His speech "suggests that Trump is a savior, who is restoring power to the people, and at the same time, is demolishing a corrupt establishment. This position strongly establishes a clear us versus them dynamic, which drives his base to rise up against what they believe are elites, and does so while maintaining his populist image. So, through the emphasis on the reclamation of sovereignty, justice, and economic prosperity, Trump presents his administration as the remedy to years of bad mismanagement and exploitation"

https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE1/IJRPR38122.pdf

Neo-Aristotelian or Neo Classical: A Neo-Aristotelian model for criticism utizlizes classical techniques for the analysis of effect on the reader. In the context of Trump's speech, this model allows for an exposition of context, delivery, tone, etc. For the purposed of this annotation, we will be primarily looking at the Invention behind Trump's rhetoric specifically as it concerns ethos pathos and logos.

Ethos: How does Trump establish credibility as a speaker? Pathos: How does Trump's language invoke an emotional reaction from his audience? Logos: What does Trump's logical structure tell us about his effect on the audience?

All instances which explicate his use of language for any of these purposes with be tagged as #Neoclassical

Fantasy Theme Criticism: This format creates an exploration of how public discourse specifically Trump's speech creates shared dramatic narratives that foster group identity and symbolic unity amongst his supporters. Trump furthers the following Fantasy themes which are seen guiding the narrative elements of his rhetoric:

Corrupt establishment vs the forgotten people Marty-Hero narrative “The golden age to come”

Instances which serve in the creation and emphasis of these narratives will be tagged as #fantasytheme

Generic Criticism: The generic model of rhetorical criticism allows us to understand Donald Trump’s 2025 Inaugural Address not merely as a political speech, but as a deliberate disruption of the presidential inaugural genre. By comparing Trump’s address with more traditional inaugurals like Joe Biden’s (2021) and Ronald Reagan’s (1981), the generic model reveals how Trump redefines presidential ethos, rejects ceremonial norms, and transforms the inaugural into a populist and partisan performance, more indicative of a campaign rally than anything else.

Different instances throughout Donald Trump's speech highlight these divergences from the format presented by the Inaugural address, such instances are tagged as #Generic

Ideological Criticism: An ideological criticism of Donald Trump’s 2025 Inaugural Address reveals how the speech constructs and reinforces a specific worldview—one rooted in the following dominating ideologies: nationalism/populism, exclusionary identity politics, as well as anti-establishment and religious sentiment.

This rhetorical strategy allows for an analysis of Trump's speech that extends beyond just persuasion or performance- The ideologies mentioned actively shape how the audience is invited to understand their position in American power dynamics, conceptualize their struggles, and view Trump's legitimacy.

Throughout the speech, Trump's rhetoric demonstrates different instances which speak to this ideological capacity. These are tagged as #ideological.

This line serves as a callback to the central fantasy themes developed throughout the speech—national decline reversed by heroic leadership and the dawn of a redemptive era. “The future is ours” reaffirms collective ownership of destiny, while “our golden age” echoes earlier prophetic language (“The golden age of America begins right now”), completing the fantasy arc. It provides a sense of emotional closure and symbolic victory, suggesting that the trials endured have culminated in collective triumph.

Sophia Rosenfeld, in her lecture about the tendencies and patterns of Populism as a phenomenon, uses Donald Trump as a case study for the potential effects of populist ideology and rhetoric on its participants.

She centers her definition of Populism around its affinity for conspiracy-theory like patterns of thought and a consequent utopian prescription for the future. (4:45)

When Trump says "we will win like never before" it is not apparent what this would even tangibly be- rather the hyperbolic extension of language implemented by Trump here and throughout his speech, are simply meant to channel feelings of paranoia and assuage them with grand sentiments of collective prosperity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCzM7BLzRU

This line delivers a redemptive fantasy vision where America, under Trump’s leadership, becomes a transformative global force. The contrast between the chaotic-world narrative (“angry, violent, unpredictable”) and the promised future of “unity” signals a turning point. This is a classic fantasy-theme device- projecting an emotionally satisfying conclusion. “Our power” becomes symbolic of moral rightness, not just military strength.

