Why The Times Calls Trump ‘Mr.’ (No, We’re Not Being Rude)

The Reader Center is a newsroom initiative that is helping The Times build deeper ties with our audience.

We have asked our standards editor, Phil Corbett, to explain our use of honorifics.

Readers occasionally express concern about articles referring to the president as “Mr. Trump.”

They believe it is disrespectful to call him “Mr.” rather than “President” Trump, and some suggest that our doing so is a sign of political bias. “It’s President Trump, not Mr. Trump,” wrote one reader who uses the name Batman (you read that right) in the comments section. “If we’re really going to bad mouth the President of the United States, why don’t we at least learn his title.”

The complaint isn’t new to me. For years, we got complaints that our references to “Mr. Obama” betrayed our disrespect for him. And before that, “Mr. Bush” made some readers suspect that we were showing our disdain for that president.

I’m not sure whether one of my long-ago predecessors got similar complaints about The Times’s references to “Mr. Lincoln.” But I can assure readers that we have been consistent for many years in how we refer to an incumbent president: It’s “President Trump” (or President Obama, or President Bush) on first reference, and “Mr. Trump” or “the president” (lowercase) thereafter.

No disrespect is intended.

In fact, most news organizations dispense with the “Mr.” altogether and simply call the president “Trump” after the first reference. The Times is among the few outlets still using courtesy titles like “Mr.” or “Ms.” (with exceptions in our sports coverage and a few other areas). Some readers (me included) like the tone of civility and seriousness the titles convey; others find them old-fashioned and stodgy. And still others are just confused.