The Myth of the Muslim Database

An expanded, revised version of this article is now available in the new book: The Media Versus the Apprentice: The Devil Mr. Trump.

MEDIA MEME:

During his political campaign, Donald Trump called for the creation of a mandatory national database to track all Muslims in America. Authorities would force Muslims to register, and to wear identification badges and carry special ID cards stating their religion.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED:

Trump never proposed any of this. It was proposed by Yahoo reporter Hunter Walker, NBC reporter Vaughn Hillyard, and others. When Trump did not clearly answer their offensive proposals, news commentators misrepresented Trump as advocating these ideas. Yet Trump repeatedly explained that he only wanted a database of Syrian refugees entering the U.S. because of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris. (Some of the terrorists had been radicalized in Syria.) When the story of the Muslim database appeared on the front page of the New York Times, some journalists denounced it as fake news. Trump strongly denounced it as “false. Really false!” Yet the story continued to spread.

---

 

To explain the myth that Donald Trump wants to create a database that tracks all Muslims, let’s do what news commentators didn’t do. I’ll specify the context chronologically, and focus on how reporters created the story.

CONTEXT

In 2011, the Demographics Unit of the New York Police Department monitored certain mosques in New York City in order to gain information of possible terrorist activities. The NYPD had help from the CIA. They created databases to collect information on many Muslims. Undercover informants infiltrated some suspicious student groups and mosques. The NYPD ended the program in 2014 owing to lawsuits.

Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, security and surveillance measures in France were increased. France removed some 20 radical clerics from mosques and deported them.

On November 13, 2015, multiple terrorist attacks struck Paris. In six locations, Islamic terrorists carried out mass shootings and six suicide bombings. They killed 130 people and injured another 389 innocent people. These were the most horrifying, hurtful, destructive, and deadliest attacks in France since World War II.

On November 14, François Hollande, the President of France, declared war on ISIS. The next day, ten French fighter jets dropped at least 20 bombs on the ISIS occupied city of Raqqa in Syria.

On November 16, the French Minister of the Interior announced that he would shut down any mosques “where hate is preached,” and would deport such preachers. He announced that the police promptly carried out 168 anti-terror raids across France. He said they placed 104 people under house arrest. The police also jailed other suspects and seized dozens of firearms.

Having met with President Hollande, the former President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, proposed to electronically tag 11,500 people on the extremist watch list. He also promised “to expel forcibly all the imams who preach in radical Salafist mosques.” Sarkozy also said that some suspects should wear “an electronic ankle bracelet.”

Right then, ISIS threatened the United States. In a video released on November 16, an ISIS fighter declared: “I swear to God, as we struck France in its stronghold Paris, we will strike America in its stronghold, Washington.”

On November 18, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol reported that they had detained eight Syrians who had illegally tried to enter the US across the southern border, in Laredo Texas.

 

WHO SAID WHAT?

In New York City, presidential candidate Donald Trump said that increased surveillance was needed to improve security. He said: ‘‘Surveillance took a big turn over the last 48 hours…’’

Trump said: “you’re going to have to watch and study the mosques because a lot of talk is going on at the mosques.’’ He complained that New York City had reduced its surveillance efforts.

On November 17, 2015, reporter Hunter Walker interviewed Trump in New York City. Walker published the article on November 19. They briefly discussed the state of emergency in France. Walker asked Trump a grotesque question: whether the US will need to do “warrantless searches of Muslims.” Instead, of voicing disgust at Walker’s offensive question, Trump just replied “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule.”

Trump’s reply was insensitive, but not nearly as grotesque as Walker’s question. Trump did not say that he would advocate “warrantless searches of Muslims,” as Walker proposed.

Walker then asked another repulsive question, he “asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion.”

This was a paraphrase of Walker’s actual question, because in the article it does not appear as a quotation. Note also that this was not a proposal by Trump. It was an invention by Yahoo reporter Hunter Walker.

The actual question was recorded. They were discussing the state of emergency in France. Trump replied that new, upsetting things would be done in the U.S. “in terms of information and learning about the enemy.” Right then Walker asked: “to pull off the kind of tracking we need, do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their I.D.?”

Trump vaguely replied: “we’re gonna have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re gonna to have to look at the mosques. We’re gonna have to look very, very carefully.”

