A Commander-in-Chief’s Combative Tongue: Examining Donald Trump’s Unprecedented Rhetoric on the Global Stage
The characteristic speaking style of U.S. President Donald Trump has long been a subject of discussion, its distinctiveness potentially contributing to his political appeal. What sets his communication apart is his apparent ability to articulate sentiments that previous presidents would likely have deemed beyond the pale for public discourse. This is particularly noteworthy in a nation that, as far back as the 1970s, was taken aback by revelations of Richard Nixon’s use of profanity within the confines of the Oval Office.
Scholars have characterized Trump’s rhetorical approach as “unbalanced vituperation,” highlighting his consistent deployment of demeaning language, the creation of false equivalences, and an exclusionary tone.
Even more significantly, a recent academic study revealed that Trump’s inclination towards violent vocabulary, especially terms associated with warfare and criminality, represents a stark departure from established American political traditions.
Since the commencement of the conflict with Iran, Trump’s discourse has escalated in its combative and provocative nature, marking an even more pronounced divergence from the language employed by his predecessors during analogous circumstances. This raises critical questions about the impact of such rhetoric and what it might reveal about the commander-in-chief’s state of mind.
Demeaning Opponents with Unflinching Language
President Trump’s pronouncements regarding the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were notably harsh, describing him as a “wretched and vile man.” In subsequent posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump further labeled Khamenei as “one of the most evil people in history” and referred to his associates as “his gang of bloodthirsty thugs.”
In the days that followed, Trump continued his denigration of Iranian regime leaders, characterizing them as “deranged scumbags” and asserting that their elimination was a “great honor” for him. He also directed insults at Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as Iran’s Supreme Leader, deeming him “unacceptable” and a “lightweight.” During an interview, Trump also expressed his belief that Mojtaba Khamenei was alive but “damaged.”
While American presidents have historically employed strong language to address adversaries, such as Ronald Reagan’s characterization of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” or George W. Bush’s warning of an “Axis of Evil,” this rhetoric rarely devolved into personal insults directed at individual foreign leaders. Typically, presidential addresses concerning conflict or adversaries conveyed a somber tone, acknowledging the gravity of the situation and the potential for loss of life.
For instance, George W. Bush’s announcement of Saddam Hussein’s capture was a straightforward statement: “US forces captured Saddam Hussein alive.” Similarly, Barack Obama informed the nation of Osama bin Laden’s killing by referring to the architect of the September 11th attacks simply as “Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist.”
A Pattern of Unrestrained Threats
President Trump has also exhibited a notable lack of restraint in issuing threats. At the outset of the conflict, he indicated in an interview that Iran had not yet experienced significant U.S. military action, and that a “big wave” was imminent. He later posted on Truth Social his readiness to strike Iran “twenty times harder” and threatened to “make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again,” adding that “death, fire and fury will reign [sic] upon them.” At one point, he even suggested the possibility of striking Iran’s Kharg Island oil export hub again, purportedly “just for fun.”
This language transcends mere vitriol; it stands in stark contrast to the rhetorical approaches of past U.S. presidents who frequently emphasized restraint in the use of force and demonstrated a willingness to de-escalate military conflicts.
Previous administrations, while unequivocally communicating the strength of the U.S. military, also consistently prioritized diplomatic engagement and negotiation.
Barack Obama, when discussing potential military action in Syria, famously stated that “the United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.” However, he immediately followed this by requesting Congress to postpone a vote authorizing the use of force while his administration pursued diplomatic avenues.
Richard Nixon, during the Vietnam War, articulated a vision of peace that was not about subjugation but rather “the peace that comes ‘with healing in its wings’; with compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the peoples of this Earth to choose their own destiny.”
Trump’s threats of escalation also engender significant concerns regarding the safety of civilian populations and the protection of vital infrastructure. His recent remark that he “didn’t do anything to do with the energy lines, because having to rebuild that would take years” suggests a degree of awareness regarding the potential consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, earlier presidents often made explicit distinctions between military objectives and civilian populations. George H. W. Bush, during the Gulf War, declared, “our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq. We do not wish for them to suffer.”
In 2003, George W. Bush issued a warning to Iraqi military and civilian personnel: “do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people.”
The Enduring Significance of Words
The precise reasons behind Trump’s exceptionally violent rhetoric, so divergent from that of virtually all his predecessors, remain a subject of analysis. A 2020 study suggested that Trump’s foreign policy discourse frequently aims to foster a sense of crisis, thereby mobilizing his domestic support base or diverting attention from domestic political challenges.
Some commentators propose that Trump has either utilized or even manufactured national crises as a means to expand executive authority through the declaration of emergencies. Whether this strategy is at play in the current conflict with Iran remains to be determined.
However, the power of words is undeniable.
On December 19, 1945, U.S. President Harry S. Truman presented a special message to Congress, advocating for the consolidation of the Department of War and the Department of the Navy into a singular “Department of National Defense.” This proposal was subsequently enacted between 1947 and 1949. Many other nations followed a similar trajectory in the post-war era, opting for the more measured term “defense” over “war” in the nomenclature of their governmental departments and ministries.
Seventy-six years later, in 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that reversed this long-standing tradition, renaming the Department of Defense as the U.S. Department of War.
This executive order explicitly states that the new designation signifies a readiness to engage in warfare at a moment’s notice. The stated rationale extends beyond mere defense, aiming to “secure what is ours.”
Viewed through the lens of the current conflict with Iran, these pronouncements offer a glimpse into the administration’s strategic thinking. They also prompt reflection on other statements emanating from the administration and its proponents, including concepts such as the “Gulf of America,” the notion of Canada as the “51st state,” and even the aspirational “Trump 2028” chant.
