Did Katie Couric write a letter to Trump calling his rhetoric "disgusting"?
Is the viral 'open letter' in which Katie Couric calls Trump's rhetoric 'disgusting' and lists reasons she opposes him the text she actually wrote?
True, but…
The article is real; the "letter" being shared is not her text.
Katie Couric did publish a bylined, members-only Substack critique of President Trump on 27 October 2026. But the numbered "letter" shared in this post is an altered copy: Snopes found dozens of changes and omissions, and the quoted line calling Trump's rhetoric "disgusting" does not appear in her article.
Claims
✓ 1 true · ✕ 1 falseKatie Couric wrote a piece to President Trump listing the reasons she opposes him.12
This part holds up. Couric published a members-only Substack article on 27 October 2026 under the title "How Do I Oppose Thee? Let Me Count the Ways," subtitled "A few things to note before you vote (OK, maybe more than a few)." It carries her byline and sets out a numbered critique of Trump, which is what the post describes. Two independent strands support it: Couric's own Substack page, which is the primary document, and Snopes' fact check, which confirms the piece exists and is hers. Those two are not fully separate in the strictest sense, since the fact check relies on the same article, but the article itself is the original source and is publicly dated. The one wrinkle is wording: Couric did not present the piece as an "open letter," and it sits behind a paid subscription rather than being freely published. The post's underlying claim that she wrote a point-by-point critique of Trump is accurate.
The numbered text shared in the post, quoted as "Here's her letter," is what Couric actually wrote.12
The shared text roughly tracks Couric's argument, which is why readers who only skim it will not spot a problem. But Snopes compared the social-media copy with the original and found dozens of changes and omissions. All of the article's sourcing links were removed, and some paragraphs were cut. That matters beyond tidiness: stripping the links takes away the evidence Couric attached to her points, so a reader of the post has no way to check any of the specific criticisms. Removing paragraphs can also shift emphasis, leaving a version that reads more like a blunt list of accusations than the sourced article she published. The post presents this edited paraphrase as her verbatim words. The overall direction of the criticism is genuine, but the text itself has been reworked by someone other than its author, so it cannot be cited as what Couric wrote.
Still open: We did not independently tally every one of the changes; our account of them rests on Snopes' comparison.
Couric wrote that Trump's rhetoric, "whether it's sexualizing supporters or demonizing opponents", is "disgusting".12
This is the most quotable line in the post and the one most likely to be repeated, and it is not Couric's. Snopes checked archived captures of her article and reported that the word "disgusting" does not appear in her published piece. Archived captures are the right tool here because they freeze a page as it looked at a given moment, so a later edit cannot explain the absence. The conclusion Snopes drew is that the text circulating on social media was altered, not that the article was changed afterwards. That means the line cannot be attributed to her, however consistent it may sound with the surrounding criticism. A reader comparing the post's first numbered point against the original would find the tone similar but the wording invented. Quoting invented sentences as a named journalist's own words is the clearest failure in this post, and it is the part most worth flagging when the text is shared onward.
Most people outside of MAGA consider Katie Couric a thoughtful and fair journalist.
This sentence sits at the top of the post and reads like a finding about public opinion, but no polling or survey is cited, and none appears in the input. It is a framing statement: it tells the reader how to feel about Couric before they read the quoted text, and it divides the audience into two camps in the first six words. Because it makes no checkable factual assertion with a source attached, it cannot be rated true or false. What we can say is that it is doing rhetorical work rather than evidentiary work. Readers should treat such openers as the poster's view, not as a measured fact, and should be尤其是 wary when the rest of the post then depends on the reader accepting the subject's credibility. The strength of the actual article, which is bylined and dated, is a better reason to take Couric seriously than an unsourced claim about what most people think.
A text-only post: there was no media to test.
What was posted
XA text-only post on X presents a numbered list credited to journalist Katie Couric, framed as "her letter to President Trump that lists the reasons she opposes him," and asks readers to "Please share." It opens by asserting that most people outside MAGA see Couric as thoughtful and fair. The post contains no image, video or link to the original article.
“Most people outside of MAGA consider Katie Couric a thoughtful and fair journalist. Here’s her letter to President Trump that lists the reasons she opposes him. Please share - 1. Your rhetoric - whether it’s sexualizing supporters or demonizing opponents – is disgusting. For someone who ran on “…”
Posted on X by an account using the display name "#Anonymous" (@TheStripesGirl). Per Snopes, text credited to Couric first appeared on Facebook on 28 October 2026 and was copied widely to other platforms, including X, over the following days.