Notice that Trump did not say that he would create a database to register and track all Muslims in the United States. And he did not say that Muslims would receive special identification cards.

Instead of writing: “Trump did not reply to my offensive suggestions about Muslims,” Walker instead wrote: “whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.”

Reporter Hunter Walker had planted the seeds of controversy. Critics of Trump might say: “Since Trump didn’t denounce and strongly reject the idea of a Muslim database, then he endorsed it.”

This is the key moment that splits news readers in two groups. Some readers automatically “read between the lines” and interpret the awful imaginable meanings of what was not said. Others focus on what was actually said, and see no reason for alarm. Once readers have an interpretation, they seek words and phrases to support it.

For example, consider the words: “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” For some people this is terrifying. It’s a gross disruption of personal privacy, the right to congregate, and freedom of religion.

Meanwhile, other people saw the words: “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully,” and maybe they thought: ok, I guess careful surveillance can help if there’s evidence that terrorists have infiltrated a mosque.

Now notice Trump’s actual words. He said “look.” He said “very carefully.” By themselves these are hardly horrible words. Consider what actually happened in Europe. France established an extended emergency rule that enabled authorities to shut down “radical” places of worship. From December 2015 until early November 2016, the French police shut down more than 24 “radical” mosques, especially in Paris.

There’s another thing to consider. Political candidates often choose not to answer the question a reporter asks. A former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, shared one of the lessons he learned during the Vietnam War: “Don’t answer the question you were asked. Answer the question you wish you were asked.” It’s known as the artful dodge.

Politicians do this. Trump does it. A reporter asks him an ugly question and he chooses not to engage it but to say one of his talking points. Politicians try to set the agenda instead of letting reporters put words in their mouth.

So, if we interpret a non-reply as an affirmation, we should not be surprised if the interviewee later complains that he did not say that.

“He wouldn’t rule it out.”

Curious, a reporter for the Washington Examiner, Byron York, contacted Hunter Walker and asked for a recording or transcript of the interview with Trump. York published the transcript and complained: “Probably the best way to describe Trump’s reaction when Walker raised the database question is to say Trump didn’t address it at all. Trump certainly did not say, or even suggest, that he wouldn’t rule out a Muslim database.” York titled his article: “How the crazy Trump Muslim database story got started.”

Byron York noted that “Trump made a careless, egregious mistake by not paying attention and batting down the idea when it was first suggested to him by the press.”

York concluded that a political candidate should “always be on guard for attempts, by journalists or rival campaign operatives, to entice him into saying damaging things. Sometimes those are attempts to create a story out of nothing. The Muslim database affair seems a particularly audacious example of that.”

Nevertheless, on YouTube, The Young Turks had an episode titled “Trump Wants Mandatory Badges On Muslim Americans.” Having read Walker’s article, Cenk Uygur remarked: “are we at the beginning of fascism, where you start to give people ID badges and start to separate them out by religion? Well that is what Trump just said he would like to do.” Uygur paraphrased Trump as follows: “let’s target the Muslims, let’s target the Mexicans; maybe different badges for those two. One gets a triangle, another one gets a star, okay? And he labels one of them dangerous in whole, the other he labels criminals and rapists.”

The day Hunter Walker’s article was published, Trump was at a campaign event in Newton, Iowa. It was Wednesday November 18, 2015. Trump was signing books and items in a crowded room. A young reporter from NBC, 24-year-old Vaughn Hillyard, tried to drum up a story with an awful question: “Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?”

Trump had never proposed any such thing. Yet Hillyard echoed Hunter Walker’s bizarre, xenophobic proposal. It was a crowded, noisy room, but Trump vaguely replied: “There should be a lot of systems, beyond database, uh we should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen anymore.”

Trump started moving away, but the reporter asked: “But is that something your White House would like to implement?”

Trump answered: “Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.” Notice that Trump had just spoken about border security and the wall. But instead, later pundits misrepresented Trump as if he said he “Absolutely” wants a database to track all Muslims in the U.S.

Then Trump was signing a book or something, and the reporter asked: “What do you think the effect of that would be? How would that work?”

Trump replied: “It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally.” This clearly confirms that Trump was talking about immigration systems, the border and the wall. Not an imaginary database that tracks all Muslims who already live in the U.S.

