"Says who?"
Who Defines Reality?
This question—defiant, dismissive, deflecting—has become the central stance of Trump's approach to reality itself. It emerged most infamously during the 2016 campaign when his attorney Michael Cohen repeatedly challenged a CNN anchor's reporting on poll numbers with this exact phrase. But it's far more than a mere rhetorical device—it's the philosophical core of his assault on shared meaning.
We saw it again in the Oval Office on Friday. When asked about reported tensions between Elon Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a cabinet meeting, Trump's response was immediate and characteristic:
“No clash. I was there. You're just a troublemaker.”
This moment crystallizes his entire epistemological framework. “Says who?” isn't just asking for a source—it's challenging the very possibility that anyone other than Trump himself could have legitimate access to truth. It positions all other claims to knowledge as inherently suspect, as manufactured by “troublemakers” with agenda-driven motives.
What follows this dismissal is equally telling: “Who are you with?” The question reveals the underlying logic—the truth value of a query depends not on its substance but on its source. Once identified as NBC, the dismissal is complete: “No wonder. That's enough.”
This approach to controlling reality works through several interlocking mechanisms. First, there's the authority of presence: “I was there” functions as an epistemological trump card. It positions Trump as having direct, unmediated access to reality while journalists and the public must rely on secondhand accounts. This creates an asymmetry in the meaning-making process—his experience is presented as pure, while others' understanding is necessarily contaminated by mediation.
Second, there's the delegitimization of questioners: The immediate pivot to “you’re just a troublemaker” shifts attention from the content of the question to the character of the questioner. This suggests that the very act of questioning authority is itself illegitimate.
Third, there's context control: “You're not supposed to be asking that question because we're talking about the World Cup” represents an attempt to dictate not just what can be discussed but when and where certain topics are permissible.
Meanwhile, reality continues unabated. Multiple sources confirm that the clash between Musk and Rubio did indeed occur. Axios reporter Marc Caputo noted he was independently pursuing the same story, adding, “It definitely happened. Had it not, Rubio & Musk would've been out w/instant denials.”
What makes “says who?” so dangerous is how it weaponizes the constructed nature of meaning. It recognizes that our shared reality is built in the space between us rather than simply discovered, but then attempts to monopolize the construction process. The goal isn't just to establish a particular narrative but to establish power's exclusive right to determine what narratives can even be considered.
This isn't just political spin. It's an assault on the very possibility of shared truth. When the powerful can simply declare reality to be whatever suits them at the moment—when “says who?” becomes the final word on what constitutes fact—we've entered dangerous territory. The question isn't whether Musk and Rubio argued—such disagreements happen in any administration. The question is whether we can acknowledge reality even when it's inconvenient.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And yes, by all reliable accounts, Elon Musk and Marco Rubio had a tense exchange in a cabinet meeting.
Standing in the circus requires us to maintain our grip on these basic realities, even as the ringmaster insists we focus only on the spectacle he prefers we see. Because when we allow “Says who?” to become the final arbiter of truth, we surrender not just particular facts but the very possibility of meaning itself.
It is just like what 'cancel culture' does, to use the rhetoric of the politics of wokeness, when they talk about "un- or de-platforming" someone...! How eerily ironic, eh!
One of foibles of us humans is the tendency to judge another's character or behaviour using their own beliefs/expectations, often in an unconscious way, rather than to attempt to take an objective stance. That is, we tend to assess others using our own inbuilt 'filters' that have accrued over the course of our life. A more objective approach may be, in the case where we judge another's behaviour to be outside of what we believe to be 'normal' or 'acceptable' is to use some measure/s that have over time been defined and accepted in our society as reasonable tools for assessment. In looking at human behaviour many of these tools/measures are found in the professions of psychology and psychiatry. For example, In the case of Donald Trump one could draw on the defined condition of narcissism, which is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association. Once you obtain an understanding of this particular mental disorder you will realise that he is an absolutely appropriate candidate for the job he was chosen to perform, chosen not by eligible citizens but by that group of powerful individuals who have come to rule the USA by dint of financial wealth and therefore the ready ability to 'buy' and control the politicians that are, or will be, positioned to obtain what they (the powerful) want. Of course, this is not unique in history. The difference now is that the power is now ultimate and what we are witnessing is the 'corporatisation' of the USA and the implementation of the British feudal system, this time not based on on the restricted ownership of land but on the restricted ownership of the technology that is already being used to control our lives. Is it too late to revolt? Probably.