In a hearing on Thursday, a heated exchange between Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) erupted after Sewell presented Kennedy with a poster featuring his own words.
“Every Black kid is now just standard put on Adderall, SSRIs, benzos, which are known to induce violence,” per the poster, quoting a June 2024 interview Kennedy did with a wellness influencer on YouTube. “And those kids are going to have a chance to go somewhere and get re-parented …”
In that same interview, Kennedy went on to suggest that these children should be taken and, per the quote, “re-parented” in screen-free communities — something which, as Sewell pointed out, calls back to the dark history of separating Black children from their families in the United States.
However, in Thursday’s hearing just two years later, Kennedy claimed he never said those words.
With rebuttals ranging from “you’re just makin’ stuff up,” to “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” Kennedy confidently insisted that he was “not going to answer something that I didn’t say,” adding that he’d “like to hear the recording,” which, again, is right here — timestamp 1:24:55.
It’s a depressingly common situation in the second Trump administration, feeling inclined to double- and triple-check reality with the public record — unsure if comments from political leaders will be denied or dismissed just days later.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
It sure does feel like gaslighting.
While there are plenty of punchlines about lying politicians, it should be said that (at least prior to our current moment), people generally trust that officials in these environments will attempt to answer the questions they are asked accurately and effectively.
That trust, however, can be exploited, as explained by Vernita Perkins, a consultant, researcher and expert in organizational and multicultural psychology.
“The public might expect this to be a typical Q&A session, where the secretary is well-qualified, knowledgeable and genuinely intends to provide accurate answers,” Perkins said. “However, political gaslighters (PGs) often exploit the public’s trust as a means to operate without any intention or interest in answering questions, even knowing in advance that they lack the qualifications for their position.”
As for Kennedy’s performance in this hearing, Sarah Harsey — an assistant professor of psychology at Oregon State University, Cascades, who has extensively researched manipulation techniques — said in an email to HuffPost that it’s notable that his exact awareness of what he said is left a little ambiguous.
“I find it interesting that the health secretary first responded by claiming he doesn’t know what the quote means — this isn’t an outright denial, but he does quickly follow up by saying he’s not going to respond to something he ‘didn’t say,’” Harsey said. ”This could be a true reflection of his inability to understand and recollect his own statements, or it could be an intentional tactic to deflect responsibility for his words.”
And, if it’s the latter, Harsey said it “would be an example of the first tactic of DARVO, a manipulation strategy that stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.”
“It’s used when someone wants to deflect responsibility or consequences for their actions, and it’s supposed to be confusing and disorienting for audiences,” she continued. “So, when RFK Jr. says that he doesn’t understand the statement he made and that he didn’t make it, it’s possible that he’s trying to inject as much confusion into the exchange as he can. This can make it hard for some audiences to discern what’s real and truthful.”
Harsey also noted that in her research with Jennifer Freyd, who coined “DARVO” in the 1990s and is the founder and president at the Center for Institutional Courage, this technique is deployed “across a range of situations” — but that denials of the “I didn’t say that” variety are “statistically likely to accompany attacks and reversals of victims and offenders.”
“In other words, people who use denials when faced with accountability are also inclined to attack the person holding them accountable and then play the victim while painting the confronter as the real perpetrator,” Harsey said.
Where do gaslighters get the audacity?
It doesn’t seem easy to look someone dead in the eye and attempt to override reality, the public record. So, it’s easy to wonder what conditions make someone feel confident enough to try it.
Harsey said that is something she and her colleagues are actively researching at the moment: “Our preliminary data suggest that DARVO use is associated with dark triad personality traits.”
“This means that people who [display] higher levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy are more likely to deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender when held responsible for their behaviors,” Harsey said. “These dark triad traits are underpinned by manipulative tendencies and callousness towards others, which aligns well with the inherently manipulative qualities of DARVO.”
Likewise, while there isn’t a lot of data showing how we as an audience become primed to accept or tolerate this kind of treatment, there are a few working theories: “We don’t have firm data on this yet, but it’s possible that hearing DARVO over and over again normalizes it; in this way, repetitive exposure to DARVO could potentially increase people’s willingness to accept or tolerate it,” Harsey said. “But, as we don’t have research that speaks to this yet, this is still speculative.”
Perkins also notes that the larger question of accountability (and the lack thereof in American history) can play a role: “The current administration has not been held accountable,” Perkins said. “This, combined with systems of capitalism and patriarchy, along with the historic harms and racial terrorism perpetrated by the U.S. on marginalized and underrepresented groups, gives the [political gaslighter] a belief that they won’t be held accountable.”
“Even if they are,” she continued, “their narcissism reinforces the idea that they’ll grift their way out of accountability and responsibility.”
If you’re facing denial from a gaslighter in your life, try this.
You very well might run into this accountability-allergic behavior in the wild — with a frustrating co-worker, an intimate partner or a parent. Like any form of gaslighting, it’s frustrating at best and psychologically unmooring at worst.
But you don’t need to just let it happen to you — and learning how to recognize when it’s happening is a major step to taking the power of the gaslighter away.
“One way people can counteract gaslighting is to learn more about it,” Harsey said. “In one of our studies, Jennifer Freyd and I found that educating people about DARVO — what it is, how it’s used — can offer some protection against its manipulative effects.”
For dealing with political gaslighters in particular, Perkins said staying informed and relying on “factual and evidence-based information” can be highly protective. And refusing to play games that further pull you from reality.
“When interacting with a [political gaslighter], it’s beneficial to clearly articulate your purpose and the desired outcome,” Perkins said. “If the conversation deviates from these initial objectives, it’s advisable to conclude the interaction.”
