by Peter Funt
One of the most dangerous terms in world affairs right now is the acronym TACO.
Used incessantly by Donald Trump’s political opponents since the start of the war with Iran, it stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” The reference was apparently first authored a year ago by Robert Armstrong of the Financial Times, in discussing Trump’s bluster about tariffs.
Lately, it’s indisputable that Mr. Trump has been inconsistent, even contradictory, in issuing threats regarding the war. Among the more egregious: his April 5 post on Truth Social declaring that on April 7 Iran would face “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one” if the Strait of Hormuz remained closed.
The deadline came and went, with the strait closed and no bombs falling.
Does that make the President a chicken? Or, a man who at least retains enough of a moral compass to find a way around his worst hyperbolic rants and impulsive fits of anger?
Trump’s empty threats have put his critics in a difficult — and potentially risky — position. On CNN the other night, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned, “We now have no timeline on the ceasefire, no timeline on the blockade and, let’s face it, no timeline on the war. Donald Trump has painted himself into a corner and he can’t find an exit.”
Perhaps. But isn’t an open-ended ceasefire and vague timeline preferable to destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and, as Trump famously threatened, death to “a whole civilization”?
The situation is made more perilous by the fact few presidents have been so attuned to — and potentially influenced by — the chatter on television. Night after night during the ceasefire, cable commentators ridicule Trump for “promising” that the war would be over in “four to six weeks.” Jimmy Kimmel rattled off Trump’s missed deadlines, then said it was to be expected on “TACO Tuesday.”
Even if his opponents truly believe Trump lacks the will to follow through, do they really wish to goad him into making good on his threats?
Many of us don’t like how all this started. We don’t accept the notion that Iran presented the type of imminent threat that would justify a sweeping military attack. And, we believe that inconsistent declarations by the President only serve to make things worse.
Yet, to use this occasion to question Donald Trump’s manhood — which is how I imagine he reads the term TACO — amounts to prioritizing domestic politics over the safety of millions of Iranian civilians.
As difficult as it may be for the president’s critics to curb their enthusiasm when it comes to pointing out the growing gulf between his words and actions, doing so might be a truly humanitarian gesture.
The urgent goal is to find an exit strategy from the conflict without further bloodshed. If that also means letting Trump out of the corner he’s painted for himself, so be it.
Copyright 2026 Peter Funt distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Peter Funt’s latest book is “Playing POTUS: The Power of America’s Acting Presidents,” about comedians who impersonated presidents.