Saquon Barkley’s Trump meet-up riled the racist left — and he won’t accept their shame

New York Post - Apr 29th, 2025

Philadelphia Eagles' running back Saquon Barkley faced significant criticism for golfing with President Trump, a day before his team's scheduled White House celebration. While some teammates, like quarterback Jalen Hurts, opted not to attend the White House function and received praise, Barkley was criticized for his decision to spend time with Trump. Former Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins and sportswriter Les Bowen were among the critics, expressing their disappointment with Barkley's action. Despite the backlash, Barkley defended his choice on social media, emphasizing his respect for the office of the presidency and clarifying that it was merely a golf outing, not an endorsement.

This incident highlights ongoing tensions regarding racial identity politics in the United States, especially concerning expectations placed on black men by liberal groups. The backlash against Barkley reflects a broader societal pattern where deviation from a collective racial or political stance results in public shaming. The story underscores the challenges faced by individuals like Barkley, who choose to navigate their personal and political beliefs independently, resisting pressure to conform to group ideologies. This incident serves as a reminder of the complex intersection between race, politics, and personal freedom in contemporary America.

Donald Trump Philadelphia Eagles Saquon Barkley White House Visit Identity Politics Racial Expectations Golfing Controversy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

3.4

Unfair Story

Approach with caution

The article presents a provocative and opinionated narrative about Saquon Barkley's interactions with political figures and the subsequent backlash he faced. While the core event is accurate, the piece suffers from a lack of balance, credible sources, and transparency. Its strong bias and reliance on rhetorical language limit its potential to influence broader public opinion or contribute to meaningful discussions. However, its controversial nature may engage readers and provoke debate, particularly among those interested in the intersection of race, politics, and sports.

Accuracy

The article presents a mixture of fact and opinion, with the core event—Saquon Barkley's golf outing with Trump and subsequent backlash—being accurate and verifiable. However, many claims, such as specific quotes from critics like Malcolm Jenkins and Les Bowen, are not verified in available sources. The article also attributes broad motivations and actions to groups like the 'liberal left' without concrete evidence. This lack of precise sourcing and verification for critical claims diminishes the overall factual accuracy.

Balance

The story predominantly presents a single perspective, focusing on the perceived oppression of black men by the 'liberal left.' It lacks balance by not including any counterarguments or perspectives from those who might support the criticism of Barkley's actions. The article's tone and choice of language suggest a strong bias, which impacts the representation of diverse viewpoints and leads to a one-sided narrative.

Clarity

While the article is written in a clear and engaging style, its clarity is somewhat compromised by the intermingling of fact and opinion. The narrative flow is logical, but the use of charged language and rhetorical devices can obscure the factual basis of the story. This affects the reader's ability to discern between verified information and the author's interpretation.

Source quality

The article does not provide clear sources for many of its claims, particularly the specific criticisms it attributes to individuals like Malcolm Jenkins and Les Bowen. The lack of citations or references to credible sources undermines the reliability of the information presented. The absence of direct quotes or links to original statements further questions the authority of the claims made.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the basis for its claims and the methodology behind its arguments. There is no clear explanation of how the author arrived at certain conclusions, particularly those regarding the motivations of the 'liberal left.' The piece also fails to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might influence the author's perspective, reducing its transparency.