Trump doubles down with new attack on Kaitlan Collins’s appearance with after comparing CNN star to trans influencer

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of Trump's approach would argue that this sits within a long-running and, in their view, entirely legitimate pattern of pushing back hard against a network he considers persistently hostile to him, and that robust, even personal, ripostes to critical coverage are a normal feature of political combat. They would point out that Collins and CNN have themselves been forthright in their scrutiny of Trump, and that he is simply responding in kind rather than initiating hostilities from a position of calm. Many would also frame his unfiltered, combative style as part of an authentic communication approach that his base finds refreshing precisely because it disregards conventional political decorum.

The case against

Critics would argue that moving from criticising CNN's editorial line to commenting on a named journalist's personal appearance abandons any pretence of substantive disagreement and becomes personal denigration unconnected to her reporting. They would note that using a comparison to a trans influencer as an insult risks trading on prejudice against a marginalised group, turning that association into a slur rather than a considered critique. They would also suggest that focusing on a female journalist's looks, rather than the content of her journalism, reflects a wider pattern of personalised attacks on women in the press that they regard as beneath the standard expected of a senior political figure.