Arts & Entertainment
New York Times’ Trump-Putin cartoon criticized as ‘homophobic’
The publication insists being gay isn’t the animation’s punch line

New York Times animation (Screenshot via Twitter)
The New York Times has come under fire for its cartoon depicting Donald Trump fantasizing about having a love affair with Vladimir Putin which some felt was a homophobic dig.
The Times re-posted its animation, “Trump and Putin: A Love Story,” which was originally released last month, in the wake of Trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki. The video, animated by Bill Plympton, uses real audio of Trump discussing Putin overlapped with a cartoon of Trump fantasizing about Putin. Trump is shown getting ready for a date with Putin who picks him up in his car. Trump places his hand on top of Putin’s and the car transforms into a unicorn. The pair fly through the sky surrounded by rainbows, flowers and butterflies. Then they kiss while Trump pinches Putin’s nipples. There’s a close-up shot of their tongues intertwined in a kiss inside their mouths. The cartoon ends to show Trump has been imagining the moment while watching TV at home with a framed portrait of a shirtless Putin on horseback hanging on the wall.
In this episode of Trump Bites, Donald Trump’s not-so-secret admiration for Vladimir Putin plays out in a teenager’s bedroom, where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life. https://t.co/cWeQMuzWUz pic.twitter.com/4shBRkloot
— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) July 16, 2018
The video’s punch line seems to be that Trump and Putin having a romantic relationship would be funny. A spokesperson for the New York Times released a statement to NBC News insisting that wasn’t the case.
“The video is not meant to be homophobic,” the spokesperson says. “The filmmaker’s vision was one of teenage infatuation portrayed through a dream-like fantasy sequence. He would have used the same format to satirize Trump’s infatuation with another politician, regardless of sexuality or gender. Exaggerated kissing is a signature feature of his animated shorts, including ‘How to Kiss.'”
Regardless, some people found the joke to be distasteful and sounded off on social media.
During these trying times when the president lies to us every day and normalizes Vladimir Putin, please remember what’s important: LOL WHAT IF HE WAS GAY https://t.co/4sMyxLS67g
— Louis Virtel (@louisvirtel) July 16, 2018
“They’re FAGS!” – NYT https://t.co/rhG3TZEBCB
— Tyler Coates (@tylercoates) July 16, 2018
@nytimes this isn’t just intensely stupid, it’s homophobic as all hell. What on Earth makes you think that equating the love that countless people across the planet fight and die for to the unconscionably criminal relationship between these two is OK?! Truly, please explain. https://t.co/Cs1TYOJ4Lp
— Brian Sims (@BrianSimsPA) July 16, 2018
You’ve done it guys. You’ve saved democracy by saying Trump and Putin are gay for each other. The first 1000 times didn’t work, but your version was the final nail. You have humiliated them out of destroying democracy by saying they are like gay people. The union is safe.
— Guy Branum (@guybranum) July 16, 2018
Congrats to everyone doing gay jokes about Trump and Putin for throwing your own beliefs under the bus for a political cartoon they’ll never see
— Mike Drucker (@MikeDrucker) July 16, 2018
This is homophobic. It is implying that being gay is an insult for both of these men. It implies that being gay would emasculate them. It implies that calling them gay together would anger them and incite reaction. This is beneath us. https://t.co/Zk95DgQOpN
— Phillip Picardi (@pfpicardi) July 16, 2018
I think of the resources that went into animating this tired and offensive joke — it took 11 people to make this video. That would have been so much better spent on highlighting unsung queer heroes or even some kind of satire about how dangerous Russia is for LGBTQ folks.
— Alex Berg (@itsalexberg) July 16, 2018
Photos
PHOTOS: Remove the Regime rally and march
Dropkick Murphys, Earth to Eve perform on steps of Lincoln Memorial
The Remove the Regime rally and march was held on Saturday, Nov. 22.
(Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)








