Skip to content
Sign in
Defense & Security · North America

Trump uses antisemitic slur while defending Marshall’s medical billing

Donald Trump used an antisemitic slur while defending Sen. Roger Marshall at a Kansas campaign rally, saying Marshall had been unfairly portrayed over billing patients at his former medical practice. Trump said Marshall was required by law to seek payment and acknowledged he probably should not have used the term.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 3 independent reports from 4 outlets · Article text read from 2 of 3 reportsHow it's made

View timeline · 5 entries
4 outlets2 regionsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: MixedL 1 · C 1 · R 1 · 1 unrated
File photo
Photo: Daniel Torok / Wikimedia Commons (Public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • Trump said Marshall had been unfairly portrayed over billing patients at his former medical practice (per NBC News, Washington Examiner).
  • Trump said Marshall was required by law to seek money patients owed and could have faced criminal liability if he did not (per Washington Examiner, NBC News).
  • Trump said he probably should not have used the term, then continued defending Marshall (per Washington Examiner, NBC News).
  • Marshall is not Jewish (per NBC News).

The brief

Donald Trump used an antisemitic slur while defending Sen. Roger Marshall at a campaign rally in Kansas, linking the term “shylock” to reporting about Marshall’s past medical billing. Trump argued that Marshall had been portrayed unfairly and told him, “You got screwed with that stuff.”

The term is widely recognized as offensive toward Jewish people. NBC News quoted the Anti-Defamation League’s educator guide to Shakespeare’s play as describing Shylock as a character through whom Jews are depicted as “money-hungry, conniving, and cruel.” Marshall is not Jewish, NBC News reported. The reporting Trump addressed concerned a New York Times account that Marshall and his former medical practice sued more than 700 patients over unpaid bills. NBC News said the account also described scores of arrest warrants resulting from missed court dates. The lawsuits and warrants are claims reported about past billing and court proceedings; neither source reports an outcome in those cases. Trump offered a legal rationale for the billing practices. The Washington Examiner reported that he said Marshall had been required by law to seek money patients owed and could have faced criminal liability if he did not. The Examiner characterized Trump’s remarks as a defense of Marshall’s medical billing, while NBC News emphasized the slur and its antisemitic meaning. Trump also said he probably should not have used the term, according to the Washington Examiner, but continued defending Marshall. The outlet described this as the second time in as many years that Trump had used the slur and referenced an earlier Iowa rally; it did not provide further details of that earlier occasion in the account here. The rally was held in Kansas as Trump campaigned for Marshall, according to the Washington Examiner. The sources describe the immediate dispute as a clash between Trump’s defense of Marshall’s billing practices and criticism of the language he used. They do not establish whether Marshall’s billing practices violated a law or whether the warrants led to arrests.

Why it matters

  • More than 700 patients were sued over unpaid bills, according to the New York Times account described by the sources; the reported mechanism was litigation over medical debts.
  • NBC News said those lawsuits resulted in scores of arrest warrants for missed court dates, exposing patients to legal consequences tied to court attendance.
  • The term Trump used carries an antisemitic meaning, and the Anti-Defamation League guide cited by NBC News explains its association with harmful portrayals of Jews.

What to watch next

  • Whether Trump continues defending Marshall’s billing practices while acknowledging the slur’s implications.
  • Whether Marshall addresses the reported lawsuits involving more than 700 patients and the scores of warrants described by NBC News.
  • Whether further public details clarify the legal basis for the billing practices Trump said were required by law.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
4 source articles · 4 unique outlets · 3 distinct reports
Outlet political mix: Mixed· 1 Left · 1 Center · 1 Right · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: US/Canada 75% · Africa 25%
Outlet political mix
Mixed
Left
Center
Right
1 outlet
1 outlet
1 outlet
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
4 unique outletsDominant coverage: US/Canada
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in US/Canada (3 of 4 geographically-identified sources).
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

1 framing difference · 2 uncorroborated claims · 2 information gaps
The reports repeat the same account with different emphasis; its central claims are not independently confirmed in the reporting Updat3 read.Compared across 2 reports whose article text Updat3 read; 1 other outlet was checked by headline only.
Framing / emphasis differences
Sources emphasise different angles, actors or consequences of the same reporting.
  • NBC News foregrounds the antisemitic meaning of the slur and the reported lawsuits and arrest warrants; the Washington Examiner emphasizes Trump’s legal justification for Marshall’s billing and his continued defense after saying he probably should not have used the term.
Updat3: These are differences of emphasis, not disputes about what is reported. They do not show that the reported claims are true.
One-sided or uncorroborated claims
Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.
  • Trump told Marshall, “You got screwed with that stuff,” referring to the reporting, according to NBC News.
  • Trump said Marshall had been “mandated by law” to seek money owed, according to the Washington Examiner.
Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.
Not established by the reporting
Information the available reporting does not contain or confirm. This is a gap, not a disagreement.
  • The sources do not provide the underlying New York Times report’s detailed account of the lawsuits, the patients’ circumstances, or the outcomes of the cases and warrants.
  • The Washington Examiner reports Trump’s claim that Marshall was required by law to seek payment and could have faced criminal liability for failing to do so; the sources do not independently establish that legal claim.
Updat3: Updat3 cannot conclude anything about this from the current sources.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. William Shakespeare’s *The Merchant of Venice*, featuring the Jewish moneylender Shylock, was first published.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, enacted in 1977, regulates abusive practices by third-party debt collectors; it generally distinguishes those collectors from creditors collecting debts in their own names.
    Background · from our historical context
  3. Donald Trump won the presidential election.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  4. In 2020, during Roger Marshall’s campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Kansas, reporting examined how his former medical practice billed patients and pursued unpaid balances.
    Background · from our historical context
  5. Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second, non-consecutive term as U.S. president.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3

How we got here

In 2020, during Roger Marshall’s campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Kansas, reporting examined how his former medical practice billed patients and pursued unpaid balances.

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, enacted in 1977, regulates abusive practices by third-party debt collectors; it generally distinguishes those collectors from creditors collecting debts in their own names.

Original sources

3 of 4 articles · US/Canada · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.