Rhetoric as Rule: How Trump Spoke His Way into Power

In American politics, language is not simply a medium of communication. Language is a mechanism of power. Words shape perception, mobilize support, define adversaries, and construct the emotional architecture of national identity. Political rhetoric, when wielded skillfully, has the capacity to inspire hope, broker consensus, and reaffirm shared values. Presidents throughout history have relied on a balance of ethos, logos, and pathos as rhetorical tools appealing to character, logic, and emotion in ways that foster democratic engagement, public trust, and unity throughout the nation. Yet in the past decade, the nature and purpose of presidential rhetoric have undergone a profound transformation.

No figure exemplifies this shift more clearly than Donald J. Trump. His rise to political prominence was not built on policy fluency or traditional statesmanship, but on the sheer force of his communicative style. Through repetition, branding, and emotionally charged language, Trump has redefined what political rhetoric sounds and feels like in the twenty-first century. His  unpredictable speech patterns lean heavily on personal attacks, grievance-laden appeals, and divisive slogans that bypass reason in favor of raw emotional activation. From his relentless targeting of opponents to his strategic use of social media, Trump’s rhetoric is not about persuasion in the classical sense. Rather, it is about domination, disruption, and the performance of authenticity. Donald Trump’s rhetorical style marked by emotional manipulation, performative antagonism, and a disregard for traditional norms has fundamentally altered American political discourse. His language has deepened polarization, fractured institutional trust, and widened the gulf between governing and grandstanding, leaving a lasting imprint on the way Americans perceive politics, power, and persuasion.

Political rhetoric fundamentally involves the strategic use of language to persuade, influence, or mobilize the public. Historically, effective political communication balanced diplomacy, logic, and emotional appeal. Presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan exemplified this balance, employing rhetoric that inspired and unified the nation. So how have we gotten to this place where our political landscape has become utterly unrecognizable? Almost two and a half centuries of cordial dialogue and debate have been derailed and redefined by our 45th and now 47th president, Donold J Trump. 

Language is the most powerful instrument in shaping political discourse, influencing how individuals perceive leadership, policy, and national identity. Whether written or spoken aloud, words have the ability to craft a powerful narrative. Good authors and public speakers alike know how to engage their audience and further their argument through skillfully employing ethos logos and pathos. A good politician knows how to balance the three rhetorical methods to establish one thing: their genuine nature. 

In regard to the manner in which Donald Trump has utilized language throughout his political career, one distinct difference comes to light: his overwhelming reliance on pathos. Journalist Derek Thompson of The Atlantic illustrated this crucial point in his 2018 article, "Donald Trump’s Language Is Reshaping American Politics”. He argues that Trump's rhetorical strategy is deliberately crafted to exploit the emotional responses of his audience. Thompson begins his captivating piece by stating that “Trump has “changed what being a Republican means” (Thompson, 1). He has done so not through legislative coercion—indeed, he barely seems to understand the basics of American government—but through persuasive insistence. On issues as diverse as the alleged dangers of immigration and the nature of truth, Trump’s words have the power to cleave public opinion, turning nonpolitical issues into partisan maelstroms and turning partisan attitudes on their head” (Thompson 1). So, how has he accomplished this feat? The basic framework of Trump's speech patterns rely on simple, repetitive, emotionally charged language that resonates with his base while circumventing traditional policy discourse. 

Unlike past presidents who employed structured, fact-based rhetoric, with an underlying compassionate tone, Trump's approach is not about ideas, but about reinforcing instinctive worldviews among Americans. Thompson offers that “Trump’s principal talent is the ability to activate cultural resentment among his supporters, encouraging them to redefine their identity and values around a nativist anger” that aligns with his administration's vision (Thompson, 1).  This departure from conventional political speech has profound consequences, as it shifts the focus of public engagement from rational policy evaluation to emotionally driven reactions. Thompson further explains that Trump's language is structured around "framing," a technique in which political messages are packaged to trigger subconscious associations in listeners. For instance, Trump’s repeated use of phrases like "Fake News" and "America First" embeds a clear dichotomy between loyalty and opposition, constructing a narrative where he alone is the trustworthy source of truth. This strategy solidifies a deep emotional bond with his supporters, making them more resistant to counter arguments or media scrutiny. Thompson closes with a profound statement that has only become increasingly relevant since 2018, “No matter how often journalists and politicians dismiss Trump’s words, the words matter” (Thompson, 1) Ultimately, Trump's manipulation of language exemplifies how rhetoric can reshape political reality, intensify polarization, and redefine public trust in institutions. His ability to command attention through linguistic branding, emotional appeals, and strategic repetition has not only disrupted traditional political communication but has also recalibrated how political legitimacy is perceived in the 21st century.

