I need to search for information about this claim, as it involves a specific quote that would have occurred after my knowledge cutoff.
I can now provide you with accurate information about Trump's recent comments regarding Somalis.
The claim you heard is not quite accurate, but Trump has made multiple disparaging comments about Somalis.
The specific phrase you mentioned doesn't appear in the reporting, but Trump has made a series of highly derogatory statements about Somalis in recent weeks. Here's what he actually said:
What Trump Said
At his Davos speech on January 22, 2026, Trump referred to Somalis as "low IQ people," saying "these are low IQ people" when discussing fraud investigations in Minnesota Yahoo!.
In early December 2025, during speeches and meetings, Trump:
- Called Somalia and similar countries "filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime," saying "the only thing they're good at is going after ships" NBC News
- Called Somalis "garbage" NPR
- Said Minnesota is "a hellhole right now. The Somalians should be out of here. They've destroyed our country" NBC News
- Stated "I don't want them in our country" and urged them to "go back to where they came from and fix it" NPR
Separately, he referred to Minnesota officials as "stupid people" but this was not directly calling Somalis stupid.
Context
Trump's focus intensified after reports that dozens of people of Somali descent had been convicted in fraud schemes related to COVID relief NBC News. He has particularly targeted Representative Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American congresswoman from Minnesota, calling for her deportation.
Minneapolis has approximately 84,000 people of Somali descent, 58 percent born in the U.S., with 87 percent of those born abroad being naturalized citizens Al Jazeera.
Reactions
From Somali Americans: Somalis responded with outrage and creative mockery on social media, with many creating satirical content Al Jazeera. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called Trump's message "wrong," saying Somali immigrants "have started businesses and created jobs" NPR.
From Somalia: Residents pushed back, pointing to positive contributions, with one noting "in every nation there is some bad people, in every nation, but not all of them" NPR.
From officials: Senator Tina Smith said "This is what bigotry looks like" NBC News, and Representative Omar stated the community would remain regardless of Trump's rhetoric.
You're right that the substantive difference is minimal - both are insulting someone's intelligence. Let me think through the distinctions:
Practical differences:
"Low IQ" has a veneer of pseudo-scientific objectivity that can make it seem more "factual" or "measured" rather than just name-calling. This can actually make it more insidious - it sounds like citing data when it's really just dressed-up bigotry. It also carries eugenic and racist historical baggage, as IQ testing has been misused to justify discrimination against racial and ethnic groups.
"Stupid" is blunter and more obviously an insult - there's no pretense it's anything but a pejorative judgment.
In this specific context:
When Trump says Somalis are "low IQ people," he's applying a supposedly objective-sounding label to an entire ethnic/national group, which makes it a racist generalization regardless of the exact wording. Whether he says "low IQ," "stupid," or any similar term, the core problem is identical: he's making sweeping negative claims about the intelligence of people based on their ethnicity or national origin.
So you're essentially correct - functionally there's no meaningful difference between calling a group "low IQ" versus "stupid." Both are ethnic slurs when applied to an entire people. The "low IQ" phrasing might actually be worse because it attempts to give a scientific gloss to what is simply prejudice.
This is a thoughtful question about how we should think about group differences even if they existed. Let me work through this:
What it wouldn't tell us:
Even if you could demonstrate average group differences in IQ scores (setting aside all the methodological problems with that), it would tell you nothing useful about any individual person. The variation within any group is vastly larger than variation between groups. You'd still have Somali individuals across the entire spectrum of intelligence, just as you do in any population.
It also wouldn't tell you anything about causation - whether differences reflected innate capacity versus educational access, nutrition, cultural test bias, language barriers, trauma from conflict/displacement, or dozens of other environmental factors.
The policy question:
No, we don't deport people based on IQ tests, and there are strong reasons why:
- Individual rights matter - In liberal democracies, we evaluate people as individuals, not as representatives of demographic categories. Your rights don't depend on your test scores or your group's average scores.
- Instrumental contribution isn't the measure of human worth - We don't (and shouldn't) determine someone's right to be here based solely on economic productivity or cognitive metrics. People have inherent dignity.