Then a man said something in a loud voice, while the young Hillyard said, at the same time: “But Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?” [I had to replay this video multiple times to hear every word.]

Now this is important: at the exact moment (at 0:26 here) when Hillyard said “Muslims,” the man with the deeper, louder voice said something about “a photo,” speaking right over Hillyard, just as Trump momentarily looked at someone other than Hillyard.

Then Trump just vaguely said: “It would be just good management, what you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that.” Then Trump looked down at something he was about to sign and said: “That’s nice.”

Then Hillyard added: “Can you afford to go to mosques and sign these people up into the system?”

Did Trump hear the word ‘mosques’? It’s a soft-sounding word, just one syllable, in a noisy room. Trump just replied: “Different places. You sign them up at different—but it’s all about management, our country has no management.” Then Trump looked around and said “Who’s is it?”

The reporter added: “Would they have to be legally in this database, would they…”

And finally Trump ended: “They have to be leeg–, they have to be, let me just tell you: the key is people can come to the country, but they have to come in legally. Thank you very much.” And Trump moved away.

Later that day, Hillyard approached Trump again while he was signing more souvenirs. He said (at 0:59 here): “Mr. Trump, why would a Muslim database not be the same thing as requiring Jews to register in Nazi Germany? What would be the difference?”

Trump was not looking at Hillyard; he just drifted to the side. Then Hillyard insisted: “Is there a difference between the two?” Then Trump looked at him, having not heard him, and said: “Who??”

Hillyard started to repeat: “Is there a difference…” But Trump interrupted “Who are you with?” Hillyard replied “I’m with NBC News. Is there a difference between requiring Muslims to register and Jews…” Trump interrupted: “You tell me, you tell me,” while the reporter continued: “in Nazi Germany. Do you believe…” Trump interrupted again: “Why don’t you tell me?” Hillyard insisted: “Do you believe there is? Should Muslims be, I mean, fearful? Would there be consequences if they don’t register?” Meanwhile, Trump ignored Hillyard, looked at other people and interacted with fans: “Beautiful, wow, that’s nice, let me see that.”

That same day in Newton, Iowa, CNN’s Sara Murray asked Trump about whether he would rule out a database for Muslims. Trump replied “I don’t know where you heard that.” She said Yahoo News, and Trump replied: “No, I never — I never responded to that question.” He said he didn’t know who wrote that, and declined to answer more questions from her.

That night, November 19, 2015, Vaughn Hillyard published his story. Apparently he had a scoop! It was titled: “Trump’s plan for a Muslim database draws comparison to Nazi Germany.” What was really a question from Hillyard was now portrayed as “a plan” by Trump. The facts, however, were that Walker and Hillyard proposed the Muslim database, and Hillyard himself raised the comparison to Nazi Germany.

Meanwhile, Trump did an interview on Sirius National News. He extensively discussed possible measures to handle the risk of ISIS terrorists in the U.S. One commentator remarked: “In tossing out a barrage of ideas about aggressive surveillance, Trump never came close to suggesting a Muslim registry.”

At 4:10 am, the New York Times echoed Hillyard’s story: “Donald Trump says he’d “absolutely” require Muslims to register in a database.”

Promptly, that morning, Trump denied the awful story:

I didn't suggest a database-a reporter did. We must defeat Islamic terrorism & have surveillance, including a watch list, to protect America

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2015

That day, Trump also explained himself on Fox News, On the Record. The interviewer, Kimberly Guilfoyle, asked: “Would President Donald Trump support a full Muslim database?”

Trump replied: “I was really responding to a totally different reporter,” and he specified: “I’d want to have a database for the refugees, for the Syrian refugees that are coming in, because nobody knows where they’re coming from. I hear some are missing, at least one is missing, already—gone. And you look at what’s happened in Paris [terrorist mass shootings and suicide bombings that killed 130 people and injured 389], you’re looking at what happened all over the place, look at the tragic event of today and last night in the hotel [November 20 in Mali: Islamist militants took 170 hostages, killed 20, including one American]…”

Guilfoyle summarized: “So to be clear, you’re not saying anything with respect to a religious database; you’re talking about the Syrian refugees in light of the national security developments.” Then Guilfoyle asked about the NBC reporter. Trump replied: “but you couldn’t hear anything because I was signing books and there was music blaring in the background, and people were screaming to sign books, and sign different things, and he was asking questions, so I didn’t hear it very clearly…”

Regardless, the media story became: Horror! Donald Trump proposes a database to track every single Muslim who lives in the U.S.! But Trump never said that. We can get a different sense of what Trump actually said, if we subtract the NBC reporter’s own words. Here’s everything that Trump actually said to Hillyard:

“There should be a lot of systems, beyond database, we should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen anymore. … Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely. … It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally. … It would be just good management, what you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that.  … That’s nice. … Different places. You sign them up at different—but it’s all about management, our country has no management. … Who’s is it? … They have to be leg–, they have to be, let me just tell you: the key is people can come to the country, but they have to come in legally. Thank you very much. …  Who?? … Who are you with? … You tell me, you tell me. … Why don’t you tell me? …. Beautiful, wow, that’s nice, let me see that.”

Notice these remarkable things. Trump did not say the words: “Muslim” or “Islamic.” He did not say “Muslim database.” He did not say the word “mosque” either. He did not say “all Muslims.” He did not say “living in the US.” He did not even say “tracking.” He did not say “badges or ID cards.”

By ignoring the fact that Trump said no such words, plus assuming that he heard all questions clearly, Hillyard managed to concoct his awful story.

But to repeat: on November 19, speaking with Fox News, Trump clarified that he had not heard the NBC reporter’s questions clearly, and that he was only talking about Syrian refugees entering the U.S. after the terrorist attacks in Paris.

Nevertheless, on Friday November 20, CNN ran an article proclaiming: “Donald Trump on Thursday called for the creation of a national database to register all Muslims living in the U.S.”

This was a false report.

No such pronouncement happened. The CNN writer, Jeremy Diamond, ignored the following. Trump had never said “national database,” “register all Muslims,” or “living in the U.S.” Diamond disregarded the fact that Trump had Tweeted: “I did not suggest a database—a reporter did.” Diamond shrugged off what Trump told CNN’s own Sara Murry: “No, I never — I never responded to that question.” Diamond didn’t mention the fact that Trump told Fox News that he didn’t clearly hear Hillyard. Diamond didn’t mention that Trump explained that he was only talking about Syrian refugees.

Instead, Jeremy Diamond chose to begin his story with: Trump “called for the creation of a national database to register all Muslims living in the U.S.” What an incendiary story.

On YouTube, John Iadarola of The Young Turks channel worried: “Donald Trump is doubling down on his proposed policy of registering all Muslims nationwide, perhaps even forcing them to identify themselves as Muslims.” The Young Turks complained that Trump was proposing fascist and Nazi policies.

But it just wasn’t true.

Also on November 20, on ABC News, commentator David Muir clarified: “Trump is saying that he never suggested a database for Muslims, that it was a question posed to him?” Commentator Jonathan Karl replied: “That’s right, and it’s true— he did not suggest this himself; but David, in all of the back and forth today, there’s another thing that Trump did not do: he did not say that he opposes the idea.”

At CBS News, the senior political director Steve Chaggaris also recognized the ambiguity. He said: “I think it’s important to note that it’s a little unclear; these were answers to questions, where the questions were more specific, I think, than Donald Trump’s answers. So I think there’s a little bit of reading into what Donald Trump is saying here…”

There were some doubts about whether maybe Trump was mischaracterized. So, at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow interviewed Vaughn Hillyard. She emphatically asked him: “Did he [Trump] seem to understand what you were talking about?”

Hillyard answered that at first Trump turned the conversation away from “database” and instead talked about illegal immigration. Then Hillyard said (at 6:45 here): “and that’s when I followed up again, I said, ‘Ok, but we’re talking specifically about Muslims. Should there be a Muslim database?’ And he said: ‘Absolutely.’ He said ‘I um, certainly will implement that in my White House.’”

(But no, that’s not what Hillyard really asked before Trump said “Absolutely.” Hillyard had just asked: “Is that something your White House would like to implement?” That? That what? The wall? Stronger border security?)

Rachel Maddow concluded that “In fact, the Republican presidential frontrunner right now appears clearly to be advocating a national database in which Muslims in the United States will be forced to be registered, and there will be legal consequences if they don’t.”

No, this was just false.