This sections acts as a narrative, furthering fantasy themes of the golden age by invoking a sense of American pride and nostalgia- emblematic of his "Make America Great Again." The listing of cities and professions crafts an inclusive national geography, while the catalogue of accomplishments invokes a sense of pride rooted in sacrifice, struggle, and victory. His sense of rhythm and visually descriptive phrasing provides a sensory validation of his words. Trump’s strategy here is to embed the audience within a narrative of inherited greatness, where the trials of the past legitimize present authority and future ambition.

This passage and his MAGA slogan divulges Trump's strategy of rooting his rhetoric in a vague sense of nostalgia to evoke emotional and sentimental attitudes from his listeners,

"the efficiency of the slogan to mythologize the past and create an urgency to recapture lost glory, explaining that part of the slogan’s appeal is that “the specific details are lost within the intentionally vague and mystical sense of lost greatness communicated by the device of Remaking Shit” (29). From this analysis, he concludes that a critical and harsh look at the efficiencies and myths that empower the slogan is one step to delegitimizing them"

https://constell8cr.com/issue-6/the-rhetoric-of-fascism/

This passage constructs a mythic origin story, portraying Americans as heroic pioneers with unmatched courage, ingenuity, and moral righteousness. The sweeping historical arc—from taming wilderness to ending tyranny and launching into space—follows a fantasy-theme structure of destined greatness, uniting disparate achievements into a singular, triumphant national identity. Trump invites listeners into a shared heroic legacy, transforming national history into a symbolic narrative that justifies future greatness as a natural continuation of the past. It positions American exceptionalism not as a debated idea but as an emotionally resonant moral truth, reinforcing symbolic convergence through pride and historical grandeur.

Trump, instead of welcoming the larger global audience to his American golden age, implements quite the opposite approach- he warns the international scene and subvert's his viewers feeling of being taken advantage of. By shrouding both foreign allies and adversaries in an antagonistic light, Trump presents himself as the defender of his people from these parasitic foreces which are taking advantage of their country and therefore their values. This illustrates that Trump's intention here is to establish some sort of credible position as a vocalizer of the concerns within his party while stirring their feelings of marginalization. This diverges from traditional presidential rhetor on such a moment, which instead asserts peace and unity with the world and aims itself at qualling domestic fears regarding international tensions of the time.

Politico narrates,<br /> "as Most new presidents offer grace notes to the wider world. In his 1949 inaugural address, President Harry Truman offered a promise of significant material aid to a war-ravaged international community. Trump offered a return to the idea of “Manifest destiny” from the 19th century, vowed to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” and — at least rhetorically — semi-declared war with Panama over the Panama Canal. "

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/20/trump-inaugural-address-analysis-00199361

Trump is ideologically and legislatively suppressing modern social theories on gender attributed to LGBTQ communities. Jason Stanley remarks that Fascism has an anti-intellectual disposition as it does not appreciate ideologies which promote multiple perspectives or multi-faceted approaches to the truth (such as gender).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCKkWMbmXU

Positioning marginalized groups like the transgender community as agitators and antagonizers who are challenging and undermining commonly held values, allows for a more radicalized narrative for Trump's audience.

This line uses enthymematic logic by assuming the audience already sees diversity or equity initiatives as overreach—there’s no argument, just a conclusion: they must be stopped. The missing premise (“social engineering is harmful or unnatural”) is left unstated, encouraging the audience to supply it based on ideological predisposition. This rhetorical move strengthens ethos, as Trump appears decisive, speaking a “common-sense truth” others are too afraid to voice. The phrase “every aspect of public and private life” exaggerates the scope of intervention to heighten emotional identification and urgency.

Ideologically, Trump suppresses and therefore marginalizes leftist values of race and gender equality/expression. Throughout the speech many such instances of suppression are seen which shroud leftist policies as standing in opposition to the dominating ideals of nationalism, a return to old greatness, and restoration of rightful power dynamics.

In her paper, Nationalistic Rhetoric as a Tool for Repressing Social Movements, Ajla Jakupovic outlines some of the underlying processes which allow for rhetoric to undermin social movements or ideologies:

"negative statements towards movements not only are words stated in response to a protest, but that the statements are tactics meant to undermine the movement as a whole. For protestors to be able to alter government and societal behavior, they need support from people in society who will join their agenda and movement. Through negative statements one could limit the possibility for movements to receive supporters and therefore reduce their chances to achieve their goal (ibid.). With negative repressive rhetoric, one aims to frame the state and the opposing group in ways which ensure the state’s survival. With public statements the speaker could frame the opposition as a threat and simultaneously frame the state as safe. Repressive rhetoric is meant to work through two mutually constitutive mechanisms, by convincing others that the movement is illegitimate and by creating noise in public discourse to interrupt the protest and limit its chances to gain support (ibid.). "

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1761690/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Given Trump's base and the context of his address and platform- this use of such language to undermine ideologies that stand in the way of his agenda, can be seen as a substantial and effective attack on his opposition and a reclamation of narrative authority.

