“A Crude Attempt to Bait Critics”: Trump’s Closing Strategy Sparks Backlash from Atlantic Editor

In the final days of the election, former President Donald Trump’s campaign has taken a controversial turn, leading The Atlantic editor Isabel Fattal to assert that Trump is using provocative language and divisive tactics to “bait critics” and distract from substantive campaign discussions. Fattal argues that Trump’s so-called “closing argument” is not an argument at all but an “invitation” to sidetrack his opponents, especially Vice President Kamala Harris, from delivering their final campaign messages.

According to Fattal, Trump’s campaign strategy has become increasingly incendiary, aimed less at policy and more at instigating reactions from both the media and his opposition. She points to Trump’s recent rally at Madison Square Garden, where a series of speakers, including a comedian, made racially and sexually charged remarks.

The comedian’s comment describing Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage” drew swift backlash. Trump’s team quickly distanced the former president from the remark, insisting he was unaware the joke would be made — even as reports surfaced that his campaign had vetted the speeches and removed another joke that involved a sexist slur against his opponent.

“This incendiary language is not only a crude attempt to bait critics; it’s part of a pattern of hate from Trump and his closest allies, and a type of rhetoric that Trump has made clear he intends to incorporate into his plans as president,” Fattal wrote. By engaging in this kind of rhetoric, Fattal suggests Trump aims to provoke a response, challenging opponents to react in ways that can then be portrayed as overly sensitive or exaggerated.

One recent example of this tactic, Fattal noted, occurred during Trump’s interview with Fox News anchor Sean Hannity, in which Trump remarked that he wouldn’t be a dictator “except for day one,” only to later claim he was joking when criticized. This, Fattal contends, reflects what a colleague describes as “oligarchy” — a term capturing the idea that a “troll reserves the right, always, to be kidding.”

Through this lens, Trump’s inflammatory statements become a calculated tactic, where any serious response from his critics can be dismissed as overly dramatic or humorless. The Trump campaign’s delight in these “dramatic reactions” underscores their strategy to provoke and then seize upon opponents’ responses. Fattal believes that by sparking outrage, Trump can sidestep meaningful engagement on policy issues, focusing instead on stirring emotions and polarizing the discourse.

This approach, she notes, is a “trap” that Harris and her team should avoid if they wish to make a compelling final case to voters. “Harris and her team will make a much stronger closing statement if they refuse to give Trump the satisfaction of being their campaign’s main subject,” Fattal emphasized.

Ultimately, Fattal argues, it falls not only on Harris and her supporters but also on the American public to resist what she describes as Trump’s “path of vengeance.” Fattal’s commentary urges voters to recognize and resist Trump’s baiting strategy, asserting that the success of his campaign hinges on luring opponents and the public into cycles of outrage that sidetrack critical issues at stake in the election. For Fattal, the choice is clear: Americans should prioritize constructive discourse over-reactive anger and refuse to be swept up in Trump’s provocations as the election nears its final days.