As with most conversations with Trump supporters, fact-checking needs to be done differently if it is to be effective. The goal isn’t to win the argument or prove them wrong. It’s to avoid putting them on the defensive while helping them reconsider the claim. Some background first, then a concrete approach:

Why direct confrontation can make people defensive

If you open with “Trump lied” or “how do you believe that garbage?”, you’re no longer asking someone to consider one factual claim. You’re also asking them to accept that their side deceived them and that they were gullible for believing it. That’s a much bigger ask than simply reconsidering one fact.

This touches on the idea of identity-protective cognition — a specific form of motivated reasoning where the person’s primary goal is remaining loyal to a group they identify with. It suggests people may be more willing to consider a narrow factual claim than one that also implicates their judgment or group loyalty. In other words, avoid implying, “your side is lying to you.”

So keep the immediate goal narrow and achievable. Focus on one specific claim rather than trying to challenge their allegiance to Trump and MGA all at once.

Important reminder: Prioritize the relationship. All your questions and responses must be done with empathy and sincerity. Leave the attacking, superior, or condescending voice and body language at home.

Below is what this can look like in practice, using Trump’s repeated claims that schools were transitioning children — including medically or surgically — without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

There are many ways a conversation with a Trump supporter can go, and it’s much easier to script one than to actually have one. The main point is to avoid questioning their loyalties. That’s something for them to do later, on their own.

Start by asking what they think is happening

“So when they say schools are secretly transitioning kids — what do you picture that looking like?”

Give them room to explain both what they think is happening and what concerns them about it. You want to understand the claim as they understand it before responding.

If they mean medical treatment or surgery

Acknowledge their concern without validating the claim:

“I get why the idea of a school providing a major medical procedure or even making a medical decision about a child without the parents knowing would be alarming.”

Investigate the claim with them:

“I can’t imagine a school would arrange surgery for a kid — with or without telling the parents. Have you heard of a case?”

Give them time to think and answer. Let their search for an answer — or their silence — do the work for you.

Offer a possible explanation:

“I have seen that some districts have policies where staff members don’t have to tell parents if a kid asks to go by a different name or pronoun. I wonder if that’s what this is all about.”

If needed, push back gently:

“If this were happening, I’d expect it to be a major story, with parents speaking publicly and specific cases being reported. I haven’t seen any of that. Have you?”

If they remain convinced the claim is true, don’t force the point. Hopefully you’ve given them something to think about on their own. That’s all we’re looking for in these conversations.

If they mean names, pronouns, or parental notification

Acknowledge that they’ve landed on a real but much narrower issue.

You might say, “Yeah, I have seen that some schools have policies about names or pronouns where parents aren’t always notified. That’s a real issue people are debating.”

Then separate that from the original claim: “Luckily, that’s pretty different from schools medically transitioning kids.” This can plant the seed that they were exposed to disinformation, and that’s the goal of this conversation.

Expected results

A good outcome is that they may still support parental notification policies, but agree the surgery claim was exaggerated or wrong. That’s a meaningful shift even if they don’t reclassify the whole thing as “propaganda.”

Realistically, you probably won’t get them to say “that was propaganda” out loud, and that can feel unsatisfying. But the goal of leading them to their own change rather than winning a fight is served better by them quietly filing away “huh, that surgery thing wasn’t real.”

Deep-canvassing research on other polarized issues shows that even a single nonjudgmental conversation can produce small, lasting shifts. We shouldn’t expect wholesale worldview change from one conversation.

And this is why we: Have one conversation - Prioritize the relationship - Reflect - Repeat