Framing the American dream as something that had disappeared reinforces a populist ideological narrative in which the people were robbed—by elites, globalization, or corrupt governance—of economic opportunity and social mobility. Its promised return, under Trump’s leadership, recasts economic and cultural success as contingent upon nationalist revival

This line fuses economic nationalism with populist grievance by presenting tariffs not as policy tools, but as instruments of economic justice and retribution. Foreign nations are cast as takers, and Trump frames the state’s power to tax them as a way to directly enrich “our citizens,” bypassing globalist models of interdependence. This simplifies trade into a moral binary of us vs. them, where economic aggression is reframed as national virtue. Ideological criticism reveals how this rhetoric personalizes national wealth, treating foreign economic actors as adversaries and domestic citizens as rightful inheritors of reclaimed prosperity.

This line extends the “golden age to come” fantasy by projecting an almost miraculous resurgence of American manufacturing. The phrase “nobody could have dreamt possible” evokes a mythic scale of renewal, casting future economic strength as not just achievable but unimaginable by prior standards. It positions Trump’s leadership as the catalyst for a national rebirth rooted in industrial pride, echoing past eras of American greatness.

Trump's grand promises have a very specific affect on the audience in that they are not specific or bolstered by any methodological defense rather, their evocative nature play on the listener's imagination and embeds the feeling of possibility within his or her mind.

"This kind of rhetoric recruits the audience to Trump’s camp, almost as if he’s pitching to them the return on investment they will receive if they fully invest in his plan for a better America. And Trump promises everything: he feeds the audience exactly what hey want to hear, regardless of its rationale or potential consequence." (Page 38)

Essentially, Trumpian claims are grand for grandure's sake, and the feeling they provide their audience is as good as tangible action.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1772&context=honors201019

Neo Classical: This line is a direct appeal to pathos, transforming an energy policy stance into an emotionally charged slogan. The repetition and rhythm of “drill, baby, drill” evoke enthusiasm, certainty, and cultural defiance, tapping into the audience’s frustrations with environmental regulation, economic anxiety, and perceived global dependence. It condenses complex issues into a cathartic, celebratory expression of control and revival—framing drilling not just as policy, but as a symbol of national strength and freedom. The applause affirms that this isn’t a statement of fact but a collective emotional release, rallying the crowd around a shared feeling of reclaimed power.

This repetition intensifies pathos through tone and cadence—it's assertive, even defiant, signaling emotional certainty and action. The clipped delivery enhances Trump’s ethos as a decisive, no-nonsense leader who will act where others have hesitated.

This statement uses enthymematic logic by implying a shared, unspoken major premise: that the country is currently under invasion or imminent threat. Trump leaves the audience to fill in the details—immigration, crime, foreign policy failures—making the logic persuasive by way of emotional inference rather than explicit proof. This appeals to ethos by casting Trump as morally obligated to fulfill the nation’s “highest responsibility,” aligning himself with foundational values like protection, strength, and duty. By presenting the defense of the country as unquestionable, the rhetoric bypasses debate and reframes action as virtue rather than policy.

This line embodies the populist-nationalist worldview by portraying foreign criminals as a threat to the purity and safety of the American homeland. Trump presents the nation as under siege by external forces and promises a unified state response to purge these infiltrators. This reflects nationalist ideology by asserting the need to defend national borders and identity through state violence, while simultaneously mobilizing populist resentment—suggesting that the elites have failed to protect “the people.” By invoking the “inner cities,” he blends external invasion with internal decay, extending the threat and broadening the mandate for control. Ideological criticism reveals how this rhetoric constructs a morally charged us-vs-them logic, positioning Trump as the only figure willing to protect the righteous people from both corrupt institutions and criminal outsiders.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University comments on such statements in Trump's speech which completely lack the policy forethought required to back his claims,

"So when they're talking about deporting so many people in America, this is a massive amount of people, and thus you need an infrastructure of repression. You need camps. And the whole thing is a dystopia. And this is not what America is. But Donald Trump has been conditioning Americans to think that this is the way."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-trumps-rhetoric-compares-to-historic-fascist-language

On the ideologically repressive rhetorical devices used by Nationalistic rhetoric, Ajla Jakupovic remarks that,

"Repression and repressive rhetoric could be identified in the political statements if they include aspects of the need of the state or aspects of the threat of the movement (Patane 2021: p. 954-958). Through these types of repression a “we” and “them” is created, where the movement and its opposers are described as distinct groups."

