# Post ts_117362512360400632

- Post ID: `ts_117362512360400632`
- Platform: Truth Social
- Posted: 2026-09-30T23:10:19.953Z (UTC)
- Deleted: no
- Repost: no
- Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117362512360400632
- Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117362512360400632/analysis

## Post text

_No text of its own. The post is its media, below._

## What the media says

**Video transcript** (9:47), transcribed automatically, so names and numbers may be wrong. Speakers aren't identified, so a voice in it may not be his:

> Welcome back America, we're here with our friend Ben Shapiro who's in great demand. I have trouble getting Ben, he's in great demand and for good reason. The Ben Shapiro show, one of the biggest podcasts in the country, he's the Daily Wire editor Emeritus. He's got a great new film out of which he's producer, Run Hide, Fight, Infidels. It's a new movie exclusively on the Daily Wire and I cannot recommend it enough. I've seen it, it's fantastic. By the way, lots of action-oriented, I love it. No PC, I love that too. We can talk about it a little bit later. You know, Ben, we have this very odd woke-right isolationist element. I won't say within the Republican Party, they seem to hate the Republican Party, but they are of a similar mindset, I remember, of the George McGoverns of old, their similar mindset of the Papucans of old, and now of the Marxist Islamists on the hard left, pushing, pushing for isolationism and so forth. And yet, when we look at the Fox survey, Iran is a 4% issue with the American people. So whatever happens in the midterms, it doesn't appear that Iran is going to drive anything one way or another. What's your take on this? I think that's exactly right. Obviously, there is a contingent who would love to see President Trump too poorly in the midterms, who want Republicans to lose. Some of these people are openly saying they want Republicans to lose, by the way. Some of them are openly standing in favor of the pro-terrorism candidate in Michigan, Abdul Al Sayyed. So there are some people who are attempting to destroy the Republican Party from within in the hopes that they will then be able to sort of take over whatever remains of the Republican Party. I don't think that it's going to work. You know, when you look at the Iran issue, there's one thing that Americans hate more than anything else when it comes to foreign policy. And it is not foreign conflict. It is losing. It is losing. And the reality is that the president has done yeoman's work in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and putting the United States in a position to really finish off the Iranian regime without having to put boots on the ground in Iran. The president has to within his capacity to essentially finish the Iranian economy with a single bombing sortie over Karg Island or South Pars. The biggest thing, I think, that is the obstacle right now to just completing that victory is it's just a matter of decision making. Does the president actually believe that a deal is on the table or does he not? I'm very skeptical the Iranians are ever gonna put a worthwhile deal on the table. But as you say, the American people are significantly less interested in any foreign policy issue than they are with how things are going here in the United States. And if the economic numbers continue to boom in the stock market, if they can use well and the unemployment numbers, if the wages increase to keep up with the inflation and inflation drops, then Republicans will do fine in the midterms and the rest of the presidency will be a success. It really is almost that simple. But I'm hearing the the whispers. I think they're telling the president, they're certainly telling the media that if we go full bore and finish them off, and I believe that we can go full bore and finish them off, that if we do that, the price of fuel will even go higher to two hundred dollars a gallon. Isn't this what the isolationist said when this started? They didn't say that it would go to a hundred dollars a barrel. They said it would go to two hundred dollars a barrel, that we would lose thousands of troops. Everything they said is false. And I fear that they're repeating it and the Arab countries are all looking out for themselves. Turkey of course has greater, you know, desires about the region and so forth and so on. If we're going to do America first, and these other countries aren't aligning with us to quote the vice president, then why should we listen to them? Well, let's get it over with. Well, this is my view. I mean, I think that the president is on the verge of a world-shaking historic victory in Iran. And again, the oil prices, yes, they are higher obviously than they were before the conflict, but if you would like for the oil prices to be very high in perpetuity, please pull out as soon as possible and allow Iran free reign over the Strait of Hormuz and the Houthis free reign over the Babylon Mountains fray and the capacity to hit the east-west pipeline in Saudi Arabia. That is a great way to ensure that in a permanent basis Americans are paying a higher price for oil in the global markets. So again, the only way out is through here. Yeah, obviously the president's hit on this very successful economic strategy for strangling the Iranian economy. I do think it's going to take a final topple in order for the Iranian regime to actually change its behavior or fall. Yeah, I don't think that it's going to happen through them just giving up the ghost in a form of negotiations. But as you say, Mark, there is no substitute for victory, there never has been. I think you're quite right and I think we both agree that what the president has done up to now, as you said, is historic. What the president has done has actually created the circumstance, the environment, for finishing them off. And