Another round of morning tweets from President Donald Trump inspired some head scratching on Tuesday, July 25. After criticizing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the first high-profile legislator to support his campaign, Trump moved on to discussing Jared Kushner's press conference on Mondayconcerning contacts with Russians. In the process, hebrought up his son, 11 -year-old Barron Trump, and Twitter's confused.

Here's what the president had to say 😛 TAGEND

Then, the inevitable happened.

A wave of commenters brought up a question with a view to responding: Isn'tBarron Trump supposed to be kept out of the political dialogue? Meanwhile, others ran as far to say the president was dragging his son into matters.

It's obvious why this type of reaction was common on Tuesday morning.

It was only last month that the White House asked for Barron Trump's privacyto be respected in a statement. That statement read,

It is a longstanding tradition that the children of Chairmen are afforded the opportunity to grow up outside of the political spotlight. The White House fully expects this tradition to continue. We appreciate your collaboration in this matter.

One could easily argue that Trump's tweets pushedhis youngest son into the political spotlight the White House statement referenced.

Chip Somodevilla/ Getty Images

It's also obviouswhatpoint Trump was trying to get across: the interest in the subject of Russian collusion, between all the newsstories and investigations by political bodies, is such a ridiculous wild goose chase that his child is likely to be suspected next.

Merits of the debate aside, the question of whatthe president was trying to say isn't exactly rocket science. And some Trump advocates very clearly agreed with the president's point of view.

Still, there were some who seemed utterlyconfused by the president's tweet.

So, to recap: President Trump woke up, started tweeting things you never thought you'd see from a chairman, and described criticism for it.

In other words, it's a normal day.

Read more: