of the deceased commanders in uniform near Enghelab (Revolution) Square in central Tehran, where the march began. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, along with other senior government officials and military commanders – including Esmail Qaani, head of the Quds Force, the foreign operations arm of the Revolutionary Guards – attended the event. Senior advisor to Iran's supreme leader, Ali Shamkhani, who was targeted and wounded during the war, also took part in the ceremony, using a walking cane, state TV showed. Commanders, scientists to be buried A patriotic eulogy blared from loudspeakers as the procession set out across the sprawling metropolis toward Azadi (Freedom) Square, 11 kilometres away. "Boom boom Tel Aviv," read one banner, referring to Iranian missiles fired at Israel during the conflict in retaliation for its attacks on Iran. Among the dead was Mohammad Bagheri, a major general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the second-in-command of the armed forces after the Iranian leader. Nuclear scientist Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, also killed in the attacks, will be buried with his wife. Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami, who was killed on the first day of the war, will also be laid to rest after Saturday's ceremony, which honored at least 30 other top commanders. Of the 60 people who are to be laid to rest after the ceremony, four are children and four are women.
LeMonde
4 hours ago
- LeMonde
Trump forces the rest of the world to exempt US companies from global tax on multinationals
Once again, the threat worked. By brandishing in recent weeks the prospect of a new tax on foreign companies – dubbed the "revenge tax" – the United States secured a major concession from other G7 countries on a tax issue that has irked Donald Trump since his return to the White House: the taxation of multinationals, and more specifically, the 15% global minimum corporate tax adopted in 2021 by 140 countries under the aegis of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Already implemented in 2024 across the European Union as well as in the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan, this tax was seen as a first step in combating unfair tax competition among states. Eager to share this American victory, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced it on Thursday, June 26, on the social network X. "After months of productive dialogue with other countries on the OECD Global Tax Deal, we will announce a joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests," he wrote. "(…) OECD Pillar 2 taxes [that is, the 15% global minimum tax] will not apply to US companies." Le Monde was able to confirm this information on Friday, 27 June, via both France's Ministry of Finance and the OECD, as the G7 finalized a communiqué seen by the newspaper.
