The Chagrined-y City

A photograph that appeared to show the residents of Chicago's Trump Tower objecting to his campaign was digitally altered.

Claim: Residents of Trump Tower Chicago demonstrated their disdain for Donald Trump via a clever display of lights.


Example: [Collected via Facebook, February 2016]


Origin:On 21 February 2016, the above-reproduced Facebook photo of Chicago's Trump Tower was shared with the following comment:

Trump challenged Chicagoans by putting his name up on the tower standing mid downtown chicago. For months I drove by and cringed every time I saw his name near the Michigan and Wacker intersection. In response to his selfishness Chicagoans decided to show who they are NOT voting for: — feeling satisfied at Downtown Chicago.

The display apparently caught neither the attention of social media at large (which would have produced a number of shots from other angles) nor the news media, despite its proximity to Trump's win in South Carolina.

That alone made the claim dubious, but a reverse image search located a few images identical to the "NO" photo, which quickly led to an earlier, unaltered version of the photograph:

trump chicago no


The angle and pattern of lit windows in the tower and surrounding buildings are identical in both photos (except for the "NO" in the second photo):

trump chicago NO imgur


While the "NO" is missing from the first photo, there's an identical pattern of lights on both Trump Tower Chicago and adjacent buildings. That suggests a  political protest courtesy of Photoshop, not disgruntled residents of the building.

Last updated: 22 February 2016

Originally published: 22 February 2016

Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be "probably false" by in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.