The problem with representing Trump’s word “Absolutely,” as referring to implementing a database for all Muslims, was that Trump had voiced that agreement only after talking about the need to have a wall. To hide this, CNN edited the video of the interview. They omitted Trump’s words about the border and the wall. That way, Trump seemed to say that he would absolutely implement a Muslim database. Breitbart news denounced CNN for its selective editing.

Next, on Fox News Martha Maccallum reported: “there’s also controversy surrounding one interview that he gave, where he said he wouldn’t rule out making all Muslim Americans register in some sort of database and carry a special ID.”

No, this too was just false.

On November 21, 2015, Hillary Clinton declared that it’s important that we don’t listen to presidential candidates who “want us to somehow isolate, register, Muslims, go after Islam…”

Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski insisted that the NBC reporter had asked Trump leading question under “blaring music” and that Trump had in mind a terrorist watch list, not a registry of Muslims.

On the afternoon of November 21, Trump also posted a Tweet, echoing someone who wrote: “It’s clear that Donald Trump was NOT even talking about a Muslim Database!”

I tried to find whether anyone else understood Trump’s interaction with Vaughn Hillyard as a miscommunication: Hillyard proposing a Muslim database while Trump talked about possible databases, systems, border control, and the wall in order to stop and manage illegal immigration. I found one person: Mark Levin. He’s an angry conservative commentator.

Levin complained that Trump: “obviously didn’t hear the word Muslims. ‘We should have a lot of systems, we should a have a database,’ because he goes immediately to what: the border and the wall.” Levin emphasized: “He didn’t say: ‘Yes!! We should track the Muslims!! Because they’re Muslims!!’ He didn’t say that!”

Levin complained that he too is “a victim of this kind of reporting,” that takes statements out of context, and combines “one sentence, half of a sentence, three words, and then they say: ‘Levin said X !!’ And they’re doing it to try and character assassinate you.” Levin was so annoyed that he referred to young Vaughn Hillyard as “this little puke.”

Levin concluded that there was “nothing controversial” in what Trump said, but that “there’s something terribly controversial about what the reporter said.”

It’s certainly strange that while Trump was ridiculed and demonized for allegedly proposing a national Muslim database, the reporters were not criticized for being the ones who actually proposed it. It was their idea.

To summarize, the following ideas were not proposed by Trump. They were introduced by reporters and pundits:

Hunter Walker: “warrantless searches of Muslims … to pull off the kind of tracking we need, do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their I.D.?”

Vaughn Hillyard: “a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?” “Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?”

Cenk Uygur: “are we at the beginning of fascism, where you start to give people ID badges and start to separate them out by religion?”

John Iadarola: “…perhaps even forcing them to identify themselves as Muslims.”

Rachel Maddow: “Muslims in the United States will be forced to be registered, and there will be legal consequences if they don’t.”

Martha Maccallum: “making all Muslim Americans register in some sort of database and carry a special ID.”

Trump himself didn’t said any of that.

On November 21, the front page (print version) of The New York Times featured a story: “Muslim List? Call by Trump Draws Outrage.” The reporters said that Trump “on Friday drew back from his call for a mandatory registry of Muslims in the United States.” They described it as “one of the ugliest controversies yet in a presidential campaign like no others.” The reporters complained that nowhere did Trump clearly state that he opposed a registry of Muslims. The reporters wrote: “Asked if he would set up a database to track Muslims, Mr. Trump replied, ‘I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.'”

After this misleading and false statement, the reporters acknowledged some ambiguity: “Asked about the effect that would have, however, he replied, ‘It would stop people from coming in illegally’ — perhaps suggesting that Mr. Trump, who has vowed to build a ‘beautiful’ wall along the Mexican border, was not focused on the question.” Finally the reporters noted that Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and interfaith leaders had widely condemned Trump’s remarks as alarming, scary, and intolerable.

A journalist for the Washington Post, David Weigel, rightly ridiculed the New York Times: “Not clearly saying no to something” is the new “calling for.” The chief Washington Correspondent for CNBC, John Hardwood (and contributor to the Times) agreed that this incident would increase distrust in the media. Another journalist, Mickey Kaus wrote that he was “kind of shocked” to see an “utterly confected story” on the first page of the New York Times.

Later that day, Trump himself complained: “Today, in the New York Times, they had a report on the front page, that was false. Really false! That was today.”

