Reading this article provides valuable intelligence for anyone wanting to have persuasive conversations with Trump voters. The key is identifying rhetorical weak spots where gentle questioning can lead to reflection rather than defensiveness. Here are some ways I think someone might be able to engage effectively based on these insights:

When supporters cite "following through on promises," ask specifically about economic promises. Trump campaigned on ending inflation, lowering prices, and improving retirement savings - yet his tune has now changed, and not for any external factors he isn’t in control of. I know it’s an informal survey, but I wonder if this dynamic holds across all surveys of approval: his economic approval (38%) now lags behind his overall approval (45%). That’s INSANE given how recently he was elected for a presumption of being an economic genius. Try questions like: "Has the implementation matched what was promised during the campaign?" These questions aren't accusatory but invite reflection on the gap between promised and delivered economic outcomes. Make people realize that even the bare minimum credit people give him (“what you see is what you get”) is far from the truth.

For those who compartmentalize Trump's "bedside manner" from his policies, try reframing leadership itself: "Do you think a president's ability to unite Americans is just a personality trait, or is it a core function of the job? If someone can't bring half the country along with them, isn't that itself a significant leadership failure?" This approach challenges the artificial separation between communication style and governance effectiveness.

On immigration, many Trump voters supported targeted deportation of criminals but now face a broader implementation. Ask: "Before the election, what did you understand 'deporting criminals' to mean? Has that definition expanded in ways you didn't anticipate?" Similarly, with comments like those about "taking over Gaza," probe the selective interpretation: "What makes you take some of Trump's statements as literal promises but dismiss others as 'just Trump talking'? How do you determine which statements to take seriously?" Again, what you see is not what you get.

The DOGE initiative creates another opening. When supporters praise cutting government waste, ask: "Why do you think this couldn't be done with transparency and clear metrics? If the waste is so obvious, wouldn't showing Americans exactly what's being cut strengthen public support? Does the chaotic nature of implementation concern you?" This questions the process without challenging the goal. And then follow up with the investigations that show all of the bad math and retracted firings and personal horror stories if the person you’re talking to seems ready for it. And finally, if they really do think DOGE has done excellent work, ask them if they feel like paying taxes is more of a patriotic duty now that it’s been whittled down to the essentials that keep our country great. If they are concerned about the national debt, isn’t it time to worry about the other side of the equation: revenue? Do they support billionaires having to pay the same effective tax rate as the rest of us?

The most effective approach combines genuine curiosity with gentle challenging of inconsistencies. Never attack the voter's identity as a Trump supporter - instead, focus on specific policy implementations and outcomes. By asking questions that highlight contradictions without judgment, you create space for self-reflection rather than defensiveness. Remember that persuasion happens through questioning assumptions, not frontal attacks on deeply-held beliefs.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​