Distracting from the Epstein files? Media attention and short-run shifts in Trump’s Truth Social posts
By Andrew J. Peterson
DOI https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.11532
Abstract
Political “circuses” may undermine democratic accountability if leaders facing scandal can reliably pull media coverage toward fresh topics and away from substantive investigations or evaluations. We investigate whether politicians strategically alter their messaging during damaging media coverage (“strategic diversion”) or maintain consistent provocative communication regardless of scandal coverage (“always-on circus”). Using computational text analysis of Donald Trump’s Truth Social posts during the 2025 Epstein revelations, we find that a one-standard-deviation increase in scandal coverage is associated with communication patterns that deviate from baseline by 0.28 standard deviations over a 4-day window. Although these findings do not provide formal causal identification, they are robust to timing placebos and falsification tests, are consistent with the interpretation that leaders may deploy diversionary communication specifically within their own friendly media ecosystem, which has implications for accountability in polarized democracies.
Introduction
The introduction discusses the importance of democratic accountability, where the public can assess and respond to leaders’ actions through media scrutiny. This mechanism is compromised if leaders strategically divert attention from controversies. The paper evaluates Trump’s communication style during the Epstein scandal to understand if it becomes more unpredictable when he is under scrutiny. The concept of “linguistic novelty” serves as a proxy for such diversionary communication, although the study does not assess intention or mental state.
The context of the Epstein scandal is highlighted, illustrating how both political opponents and factions within Trump’s party pressured him for transparency. It builds on previous work about diversionary communication, providing a case study different from those focusing on legal threats and scandals.
Findings
Key Observations
Response to Media Attention: The study found that when Fox News’ coverage of Epstein increased, Trump’s communication novelty rose by a statistically significant amount (0.28 standard deviations) over a four-day window. This suggests that heightened media attention prompted Trump to engage in more varied messaging.
Temporal Dynamics: Trump’s response to media attention peaked within 2-3 days and persisted for approximately a week. This temporal pattern is interpreted as a strategic reaction to negative media coverage.
Source-Specific Effects: The study’s findings were robust for Fox News and Google Trends but less pronounced for other networks like CNN and MSNBC. This implies that Trump’s reactions were particularly influenced by media environments that resonate with his base.
Causation Limitations: While the study shows a correlation between media focus and Trump’s messaging, it emphasizes that this does not establish a causal relationship definitively due to the observational nature of the analysis.
Conclusion
The paper concludes that Trump’s communication style is not just an “always-on circus” but a strategic tool for managing political threats, particularly related to damaging narratives. As media attention to the Epstein scandal increased, so did the linguistic novelty in Trump’s social media posts, indicating a strategic diversion of attention. The study highlights the importance of the media landscape, showing that Trump responds differently to media coverage based on its alignment with his political base.
The authors call for future research to explore how effective these diversionary strategies are in shifting public opinion and media coverage. They acknowledge the limitations of studying one leader and one scandal but assert that understanding these dynamics is essential for grasping modern democratic accountability challenges.
Implications
The findings suggest that leaders can leverage their messaging strategically to inhibit scrutiny during scandals. This behavior complicates the public’s ability to hold leaders accountable and poses significant implications for democratic processes in polarized environments. Future work is necessary to explore the effects of such strategies on public perceptions and behavior further.