Who posted it
XAccount check
Estimates from public signals — account age, posting pattern, audience — not a judgement of the person behind the account, and separate from whether this post is true.
What stood out
- Account operates as an 'Anonymous'-branded viral clip/news aggregator, self-labelled '#Anonymous' in display name — Anonymous has no centralised official accounts, so the branding implies a collective affiliation it cannot substantiate.
- Long-running and high-reach: posts from 2026 routinely embedded by outlets (Economic Times/Indiatimes, MEAWW, Yahoo News NZ, Balkan/Greek/Latin American sites) and mirrored on Lemmy/kbin, indicating a real, sustained human-run operation rather than a throwaway bot.
- No verification, no displayed bio, and no identified human or organisational owner behind the handle — accountability is opaque despite large amplification.
- Sourcing is weak: posts are typically unattributed video clips plus sensational captions (e.g. 'CANADA WARNS… CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER', an eagle-vs-animals clip) rather than links to primary reporting.
- In October 2026 it amplified a long-debunked hoax — 'McDonald's loses lawsuit to Jamie Oliver… food unfit for human consumption/ highly toxic' — which Snopes re-examined on 12 Oct 2026 and AFP fact-checked as false since 2021.
- Also pushed an exaggerated casualty comparison (Israel dropped 'eight times the force of the Hiroshima bomb' on Gaza), a figure repeated by low-reliability outlets rather than verified ordnance data.
- Cross-platform footprint (X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Instagram, TikTok, Lemon8) plus a GoFundMe link under a personal alias ('Norma Bates AI' horror-art account) suggests an individual running multiple personas, not a newsroom.
- No evidence of coordinated inauthentic networks or spam-farm behaviour; posting style and reply interactions look like manual curation by one or a few people.
- Net: a real but pseudonymous engagement-driven aggregator — high virality, low evidentiary standards, no corrections record.
Signals (9)+
- Posting cadence
- Multiple posts per day, viral-clip driven
- Follower ratio
- Unknown (counts not exposed); single posts observed at ~17k likes / ~110k views and 84k views
- Identity transparency
- None — no bio, no named operator, 'Anonymous' collective branding
- Notable news coverage
- Routinely quoted/embedded by Economic Times, MEAWW, Yahoo News, Balkan and Latin American outlets
- Fact check history
- Amplified 2021-debunked Jamie Oliver/McDonald's 'pink slime lawsuit' hoax (Oct 2026); repeated unverified/exaggerated Gaza ordnance claim (Aug 2025)
- Cross platform presence
- X, Bluesky (@thestripesgirl.bsky.social), Mastodon, Instagram, TikTok (@normabatesai), Lemon8
- Affiliations
- Self-styled #Anonymous aggregator; also runs 'Norma Bates AI' horror-art persona with GoFundMe
- Bot indicators
- Little evidence of automation or coordinated posting; engagement typical of a human-curated large account
- Reliability assessment
- Low — re-posts unverified viral content without sourcing or corrections
Account checked October 31, 2026, 02:53 UTC
Sources
2 sources reviewed- 1Fact Check: Katie Couric wrote open letter criticizing Trump, but edited version is circulating ↗
Snopes (republished by Yahoo) · yahoo.comUntiereduntiered — treated as signal only, never decisiveEvidence
Establishes that the circulating text was altered, that sourcing links and paragraphs were removed, and that the word "disgusting" is absent from the original.
- 2How Do I Oppose Thee? Let Me Count the Ways ↗
Katie Couric (Substack) · katiecouric.substack.comUntiereduntiered — treated as signal only, never decisiveEvidence
Establishes that Couric published a bylined critique of Trump on 27 October 2026 with that specific title and subtitle.
Further reading
- 2Katie Couric (Substack) The original article, for readers who want to compare the real text with what is being shared.
- 1Snopes (republished by Yahoo) Documents exactly which lines were changed or added in the circulating version.
The full story
The kernel of truth here is solid. On 27 October 2026, ahead of the US midterm elections, Katie Couric published a members-only Substack article titled "How Do I Oppose Thee? Let Me Count the Ways," with the subtitle "A few things to note before you vote (OK, maybe more than a few)." It is bylined and it sets out a numbered critique of President Donald Trump covering immigration, the Justice Department, tariffs and Russia policy.
