Former President Donald Trump launched a fresh and unusually personal attack this week against Whoopi Goldberg, calling for her dismissal after she read from what she described as a publicly available court document during a segment on The View that challenged Trump’s long-standing claims of possessing “genius-level” intelligence.

The confrontation began during a routine broadcast when Ms. Goldberg cited records from a 1973 federal housing discrimination case involving Trump’s real estate company. According to the segment, the filing included psychological evaluations voluntarily submitted by Trump’s legal team, listing an IQ score of 112. While above average, the score stands in contrast to Trump’s repeated public assertions over decades that he ranks among the most intellectually gifted leaders in American history.

Ms. Goldberg framed the disclosure not as mockery but as documentation, reading directly from what she said was a notarized court record bearing official stamps and docket numbers. “This isn’t opinion,” she told viewers. “This is what was filed.” The moment spread rapidly across social media platforms, with clips circulating widely within hours.

Trump responded almost immediately on Truth Social, issuing a series of posts written largely in capital letters. He denied the existence of the test, then claimed that if such a document did exist, it must have been fabricated. In subsequent posts, he accused Ms. Goldberg of spreading lies, demanded her firing, and called for a boycott of ABC and its parent company, Disney.

Rather than blunting the controversy, the response appeared to intensify it. News organizations quickly examined the claims surrounding the document. Legal analysts noted that records voluntarily submitted in federal court generally become part of the public record and are legally reportable if authentic. Several outlets reported that the cited filing contained official court markings and signatures from the Southern District of New York, though Trump’s representatives continued to dispute its validity without presenting counterevidence.

ABC issued a brief statement defending the broadcast, saying the segment relied on publicly accessible material and fell within the network’s editorial standards. The following episode of The View drew one of its largest audiences in years, according to preliminary ratings data, suggesting that the controversy had widened the program’s reach.

Ms. Goldberg, far from retreating, escalated her response. She posted what she described as the full court filing online and offered a public challenge to anyone who could prove the document was fraudulent. No such proof emerged in the days that followed. Psychologists and academic commentators who reviewed excerpts of the evaluation emphasized that an IQ score of 112 indicates functional intelligence and professional competence but does not support claims of exceptional or “genius” ability.

Several experts used the moment to discuss broader themes. Commentators cited the Dunning-Kruger effect, a cognitive bias in which individuals with above-average ability may overestimate their competence, particularly when combined with strong ego investment and resistance to external correction. Educators reported using the episode in classrooms as a case study in media literacy, evidence evaluation, and the difference between data and self-promotion.

The political implications extended beyond daytime television. Late-night hosts referenced the exchange in monologues, while analysts debated whether Trump’s aggressive response reinforced the very criticism it sought to repel. “The issue was not the number,” one former campaign strategist said on cable news. “It was the reaction.”

For Trump, who has long treated personal dominance and exceptionalism as central pillars of his public identity, the episode underscored a familiar pattern: perceived slights answered with escalation, and attempts at denial that draw further scrutiny. By week’s end, discussion of the former president’s policy positions had largely been eclipsed by debate over credibility, self-image, and temperament.

What began as a brief television segment had evolved into a national conversation about ego, evidence, and the power of documentation—an illustration of how, in modern political life, a single data point can carry consequences far beyond its original context.