Talk:Trump Always Chickens Out

Additional sources

Thanks to @Silver seren for these, rescued from the (currently ongoing) AFD discussion:

• Taco Monday: a big relief, but - Financial Times (May 12th)
• The ‘Taco’ factor has spurred markets higher - Financial Times (May 17th)
• The ‘Taco’ trade, and whether to take a bite or resist - Australian Financial Review (May 18th)
• Tariffs round II: ‘Game theory’ or ‘TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) time’? - The Post (May 25th)
• Is Trump about to slug our superannuation again? - Switzer Daily (May 26th)
• At debt’s door: US superpower is waning and Trump’s part of the problem - Sydney Morning Herald (May 27th)
• Will Trump's tariff game rock markets again? We might be okay - Switzer Daily (May 27th)

Feel free to add more sources that might be relevant here. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Noticed this while looking for something else on CNN.com, it was linked from their home page via a link with the text "Analysis: Trump’s Iran hesitation draws praise and TACO criticism" today:

• Collinson, Stephen (June 20, 2025). "Why Trump's two-week pause on Iran makes sense — and why it may not work". CNN.com. CNN. Archived from the original on 2025-06-20. Retrieved 2025-06-20. It didn't take long for Trump critics to fill social media with new sightings of TACO ("Trump always chickens out") syndrome. But Trump, for once, is operating in the real world and not the online one. No one knows what would happen if the US bombed Iran. The lives of US service personnel would be on the line. And geopolitical shockwaves could cause a regional war, an Iranian civil war, or a wave of reprisals from Tehran.

—Locke Cole • t • c 15:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

That is so relevant and true

defo will do a German Version of it asap. Einfach zu geil! Dont know how this should not be relevant as longi as MAGA is... 213.55.237.127 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

More Reactions

In https://mas.to/@SmudgeTheInsultCat/114597288937331099, this is extended: they claim White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was newly nicknamed "TACO Belle". Wilfriedklaebe (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

In theory, investors and tariff negotiating countries hope and encourage him to make concessions,1 but Trump's opponents do not want him to get political dividends by making concessions, so they invented this term for this anticipatory psychology to hit him on both sides. Cbls1911 (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Seriously? An AI Generated Image?

Are we really putting AI-generated images in Wikipedia articles now? Anything using or associated with AI-generated images can be classified as AI slop.

A simple picture of a taco would fit better. Plus, even if the image and other variations of it are circulating social media, having Trump dressed in a chicken costume with tacos in front of him comes across as childish and weird and reserves no right on an encyclopedia meant for producing information. Cavdan2024 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The image is an example of the memes floating around the net. And a good one too. So what's your problem wit it? --Denniss (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't want us to casually use an AI image to show something factual, that's not what's going on here. No one is going to be misled into thinking that this is actually what Trump looks like or how he dresses. It is very obviously a joke or satire. And, in a section of the page that is about the memes that were generated as part of the subject of the page, it shows a representative example of such a meme. Wikipedia is very properly looking critically at the risks of using AI-generated content, but that should not be misused as an argument to whitewash criticism of a political figure. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

100% this. WP:AIGI is not applicable to this as the caption and section clearly deals with the memes and AI generated content around them. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The Dems dressed up a taco truck... if a free image of that is available, that could be used. -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

How exactly is that random news website photo released under a free license? Trade (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That's fun because your article says the exact opposite Trade (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Particularly because I see no evidence they are actually public domain... LOVECEL ^🤍 01:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

AI imagery is public domain in a handful of places Thegoofhere (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There has recently been a lot of IP edit warring over the AI image, and the deleting edits have cited WP:AIIMGBLP as the reason, attempting to make the argument that it is a de facto violation of the WP:BLP policy to have an AI-generated image of Donald Trump. I want to point out what AIIMGBLP actually says: AI-generated images should not be used to depict subjects of BLPs. Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement or where an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) are subject to case-by-case consensus. If one cherry-picks the first sentence in isolation, that would indicate that the image should, indeed, be removed. However, the second sentence indicates that case-by-case consensus applies when the AI-generated image is itself notable. I see no reason to interpret "notable" as meaning sufficiently notable for a standalone page about the image itself. Rather, I think that what the image illustrates is exactly what this article is about. No reader is going to be misled into thinking that Trump actually looks like a chicken, and Trump, as a very public figure, is subject to satire (with sufficient reliable sourcing) in a way that does violate the BLP policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Images of this nature should only be used if it substantially increases our readers understanding of the article topic, and if text alone can not achieve that purpose. The text in the section is more than sufficient for our readers to understand memes often employed generative AI to produce artificial images and video of Trump in situations parodying the viral term. And the absence of the image in no way diminishes our readers understanding of the article topic. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of discussion that is appropriate to determining consensus. The way I see it, this issue is like the related concept at WP:DECORATIVE. There's also MOS:IMAGEREL, where it really comes down to personal opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Media coverage