In stark contrast, Donald Trump's rhetoric represents a departure from these traditional norms. His communication style is characterized by bluntness, unfiltered speech, and improvisation, eschewing the scripted speeches of his predecessors. A critical aspect of Trump's rhetorical style is his reliance on personal attacks and political insults. Rather than engaging in policy-heavy discourse, he frequently undermined opponents' character. This maneuver came to light in 2015 at the start of his rise as a potential politician player for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America. His campaign marked a significant departure from traditional political rhetoric which was birthed from his lethal character attacks on Hillary Clinton. Coining the former first lady as  "Crooked Hillary," Trump began to make a mockery of his opposition in a manner that had never been seen before in American politics. 

The first presidential debate on September 26th, 2016 was monumental. Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin of The New York Times reported on the event that was like “no other in the television era” (Healy & Martin, 1).   A record setting 100 million people watched  history being made as the  “first female presidential nominee of a major party facing off against an alpha male businessman with no political experience, both of them world-famous and both of them deeply unpopular” (Healy & Martin, 1). In no surprise, both candidates were aggressive in demure as “Mr. Trump hurled so many accusations at Mrs. Clinton” over the course of 90 minutes…with such fervor that he frequently had to sip water (Healy & Martin, 1). In fact, “she found herself saying at one point, “I have a feeling that by the end of this evening, I’m going to be blamed for everything that’s ever happened” (Healy & Martin, 1). 

Disrespectful low blows amid live national debates coupled with conniving social media commentary such as his April 2015 tweet stating ““If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America #MakeAmericaGreatAgain” began a pattern of emotionally charged attacks which became a pinnacle of his political rhetoric (The Associated Press, 1). This jaw dropping tweet, which made reference to the affair her husband former president Bill Clinton had with White House staffer Monica Lewinsky seemed to be going too far. These stepping stones were only the starting point of Trump's characteristic branding strategy of “Crooked Hillary,"  a moniker he used to cast doubt on her integrity and trustworthiness. This approach effectively reinforced his narrative of Clinton as emblematic of a corrupt political establishment.

His treatment of Hillary Clinton was the beginning of Trump establishing his distinct style of political rhetoric, characterized by emotionally charged language, memorable slogans, and direct attacks on political opponents. The use of repetition and branding—such as "Make America Great Again," and  "Crooked Hillary," allowed Trump to reinforce his narratives and create lasting impressions on his audience. A critical aspect of Trump's rhetorical style is his reliance on personal attacks and political insults. Rather than engaging in policy-heavy discourse, he frequently undermined opponents' character. This maneuver came to light in 2015 at the start of his rise as a potential politician player for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of America, and has only grown in magnitude within the past decade.  This strategy blurred the line between spectacle and governance, shaping a political climate where optics often superseded substantive policy discussions. These tactics exemplify Trump's unorthodox communication style, which possess the power to galvanize his base and dominate media narratives.

Trump has relied heavily on some classical rhetorical techniques to reinforce his message and enhance memorability. One such device is the  epistrophe defined by Merriam-Webster as "the repetition of a word or expression at the end of successive phrases, clauses, sentences, or verses, especially for rhetorical or poetic effect”( Merriam-Webster, 1). Trump often deploys this technique to drive emotional resonance and rhetorical punch. For example, a 2017 NPR article titled “Trump's Efforts to 'Drain the Swamp Lagging Behind His Campaign” by journalist Peter Overby highlighted some of his most notable phrases from his first stint in office. His repeated refrains like “Build the wall,” “Drain the swamp,” and “Lock her up” are emblematic of this device, emphasizing urgency and action while embedding slogans into the public consciousness. These stylistic patterns are not incidental but calculated tools that deepen the persuasive power of his populist messaging.

This assessment is echoed in scholarly analysis such as the study  Donald Trump did a “Very Good” Job: A Rhetorical Analysis of Candidate Trump’s Campaign Speeches written by Caroline Mohan. The James Madison University students senior dissertation offers a comprehensive examination of Trump’s “unprecedented yet effective public rhetorical repertoire,” which she describes as rooted in emotionally resonant, simplified language that effectively connects with his core base (Mohan 5). According to Mohan, Trump’s rhetorical strength does not lie in the logical coherence of his arguments, but in what she terms a “performance of authenticity”—a strategic display of raw emotion, repetition, and populist identity that creates an illusion of sincerity and relatability (Mohan 7). 

Mohan emphasizes that “since mid-2015, Donald Trump has shaken the political arena with an “unprecedented yet effective public rhetorical repertoire,” noting that his rise to prominence was not the result of policy fluency or institutional knowledge, but rather the “brute force, hawkishness, and colloquialisms” of his communicative style (Mohan, 9). His speeches are characterized by “unrelenting and ruthless” repetitive and emotionally charged language that bypasses elite discourse and speaks directly to disaffected, often marginalized voters (Mohan, 42).  Mohan presents a new concept gathered through her observation of specific words Trump has included in his speeches which she coined as “enforcement” rhetoric (Mohan, 22).  She believes that “one of the most common words is enforcement”, a word that possesses meaning by definition, but also seems to embody the essence of what his rhetorical tendencies aim to accomplish: to assert, impose, and legitimize his worldview as a politician through language (Mohan, 20). Through this lens, Trump’s rhetorical approach becomes a case study in nontraditional communication strategies. He demonstrates that when wielded with consistency and theatrical flair, the power of rhetoric can redefine political engagement in the modern era. By abandoning established norms of civility and embracing a rhetoric grounded in personal grievance, spectacle, and emotional immediacy, Trump has reshaped the standards of political performance and leadership in America. 

According to a 2024 article from The New York Times titled  "Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age" Trump’s rhetorical tone has also become increasingly “angrier, less focused, more profane,” since Mohan crafted her dissertation in Spring 2019 (Baker, 1). Journalists Peter Baker and Dylan Freedman described  his delivery as “rambling discourse, what some experts call tangential,” and often driven by behavioral “disinhibition” (Baker, 1). This growing reliance on impulsive, emotionally volatile language reflects a shift away from structured rhetorical strategies like ethos or logos, and a deepening dependence on spectacle and provocation. As a result, Trump’s rhetorical evolution underscores not only a break from tradition but a broader transformation in how political messages are crafted and consumed in the modern era.

At the start of 2025, just one month into our 47th president's second term in political office, the Country was met with a political message as astounding as ever. It is clear that the current relationship between political parties in the United States has reached an unprecedented level of hostility during Trump's tenure. The media often portrays a binary battle between the far left and the far right which has not only polarized the electorate but also paralyzed legislative cooperation. Compromise, once a hallmark of American governance, is now exceedingly rare. Perhaps, that is why the idea of President Trump pardoning Mayor Adams of New York City, one of the most progressive cities in our country,  is so surprising. Against the backdrop of deep division, shock waves were sent throughout the country and the world when the U.S.. The Justice Department announced their intention to pardon Adams. All 5 counts of charges of bribery, campaign finance, and conspiracy of offenses stated in the entitlement issued by ​​the United States District Court Southern District of New York on September 24th, 2024 were dropped. While this event is surprising at face value,  and may appear purely transactional or strategic, its symbolic weight cannot be overstated. In an era where even basic bipartisan gestures are met with skepticism, the pardon served as an unexpected moment of political deviation  that defied the dominant narrative of relentless partisan warfare. It is precisely because such acts of cross-party engagement are so rare that this event stands out as historically significant. It forces us to confront a troubling reality: that cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, particularly at the highest levels of power, has become an anomaly rather than an expectation. The Trump-Adams episode invites further examination not only of Trump’s unpredictable political calculus but also of the broader rhetorical climate that has made genuine bipartisanship feel virtually extinct. 

This highly unusual gesture of political clemency—whether viewed as magnanimous or strategic—becomes all the more remarkable when placed against the backdrop of a deeply fractured political system. The Adams pardon is not just surprising for its bipartisan optics. Rather, it is jarring precisely because it disrupts the norm of ceaseless party antagonism that defines contemporary American politics. Rather than representing a new era of cooperation, it feels more like an isolated anomaly in a climate of entrenched division.