Trump’s remarks happened at a massive campaign rally in Birmingham, Alabama, attended by 25,000 to 30,000 people, and covered by the media. Trump bellowed at length:

(at 35:20)  “I’ve been talking about trade, I’ve been talking about all of the different things, much of which you’ve heard — and then a week ago we had the horrible incident in Paris. And you know what? My whole speech changed. And now, it’s about security, it’s about borders, it’s about protection. …. ISIS and Al-Qaeda … people know that I’m gonna protect them. I’m gonna protect them at the border. I don’t want the people from Syria coming in because we don’t know who they are! We don’t know who they are! And I don’t want them coming in. … Today, in the New York Times, they had a report on the front page, that was false. Really false! That was today. … they’re dishonest people! The media is so dishonest. Like the story on the front page of the New York Times. Front page! I love being on the front page, you know I’m from New York — New York Times front page! But it’s a false story, and Breitbart [News] wrote it correctly and now the Times is suffering. But they write false stuff! And that had to do with whether or not we register people. Ok? And I want those people coming in from Syria, that Obama wants to let in, that people are fighting, but the Republicans so far have been so very ineffective with their fighting! You know it’s funny, we finally win the Senate, we have the House, nothing happens. It’s always the same. We don’t have the victories. So what happens is: they write false stories, and in this case they got called on it by a lot of people, because I mean, you know, you can only go so much, ok? But these guys [pointing at the cameras] … [Trump discusses again the camera operators’ unwillingness to show the crowd] … These are just lying people, they’re bad people. The press is really bad. Fan the cameras! …”

“So now– now, what happens is yesterday, some little wise guy [Vaughn Hillyard], he looked like he was twelve years old, he’s got a camera. I’m signing autographs, and I’m going like; he’s asking me questions. Talking about the wall, we’re gonna build a wall, we’re gonna build this, we’re gonna, and I’m signing autographs, and there’s music playing in the background, and I’m leaving, bing, bing, bing, signing, and this little wise guy‘s sitting there, and he’s asking me questions; I’m, it’s not even important. Then I said ‘who you with?’ He says NBC, once he said that I didn’t bother answering any more ‘cuz I know. Although they did do me on Saturday Night Live and they were good. … So the database, I said yeah, that’s alright fine. But they also said the wall, and I said the wall, and I was referring to the wall, but database is okay, and watch list is okay, and surveillance is okay! If you don’t mind, I want to be — I want to surveil. I want surveillance of these people that are coming in! The Trojan Horse! I want to know who the hell they are! And the biggest story yesterday, the biggest, was ‘Trump wants database on Muslims!’  I said: What’s all happening here??”

“And I spoke to the reporter at the [New York] Times. And I think I made it clear. And I also said: number one, you couldn’t hear very well, because it’s like walking over here. But regardless of that, doesn’t matter, but I do want database for those people coming in, but I also insist on the wall. And it was all fine, all of a sudden I end up with some stories, I say: ‘What are you talking about?!’ So here’s the story — just to set it clear: I want surveillance of these people. I want surveillance if we have to, and I don’t care. Are you ready for this folks? Are you ready? Oh, they’re gonna make it such a big deal! They’re gonna make it so big! He said something so politically incorrect! That’s why we’re going to hell, because we’re so politically incorrect. Such a big deal! Such a big deal! I want surveillance of certain mosques. Ok? If that’s ok. And you know what. We’ve had it before and we’ll have it again.”

Trump praised Breitbart News for reporting the story correctly. On that day, Breitbart had published an article complaining that the New York Times had lied on its front page: “It is an objective, obvious, pro-science fact that Trump has not ‘called’ for the registering of Muslims.”

On Sunday November 22, Trump was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News. Stephanopoulos asked him:

“you did stir up a controversy with those comments over the database; let’s try to clear that up. Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?” Trump replied: “No, not at all…”

At this moment we might yell: There it is! He said it! Trump said that HE DOES NOT RULE OUT A DATABASE ON ALL MUSLIMS! Could it be more clear?

