Our analysis of President Trump’s text and talk shows that, although distinct in tone, it draws on an already established grammar of power. We assume that while many world leaders perceive him as unlike his Democratic or Republican predecessors, our data shows that about 60% of his communicative strategies align with earlier wartime presidencies. In these, military intervention is typically framed as defensive and morally justified. Interestingly, the remaining 40% difference lies in how he enacts this grammar of power or dominance that makes him a singularly distinctive president in U.S. history.
Unlike traditional presidential speeches, which follow a structured and carefully calibrated linguistic code, his platform communication thrives on immediacy and impact. President Trump’s tweets are short, emphatic, emotionally charged, and often invoke religion. They rely on repetition, capitalisation, and dramatic phrasing to capture attention. In doing so, these tweets transform political messaging into a form of high-voltage communication. This communication is intelligently structured for maximum visibility and redistribution across mainstream media. In today’s media ecology, such visibility and redistribution themselves constitute power.
One of the most striking features of President Trump’s communicative strategy is his ability to dominate the agenda. His statements, often surprising or unconventional, draw immediate media attention and naturally compel them to engage. They extend the life of a single message across multiple news cycles. In a world where routine diplomatic language fades quickly, his discourse cuts through the noise. This was evident when he tweeted that “the whole civilization will die tonight…” turning all eyes toward the unfolding events.
While it may be difficult, if not impossible, to codify a ‘grammar of peace,’ this goal could be achieved if underlying actors, such as Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi groups, cease invasions and the killing of innocent people.
President Trump’s communication regarding the U.S.-Iran war often oscillates between threat, negotiation, escalation, and uncertainty. In this text and talk, deadlines are announced, warnings are issued, and positions shift since the war broke out in late February. When asked about his language toward Iranians, he responded, ‘I made my point,’ showing that for him, clarity, although blunt, can supersede traditional decorum. This often creates linguistic ambiguity, where neither allies, adversaries, nor even his own Republican comrades can fully predict the next move. Interestingly, this uncertainty keeps the discourse alive. Eventually, it invites speculation, analysis, and reaction from Wall Street to 10 Downing Street.
Audience comments on his war discourse are sharply divided between formal speech and social media messaging. In the formal speech, people reinforce his distinctive communication style. Many, if not most, responses echo, amplify, and normalise his stance. However, there is a stark contrast in how audiences react to his regular tweets on X. Digital citizens’ reactions swing between sarcasm, hostility, parody, and amplification. This creates a powerful feedback loop, where President Trump’s war discourse shapes audience perception and response, in turn, reinforcing or reacting to the original message.
President Trump’s communicative strategies are not only rhetorical or performative, even though they might seem so, they also represent an adaptive response to a media psychology that hinges on speed, visibility, and attention. However, the more pressing question is what these strategies do to the norm of political language, ultimately transforming the modus operandi of diplomacy and altering the nature of democratic engagement over time.
We believe that President Trump’s communicative style has contributed to normalising aggressive and hyperbolic language in political discourse as a new normal. Expressions that once lay outside presidential decorum are now increasingly acceptable, albeit transforming the threshold for legitimate political language.
We also believe that diplomacy itself has transformed. Traditionally, diplomatic communication depends on carefully crafted language, restraint, and backchannel negotiation. In contrast, President Trump’s invariably changing positionality while bringing diplomacy into the public sphere makes third-party diplomatic efforts more challenging. For instance, when Pakistan sought to bring the U.S. and Iran to the table for a ceasefire, the performative nature of his communication might have complicated behind-the-scenes efforts. Eventually, trust becomes harder to sustain when allies struggle to interpret intentions and adversaries fail to calculate the shifting discourse.
Moreover, as communication becomes more performative, public engagement transforms from reasoned debate toward spectacle. This style of communication begins to reshape public expectations, as people increasingly align themselves with or resist the social and political taboos. As this style gains popularity, it may influence future leaders to adopt a similar approach to stay visible and relevant.
If the language of power becomes increasingly performative, uncertain, and emotionally charged, we risk dismantling the very foundations of deliberation and mutual understanding. In this increasingly destabilised world, the path to a ceasefire grows ever more elusive, while leaving both diplomacy and peace at peril.
However, the grammar of peace is built on listening, understanding, and mutual respect. It is a language that seeks common ground and invites every voice to be heard while visualising a more just future and enduring peace.
As diplomats in Islamabad pursue their delicate post-ceasefire negotiations, they need to choose words that rebuild trust and chart a future where our children can grow and glow. Indeed, not the grammar of dominance, but the grammar of peace has real power to win the hearts and minds of people, on both sides of the aisle.
While it may be difficult, if not impossible, to codify a ‘grammar of peace,’ this goal could be achieved if underlying actors, such as Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi groups, cease invasions and the killing of innocent people. The issue, perhaps, is not inherently profound between the USA and Iran, but lies elsewhere, for which both countries find themselves at odds.
The first author is a Professor of English at Riphah International University, Lahore. He is a lead guest editor at Emerald and Springer publishing.
The second author is an Assistant Professor of English at Govt. Graduate College for Women, Samanabad, Lahore