In a time of pervasive political cynicism, such a move between Trump and Adams might seem incongruous, even calculated. But it stands out precisely because moments of collaboration or even strategic compromise between Democrats and Republicans are now so rare. Our Congress has become home to constant unrest and problematic politicians driven more by ego and ambition than by pride or passion for improving the lives of the American people. In fact, a September 3023 Pew Research Center study titled Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation's Politics found that “Only 4% of the public says the political system in the U.S. is working extremely or very well today, while 23% say it is working somewhat well” (Pew Research Institute, 25).  In addition, “about seven-in-ten (72%) say the system is working not too (45%) or not at all (27%) well” demonstrating a widely held dismay for the functionality of our government (Pew Research Institute, 25). More specifically, “views of Congress, congressional leadership, the current and former president, and the vice president are all underwater ( Pew Research Institute, 53). In fact, “Opinions about Congress are largely negative; just 26% of U.S. adults have a favorable view of Congress, while 72% have an unfavorable view (Pew Research Institute, 53). Furthermore, “at least eight-in-ten Republicans and Democrats say that members of Congress do a bad job taking responsibility for their actions or working with members of the opposing party” (Pew Research Institute, 55). These grim statistics reflect a deep public frustration with performative politics and a yearning for leaders who can engage across the aisle. This pervasive disillusionment with Congress reveals a national longing for a return to principled leadership, one in which adversaries can still engage with mutual respect and a shared commitment to governance.

Such leadership was once exemplified in the unlikely yet enduring political partnership between President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill—an era that now stands as a powerful contrast to today’s combative political climate. Though they held diametrically opposing views on virtually every issue, the two men fostered a deep mutual respect, exemplifying how civility and collaboration can coexist with ideological division. In 2013, MSNBC host Chris Matthews published a lengthy personal memoir reflecting on his time reporting on Capitol Hill titled “ Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked”. As hinted within the title, his book highlights his observations of the fascinating relationship between O'Neil and Regan that prevailed during the 1980s. James Hohmann of Politico published an article titled “Chris Matthews’s Colorful Memoir” in which he offered a positive review of the novel arguing that Matthew provided a detailed analysis of the significance of their public and private discourse. According to Matthew, his overarching goal for the book was to illustrate that “​​the plain truth is, they kept the conversation going when no progress seemed possible otherwise” (Hohmann, 1). In particular, Matthew mentioned one event that stood out most notably, a toast given by President Reagan to Congressman O'Neil in celebration of his 69th birthday in December 1981. At the white house in front of an audience of administration staff, Democrat and Republican congress members, friends, and family, Reagan delivered a heartfelt toast stating “Tip, if I had a ticket to heaven and you didn't have one too, I would give mine away and go to hell with you” (Hohmann, 1). This particularly poignant moment symbolized their friendship in an incredibly meaningful and historic way. 

This was more than a rhetorical flourish, it was a public affirmation of camaraderie and shared purpose between two powerful political adversaries. It extended beyond professional exchanges and encapsulated the genuine nature of a true friendship between two politicians. Their ability to separate personal respect from political disagreement sent a resounding message to the American public, establishing a precedent for decorum that many Americans long for today. The Reagan-O’Neill relationship is a powerful reminder that bipartisan relationships, when grounded in mutual respect, can serve the country better than the theatrical partisanship that dominates our current political stage ever could. At the center of that civility was Reagan’s extraordinary mastery of language; rhetoric not as performance, but as a vehicle for unity, purpose, and moral clarity.

As an individual, former President Ronald Reagan remains one of the most rhetorically skilled presidents in American history.  He serves as a fascinating point of comparison to President Trump due to his astounding methods of harnessing the power of language for political advantage. London School of Economics Professor Cheryl Schönhardt-Bailey provides a detailed illustration of Reagan's political rhetoric in a 2012 research paper titled Yes, Ronald Reagan’s Rhetoric Was Unique—But Statistically, How Unique? Often referred to as the “Great Communicator,” He effectively employed a balanced use of ethos, pathos, and logos to engage the American public and reinforce national unity. His speeches are remembered for their “rhetorical moments” and “figurative rhetoric,” which elevated his addresses beyond political messaging and into the realm of public inspiration (Schönhardt-Bailey, 483). Reagan upheld what scholars describe as the “presidential commitment to the country’s basic principles,” presenting himself as a moral and unifying leader (Schönhardt-Bailey, 483). One of the defining features of Reagan’s rhetoric was his extensive use of civil religious themes. According to a quantitative analysis of presidential speeches, “well over half (59%) of the discourse in his seminal speeches and 48% of the same in his State of the Union speeches focus on themes of civil religion,” particularly invoking God and the notion of divine national purpose (Schönhardt-Bailey, 484). This rhetorical framework distinguished Reagan from his predecessors and successors alike: “While other modern presidents invoke some of these same themes in their State of the Union speeches, none were as explicit or as extensive as Reagan, particularly in the usage of ‘God’”(Schönhardt-Bailey, 484). 