I think this is a very, very big deal what he's been able to accomplish so far and I think he will finish them off in the end because I don't think there's really much else that we can do that will work. We'll be right back. Welcome back, America. You know, Ben Shapiro, I'm noticing a few of the real rhinos, you know, they use that word very loosely, but real rhinos, which are liberal Republicans, basically. I noticed some of them are starting to peel off, you're starting to panic, they're starting to choke rather than stand strung. Let me ask you a question. If you're running for Congress, whether it's the House or the Senate, shouldn't you have the rudimentary capacity to express your principle, to make the case, to articulate it in plain English? Isn't there a lot of good that the Republicans can talk about in terms of both the administration's policies, as well as the bad that the Democrats are the worst as they've ever been? I think that's exactly right. I mean, the thing that I think Republicans, again, need to keep hammering home is, regardless of what you think of the president, obviously, I'm very pro, or the administration, obviously, I'm very pro. But regardless of what you think of that, the only thing that people should really be worried about is what's on the other side of that coin? Do they think that by staying home, the country gets better? What happens when you have a pro-terrorism candidate in Michigan, Abdullah Sayed, who actually is in the United States Senate? What happens when you have a supporter of every radical policy on transing the kids, like James Tallarico in Texas, sitting in the United States Senate? What happens when Democrats have majorities in the House and the Senate and then use every waking moment in order to target Republicans, Republican legislators, and members of the administration, and drag down the administration and restore woke in a far more radical form than it ever was under Joe Biden? You know, the great lie I think a lot of Republicans have told themselves is that woke is dead, that President Trump did such a thorough job of destroying the left, that they can never recover, they'll never come back. They are waiting. They are waiting, and they are watching, and they are ready to pounce. And in the meantime, while they've been out of power, they've gotten more radical, not less radical. They did not moderate in the wake of 2024. They decided that they were essentially going to negotiate the terms of their own surrender to the Democratic Socialists. They were going to turn themselves into the party of Zoran Mamdani, not turn themselves into the party of Scoop Jackson. And so this sort of bizarre story that a lot of Republicans have told themselves, which is that, you know, if we stay home, no big deal, it's a way to punish the president. It's a way of punishing yourself, because what you're gonna end up with is a radical Democratic Congress, and then you're gonna put them on the road to a radical Democratic regime in 2028. And it's not the Constitution and the ballot, too, given what the Democrats have said, even apart from the DSA. I mean, they've openly promised they're gonna stack the Supreme Court. They've openly promised to add a couple of new states. They've openly promised to change the voting procedures to essentially mandate ballot harvesting procedures across the country. And these are first priorities for them. And so again, the media are telling a story that Donald Trump is, quote unquote, a threat to the Republic. I don't know. I don't feel like the Republic is particularly threatened or was during his first term either. I think that what is significantly more threatening is a Democratic Party that is pledging systematic change to the way that the country itself works, breaking the machines that allow the country to work. Tell us about your movie. You worked very hard on it. Your whole team did run, hide, fight infidels. You're the producer. I saw it. It really is a tour de force. Tell us about it. Sure. Well, it's a lot of fun, and it also makes a really important point. It is the only movie that I think that's been made in the last 20 years, essentially, that tells the truth about what radical Islam actually does, but does it in a fun and entertaining way. First and foremost, a really entertaining action flick. A friend described it as sort of a mash up of red dawn, like a 1980s action flick with blazing saddles. But it's about essentially an Islamic invasion of an American college campus. A pro Hamas student protest is essentially hijacked by actual terrorists, and they take over this American university and set up a mini caliphate at the university and takes a group of red blooded students, plus a former military member in order to take them down. So it's a kind of a smash bang action flick. But again, the point of view of the movie is that radical Islam is indeed a real threat, and the radical Muslims in the film act like actual radical Muslims. One of the clips that's gone viral is them legitimately kicking a gay person off the top of a building, because that's what would happen if ISIS were to take over an American campus. You know, queers for Palestine would end up at the bottom of the building in reality, and so that's how it ends up in the movie as well. So where do people go to see it? So you can head on over to dailywire.com. Really appreciate it, Mark. And they can subscribe right now. It got much more coming. This is just the first in our sort of entertainment strategy iteration in the new form of Daily Wire. Well, I really do support independents and others who are using the entertainment genre to try and get a message out there and try and explain things, particularly the younger people. I think that's very, very important. Ben And Shapiro, God bless you my friend, be safe, take care of yourself. Thanks so much Mark.