Wait. Language is a messy, slippery thing. Suppose that Trump meant: “I do want a database on some Muslim immigrants, namely those suspected of having possible ties to ISIS and terrorism, so I can’t say that I’m ruling out a database on all Muslims. Some would be tracked in a database.” Unfortunately, this interpretation is plausible if we hear Trump’s reply in its entirety. He said:

“No, not at all, I want the database for the refugees if they come into the country. We have no idea who these people are. When the Syrian refugees are gonna start pouring into this country, we don’t know if they’re ISIS, we don’t know if it’s a Trojan Horse, and I definitely want a database and other checks and balances: we wanna go with watch-lists, we wanna go with databases, and we have no choice, we have no idea who’s being sent in here, this could the great Trojan, it’s probably not, but it could be the great Trojan Horse of all time. When I look those migrations, when I look at the migration and the lines, and I see all strong, very powerful looking men… … we’re not even sure that they’re coming in from Syria, if they’re gonna come in we have to be very, very vigilant—and database would be fine for them, and watch-lists is fine, we have to watch and see what we’re doing, they should not come in, by the way, they should not be allowed in.”

As in every other instance, it’s clear that Trump was talking about surveillance of refugees who might be suspected of connections to ISIS. Only if we disregard the ten times when he, in this rambling statement, specified that he was talking about people potentially coming into the US, only then can we imagine that he meant to say: “I’m not talking about immigration of Syrian refugees but about tracking every single Muslim who lives in or is a citizen of the United States, and issuing a mandate that all Muslims in America must register into a database and be forced to carry special ID cards and badges that specify that they are Muslims, under penalty of being punished by the law.” Many people will indeed believe that that was precisely what Trump meant by saying “No, not at all,” which is strange to me.

At the same time, Trump’s utter failure to just say: “I emphatically and totally oppose the creation of any database that tracks all Muslims in the US,” is perplexing, stunning, and exasperating. To many people it means that Trump has some deep, horrible bias against Muslims. I disagree.

Having thought about it, this apparent inability to reply directly to a plain question brings to mind many, many memories. Whether it was a question voiced in a phone call, an email, a text message, a conversation, an inquiry for a contractor, a lawyer, or even the Instructions in a homework assignment for my students, I have to say that it is frustratingly common for people to just not reply directly and entirely to what is being asked, even when they’re asked the question multiple times. And sadly, I think that this is a common trait among politicians.

 

The Myth Returns

On November 9, 2016, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

Reporters and pundits were stunned. How could he win? They thought he had formulated a racist, xenophobic plan to force all Muslims in the U.S. to declare their religion, to be registered into a database that would track them, and to be forced to have special IDs and wear badges that would identify them in public, just like the Jews in Nazi Germany. Thanks to the reporters’ incisive ability to surmise (invent) his evil plans, millions of U.S. citizens cried in shock, horror and despair that a new Adolf Hitler had arisen.

Then, exactly one year after the myth of the Muslim database was created by Hunter Walker, it flared up again.

On November 15, 2016, two reporters for Reuters wrote that Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach “said in an interview that Trump’s policy advisers had also discussed drafting a proposal for his consideration to reinstate a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.”

Stop. Really?

Instantly it might seem that Kobach actually said “database for all Muslims in America.” But no, read it again. First, it’s not a direct quotation: the reporters paraphrased Kobach. Second, he wasn’t talking about registering all Muslims who live in the United States. Third, he did not even say all Muslim immigrants. Fourth, he’s talking about regions: immigration from countries that are mostly Muslim.

Fifth, Kobach was not one of Trump’s policy advisers. So he was not speaking for Trump. The Reuters reporters wrote: “media reports say [Kobach] is a key member of Trump’s transition team.” Yet in the same article, the reporters also wrote: “Trump’s transition team did not respond to requests for confirmation for Kobach’s role.” (Soon, a spokesperson for Trump stated that Kobach was not an adviser for Trump’s transition team.)

Sixth, and most important, is the word “reinstate.” Kobach was not saying that Trump wants to track all Muslims in the United States. It was not a new, radical proposal. Instead, Kobach was talking about reinstating an old program “known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System.”

Kobach himself helped design the NSEERS program when he served in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush—after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This program continued to operate during the administration of President Obama, until it was replaced by the US-VISIT program in late April 2011. Did the NSEERS program pertain specifically to “immigrants from Muslim countries”? For the most part, yes. It pertained to immigrants from: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and Kuwait.

Disregarding the six important points above, Reuters titled the article in question: “Immigration hardliner says Trump team preparing plans for wall, mulling Muslim registry.” The title alone sounds as if it were a registry for all Muslims in the US, rather than a reinstatement of the official Registration System that operated during the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama.

