If Trump Got the Coronavirus, How Would We Know?

If you can’t tell the truth about the small things, no one will believe you when it counts.

Trump and Bolsonaro

President Donald Trump speaks before a dinner with national security adviser Robert O'Brien (right) and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro (left) at Mar-a-Lago on March 7, 2020, in Palm Beach, Florida.Alex Brandon/AP

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

The number of people in the United States who have the coronavirus is still fairly small, but the number of people who have been in contact with someone who has the virus is growing fairly quicklyā€”and President Trump is one of them.

Trump posed for a photo at Mar-a-Lago last weekend with Jair Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil, who was tested for the coronavirus but doesn’t have it, and that presidentā€™s communications director, who definitely has it. Other people close to the president have also come into contact with individuals carrying the virus: His daughter, Ivanka, and his attorney general, Bill Barr, recently met with an Australian official who tested positive. Two top allies in the House, Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and Trumpā€™s incoming chief of staff, Mark Meadows, were all in contact with an individual at the conservative CPAC conference who had contracted the virus. If the coronavirus spread is like a game of Battleship, nothing has hit Trump yet. But the misses are getting closer and closer. 

Which raises a troubling question: If President Trump did get the virus, how would we know?

When asked on Thursday about the president’s possible exposure, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement there were so far no plans to test Trump for the virus because his contact with the Brazilian communications director had been minimal and Trump was not displaying any symptoms. “Exposures from the case are being assessed,” Grisham explained, “which will dictate next steps.”

Maybe youā€™d accept that kind of response from a normal administration. But Trumpā€™s lack of transparencyā€”and deliberate falsehoodsā€”has made it hard to trust anything his administration says. The Washington Post documented 16,241 false statements in the presidentā€™s first three years in office, and many of those lies concerned two areas that are relevant here: his personal life, and disaster management. 

Let’s start with national disasters. Last year, Trump falsely told the public that Alabama was in the path of a hurricane, and when the error was pointed out, produced a map that appeared to be doctored to try and prove Alabama was in the path. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which had initially contradicted Trump, was subsequently forced to produce a statement supporting his version. The president downplayed the enormous death toll from Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, and claimed that a study showing that 3,000 people had died as a result of the storm was a hoax pushed by Democrats.

And when it comes to his own health, heā€™s pushed misleading information and brought out aides for Soviet-style cheerleading. In 2015, in lieu of medical records, he produced a letter from a private Manhattan doctor, Harold Bornstein, attesting to his well-being. Trump ā€œwill be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,ā€ the letter read, adding that his lab results were ā€œastonishingly excellent.ā€ Bornstein later confessed what anyone reading that might have inferredā€”that Trump himself had dictated the note.

Since then, those tasked with vouching for the presidentā€™s health have done so in such effusive terms as to diminish their credibility. Despite being obese, seeming to sleep very little, and having a lifelong revulsion toward exercise (which he believes saps humansā€™ finite supply of energy), Trumpā€™s ā€œincredibly good genesā€ mean heā€™d be perfectly fit for the rest of the term and even a second one, thenā€“White House doctor Ronny Jackson claimed in 2017, notwithstanding the fact that the president has heart disease. On Sunday, his surgeon general, Jerome Adams, told CNN that Trump was healthier than he was. 

Trump, who will be 74 in June, is in the at-risk demographic for the coronavirus, which is more likely to be fatal the older you are. In Hubei, China, nearly 10 percent of people in their seventies who contracted the virus have died so farā€”more than double the fatality rate of people in their 60s and 109 times higher than people in their twenties. And Trump, for his part, has continued to misinform the public about the current pandemic, severely downplaying the threat it posed for weeks before delivering an error-laden address to the nation on Wednesday.

This kind of situation has played out before. President Woodrow Wilson contracted the deadly Spanish flu during the 1918 epidemic. ā€œI am feeling terribly bad,ā€ he told his physician. His doctor told the press it was simply a cold.

At a press conference in Burlington, Vermont, on Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders was asked if he believed the president should take a test and release the results to the public. The Democratic presidential candidate noted Trump’s exposure to the Brazilian delegation over the weekend and said he should. Trump may be fine for now, but the current moment perfectly illustrates the perils of an administration that believes honesty is optional. If you can’t tell the truth about the small things, people just might start to doubt you on the big ones.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate