[matt4077]

Every word of the article's headline is true, and the facts it contains (subject, object, action, and magnitude) are the most important facts of this story.

The reasoning you want to see in the headline is in the first paragraph.

If you're interpreting the headline as "Trump is unilaterally fucking up the world order yet again" then that is something that happens entirely in your head.

It's somewhat bold to fault others for an error that is entirely yours.

[h3throw]

It's all in my head?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629918

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629960 (now deleted)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19629995

I think wrt NYT, the facts are all true but purpose should also clearly be a part of it. Imagine a headline which said "Trump kills man on White House lawn with Colt .45" and the man was attacking him with a machete.

When many (most?) people are aware of the prior tariff tirade by Trump and not everyone reads the meat of an article, I think it's irresponsible to not include the _why_.

[thorncorona]

I think you're contriving viewpoints that simply aren't there. Nobody is talking about Trump, rather people are enjoying the irony of the US being one of the countries that subsidizes the most yet complaining about other countries.

On another note, I think your headline is fine. After all, surely the secret service is capable of non-lethally incapacitating a man with a machete. But even if not, it's false equivocation.