Who would ever do a thing like that? Right?
In the long arc of democratic history, moments arrive when leaders reveal not merely their ambitions but their self-conception — and in June 2026, the sitting American president publicly embraced a document placing him above history's most feared tyrants, not as a warning, but as a compliment. The author was no historian but a Scottish businessman encountered on a golf course, yet Trump found the argument worthy of sharing with journalists, then with the world. What lingers is not the comparison itself, but the absence of any instinct to refuse it — the quiet endorsement of a premise that power, measured against brutality, is something to celebrate.
- A sitting American president reposted content claiming he wields more power than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao — and responded with the words 'Sounds good to me.'
- The supposed 'presidential historian' behind the assessment is Dave King, a Scottish businessman and former football club chairman who met Trump while caddying on a golf course in Florida.
- Trump had already shown the two-page document to New York Times journalists weeks earlier, reciting the names of history's tyrants and explaining, one by one, how each fell short of him.
- The incident is not an aberration — it fits a documented pattern of Trump expressing admiration for autocrats and envy toward their unchecked authority, but never before so explicitly in his own voice.
- A forthcoming book drawing on over a thousand interviews captures the broader portrait: a president who believes he has won 'every fucking time,' floats cabinet picks as 'plot twists,' and was found in the Oval Office gluing gold decorations to the fireplace mantel.
In the early hours of a Friday morning in June, the sitting president of the United States reposted a short document comparing him favorably to history's most feared autocrats — Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, Hitler — and arguing that Trump's distinction lay in possessing vastly more power and global reach than any of them. His response: 'Sounds good to me.'
The author Trump credited as a 'presidential historian' was Dave King, a Scottish-born businessman based in South Africa, formerly the chairman of Rangers Football Club. Trump appears to have met him while King was caddying for golf legend Gary Player at a Florida event. At some point, King shared his thoughts on Trump's place among history's most powerful men. Trump found the argument compelling enough to keep, to show to journalists, and eventually to broadcast publicly.
The document had surfaced weeks earlier during an interview Trump gave to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan for their book on his second term, titled Regime Change. When asked about his historical significance, Trump summoned aides to retrieve King's two-page assessment, then walked through the roster of tyrants, explaining how each had maintained power through fear. 'Who would ever do a thing like that?' he asked — a rhetorical question that answered itself.
The book, built from more than a thousand interviews over three years, captures other revealing moments: Trump expressing frustration at poor press coverage despite what he called winning 'every fucking time,' floating Ron DeSantis as a potential defense secretary because 'we need plot twists,' making crude remarks about Ukrainian women, and being found in the Oval Office attempting to glue gold decorations onto the marble fireplace mantel.
What distinguishes this episode from Trump's long history of admiring strongmen is its explicitness. He did not deflect the comparison to dictators. He did not offer a disclaimer. He endorsed the premise entirely — that the only relevant question was not whether he resembled history's tyrants, but how much more powerful he was than they had ever been.
In the early hours of a Friday morning in June, the sitting president of the United States reposted a short text that compared him favorably to history's most feared autocrats. The document, which Trump attributed to a "presidential historian," laid out a roster of brutal figures—Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, Hitler—and argued that Trump differed from them in one crucial way: he possessed vastly more power and global reach. "Sounds good to me!" Trump wrote in response.
The author of this assessment was not, in fact, a historian. Dave King is a Scottish-born businessman now based in South Africa who previously chaired Rangers Football Club in Glasgow. Trump appears to have encountered him while King was caddying for Gary Player, the Hall of Fame golfer, at an event in Player's honor. At some point during their interaction, King shared his thoughts on Trump's place in the pantheon of powerful men. Trump found the argument compelling enough to keep it, to show it to journalists, and eventually to broadcast it to the public.
The document had surfaced weeks earlier during an interview Trump gave to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan for their forthcoming book about his second term. When asked to describe his power and his historical significance, Trump called for aides to retrieve the two-page assessment from King. He then recited the names of history's most powerful figures, explaining how each one fell short of him. These leaders, Trump noted, had maintained their grip through fear. "Who would ever do a thing like that?" he asked the reporters. The rhetorical question hung in the air.
The book, titled Regime Change, draws on more than a thousand interviews conducted over three years and offers a portrait of Trump's second term through his own words and the observations of those around him. Beyond the comparison to dictators, the book captures other moments that illuminate how Trump sees himself and his role. When reflecting on his legal battles and electoral victories, Trump told the reporters he had won "every fucking time" and expressed frustration at receiving poor press coverage despite his success. He mentioned considering Ron DeSantis, his former rival for the nomination, as secretary of defense, telling a startled ally that "we need plot twists." In a separate moment, he made a crude comment about Ukrainian women and beauty pageants. The book also recounts a scene in which White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt found Trump in the Oval Office holding a tube of superglue, attempting to attach gold decorations to the marble fireplace mantel.
Trump's evident pleasure at being grouped with dictators is not new. For years he has spoken admiringly of autocrats and strongmen—Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un—and expressed envy for their unchecked authority. What distinguishes this moment is the explicitness of the comparison and Trump's public embrace of it. He did not demur. He did not offer a disclaimer. He endorsed the premise that the relevant question was not whether he resembled tyrants, but how much more powerful he was than they had been. The comparison, in his view, was flattering.
Citas Notables
Sounds good to me!— Trump, endorsing King's comparison
The overwhelming difference between each of the above when compared with President Trump is their lack of global reach.— Dave King, in the document Trump reposted
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Trump feel the need to share this document with journalists in the first place?
He was being asked to reflect on his power and his place in history. The document gave him a framework—a way to answer the question that positioned him as historically significant without requiring him to claim he was good or democratic. It was a shortcut to grandeur.
But he's the sitting president. Doesn't he already have a platform?
Yes, but there's a difference between having power and having someone else validate that you possess more power than history's most feared men. The external endorsement mattered to him. It still does—he reposted it months later.
The author isn't actually a historian. Does Trump know that?
He knows now. The journalists identified King as a businessman and former football club chair. But Trump called him a historian when he first showed the document to them, and he used that title when he reposted it. Whether he was mistaken or simply didn't care about the distinction is unclear.
What does it say that he's comfortable being compared to Hitler and Stalin?
It suggests he doesn't see those comparisons as warnings. He sees them as evidence of power. The comparison doesn't trouble him because he's not thinking about what those men did—he's thinking about the reach and authority they wielded. In his mind, the only relevant difference is that he has more of it.
Is this a new development, or has he always thought this way?
He's been open about admiring strongmen for years. But publicly endorsing a document that puts him in their category, without qualification or irony—that's a step. It's not a dog whistle anymore. It's just what he thinks.