That is a genuine act of political criticism by a well-known journalist, and it is the reason the post feels plausible. Someone scrolling past a list of accusations against Trump attributed to Couric has no obvious reason to doubt it, because Couric really had just published a list of criticisms.
The version that spread is a different object. According to Snopes, text credited to Couric first appeared on Facebook on 28 October 2026, a day after the article, and was copied widely to other platforms including X over the following days. In that copy, Snopes found dozens of changes and omissions. Every sourcing link was gone, and some paragraphs were cut. The opening line calling Trump's rhetoric "disgusting" was added: archived captures of the article do not contain the word.
The pattern is common. A real document gives a false version its cover. The edited copy borrows the credibility of the original while dropping the parts that let readers verify it, and it converts a sourced argument into a punchier list that is easier to share. The post's own framing, that most people outside MAGA see Couric as thoughtful and fair, adds a nudge to pass it on.
Kernel of truth
Couric really did publish a bylined, point-by-point critique of Trump on Substack on 27 October 2026; the false part is the wording circulated under her name.
Timeline
October 27, 2026
Katie Couric publishes the members-only Substack article "How Do I Oppose Thee? Let Me Count the Ways," a numbered critique of President Trump. 2Katie Couric (Substack)
October 28, 2026
Text credited to Couric first appears on Facebook, per Snopes, and is copied widely to other platforms in the following days. 1Snopes (republished by Yahoo)
October 30, 2026
Snopes publishes a fact check finding the article genuine but the circulating text altered, including the "disgusting" line. 1Snopes (republished by Yahoo)
How it was framed
A genuine article exists, but the text attached to it in this post is a rewritten version presented as Couric's own words, with sourcing removed and lines she did not write added. The falsehood is carried by the context and framing around real content rather than by an invented story from scratch.
- Borrowed authority. "Here's her letter to President Trump" attributes the numbered list to a named, well-known journalist, lending the text her credibility.
- Us vs. them. "Most people outside of MAGA consider Katie Couric a thoughtful and fair journalist" sorts the audience into in-group and out-group before the argument begins.
- “Visual proof”. The numbered list format ("1. Your rhetoric...") reads like a document reproduced in full, though no link or image of the original is provided.
- Missing context. No link to Couric's Substack article and no mention that the text has been edited; the original's sourcing links were stripped.
- Emotional language. "is disgusting" and "demonizing opponents" carry strong emotional charge.
Posted on X by an account using the display name "#Anonymous" (@TheStripesGirl). Per Snopes, the text first appeared on Facebook on 28 October 2026 and spread to other platforms afterwards. The post carries no link to Couric's article.
Bias
Leans anti-MAGA / anti-Trump. The post opens by contrasting 'MAGA' with 'most people' and urging readers to 'please share' a heavily edited attack on Trump, framing an altered text as a respected journalist's letter. The slant is clear and directional, though the underlying critique of Trump does originate with Couric.
Bias describes how the post frames its message — the slant of the language, selection and emphasis — and is judged separately from whether the claim is true. A true claim can still be framed with a strong slant.
How we checked
35 s- 1
We ran searches for the alleged Couric letter and for its distinctive phrases, including "your rhetoric," "sexualizing supporters" and the article title with its publication date.
- 2
We ran a search restricted to Snopes to see whether an existing fact check addressed the letter.
- 3
We compared the claims in the post against Couric's published Substack article and against Snopes' fact check, which documented the differences between the two texts.
✓ Claim checked– Media not applicable✓ Sources checked
Why 87% confidence
ModerateWe rate this MODERATE overall because the central facts are firmly established by the primary document and a published fact check, but the finer detail of how many changes were made rests on Snopes' comparison rather than our own line-by-line tally, and the individual "disgusting" claim carries MODERATE confidence for the same reason. The existence and authorship of the article itself is HIGH confidence: it is dated and bylined on Couric's own page.
Limits. We did not open or archive the original Substack page ourselves during this check, and we did not independently count the edits in the circulating copy. Our account of those edits and of the missing word relies on Snopes' comparison.
What we don’t know
- Who first edited Couric's article into the circulating version, and why.
- Whether the poster of this X post wrote the edited text or copied it from the Facebook version Snopes describes.
- How many people saw the edited version compared with the original article.
- Whether Couric or her publisher has commented publicly on the altered copy.
