Making deals is part of President Donald Trump's self-identity. His 1987 book, "The Art of the Deal," asserts that he is good at this. You don't have to read the book to know that this is an integral part of his narrative, because Trump often brags about his deal-making skills. He repeatedly promises that we are close to deals — with Iran, on tariffs, with Russia, just to name a few.
At least one listener wants NPR journalists to stop using Trump's preferred word when discussing international agreements with foreign leaders. She believes the word "deal" has become a form of low-key propaganda or branding for Trump.
It's a language issue that NPR was already considering. By the time I'd received this listener note, NPR's standards desk had issued a memo suggesting that journalists avoid calling the results of the negotiations with Iran a "deal," because using the word mirrors White House talking points. And that's not what journalists do in a democracy, where their independent reporting is meant to inform the public.
I discussed this advice with the man who wrote it, the managing editor for standards and practices. But I also went down my own little rabbit hole on how we use this word in American English and whether other words are better. Read on to see where I ended up.
Today we also spotlight another amazing Embedded podcast from The Seattle Times and KUOW in Seattle. This one is about how a Black teenager hanging out with protesters in a post-George Floyd encampment ended up dead. — Kelly McBride
Is it possible to stop using the word "deal"?
Susan Brady wrote on Aug. 8: Would you please ask editors and reporters to stop using the word “deal” in every reference to President Trump’s negotiations with foreign leaders? The term “deal” inaccurately describes the action of the United States, a democracy (not a company) in negotiating treaties, agreements, and pacts between nations. By constantly using the word “deal,” journalists are describing these events on Trump’s terms. Using “deal” reinforces multiple falsehoods, most significantly that Trump is a successful businessman, a myth he has promoted since the publication of his book, "The Art of the Deal," a fabrication written by a paid ghost writer.
It turns out that you are not alone. Other people, including some in the NPR newsroom, have been thinking this same thing. On Aug. 6, managing editor for standards and practices Tony Cavin sent out a memo that started in part:
Please avoid the word "deal" and try to be as precise as possible when describing any agreement to cease military hostilities in the current conflict between the U.S. and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. As with anything we do, the more precise the language we use to describe events, the better.
In an email, Cavin told me that this issue of imprecision was raised at a morning news meeting. "The use of 'deal' played into the idea that we were on the brink of a major accord," he said.
In negotiations with Iran, a deal could mean many things: a ceasefire, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Of course, that's the point. Trump drops the vague promise of a deal into a social post or a passing comment to reporters as a way of driving the narrative.
Back in 2025, when Trump announced a new tariff policy, he followed up by saying he would negotiate "90 deals in 90 days" with 90 different countries. That did not happen, and eventually the Supreme Court declared that Trump exceeded his authority on some of his tariffs.
Lately, he's negotiated what he called a nuclear energy deal with Saudi Arabia. Although he changed the terms the next day by adding a requirement that the Saudis first establish diplomatic relations with Israel.
It's hard to count the number of times he's promised a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed in February after the U.S. and Israel attacked. CNN stopped its tally back in June at 38.
Language choices in journalism are small windows that offer a view of a newsroom's bigger principles. In this case, two principles are in conflict. First, to express their independence, journalists should search for language that is separate from the president's messaging. But second, it's also important to make the news accessible to as many people as possible. The word "deal" is a compact and convenient little word that does so much. Sure, it works in the president's favor. But it also works for the journalist, because it's so flexible.
A deal can be an unspoken but reliable arrangement. (She had a deal with her dad. He wouldn't call attention to her curfew violations as long as she walked the dog every morning by 8 a.m.)
A deal can be a good thing. (As an ambassador for the running store, he got free shoes and race entries. It was a sweet deal.)
And a deal can be a bad thing. (She got a raw deal when the airline bumped her from the first leg of her vacation flight and then lost her luggage.)
A deal can be a tiny little thing. (Do you want to turn that Big Mac order into a meal deal?)
And a deal can be of enormous consequence. (The Treaty of Versailles was a pretty big deal.)
Despite all those possibilities — and those are just the nouns — people mostly understand exactly what you are trying to say, however you use the word.
The advice from NPR standards and practices was well-intended. Journalists are meant to scrutinize the president, not promote his personal philosophy. By conflating all those meanings, Trump gets maximum marketing power and minimal accountability for delivering on his proclamations.
Apparently, the direction was not well-received throughout the newsroom. Cavin clarified his first pass at guidance that same day. "I did not say it should be prohibited," he wrote in a follow-up email. "I do think it's overused and incredibly vague and that our focus needs to be on what any agreement entails. But there is no ban on the word 'deal.'"
I imagine he received pushback from many people who find the word's broad application useful, particularly in headlines, teases, first sentences and social media posts. It's difficult to find a better term. All the synonyms for "deal" are weaker and more bureaucratic terms, like "agreement," "understanding," "accord," "bargain," "contract" and "compact." None of those words are as colloquial as "deal."
Cavin's push was more about digging into the meat of the story, especially when reporting on the war with Iran. "I don't think it tells the audience much," he said to me. "It was very hard to determine how much progress was actually being made or even what the two sides were negotiating on."
Ultimately, what Cavin was pushing for, and I concur with, is that, whenever the president touts a "deal," the journalists should press for details. If those details are not forthcoming, which often happens, then maybe the story isn't that big. When news of a deal seems important, journalists should include the context that the White House has a habit of announcing half-finished negotiations that don't always pan out.
It's impossible and maybe even ill-advised to try to keep the word "deal" out of headlines and teases and social media posts. Subheads and dependent clauses have an important role in these cases. They can add clarity for the consumer who is scrolling but not clicking.
Cavin gets that. "I would stress that I did not prohibit the use of the word (I generally wouldn't do that)," he said. "I asked that people do their best to avoid 'deal' and look for language that would best explain what we know, and what we don't know, about the ongoing diplomatic attempts to bring the fighting to a halt."
Hard to argue with that.
But also, it's oddly reassuring that the use of this four-letter word has prompted both caution and pushback within NPR. While some might dismiss this debate as a forest-for-the-trees problem, I disagree. Every day, the journalists who cover the president walk a fine line. They document what's happening and question the administration's version of events. While doing that, reporters must avoid the trap of becoming the political opposition. It requires constant vigilance. Asking this question about the word "deal" encourages the intended outcome for NPR's storytelling, whether or not you agree with the guidance. — Kelly McBride
New podcast investigates death of Black teen at Seattle protest
In the summer of 2020, a Black teenager named Antonio Mays Jr. was shot and killed inside an occupied protest zone in Seattle. Known as CHOP, the police-free protest zone had formed from a fight for racial justice. But a shroud of secrecy fell on the case of Antonio's killing, and it has remained unsolved for years. "We Keep Us Safe," a new eight-part series from NPR's Embedded podcast in collaboration with The Seattle Times and KUOW, investigates this unsolved shooting death. The journalists tracked down witnesses to Antonio's killing and unearthed crucial video evidence that had not previously been made public, bringing listeners a gripping investigation that explores deeper questions about the protesters' decisions and who bears the responsibility for his death. The series is also a true testament to the importance of dogged, local journalism. — Amaris Castillo
The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo and Nicole Slaughter Graham and copy editor Merrill Perlman make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on social media and from our inbox. As always, keep them coming.
Kelly McBride
NPR Public Editor
Chair, Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute
Copyright 2026 NPR
