Politics and changing one’s mind

Shannon Bohrer

(6/2025) Changing one’s position can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances. Reporters who cover politics are very astute about keeping records on politicians' words and promises. When a politician employs ambiguous language to convey strong and seemingly inflexible beliefs, they are frequently scrutinized, especially if their later position changes. Yet, there are instances when people, including politicians, change their minds. When additional information becomes available on a topic that questions one’s position, changing one's position can be reasonable.

The topic of changing one’s position is often criticized and has historically been labeled as flip-flopping. The term political speech itself often conveys the idea that the content can depend on whom the person is talking to. In politics, the inferences of changing one’s position are often viewed as inconsistent and unreliable, denoting that one cannot be trusted.

We have witnessed politicians changing their positions on global warming and alternative energy sources, often citing added information. We have also witnessed politicians maintain positions even after the facts do not support them. COVID was a pandemic that many denied even after it was scientifically and factually proven to exist. Sometimes, being consistent and not changing one’s position, after the facts have changed, implies a closed mind.

The supporters of our current president often describe him as being focused. He says what is on his mind and does not waver from his promises, yet that description has not always been accurate, because he has demonstrated the ability to change his positions. When he ran for office, he promised to raise tariffs on countries we trade with, because we have a trade deficit. After being elected, he kept his promise and raised tariffs. The tariffs negatively affected our economy, the bond markets, and the value of our currency. He then withdrew some of the tariffs. Having more information can allow someone to make better decisions. He then promised to raise the tariffs again and expressed possible exceptions for numerous tariffs. So, he kept his promise and changed his mind, but he still promised to raise tariffs again. So, even someone who appears steadfast in their beliefs can be flexible.

Another change he made, which is related to the tariffs, goes back to his first term in office. At the end of his first term in 2020, he signed the USMCA trade agreement, which updated NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, originally signed into law by President Clinton. The overhaul was "designed to update the pact to reflect the rise of e-commerce and other technological changes and to do more to encourage factories to move production to the United States." He acquired more information and changed his mind by adding additional tariffs to Canada and Mexico.

When Trump was campaigning, he also promised numerous times to eliminate DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and later signed four executive orders, one of which bans transgender individuals from serving in the military. The order banning transgender military service is "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness." The order states that "This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria."

Yet, in 2018, during Trump’s first term, medical procedures for transgender persons were addressed when "Officials in the justice department gave the green light to procedures that also included hormone therapy and hair removal." Additionally, "Prison bureau officials wrote in a budget memo to Congress in February 2018 that the government was obligated to pay for sex-change procedures if deemed medically necessary." The medical care included cross-gender hormone therapy, including surgical intervention if needed, and counselling if required. So, he changed his mind, again.

In 2018, President Donald Trump said, "The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into." The deal with Iran he referred to was "the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action," signed into law by President Obama. The deal included a transfer of Iranian assets/monies back to Iran and a lifting of sanctions, provided Iran ceases its nuclear program and agrees to inspections. Trump cancelled the deal during his first term.

Recently, while in his second term, he changed his mind again, sending a letter to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The letter proposed a new nuclear deal and a "two-month deadline to reach an agreement." Brian Hughes, speaking for the National Security Council, said that "Trump wanted to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program diplomatically – and very soon – and if this was not possible, there would be other ways to resolve the dispute." Also, during a telephone call with NBC News, Trump said, "If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing." He also promised secondary tariffs if a deal could not be made.

To be clear, there was a deal with Iran to stop the production of nuclear materials under President Obama. After Trump was elected for his first term, he cancelled the deal, and Iran restarted the processing of nuclear materials. Now that Trump is in his second term, he wants to revive or recreate the deal that Obama made. Obviously, or maybe obliviously, he has changed his mind again.

As discussed, changing one’s position when added information becomes available can be a good thing. However, there are times when changing or not changing a position is not based on new information but based on political perspectives. How does my position compare to my opponents? This is often referred to as diversion speech. Sometimes, the best way to defend your party’s poor decisions is to say the opposing party is worse, often for doing the same thing.

Diversion speech is often not recognized for what it is, because the facts are just a distraction. When Trump was running for his first term, he complained that Hillary Clinton's computer contained secret information, and that was tantamount to treason. In fact, he said she should be locked up. Recently, Pete Hegseth was accused of having classified documents on a private email with minimal security. The email was sent to numerous administration officials and included a news reporter. Outside of the administration, every national security expert vilified the incident, saying that anyone in a lower position would lose their rank and face charges. Trump defended Hegseth, saying the military action was successful.

When both sides use diversion speech—look over there—it becomes difficult to have rational conversation. Changing one’s mind should not be confused with diversion speech. One can be justified, and the other cannot.

"If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading."- Laozi