Spot it yourself
Find the overstatementLooks suspicious, isn’t proof
- The post is anonymous and its display name is "#Anonymous" — a reason to check the text against the original, but not evidence the text is wrong.
- The alarmist, share-demanding tone ("Please share") — urgency is a habit of many accounts, including honest ones.
- The partisan opening line about MAGA — partisan framing tells you about the poster's viewpoint, not about whether Couric wrote the words.
- The list reads a little too polished and quotable — smooth phrasing is a warning sign, not proof.
The actual evidence
- Couric's own Substack page, dated 27 October 2026, confirms she published a bylined critique of Trump.
- Snopes compared the circulating text with the original and found dozens of changes and omissions, including removal of all sourcing links and some paragraphs.
- Archived captures of Couric's article do not contain the word "disgusting" — the most-shared line is not hers.
- The post supplies no link to the original, so readers cannot compare the two texts themselves.
- 1
Find the original before you share the copy
Search the author's name plus a distinctive phrase from the title. Here, "How Do I Oppose Thee" leads to Couric's Substack page, where the real article can be read.
- 2
Compare the quoted line, word for word
Take the sentence you are most likely to repeat and search for it inside the original. If it is not there, it is not the author's.
- 3
Count what the copy is missing
Check whether the version you were sent still has its links, footnotes and paragraphs. Stripped sourcing is a strong sign someone rewrote the text.
- 4
Use an archive, not just the live page
Archive captures freeze a page at a moment in time, so a missing word cannot be explained away as a later edit.
- 5
Ask who benefits from the punchier wording
If the edited version is sharper and more shareable than the original, treat that as a reason to look closer at who made the changes.
Takeaway
A real document is the easiest thing to fake around: if the wording is not verbatim and the links are gone, you are reading someone's rewrite, not the author's words.
Questions people ask
Did Katie Couric actually write a letter to Trump?+
She published a bylined, members-only Substack article on 27 October 2026 titled "How Do I Oppose Thee? Let Me Count the Ways," a numbered critique of President Trump. She did not label it an open letter, and it sits behind a paid subscription rather than being freely published.
Did Couric call Trump's rhetoric "disgusting"?+
No. Snopes checked archived captures of her article and found the word "disgusting" does not appear in it. The line was added in the version circulating on social media and cannot be attributed to her.
Why does the shared text look so much like her writing?+
Because it is based closely on a real article. Snopes found the social-media copy kept the general thrust of her criticisms but contained dozens of changes and omissions, with the original's sourcing links and some paragraphs removed.
What is wrong with sharing an edited version of a real article?+
The original's links were what let readers verify each criticism. Removing them, and adding wording the author did not write, means people are quoting a journalist for sentences she never published, even though the underlying article is genuine.
How can I check a quote attributed to a well-known writer?+
Search a distinctive phrase from the quote along with the author's name. If it does not surface in the author's own publication, treat the quote as unverified until you find it there, and be wary of copies with no link back to the source.
Go deeper
- Substack
- A publishing platform where writers host newsletters and articles, often with paid subscription tiers.
- Members-only
- Content that is only visible in full to people with a paid or registered subscription.
- Archived capture
- A saved snapshot of a web page as it looked at a particular moment, used to check what a page said before later edits.
- Verbatim
- Reproduced word for word, exactly as originally written or spoken.
- Kernel of truth
- The real underlying fact that an inaccurate or distorted claim is built on.
People also search for
For educators+
- If the overall argument of the post matches Couric's article, does it matter that the exact wording was changed? Why or why not?
- The post asks readers to share without linking the original. What would a reader need in order to verify it before sharing?
- How would you explain the difference between "Couric wrote a critique of Trump" and "this is Couric's letter" to someone who had already shared the post?
About this check
- Platform
- X
- Posted by
- @thestripesgirl
- Posted
- October 30, 2026
- Age when checked
- 1–2 days old when checked
- Where it spread
- United States
- Audience
- US audience
- Language
- EN
- Status
- ● Post is live
- Verified
- October 31, 2026, 02:55 UTC
- Published
- October 31, 2026, 02:55 UTC
Reach. Copy-paste 'letter' spreading on X and Facebook ('Please share'); enough reader searches to prompt a fact-check on 30 Oct
This verdict was generated with AI from the sources shown. AI can make mistakes — check the sources before relying on it.
Check anything yourself, in seconds.
Share any social post or video to What the Fact and get the verdict, the confidence, and the receipts.