Transgender Day of Remembrance was observed at the Metropolitan Community Church of Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Nov. 20. The event was emceed by Rayceen Pendarvis and Dwight Venson. Musical selections were provided by Agape Praise and Dynamic Praise. Proclamations from the D.C. Council and the D.C. Office of the Mayor were presented. The Pouring of the Libation was conducted by Rev. Elder Akousa McCray and Rev. Paul Fulton-Woods of Unity Fellowship Church.
Remarks were given by trans survivors of violence. Family members of slain trans woman Dream Johnson were featured speakers. Prayers were given by Rev. Cathy Alexander and Rev. Dwayne Johnson of Metropolitan Community Church of Washington, D.C. Yael Shafritz gave a Jewish prayer through a video presentation. Closing remarks were given by community leader, Earline Budd.
(Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)







Books
Pioneering gay journalist takes on Trump 2.0 in new book
Nick Benton’s essays appeared in Fall Church News-Press
Nicholas Benton is a well-known local LGBTQ advocate and journalist and the longtime owner and editor of the Falls Church News-Press, a weekly newspaper.
In his eighth book out now, Benton offers a new set of remarkable essays all crafted in the first eight months of Trump 2.0 and its wholesale effort at dismantling democracy and the rule of law. Most were published in the Falls Church News-Press, but he adds a new piece to this volume, as an addendum to his “Cult Century” series, revealing for the first time his experiences from decades ago in the political cult of Lyndon LaRouche, aimed at providing a clearer grasp of today’s Cult of Trump.
His “Please Don’t Eat Your Children” set takes off from the satire of Jonathan Swift to explore society’s critical role of drumming creativity out of the young.

Below is an excerpt from “Please Don’t Eat Your Children, Cult Century, and other 2025 Essays.”
Please Don’t Eat Your Children
In his famous short essay, “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public,” author and Anglican priest Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) uses cutting satire to suggest that cannibalism of the young might help solve a battery of social ills.
As we examine our broken society today, it seems to me that reflecting on Swift’s social critique can be quite useful. Now we face a nation filled with anger and division and there is little to suggest any real solutions other than insisting people “don’t do that!” We can start out with the observation that young children, left to their own, are neither hateful nor cruel. How do they get that way later on in their lives? What drives them toward such emotional states and behaviors? It is not a problem only for the margins of society, for the extreme misfits or troubled. It is defining the very center of our culture today. Our divisions are not the cause, but the result of something, and nobody is saying what that is.
Swift doesn’t say what it is in his biting little essay. But it is implied by a context of a lack of bounty, or poverty, on the one hand, and an approach to it characterized by obscenely cruel indifference, on the other. He coined the phrase “useless eaters” in defining his radical solution. In Hitler’s Germany, that term resonated through the death camps and some in our present situation are daring to evoke it again as the current administration pushes radical cuts in Medicaid funding.
But while that refers to the old and infirm, mostly, it is the young we are talking about here. The problem is that our society is structured to devour our young and as they begin to find that out, they rebel. Not in all cases is this the practice, of course. Where there is little or no lack, things are different. We nurture our young, as we should, and we love them. Lucky is the child who is born to parents who are of means, and in a community where nurture is possible and valued. But even such children are ultimately not immune from facing a destiny of pale conformity battered by tightly delimited social expectations and debt slavery. If they have enough ambition, education and doors opened for them, some can run the gauntlet with relative effectiveness. Otherwise, our young are raised to die on battlefields, or to struggle in myriad other painful social conflicts aimed at advancing the world of their elders. In the Bible, there is a great admonition against this process that comes at the very precondition for the tradition it represents that begins with Abraham.
It is in the book of Genesis at the beginning of the Biblical story when, as that story goes, God commanded Abraham to kill his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice. As Abraham is about to obey, God steps in and says no. The entire subsequent eons-long struggle to realize Abraham’s commission by God to make a great nation that would be a light to the world would have been cut short right then if Abraham had slain his own son. The message is that all of the Abrahamic traditions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, owe their source, and in fact are rooted, in God’s command to reject the sacrifice of children to the whims of their elders. The last thousands of years can be best defined in these terms, where nurture is pitted against exploitation of our young with, at best, vastly mixed results. Scenes like that at the opening of “All Quiet on the Western Front,” the World War I novel and film where a teacher rallies a classroom full of boys to enlist in the war, is bone chilling. Or, the lyric in Pink Floyd’s iconic song, Comfortably Numb, “When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone. I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone.”
Nick Benton’s new book is available now at Amazon.
The Blade may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via this post.