## Media

- video: https://static-assets-1.truthsocial.com/tmtg:prime-ts-assets/media_attachments/files/117/362/510/601/779/155/original/fb55c50133e0f36d.mp4

## Engagement

- Likes: 5,017
- Reposts: 1,317
- Replies: 147
- Views: unknown
- Metrics collected: 2026-10-07T23:00:59.825Z (UTC)

# Analysis

_Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-09-30T23:42:57.994Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._

## Summary

Trump posted, without comment, a TV segment in which a host (likely Mark Levin) and Ben Shapiro credit him with "reopening the Strait of Hormuz," argue that Iran is only "a 4% issue" for the midterms, and cast the war's critics on the right as people who "want Republicans to lose." The segment calls fuel-price warnings false ("Everything they said is false"), three days after Trump said he was seriously weighing a diesel export ban over those same prices. It urges finishing Iran's economy "with a single bombing sortie over Kharg Island or South Pars." It also blames any hesitation on advisers' "whispers," which spares Trump the doubt Shapiro voices about whether a deal is real. The post lets him send a maximal threat during Qatari-mediated talks without writing it himself. It also spreads a "pro-terrorism candidate" label aimed at a named Muslim American Senate candidate, next to the host's "Marxist Islamists." The defenses in play are rationalization of the war's domestic cost, displacement of indecision onto staff, and splitting of his own coalition into loyal hawks and saboteurs. The same-day text post about media hiding his "Record Setting Numbers" fits the pattern of seeking outside validation during a week of record-low approval.

## A hawk's case, posted without a caption

The video is an interview segment. A host opens with "Welcome back America," brings on Ben Shapiro to promote a Daily Wire film, then turns to Iran. The opener and the phrasing ("woke-right isolationist element," "Marxist Islamists on the hard left") match Mark Levin's Fox program. That identification is medium confidence, since the transcript never names him. Trump appears only in the third person. He added no text, so the behavior to read is the decision to put several minutes of other men's argument in front of his followers. He did it on an evening when he had already posted about the Iraq withdrawal and the Fed renovation, and had complained that "the Public just doesn't know how well we're doing."

The clip gives him three things:
- **Credit.** Shapiro says "the president has done yeoman's work in reopening the Strait of Hormuz."
- **Electoral reassurance.** The host cites a Fox survey putting Iran at "a 4% issue," so "it doesn't appear that Iran is going to drive anything" in the midterms.
- **An enemy inside the tent.** Critics are people who want to see "President Trump [do] poorly," who "want Republicans to lose," and who are trying "to destroy the Republican Party from within."