And so, on its one-year anniversary, the myth of Trump’s Muslim database exploded again.

On Fox News, the very next day, Megyn Kelly interviewed Carl Higbie, a spokesman for the Great America PAC that supported Trump. Alarmed, Kelly read out loud the line written by the Reuters reporters: “Trump’s policy advisers are drafting [oops], are discussing drafting a proposal to reinstate a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries.”

Carl Higbie replied: “it is legal, they say it’ll hold constitutional muster, I know the ACLU is gonna challenge it, but I think it’ll pass, and we’ve done it with Iran, back a while ago, we did it during World War II with the Japanese, which, call it what you will, may be wrong, but—”

As Higbie was saying “call it what you will,” Megyn Kelly started speaking over him, and said: “C’mon, you’re not proposing going back to the days of internment camps [of Japanese Americans], I hope?”

But note that Higbie was not talking about internment camps. The topic of discussion was immigration restrictions. Megyn Kelly brought up the internment camps.

So Higbie shook his head and replied: “No, no, no, I’m not proposing that at all, Megyn.” He explained: “I’m just saying there is precedent, I’m not saying I agree with it, but—”

Kelly interrupted again: “You can’t be citing Japanese internment camps as precedent for anything the President elect is gonna do!” Again, Kelly herself turned the topic to internment camps. A more appropriate point would have been to acknowledge that immediately after Japanese warplanes bombed Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt suspended naturalization services for Japanese immigrants and required them to be registered.

The time for the brief interview was quickly ending, so Higbie just replied: “The President needs to protect America first, and if that means having people that are not protected under our Constitution have some sort of registry so we can understand until we can identify the true threat and where it’s coming from, I support it.”

Bear in mind that Higbie was not a spokesman for Trump or his transition team. But what did he mean? Did he mean that Muslims are not protected by the Constitution? Or did he mean that foreigners are not protected by the Constitution?

On November 17, Trump’s transition team issued an official statement:

Full statement from Jason Miller re Trump and Muslim registry pic.twitter.com/38VctEk7X8

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 18, 2016

In November 17, CNN’s Erin Burnett interviewed Carl Higbie. She told him: “To Fox and the New York Times you said the Japanese Internment Camps in the US during World War II could provide precedent for keeping registries.”

This was not true. So Higbie asked her: “Did you actually see the tape, though?” She repeated that he said that the Japanese Internment Camps could provide precedent. So Higbie insisted: “Did you see the tape?” She said yes.

Flustered, Higbie explained: “At no point did I ever even mention it, it was actually Megyn Kelly, which, I was actually talking about immigration reform under Carter when he did the Iran thing, and also under World War II, with Japan and many other countries too, I wasn’t even talking about camps, Megyn brought it up, and I was shocked.”

Then Erin Burnett insisted that he had spoken about Japanese camps as a precedent for the registry. Higbie replied: “I don’t actually advocate for any of this. I didn’t bring it up. I was shocked when Megyn brought it up. I clarified to the New York Times today, you know, this is something that is a huge black mark in our society, and we would never want to do it again…”

Later, also on November 17, 2016, Carl Higbie again visited Megyn Kelly on Fox News. She acknowledged that Higbie “made a reference to the Japanese in World War 2, and your position tonight is that that was not a reference to internment camps, is that right?”

Higbie replied: “Oh no, absolutely, I was quite, frankly I was actually shocked that you brought in internment camps, but it was a reference strictly to the scrutiny on immigration, and the stopping of immigration, and the registration of immigrants coming from places like Japan, and Italy, and Germany, and things like that, so no it had nothing to do with interment camps whatsoever.” He also added: “it was a reference parallel with Iran, when we, under [President] Jimmy Carter when we banned immigration from Iran…”

Them Megyn Kelly insisted: “but you mentioned the Japanese in World War II,” adding that “that’s kind of the big story about what we did to the Japanese.”

Higbie replied: “Well, that’s because you put words out there Megyn, and let’s be honest, the media was happy to run with that.”

 

An expanded, revised version of this article is now available in the new book: The Media Versus the Apprentice: The Devil Mr. Trump.

 

Alberto A. Martinez is a professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin.

Next:  How many people celebrated in New Jersey on 9/11?