A team of data scientists at the University of Sheffield has published an analysis of Donald Trump’s social media activity, concluding that its structure and tone pose a risk to healthy democratic discourse. The study, which examined more than 10,000 posts from Trump’s Truth Social account, found a consistent pattern of authoritarian language, personal attacks, and disinformation that, they argue, erodes trust in institutions and normalises political violence.
The researchers used natural language processing to categorise Trump’s rhetoric, identifying frequent use of words such as “enemy”, “rigged”, and “destroy”. They compared it against a baseline of typical political speech and found that Trump’s language was statistically more likely to be associated with autocratic regimes. Dr. Emily Carter, lead author of the report, said: “We are not saying this is a direct cause of unrest. But the pattern is clear. When a public figure with such reach consistently undermines electoral processes and targets opponents as illegitimate, it creates a climate where democratic norms are weakened.”
The analysis also highlighted a spike in inflammatory posts around key political events, including the 2020 election aftermath and the January 6th Capitol riot. The findings have sparked concern among British politicians and civil society groups. Labour MP Helen Hayes called for greater scrutiny of social media algorithms: “We cannot afford to be complacent. These platforms are being weaponised. It’s not about censorship, it’s about protecting our democracy.”
Critics argue the study risks overreach. Trump’s spokesperson dismissed the report as “left-wing propaganda” and said the former president’s posts simply reflect the concerns of ordinary Americans. But the Sheffield team stands by its methods, noting that they employed standard social science techniques and that their data is publicly available for verification.
The report comes as the UK government prepares to introduce the Online Safety Bill, which aims to regulate harmful content. Campaigners say the findings underscore the need for robust safeguards. But free speech advocates worry about unintended consequences. The debate over where to draw the line is far from settled.
For now, the researchers hope their work prompts a wider conversation about the health of democratic discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. As Dr. Carter put it: “We’re not trying to silence anyone. We’re trying to sound an alarm.”