The historian record puts his approval at record lows that same week. The reassurance is therefore the most likely draw, and the same-day text post supports that reading: it complains that the media won't report his "Record Setting Numbers," so "I'm doing the best I can to do it myself." This clip is more of that do-it-myself publicity, handed off to friendly voices.

## Doubt about his own posture, and who gets blamed for it

The segment also carries a rebuke. Shapiro says the obstacle "to just completing that victory is ... just a matter of decision making. Does the president actually believe that a deal is on the table or does he not? I'm very skeptical." That questions the posture Trump took days earlier, when he rejected Iran's seven-day Hormuz plan but told Axios he expected talks to resume through Qatari mediators. The host then moves the hesitation away from Trump: "I'm hearing the whispers. I think they're telling the president ... if we go full bore and finish them off ... the price of fuel will even go higher." Doubt belongs to unnamed advisers, and resolve belongs to the president. In defensive terms this is displacement carried out by proxy. The clip names a weakness and assigns it to his staff.

Posting it also lets Trump broadcast a maximal threat without saying it himself. Shapiro describes the power "to essentially finish the Iranian economy with a single bombing sortie over Karg [Kharg] Island or South Pars." Mediation is live, and Tehran and the Qatari go-betweens can read the post as coercive signaling, while Trump keeps the ability to say he threatened nothing. Whether that was the intent is an inference, but the post has that effect either way.

## Fuel costs recast as scaremongering

The host says of the isolationists' warnings, "Everything they said is false." He mocks a $200-a-barrel prediction, first misspeaking it as "two hundred dollars a gallon." His own aside, "They didn't say that it would go to a hundred dollars a barrel," concedes that prices reached roughly that level. Three days earlier, Trump said he was "very seriously" considering a ban on diesel exports because of fuel prices tied to the Iran tanker war. So he is weighing emergency action against a cost while amplifying a segment that calls warnings about that same cost discredited. That is the post's main reality-shaping move: the cost is real enough to act on and false enough to ridicule. The war's domestic price becomes a scare story told by disloyal people. It is rationalization, and it is borrowed rather than written. That the fuel claims are the host's is also why none appear under his fact checks.

## Taking a side in his own coalition's split

The main target is a restraint wing on the right. The host says "I won't say within the Republican Party, they seem to hate the Republican Party," then lumps them with "the George McGoverns of old," the paleocons (transcribed "Papucans"), and "the Marxist Islamists on the hard left." That chain treats dissent on the right as the same thing as the far left and Islamism, which is splitting: it leaves no legitimate ground between full escalation and disloyalty. The host even turns the vice president's language against them ("If we're going to do America first ... to quote the vice president, then why should we listen to them?"). By reposting it, Trump publicly takes the hawks' side against part of his own base. That fits an agentic, dominance-oriented stance better than any appeal to belonging. The epistemic closure is plain: disagreement over a war becomes a wish to see Republicans lose.

## The labels it carries into millions of feeds

Shapiro calls Abdul El-Sayed (transcribed "Abdul Al Sayyed"), a Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, "the pro-terrorism candidate." Combined with the host's "Marxist Islamists," the clip pairs a named Muslim American politician with terrorism, and the President has now distributed it. The clip proposes no action against El-Sayed and uses no eliminationist wording. The concern is a named target plus a terrorism label reaching an audience this size, alongside open advocacy for bombing Iranian economic infrastructure. The bombing argument is a debate about state policy. It does not ask private actors to do anything.

## Who pressed post

The post landed at 7:10 p.m. Eastern (23:10 UTC). Washington is the likeliest location given the Iraq announcement that day, though the record doesn't confirm it. Early evening falls between staff hours and his late-night habit. Friendly TV segments posted without comment are a format both he and his social-media staff produce, and this one came in a same-day run that included two other media-only posts. He never speaks in the clip, so it gives no sample of his own language.

