An analysis of 10,000 posts from Donald Trump’s social media accounts, conducted by researchers at the University of Oxford, reveals a consistent pattern of rhetorical strategy designed to consolidate support and delegitimise opponents. The study, published in the Journal of Political Communication, examines language across his Twitter and Truth Social accounts from 2018 to 2024. Key findings indicate a heavy reliance on three techniques: personal attack, sweeping generalisation, and emotional appeal.
Personal attacks account for over 40% of his posts. These target individuals, media outlets, and institutions with epithets such as “crooked,” “fake,” and “enemy of the people.” The frequency of such language increases during periods of legal scrutiny or electoral cycles, suggesting a calculated response to perceived threats.
Sweeping generalisations, often framed as absolute statements (“everything is rigged,” “nobody has ever seen anything like this”) appear in approximately 30% of posts. These statements lack nuance and serve to simplify complex issues into binary us-versus-them narratives.
Emotional appeal, particularly anger and fear, is the third pillar. The researchers note that posts containing words like “disaster,” “crisis,” and “hoax” generate 1.5 times more engagement than neutral posts. This suggests a feedback loop where the platform’s algorithm rewards inflammatory content.
The study also highlights a shift in rhetoric after the 2020 election. Before January 2021, Trump’s posts often focused on policy achievements and campaign promises. After, the emphasis moved to claims of election fraud and attacks on his successor.
Critics argue the analysis confirms what many observers have long suspected: that Trump’s online behaviour is not impulsive but a deliberate strategy to maintain influence. Supporters, however, dismiss the findings as academic bias.
The implications for democratic discourse are significant. Researchers warn that such rhetoric can erode trust in institutions and normalise aggression in political debate. As the 2024 election approaches, the study provides a timely warning about the potential for disinformation to shape public opinion.
