If you’ve spent any time on social media lately, you’ve probably seen the firestorm. It usually starts with a screenshot of a headline or a snippet of a column from The New York Times. Suddenly, your feed is a battlefield. Half the people are screaming that the "Gray Lady" has finally seen the light, while the other half are ready to cancel their subscriptions because they think the paper has gone soft. Honestly, the idea of the NY Times praising Trump feels like a glitch in the matrix to most readers.
But it's happening. Or, at least, something that looks like it is happening.
We aren't talking about a sudden, glowing endorsement from the editorial board. That would be a cold day in you-know-where. Instead, what we’re seeing is a shift in the tone of certain columnists and a series of "economic reality checks" that have forced the paper to acknowledge where the Trump administration is actually winning. It’s messy, it’s nuanced, and it’s driving everyone a little bit crazy.
The Bret Stephens "Towel Throwing" Moment
Back in late 2024, right after the election results settled in, Bret Stephens—a guy who basically built his modern career on being a "Never Trump" conservative—wrote something that sent shockwaves through the Manhattan media bubble. He didn't just give a polite nod to the win. He essentially admitted that he and his colleagues had been living in a dream world.
Stephens argued that the media missed the point of the MAGA movement for nearly a decade. He pointed out that while they were busy calling Trump a "vulgarian," they ignored the fact that his working-class appeal was crossing racial lines in ways nobody predicted.
"We missed that his working-class appeal would also reach working-class minorities — like the 48 percent of Latino male voters who cast their ballots for him," Stephens wrote.
📖 Related: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
This wasn't just a "good job" pat on the back. It was a brutal self-critique. When people talk about the NY Times praising Trump, they’re often referring to this kind of "sane-washing" or "reality-adjustment." Stephens even conceded that his earlier predictions—like Trump stumbling into World War III—were just flat-out wrong. He acknowledged that Trump had been tougher on the Kremlin than the Obama or Biden administrations. For a NYT columnist, that’s about as close to "praise" as you’re going to get.
The Economy: When the Numbers Do the Talking
It's 2026 now. We have data. And the data is making for some very uncomfortable editorial meetings at 620 Eighth Avenue.
Earlier this month, the Times ran a piece looking at the 2025 economic turnaround. They couldn't ignore it. Real average hourly earnings increased by $1.1%$ last year. In Michigan, a state that basically decides who lives in the White House, 20,000 jobs were added through the first three quarters of 2025.
Trump has been shouting from the rooftops about "the strongest turnaround in history." While the Times newsroom is quick to add "context" (which is often code for "here’s why this isn't as good as it looks"), the opinion side has been more willing to engage with the reality that his tariff strategy hasn't caused the immediate global collapse many predicted.
Why the Tone Shifted
- The "Access" Factor: Maggie Haberman and others have often been accused of "normalizing" Trump to keep their sources.
- Audience Fatigue: Readers are tired of 24/7 outrage. Sometimes they just want to know if their 401k is going up.
- Internal Diversity: Believe it or not, the Times is trying (and often failing) to show they aren't just an echo chamber for the DNC.
The "Unity" Headline That Started a War
We have to look back to the infamous 2019 "Unity" headline to understand why people are so sensitive to this. After a pair of horrific mass shootings, the Times ran a print headline: “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.” The backlash was instant. Democratic candidates called it a disaster. Subscribers tweeted photos of themselves canceling their accounts. The Times actually ended up changing the headline for the second edition to "Assailing Hate But Not Guns."
👉 See also: Why the Air France Crash Toronto Miracle Still Changes How We Fly
Trump, of course, loved it. He tweeted that the first headline was the "correct description." This event created a permanent scar. Now, whenever the Times writes something even remotely objective about a Trump policy—like the 2025 National Security Strategy—part of the base sees it as a betrayal.
Foreign Policy and the "Neo-Royalist" Order
In late 2025, the Times featured discussions on Trump’s "New National Security Strategy." This is where things get really weird. Instead of just bashing the "America First" approach, some analysts in the paper began describing Trump as a "world orderer."
They noted that his willingness to strike deals with traditional adversaries like Russia and China—while being a total pain to allies like Canada—wasn't just chaos. It was a specific vision. This "neo-royalist" approach, as some academics called it in the Times' pages, was framed as a legitimate (if terrifying) replacement for the old Westphalian order.
Calling a leader a "world orderer" isn't exactly a Hallmark card, but in the world of high-level geopolitics, it's an acknowledgment of power and efficacy. It's the Times saying, "He’s not just a guy with a Twitter account; he’s actually reshaping the planet."
Is it Actually Praise?
Kinda. Sorta. Not really.
✨ Don't miss: Robert Hanssen: What Most People Get Wrong About the FBI's Most Damaging Spy
If you’re looking for a "Why We Love Donald" editorial, you'll be waiting forever. The Editorial Board still calls him "unfit to lead." They still sue the Pentagon over his team's press limits. They still write about the "assault on hope."
But the narrative has shifted. The NY Times praising Trump is usually a misinterpretation of strategic concession.
The paper has realized that if they ignore his successes, they lose their remaining shred of credibility with the middle of the country. So, they report on the 36 oil and gas lease sales mandated by the "One Big Beautiful Bill." They quote experts who say his "make a deal" approach to healthcare actually "does some good" in the short term.
The Bottom Line for Readers
Don't take a single headline as a sign that the Times has flipped. They are a massive institution with a lot of internal friction.
What you should do next:
- Look for the Byline: A Bret Stephens or David Brooks piece is going to sound 100% different than a Jamelle Bouie piece. The Times is a collection of voices, not a monolith.
- Check the "News" vs "Opinion" Labels: This is where most people get tripped up. The news side is generally adversarial. The opinion side is where you’ll find the "praise" (or at least the concessions).
- Read the Corrections: Seriously. The way the Times corrects their Trump coverage tells you more about their internal bias than the articles themselves.
If you're trying to stay informed, the best move is to compare the Times' coverage with primary data—like the actual text of the National Security Strategy or the BLS jobs reports. The "Gray Lady" might be adjusting to a new reality, but she's still got her own agenda to run.
Focus on the facts of the policies being discussed rather than the adjectives used to describe them. That's the only way to cut through the noise in 2026.