Reading between the lines of Donald Trump’s muddled words is a challenge for most – here’s how political journalists do it

When writing about politics, there are certain conventions it’s generally useful to follow.

One is that when words come out of a politician’s mouth, they have some sort of meaning.

They may be designed to hide a truth or send a signal to one group or another. But they are there, on the record to be interrogated and challenged.

Most politicians are acutely aware of this. Years of practice enable the most skilful to talk at length without ever allowing themselves to be caught in an untruth, make an unintended commitment or create a hostage to fortune.

Donald Trump isn’t like that, as his state visit showed.

Take his comment that the NHS would “absolutely” be included in any post-Brexit trade deal.

This was massive news. “Absolutely” is a word that leaves no wriggle room. And Tory leadership candidates were forced to respond, scrambling to declare the NHS was “not on the table”.

The battle lines were drawn. No US corporate access to healthcare meant no trade deal. No trade deal meant the most glittering Brexit prize was ripped from Britain’s hands.

Would any leadership contender break ranks and say it was worth putting the NHS in play to reach the promised land of free-trading global Britain? It could decide the premiership race and the future of Brexit.

Then a few hours later in his cosy TV chat with Piers Morgan, Trump spoke again.

It turned out that, no, he didn’t think the NHS should be part of the deal. Health wasn’t part of trade, whoever had suggested that?

Had he been talked round by Theresa May? Or corrected by horrified staffers and sent out to backtrack? Or did he simply not know what he was talking about? After all, he had to ask May to repeat the question before answering.

It was the same throughout the press conference. Trump said he hadn’t noticed protests of any size, when you could actually hear them from inside the opulent Foreign Office court where he was standing.

He boasted of having predicted Brexit on a visit to Scotland, when everyone present knew the trip was the day after the referendum. Had he told the tale so many times he believed it true? Or was he in fact sending out a message? “I can say and do what I like and it doesn’t matter what you think, because I’m bigger and stronger and you need me more than I need you.”

In that case, the words did their work. Signal sent. Message received.

Yours,

Andrew Woodcock

Political editor