I'm blanking on the template about articles receiving media coverage, but Canadian Broadcasting Corporation showed the article (4m 55s) as an example of how much "a thing" it has become. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Added, Zanimum. Silverseren^C 02:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury: your AI-image is there lol 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not "my" image, I took it from an article in the last round of press coverage. Belbury (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

My bad 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Tariff list

@Tryptofish: Can you please stop re-adding the lengthy tariff list from NBC? The list is not detailed and some parts of the list are just repeats of actually concise material in the article. The list mostly reads as "tariff tariff tariff tariff TARIFF" 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This is about this edit: . I gave my reasons in the edit summary. I'd like to know what other editors here think, and if the consensus is to omit it, I have no objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, but the concern with the list as it's presented in this article is that it's barely detailed, not that it's "not related to TACO" as your edit summary implies 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

My edit summary quoted directly from the source. I'm friendly to the possibility of revising the content to make it clearer what the source said, and perhaps to decrease the repetitiveness, if needed. But that doesn't require deleting it entirely.

And, apparently in response, you have now made this edit: , removing adjacent content on the basis, per your edit summary, of being "not about tariffs". However, it seems to me that the point of that content is that the "TACO" meme is about multiple issues, not restricted to tariffs, even though it originated with a focus on tariffs. In my opinion, that should be restored, too. Again, I'd like to hear from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted that additional removal. No reason for that to be removed. As for the original removal, if the problem is lack of detail included, then the solution would be to include more detail, not remove the content altogether. Silverseren^C 20:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

But the example section is rather long, adding a detailed sentence, although it would be beneficial for the article, would make the section very very long 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We can add additional section breaks and group things in better groupings. The overall section doesn't even need to be titled Examples. Silverseren^C 21:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

K 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

We should get rid of that though. The article is very clearly about Trump changing his mind on tariffs, not Trump changing his mind in general. The lede literally says the acronym is used to describe Trump's tendency to make reciprocal tariff threats, only to later delay them as a way to increase time for negotiations and for markets to rebound. 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources are what determines what info is included in this article and what the term means. If an RS is discussing the term in relation to literally anything, then it's due for inclusion in this article. The sources primarily focus on the term in relation to tariffs, which is why that is the most prominent part of this article. But the reference for the non-tariff stuff is literally titled that the TACO term also applies to other things, which means it's explicitly due for inclusion in this article. Silverseren^C 04:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If the article is about how a person "always" does something, then mentioning more sourced examples is useful for showing that. I don't think the paragraph should repeat examples that already appear elsewhere in the section, though. Belbury (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

A recent edit, in part, changed a pair of sentences to: Shannon Pettypiece of NBC News presented ten examples of Trump backtracking on tariffs he had announced or imposed. An example given was a "trade spat" between Colombia and Donald Trump which lasted less than 24 hours. Previously, there were numerous examples from the ten in the source; the edit changed it to just one, written as shown here. The wording includes "which lasted less than 24 hours", which, despite the page subject being about how Trump does not always stick to things, reads instead as if to imply: here's an example, but the example is so trivial that it only lasted less than 24 hours. I say that in part because of an edit that changed "24 hours" to "less than 24 hours": . These edits seem to me to be trying to downplay the significance of what the source says, in a manner that tries to downplay criticisms of Trump. For that reason, I put an "editorializing" tag after the sentence, and am making this comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

1. I changed it to say "less than 24 hours" because that is precisely what the source says.

2. You are free to change the example or add more examples from the source

3. In what way does apply? 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I already explained how it is editorializing. And although you chose one phrase from the source, in isolation it does not reflect what the entire source says overall. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Whatever implication was intended, it can be read either way: so trivial that it only lasted less than 24 hours or so chicken that he folded within 24 hours. Belbury (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm OK with you using, instead, an undue weight tag, as that adequately reflects the concern that I had, and that has not yet been adequately answered. However, I think the edit summary with which my tag was removed, prior to your edit, , calling the tag "nonsensical", comes across as battleground-y – especially since I clearly explained my reasoning here, and especially since the tagging in the Background section, which I have refuted in the talk section below, has yet to be addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I made this edit: , which I hope resolves the issue. I moved some of the quotation from the source out of the footnote and into the main text, while removing text about what the ten examples were, and instead listing the ten examples in the footnote. That way, we don't have to deal with deciding which example(s) to include or exclude, while also not having a longish list in the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think its good 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Background