## Authorship Analysis

**Uncertain** (score: 50%)

### Indicators

- Media-only post with no written text: no stylometric evidence
- Posted 7:10 p.m. Eastern, between staff hours and his late-night pattern
- Friendly TV segment reposted without caption, a format used by both Trump and his social-media staff
- Part of a same-day run including two other media-only posts

## Psychological Profile

### Traits

**Big Five:**
- Extraversion: 70%
- Agreeableness: 20%
- Conscientiousness: 40%
- Neuroticism: 50%
- Openness: 30%

Strongest facet: Low agreeableness (antagonism toward dissenters in his own coalition)

**Motives:**
- Agency: 80%
- Communion: 20%

Primary drive: validation

### Narrative

- **Role:** Victorious commander held back only by advisers' whispers
- **Arc:** redemption
- **Contrasting:** Woke-right isolationists who allegedly want Republicans to lose

**Identity Claims:**
- Reopened the Strait of Hormuz
- Able to finish the Iranian regime without ground troops
- His economy will carry the midterms

### State

**Grandiose State**

**Trigger:** Supply Seeking (Record-low approval, midterm anxiety, and fuel-price pressure from the Iran conflict)

Sentiment: +0.10

### Clinical

**Malignant Narcissism:**
- Narcissistic: 45%
- Antisocial: 20%
- Paranoid: 35%
- Sadism: 10%

**Defense Mechanisms:**
- rationalization (neurotic)
- displacement (neurotic)
- splitting (immature)
- devaluation (immature)
- idealization (immature)
- distortion (pathological)

**Cognitive Complexity:**
- Complexity: 0%

**Parasocial Techniques:**
- Borrowed endorsement from trusted conservative media figures
- Captionless repost that invites followers to adopt the hosts' framing as his
- Insider framing ("I'm hearing the whispers") that gives the audience a sense of access

## Danger Assessment

**ELEVATED**

### Indicators

- Amplified "pro-terrorism candidate" label aimed at a named Muslim American Senate candidate (Abdul El-Sayed)
- Amplified "Marxist Islamists" framing that pairs religion and political opposition with extremism
- Advocacy for bombing Iranian economic infrastructure ("finish the Iranian economy with a single bombing sortie") published during live mediation

### Gaslighting

- Amplifies "Everything they said is false" about fuel-price warnings while Trump himself weighs a diesel export ban over those prices
- Critics of the war recast as people who "want Republicans to lose"

**Violent Imagery Present**

## Tags

- Iran war (90%)
- midterms (60%)
- isolationists (70%)
- fuel prices (50%)
- Ben Shapiro (60%)
- Abdul El-Sayed (40%)
- Warrior archetype (60%)

## That day

_From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._

**Trump announces the last U.S. troops leaving Iraq as his own choice, on a date fixed in 2024**

Trump spent Wednesday complaining that the press won't report how well the country is doing, and then did the reporting himself. Around midday he attacked Fox News for putting Democrats on air and said real MAGA supporters "will never like Fox." He then announced that the last American troops were leaving Iraq and called it a choice he alone made, although the date had been agreed in 2024. In the afternoon he used a watchdog report on the Federal Reserve's headquarters renovation to demand Jerome Powell's ouster and ask the Attorney General to decide what to do about him. In the evening he posted a quick burst of video clips praising him, one of which urged a bombing run on Iran's oil economy, and he finished by reposting his own Iraq announcement, all without a word about the government funding deadline that fell the same day.

Full digest for 2026-09-30: https://trump.fm/date/2026-09-30/analysis

## Citation

- APA: Trump, D. J. (2026, September 30).  [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_117362512360400632
- MLA: Trump, Donald J. "" Truth Social, 30 Sep. 2026. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_117362512360400632. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026.
- Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "," Truth Social, September 30, 2026, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_117362512360400632.

## For agents

- Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt
- API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json
- MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth)
- This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_117362512360400632
- Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_117362512360400632
- All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_117362512360400632
- Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2026-09-30
- The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_117362512360400632.md?analysis=false

_Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._