9 Years of Trump Speeches: A Surge in Violent Rhetoric

Donald Trump’s political journey has been defined by a distinct and frequently contentious rhetorical approach. Since launching his campaign in 2015, his style has noticeably changed, drawing attention due to its straightforward, sometimes aggressive tone.

Examining his speeches sheds light on how his choice of words has shaped his political image and influenced the wider scope of American politics.

As political scientists, we conducted an analysis of Trump’s campaign and presidential speeches from 2015 to 2024. One of the most significant observations is the considerable increase in his use of violent language. The percentage of words linked to violence rose from nearly 0.6% in 2016 to 1.6% in 2024. In comparison, the proportion of violent terminology in 40 randomly selected weekly radio addresses delivered by Barack Obama stood at 0.79%.

From the inception of Trump’s campaign in 2015 through the following nine years, his speeches have increasingly featured terminology associated with crime and military matters. For instance, in March 2024, Trump warned that “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country” if he were not reelected in November.

By 2024, Trump’s reliance on violent rhetoric had eclipsed that of nearly all other Democratic politicians we analyzed, aligning more closely with authoritarian leaders like Kim Jong Un and Fidel Castro.

This increase in violent rhetoric isn’t directly tied to significant global events like wars. Instead, Trump has concentrated on issues of violent crime in American cities, even during a period of declining crime rates. His repeated references to “murderers, rapists, and thugs” create an image of a nation under threat, amplifying fears among his supporters.

Simultaneously, he portrays himself as a decisive leader ready to confront these alleged dangers.

Decline in Economic and Public Service Language

While Trump’s discourse has turned more violent, it has also shifted away from conventional political discussions about economic performance and public service. In the earlier stages of his political career, Trump frequently addressed economic concerns, tapping into issues regarding jobs, trade, and national prosperity. However, his emphasis on these topics has notably diminished over time.

This trend isn’t solely attributable to Trump. Both Democratic and Republican candidates have shown a decrease in economic language in their speeches since at least 2012.

However, Trump’s withdrawal from economic dialogue is particularly striking. He has consistently placed less emphasis on public service topics like health care, housing, and transportation, using fewer terms related to “medicine,” “education,” and “childcare.”

Instead, his rhetoric has increasingly gravitated towards identity politics and cultural themes, mirroring broader transformations in the American political discourse.

Shift from Inclusive to Exclusionary Language

Populism often highlights a dichotomy between “the people” and “the elites,” with politicians positioning themselves as advocates for ordinary citizens against corrupt insiders. Early in his political journey, Trump frequently employed such inclusive language, invoking the voice of “the people.”

However, his rhetoric has since moved toward what we describe as “exclusionary populism,” frequently targeting political elites, immigrants, and media figures. The debate on September 10, 2024, between Trump and Kamala Harris was filled with instances of this, including a notable moment concerning immigrants allegedly eating dogs.

This transition from inclusive to exclusionary rhetoric illustrates a broader strategy of defining politics as a struggle between “us” versus “them,” with Trump positioning himself as the protector of average Americans against external threats.

Since launching his first presidential campaign, Trump’s rhetorical approach has undergone considerable transformations. During his initial run in 2015-2016, he utilized more inclusive language, incorporating terms like “we” and “the people” while reducing mentions of elites and negatively perceived groups (“them”).

Upon entering office, however, his speeches adopted a more confrontational style, marked by an increase in violent language and more frequent references to “them.”

This progression suggests that Trump’s rhetoric is flexible, adapting to the political climate and the audience he aims to reach. His growing reliance on provocative language and offensive terms following his election contrast with the more restrained tone he maintained during his 2016 campaign.

Vocal Assaults on Elites

To comprehend Trump’s rhetoric more comprehensively, it can be compared to the language employed by other presidential candidates in the U.S. since 1952, as well as democratic and authoritarian global leaders.

The only recent presidential candidates whose levels of violent language approached Trump’s in 2024 were Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry in 2004. However, while Bush and Kerry discussed the ongoing Iraq war, which was claiming hundreds of U.S. lives annually, Trump’s violent assertions were largely disconnected from any current events or statistics.

When it comes to populism, Trump is notable for his harsh criticism of the elite. Since the onset of his political career in 2016, he has often spoken of his aim to “drain the swamp,” referring to the corruption prevalent among political elites. While many populist candidates criticize political insiders, Trump’s frequency of denunciations is greater than that of most recent U.S. presidential contenders.

In 2024, for instance, Trump’s speeches included significantly more references to corrupt elites than his predecessors, highlighting a deeper commitment to exclusionary populist rhetoric.

Although the rhetoric of politicians doesn’t always predict their actions, Trump’s growing affinity for violent language and populist themes could provide insight into his future behavior, whether as a president or in opposition. As scholars in political science, we believe monitoring the rise of such rhetoric is crucial due to its potential effects on the broader political environment.