@IdanST:, why did you revert my edits here? You're aware that the section contained OR and synthesis, right? 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The background is highly important because it sheds light on TACO, which already occurred during Trump’s first presidency—especially in 2017–2018, until he chickened out after the S&P 500 fell by 20%, just as it did in 2025. It highlights a pattern and provides a brief explanation before delving into the full article. IdanST (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Most sources given in the section predate the emergence of the TACO term, to tie Trump's previous "flipflops" with TACO is inherently original research. 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Wrong, the same thing happened in 2018: the S&P 500 fell by 20%, and then saw massive gains in 2019 because Trump chickened out. Similarly, until April 9, 2025, the S&P 500 fell by 20% in max drawdown, Trump chickened out, and the index then rose by a whopping 30%. IdanST (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, unless you have a source explicitly tying Trump's previous flip-flops to the TACO phrase or Trump's recent tariff related flip-flops, we cannot add it 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

That is precisely the purpose of the Background section — to provide context on events preceding event X, namely the TACO acronym in this case. IdanST (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

But you're not getting it, the information can be true or important, but unless a reliable source has explicitly talked about these previous events in the context of TACO, we can not include it 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I get it, and I agree with IdanST. Yet again, this is something where simply blanking the whole thing is the wrong way to go about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The entire section is built off original research and using sources to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated. Being "important" is not an excuse to break policy, and I don't see why we shouldn't remove it 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If it actually violated policy, I would support removing it. But you aren't persuading anyone that it actually violates the NOR policy. The section is titled "Background". That's because it is about background. It describes the background of Trump reversing his policy positions, and the first paragraph is about him doing it before the TACO label had been created. It doesn't require OR to identify that information as background. Everything said in the text is supported by the cited sources. If we were to say in Wikipedia's voice that the TACO label had been applied during his first term to things that Trump did, that would have been the kind of OR you are asserting, but we don't do that. There is no NOR violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Before the emergence of the TACO acronym, Trump's tendency to change his mind on policy positions had been described since his first presidential campaign..

This is the first sentence in the section, where did the NBC source that is supposed to support the claim say any of that? Is there a single source mentioning this in the context of TACO? According to WP:V, statements must be supported by an inline citation that directly supports the statement, could you give me a source explicitly stating that this is the background to TACO? 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thegoofhere's logic is perfectly sound. An article should contain a fair representation of "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources about the article subject, per WP:DUE. If the published reliable sources do not contain an explicit link between the article subject and other information, the other information is extraneous within the context of the article. That is not to say that the information is incorrect—it appears to be perfectly accurate—but "information should not be included solely because it is true" (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

TACO has gotten enough sustained coverage as a concept, now, that it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources that compare it to events in Trump's first term.

For example, there's an Axios article that says

TACO is a catchier version of what Wall Street had been calling the Trump put, which investors relied on in the president's first term.

which seems sufficient to lead into quoting other, older sources on the "Trump put". Belbury (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure Belbury, but the "Trump put" is a purely economic term (see the eponymous put option), which is not what is currently present: backtracks/"flip-flops" on healthcare, immigration, international relations, and other non-purely-economic areas of politics. I'd prefer to see explicit connections in the sources, which Wikipedia articles should rely on, rather than the links we currently imply, without support from RS, to be relevant. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to recommend strongly that editors who are unhappy about this section suggest specific changes, rather than arguing for the entire removal of the section. Otherwise, we will just be going around in circles. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

TACO is primarily economic, the term was coined in relation to tariffs. You don't think that TACO being described by the source as a catchier version of the "Trump put" is an explicit enough connection between those two concepts? Belbury (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

