How Fox and Newsmax Help Trump Mislead Their Audiences

Fox and Newsmax hosts have endorsed false claims about Trump’s record and portrayed critics as dishonest. Their programs have presented Medicaid restrictions as protection for beneficiaries and a temporary deduction as the elimination of taxes on Social Security.

Donald Trump offered another conditional assurance about Iran on November 8: further attacks were highly unlikely if negotiations progressed. His comments followed a Fox News appearance in which he had given viewers a false account of the fighting already underway.

On November 2, Trump told Sean Hannity that “there hasn’t been shooting for months.” Hannity moved to a question about election turnout. US officials told ABC News that American forces had struck Iran that day and carried out other limited strikes in preceding weeks. Officials distinguished those operations from a return to major combat, but their account contradicted Trump’s claim.

That interview illustrates how Trump benefits when sympathetic broadcasters fail to challenge his false statements. Other examples go further: hosts adopt the falsehood themselves, present it as a policy success, or accuse people describing the consequences of lying.

The Medicaid debate offers some of the clearest evidence. On May 20, 2025, Trump claimed Republicans were not changing Medicaid beyond addressing waste, fraud and abuse. The legislation contained new work requirements, copays and restrictions on coverage. PolitiFact documented those changes on May 22, before the broadcasts examined here.

On May 29, Newsmax’s Carl Higbie affirmed “so no cuts there” during a discussion of the bill. His program displayed a chyron accusing Democrats of lying. On June 2, Fox Business host Dagen McDowell dismissed people warning about Medicaid cuts: “there are no cuts. Shut up.” The next day, Newsmax’s Marc Lotter used Trump’s denial as the factual side of a question about separating fact from fiction.

Those hosts gave their audiences assurances that obscured substantial changes to who could receive coverage and under what conditions. They also directed suspicion toward the critics explaining those changes.

On June 4, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the House-passed bill would produce 10.9 million additional uninsured people in 2034, including 7.8 million from its Medicaid provisions. The larger total included changes affecting other health insurance. These were forecasts for that version of the bill, measured against projected current law. They were not a count of people already losing coverage.

Newsmax host Rob Schmitt discussed the estimate that evening. He described almost everyone in the 10.9 million as people who “should not be on the Medicaid program,” then characterized the changes as cutting fraud. CBO had not identified those millions as fraudulent claimants. Schmitt also described 1.4 million people without legal status as improperly receiving Medicaid. CBO explained that the relevant group received coverage through state-funded programs without federal funding.

The political benefit to Trump is clear. Hosts could reassure viewers that he had protected Medicaid while portraying projected coverage losses as evidence of his success against fraud. People facing new barriers to insurance disappeared from that description.

The tax story followed a similar pattern. During the November 2 interview, Hannity himself listed “no tax tips, overtime, Social Security” among Trump’s accomplishments. Trump repeated the Social Security claim later in the interview. Hannity presented the claim as an achievement in his own question.

Congress had created an additional $6,000 deduction for qualifying taxpayers aged 65 and older, available for tax years 2025 through 2028 and subject to income limits. That provides real tax relief. It does not abolish federal taxation of Social Security benefits. The IRS still explains when beneficiaries must include part of their benefits in taxable income.

Newsmax also promoted that achievement claim. Its April 15, 2026 report on an interview with SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler carried a “promises made, promises kept” headline. Loeffler cited no tax on Social Security while discussing benefits of the new tax rules and returns Americans had already filed. The article attributed the statement to her, while presenting her account through that favorable headline.

The distinction matters to a beneficiary who still owes tax and to voters judging whether Trump delivered his promise. A temporary deduction and the elimination of a tax are different achievements.

On February 27, 2026, Fox host Kayleigh McEnany said: “Donald Trump was not on the plane.”

Fox’s own December 23, 2025 reporting had described records listing Trump on at least eight Epstein flights.

Trump’s originating denial dates to January 2024. McEnany revived the false claim in 2026, after the contrary information was public. The records establish travel, not involvement in Epstein’s crimes.

These outlets’ coverage was not uniform. Fox’s reporting on the flights supplied the contradiction to its own host. The Daily Caller’s May 30, 2025 article presented Mehmet Oz’s Medicaid denial as apparent confirmation that the program would escape cuts, but its body acknowledged new work requirements and other changes. Those examples make the criticism specific: particular hosts and editors offered reassuring claims that the available record did not support.

Trump described the value of this treatment himself. On Fox & Friends on November 3, he praised Hannity’s interview questions about his achievements and said “all I had to say is yes.”

For audiences, the consequences reach beyond a favorable impression of one politician. These broadcasts offered false assurances about military hostilities and health coverage, and exaggerated the scope of tax relief. Hosts who branded criticism dishonest presented people challenging the claims as untrustworthy.

Trump gains political protection when broadcasters repeat his falsehoods with their own authority. Viewers lose information they need to judge his record, including the risks and costs his policies impose on them.