It was a cold morning in December when the cover finally dropped. You probably remember where you were. Or maybe you just remember the collective gasp that went up across Twitter—which wasn't even called X back then. Donald Trump was named the Time Person of the Year 2016. For some, it felt like a coronation of a populist movement that had been ignored for too long. For others, it felt like a gut punch.
But here is the thing about Time’s logic: it isn't a popularity contest. It never was.
They’ve picked Hitler. They’ve picked Stalin. They even picked "The Computer" once. The criteria is simple: "the person or group who has had the greatest influence on the events of the year—for better or worse." In 2016, there was no contest. Love him or hate him, Trump had fundamentally rewritten the rules of American politics, shattered two political dynasties (the Bushes and the Clintons), and turned the media landscape into a 24/7 reality show that no one could turn off.
The Cover That Launched a Thousand Conspiracy Theories
If you look closely at that 2016 cover, you’ll notice things that people spent weeks dissecting. Trump is sitting in a Louis XV chair in his penthouse at Trump Tower. He’s looking over his shoulder, a shadow looming behind him.
Critics pointed to the "M" in TIME, which seemed to sprout like devil horns over his head. Time denied it, of course. They pointed out they’d done the same thing to Bill Clinton and the Pope in previous years. But the vibe was unmistakable. The subhead called him the "President of the Divided States of America." It wasn't exactly a glowing endorsement. It was a warning.
Honestly, the photography by Nadav Kander captured something specific. It wasn't the triumphant, golden-hued Trump we saw at rallies. It was moody. It was dark. It felt like a Renaissance painting of a king who wasn't quite sure if the peasants were at the gates yet.
Why Time Person of the Year 2016 Wasn’t Hillary Clinton
A lot of people thought it would be Hillary. She won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes. She was the first female nominee of a major party.
She was "The Runner Up."
✨ Don't miss: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
Nancy Gibbs, who was the editor of Time at the time, explained the decision by saying that Trump had "redrawn the rules of politics." He didn't just win; he disrupted the entire ecosystem. He proved that you could say things that were fact-checked into oblivion and it wouldn't matter to a specific, frustrated segment of the electorate.
Clinton represented the status quo. Trump represented a sledgehammer. In the eyes of Time’s editorial board, the sledgehammer is always more "influential" than the wall it hits.
The Shortlist Most People Forgot
It’s easy to forget who else was in the running that year. We had "The Hackers," which in hindsight, was a massive foreshadowing of the decade to come. You had Simone Biles, who had just dominated the Rio Olympics. You had CRISPR scientists—the people literally editing the code of life.
But when you put a gymnast or a scientist next to a man who basically hijacked the world's most powerful democracy using a Twitter account and a red hat, the choice becomes clear.
- The Hackers: Specifically those targeting the DNC.
- Simone Biles: Olympic royalty.
- Nigel Farage: The face of Brexit.
- The CRISPR Scientists: Changing human biology forever.
- Beyoncé: For Lemonade and its cultural impact.
Trump beat them all. Not because he was "better," but because he was unavoidable.
The "For Better or Worse" Clause
People always get tripped up on this. They think being Person of the Year is an award, like an Oscar or a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s not. It’s a historical marker.
When Time picked the Time Person of the Year 2016, they were acknowledging a shift in the global zeitgeist. This was the year of the "disruptor." It was the year that the "forgotten man"—a phrase Trump borrowed from FDR—decided to flip the table.
🔗 Read more: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
If you look at the 2016 election results, the data shows that Trump won by flipping the "Blue Wall" states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He did it by speaking to a specific kind of economic and cultural anxiety that the mainstream media had largely dismissed as a fringe element. Time’s choice was a recognition that the "fringe" had become the center.
The Ripple Effects: How 2016 Changed the Award Forever
Before 2016, the Person of the Year felt a bit more... prestigious? Maybe that’s not the right word. It felt more like a summary of the year’s best efforts. After 2016, the selection process became hyper-politicized.
Every year since, the announcement is met with a flurry of "But what about [X]?" or "I’m cancelling my subscription."
The 2016 choice also forced Time to be more transparent about their "influence" metric. They had to constantly remind the public that influence doesn't equal moral excellence. It’s a hard pill to swallow in an era where we want our icons to be heroes.
A Culture of Conflict
Trump’s selection also highlighted the death of the "shared reality."
To his supporters, the cover was a long-overdue validation. To his detractors, it was a betrayal of journalistic ethics. This split is exactly why the "Divided States of America" tag was so spot-on. We stopped talking to each other and started talking at each other through the lens of figures like Trump.
What We Get Wrong About the 2016 Selection
Most people think Time picks the person based on who got the most Google searches. Not true. If that were the case, it would be a Kardashian every year.
💡 You might also like: How Old is CHRR? What People Get Wrong About the Ohio State Research Giant
They also don't pick based on a public poll, even though they run one. In 2016, the public poll was actually won by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But the editors have the final say. They are looking for the person who will be in the first paragraph of a history book written 50 years from now.
In 2126, when a student looks back at 2016, they won't be looking at the 2016 Olympics or the newest iPhone. They’ll be looking at the rise of nationalistic populism. They’ll be looking at the moment the American political machine broke.
The Aftermath: Did Time Get It Right?
Looking back from today's perspective, it’s hard to argue against the choice. The 2016 election wasn't just a four-year term. It was a realignment. It led to the reshaping of the Supreme Court, the renegotiation of global trade deals, and a complete shift in how the Republican party defines itself.
Even the 2020 and 2024 elections were, in many ways, referendums on the movement started in 2016.
If the goal of the Time Person of the Year 2016 was to identify the individual who would cast the longest shadow over the future, then Donald Trump was the only logical choice.
Actionable Insights: How to Read the News Like an Editor
If you want to understand why these choices are made—and how to spot the "influencers" of the future—stop looking for who is "good" and start looking for who is "loudest" in terms of systemic change.
- Look for disruption: Who is breaking a system that has existed for decades? (Like how Elon Musk disrupted the space industry or how AI is disrupting the labor market).
- Ignore the polls: Public opinion is a lagging indicator. Influence is a leading indicator.
- Analyze the "Why Now": Trump didn't happen in a vacuum. He happened because of decades of globalization and deindustrialization. Always look for the "why" behind the "who."
- Distinguish between Fame and Influence: A TikTok star might be famous, but are they changing the laws of a nation? Probably not.
The 2016 selection remains one of the most controversial in Time's history, second perhaps only to the 1938 selection of Adolf Hitler or the 1979 selection of Ayatollah Khomeini. It serves as a stark reminder that history is not always written by the "best" people, but by the ones who are impossible to ignore.
The next time you see the Person of the Year announcement, don't ask "Do I like this person?" Ask "Can I imagine this year without them?" In 2016, the answer was a resounding no.