A recent edit, in part, changed the header to a lower level font, which I changed back. It also tagged the section for WP:SYNTH, and put a failed verification tag after one source. The source is used to support the partial sentence: Before the emergence of the TACO acronym, Trump's tendency to change his mind on policy positions had been described since his first presidential campaign,.... The source is dated to the time of the first campaign, and is quoted as saying in part: President-Elect Donald Trump took 141 distinct stances on 23 major issues during his bid for the White House. If there are 23 issues, and someone takes 141 distinct stances on them – well, that sure sounds to me like more than one stance per issue. And the title of the source is, in part: To understand and track Trump's views, we've compiled a list of his past and present positions on issues since he announced his candidacy. So it's about past and present positions, positions that changed, as opposed to multiple positions on multiple facets of an issue. So how does that amount to failed verification? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm noting the lack of response. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Right after I posted that, the inline tag for failed verification was self-reverted, so thanks for that. However, that leaves the question of where there is SYNTH in the section as a whole, since the tag at the top of the section remains. As I said above, it's not clear what editors want beyond deleting the whole thing. And since we now seem to have recognition that the source does support what the text says, I'm not seeing how there is still an argument that there is SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I reworded the section, and rearranged it, to make it more rigorous in terms of what happened when, and I see that the SYNTH tag was self-reverted. So thanks for that, and I hope that this issue has now been resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Protest placard in lead

Protester in Chicago holding a sign saying "Trump Always Chickens Out"

This doesn't seem too helpful as a representative lead image, when the lead and wider article say nothing about how the public feels about Trump's reversals. Analysis is mostly in terms of market trading, and the only context given for the public's view is that "the term started a trend of memes".

As it stands, it's ambiguous whether the crowd in this photo are mocking him for chickening out, or protesting that he shouldn't chicken out and should stick to his tariffs. Belbury (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

First, about that ambiguity, it's the former. The file page indicates what the protest was, so I just made this edit: , which should clarify that point.

About the larger issue, I reverted the image back in after you had removed it, and I did so because, as I said in my edit summary: , a major part of its role in memes is how those memes come up in anti-Trump protests. You bring up the issue of what the public thinks about his reversals, but regardless of what the wider public thinks, there's no question about what protesters think. Perhaps more should be added about this to the text, but I think the image is WP:DUE to include on the page. I could be persuaded that it should be moved out of the lead, perhaps. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Given that there's nothing in the text about the public's view of TACO until we get to the "In the media" section at the very end of the article, I'd say it either needed some text in the lead, or relocation to that section.

The article text could really use more context for what the American public mean when they use the phrase; whether they want the tariffs to be stable, or don't want them at all. The Democrats' criticism has some context for playing games with working families' livelihoods, but the "In the media" section just comments on how funny the memes and cartoons and talk show chat is, without actually saying what angle is being taken. Belbury (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I moved the image down, for now. Because there's already another image in the Media section, I put this one slightly above, next to text about the DNC using the acronym in a protest. I agree that it would be appropriate to add more information to the text. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2026

This article *incorrectly* states that the term "orginated on Wall Street," in the first paragraph. It did not originate on Wall Street. It was invented by the journalist Rob Armstrong.

The article later correctly identifies the originator of the term "TACO," which is Rob Armstrong, under the paragraph "Origins." So there should be no argument about a substantive change.

I suggest:

Delete "The term originated on Wall Street, where..." for accuracy. Littlehelply (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Partly done:. I've changed the language to "The term is used on Wall Street..." which seemed more accurate. meamemg (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Kush Desai about NACHO.

Greetings, and greetings, @Tryptofish. I gather that the objection to the edition adding Kush Desai's statement about NACHO as "a false example of giving equal time" may mean it's irrelevant. I sustain that's not the case. A White House spokesperson's reaction is official and relevant in itself, since it reflects the political position of the government of the United States of America. The previous reaction (by the same spokesman) to the TACO acronym was already recorded in the article; new acronym, new official reaction, same or at least similar importance. Also, an official reaction gives notability to the NACHO acronym, making it definitely Wikipedia-worthy.
I also consider it important to record how the White House reacted to an acronym that describes the ongoing situation of the Strait of Hormuz crisis, even more so since this time the spokesman refutes the relevance/veracity of the acronym by comparing it to policies that have articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a big deal to me, and if you feel strongly, I won't object. The way I see it, it's a lengthy quote denigrating Trump's critics, which of course is nothing new, but the only way the edit relates it to the subject of this page is where it says, in Wikipedia's voice, that Desai was reacting to the term. I think it would be better to quote him commenting on the term itself, rather than upon the people who use the term. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

See Also

Under the 'See Also' section, the description of the Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian war page reads: "Veiled threats of engagement by Russian president Vladimir Putin." I believe this is a holdover from an earlier incarnation of that page as a propaganda piece to show that "Russian red lines are empty threats."

I propose the description be changed to reflect what is actually written on the introductory paragraph of that page, which is:

"veiled threat[s] of engagement intended to warn an opponent or observer not to interfere or undertake an action or behavior that would "cross the red line". ~2026-32131-77 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)