- Citizens can't be deported - Most Somali-Americans Trump is talking about are U.S. citizens, many born here. You can't deport citizens.
- The slippery slope is obvious - If we started deporting people based on intelligence metrics, where would it stop? Low-scoring native-born Americans? People with disabilities? The elderly with dementia?
The deeper issue:
Trump's comments aren't actually about IQ scores or data - they're about ethnic animus dressed up in pseudo-scientific language. The tell is that he's targeting an entire ethnic group rather than making any individualized assessment. This is the classic pattern of prejudice: attributing negative characteristics to all members of a disfavored group.
That's an excellent parallel, and it cuts right to the heart of what makes Trump's rhetoric so troubling from a moral perspective.
The parable's context:
The Samaritans were indeed despised by Jesus's Jewish audience - considered heretical, ethnically impure, and dangerous. When Jesus was asked "who is my neighbor?" he deliberately chose a Samaritan as the hero of his story. The point wasn't subtle: he was directly challenging his audience's ethnic prejudices.
What makes the parable powerful:
The religious authority and the Levite - the "good people" from the respected group - pass by the beaten man. The Samaritan - from the despised group - is the one who shows compassion and humanity. Jesus wasn't just saying "be kind to everyone." He was saying "the people you've written off as inferior or dangerous may be more righteous than you are."
The application here:
When Trump makes sweeping condemnations of Somalis, he's doing exactly what Jesus's audience did with Samaritans - writing off an entire people based on their origin. The parable suggests we should ask: Who among the Somali community is acting as the Good Samaritan? Who is contributing, showing compassion, building community?
The irony is that many Somali refugees came to America fleeing horrific violence, and have built businesses, raised families, and contributed to their communities - often while facing the exact prejudice Trump is now amplifying.
The broader principle:
The parable reminds us that moral worth isn't found in ethnic identity or group membership, but in individual character and action. It's a direct rebuke to the kind of collective judgment Trump is making.
Actually, I should gently correct that - "Judge not lest ye be judged" is from later in Matthew (7:1), not the opening of the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon begins with the Beatitudes: "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." But your point stands perfectly well regardless!
The passage's meaning:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged" is indeed a direct rebuke to the kind of sweeping moral condemnation Trump is making. The fuller context (Matthew 7:1-5) includes the famous image about seeing the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring the beam in your own - a warning against hypocritical judgment.
Its application here:
When Trump categorically judges an entire ethnic group as "low IQ" or calls them "garbage," he's doing precisely what this passage warns against - making himself the arbiter of others' worth. And the hypocrisy angle is sharp: he's condemning an entire community for the criminal actions of some individuals, while presumably not wanting his own group judged by its worst members.
The theological challenge:
For Christians who support Trump's rhetoric, this creates real tension. These aren't obscure or debatable passages - they're among Jesus's most famous and clearest teachings. The Good Samaritan and "judge not" are Christianity 101.
So yes, "Bible thump" away - these are exactly the texts that should inform how we think about treating despised or marginalized groups. They're pretty unambiguous about rejecting ethnic prejudice and sweeping moral condemnation.
Yes, absolutely! You're thinking of the final beatitude:
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:11-12)
The application:
This is particularly poignant for the Somali-American community facing Trump's attacks. When a powerful person "reviles" you and "speaks all manner of evil against you," the beatitude suggests the righteous response isn't retaliation but resilience and even joy in maintaining your dignity and values.
The irony:
Of course, the beatitude specifies persecution "for my sake" - for righteousness' sake. But the broader principle is about how to respond when you're maligned and attacked, especially by the powerful. The teaching elevates those who suffer unjust condemnation rather than those who dispense it.
The fuller picture:
Combined with "Blessed are the meek," "Blessed are the merciful," and "Blessed are the peacemakers," the Beatitudes paint a consistent picture: God's favor rests with the humble, the persecuted, and those who show mercy - not with those who mock the vulnerable or speak contemptuously of entire peoples.
So yes, that beatitude speaks directly to this situation - it's on the side of those being reviled, not those doing the reviling.
No comments:
Post a Comment