These findings offer “a systematic and statistically robust way to gauge the extent to which Reagan’s rhetoric was distinct from other recent presidents” (Schönhardt-Bailey, 484). Moreover, Reagan’s speeches marked a broader rhetorical shift in American politics from an emphasis on institutions to a focus on individuals, families, and children (Schönhardt-Bailey, 484). While this transition became a trend among his successors, Reagan’s articulation of national purpose through civil religious language positioned him as a rhetorical pivot. His ability to cast the nation’s trajectory in transcendent terms echoes the view of civil religion articulated by scholars Wald and Calhoun-Brown: “At the core of the rich and subtle concept of civil religion is the idea that a nation tries to understand its historical experience and national purpose in religious terms… a civil religion reflects an attempt by citizens to imbue their nation with a transcendent value. The nation is recognized as a secular institution, yet one that is somehow touched by the hand of God” (Wald and Calhoun-Brown, qtd. in Schönhardt-Bailey, 485).

In stark contrast, Donald Trump’s rhetorical style has been widely criticized for its divisiveness, emotional manipulation, and erosion of democratic norms. Unlike Reagan, who used uplifting and unifying language rooted in shared ideals, Trump’s rhetoric is marked by personal attacks, inflammatory slogans, and emotional provocation. As Derek Thompson argues in The Atlantic, Trump’s speeches rely on “simple, repetitive, emotionally charged language” designed to “activate cultural resentment among his supporters” (Thompson, 2018). His frequent use of phrases like “Fake News,” “Crooked Hillary,” and “Build the wall” demonstrates a calculated reliance on emotionally resonant branding rather than reasoned discourse.

This assessment is further reinforced by a 2024 New York Times article titled "Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age". Journalists Peter Baker and Dylan Freedman note that Trump’s recent campaign speeches have grown “darker, harsher, longer, angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on the past” (Baker & Freedman, 1).  The article cites concerns from speech analysts and psychologists about the apparent cognitive and emotional shift in Trump’s rhetorical delivery. These rhetorical patterns are not incidental; they reflect a strategy rooted in polarization, spectacle, and emotional intensity—one that increasingly forgoes persuasion in favor of provocation. In contrast to Reagan’s emphasis on national values and transcendent purpose, Trump’s rhetorical framework thrives on conflict, shaping an electorate divided along emotional and ideological lines.

While Reagan used language to inspire a collective sense of duty and purpose, Trump often appeals to individual grievance and suspicion. Reagan's speeches invoked a shared history and future; Trump's rhetoric frequently fixates on enemies, both real and imagined, sowing distrust in the press, political institutions, and even the electoral process itself. This fundamental difference underscores the rhetorical divergence between the two presidents: Reagan elevated civic identity through moral and spiritual appeal, while Trump exacerbates division by intensifying emotional response. The rhetorical shift from unity to fragmentation has not only altered how presidents communicate but has also shaped the expectations of American political culture moving forward.

This difference in tone and intention explains much of the divergent public reception: Reagan is remembered as a president who “imbued the nation with a transcendent value” (Schönhardt-Bailey 485), while Trump has been, in Thompson’s words, a leader whose “words have the power to cleave public opinion,” exacerbating polarization and turning “nonpolitical issues into partisan maelstroms” (Thompson, 1). The contrast underscores a larger truth: that language is more than a political tool—it is a mirror of leadership. Reagan’s legacy as a unifier stands in sharp relief to Trump’s as a disruptor, illustrating the enduring power of language to either bridge or fracture a divided nation.

The transformation of political rhetoric in the Trump era is more than a stylistic shift, it represents a seismic redefinition of how language functions in public life. Where presidential speech once served as a tool for unity, clarity, and democratic engagement, it now risks becoming a weapon of division and spectacle. Trump’s rhetorical playbook rooted in emotional provocation, branding, and antagonism has reshaped not only the tone of political discourse, but also the expectations we place on those who hold power. In doing so, it has blurred the line between governance and performance, weakening the connective tissue that holds representative democracy together: trust, dialogue, and shared reality.

As the nation moves forward, it must reckon with the enduring impact of this rhetorical shift. If language continues to serve not as a bridge between citizens and institutions but as a barricade between opposing camps, the very foundation of democratic deliberation is at risk. The challenge now is not simply political, but rhetorical: Can American leadership reclaim a language that elevates rather than degrades, persuades rather than provokes, and unites rather than divides? In the answer lies not just the future of political speech, but the health of the republic itself.