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1761690/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Trump creates the imagery of a large scale deliberate "invasion" to re-conceptualize issues which stem from poor immigration policy and border security, instead linking them to a vague entity that is engaged in an active attack on Americans. This "other" cements Trump's dichotomy and false binary of "us" vs "them".

In his Inaugural address, Joe Biden asks his audience and the American people, to not let their worries and economic struggles let them turn against each other. He sympathizes with all his constituents and urges against factions. (13:00)

Trump's scapegoating of illegal immigrants, which makes its way into his address stands in stark opposition to these sentiments. Biden is adhering to the genre of the Inaugural address where Trump is not.

His subversion hints that Trump's rhetorical strategy is one which is aimed at creating division, not unity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlbyOeMCL0g

In the following section of the speech, Trump dives into his series of executive orders and controversial as well as polarized policy positions, which he will be stating effectively. Though this context is not present here these policies are argued by many political analysts as directly enabling the marginalization of selected groups consisting of demographics, which have been deemed as "un-American". This controversial and divisive listing of policy starkly contrasts from the task, presented by an Inaugural Address. While certain policy positions and general political goals or ambitions are usually emphasized by past presidents in their inaugural speeches, such occurrences do not tend to wander into territories concerning directly polarizing policy.

In his dissertation "Make the Inaugural Great Again... Daniel Dickerson presents an analysis on Trump's rhetoric as a diverges from presidential president to illicit fantasy – themes and ideological narratives of nationalism and us versus them. He presents President Obama's inauguration speech as an example which adheres to the format that Trump's subverts.

"In President Obama’s inaugural addresses, many historical themes as used by past presidents were present. In fact, Obama chose to take a route derived in humility and theology (Frank, 2011). His inaugural responded to a recurring rhetorical situation of the expectations of presidential inaugurals (Frank, 2011). The president should express to the members of the audience that they have a common identity: their humanity (Ericson,1997). Further, Ericson (1997) explained, the people who voted for the president want to know he is working for them, and Obama met this particular exigence in his inaugural address. Understanding the history of the presidential inaugural is essential to grasp the importance of this study within rhetorical studies, and the communication discipline."

https://www.proquest.com/openview/9ea813c915501712b974956aef59070c/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar

Trump’s appeal to a “revolution of common sense” functions as a powerful ethos-building device, positioning him not as an ideologue or technocrat, but as a voice of intuitive, relatable reason. By invoking “common sense,” he claims moral clarity and alignment with the everyday logic of his audience, contrasting himself with elite policymakers or intellectuals who are portrayed as out of touch. This strategy builds credibility through identification, making Trump appear trustworthy not because of expertise, but because of his perceived authenticity and alignment with popular intuition. The phrase “It’s all about common sense” works rhetorically to collapse political complexity into emotional obviousness, drawing on shared assumptions rather than detailed argument.

Ideological: (41:00) Rosenfeld's lecture below cites specifically cites Trump's claims about common sense noticing that they always stand in direct contrast to his pattern for the refusal of documented fact and touting of undocumented claims. She implies that through presenting a lot of what isn't common sense (because it may not be true)- as obvious and rightfully assumed, Trump is essentially shaping his own reality.

Trump's "common sense" parallels his base's tendency to understand complex political phenomenon through oversimplification as conspiracy. In such a sense, what is common sense is also what is easy to understand. This is not the case however, for the very delicate domestic issues that Trump naively condenses into one-sided policy positions. Some of these are listed by Trump in the following lines...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCzM7BLzRU

This line invokes a sacred symbolism which parallels the Christian "trinity"- nation, Constitution, and God—to solidify a fantasy-theme rooted in civil religious mythology. Trump fuses political identity with divine allegiance, offering a vision where forgetting any part of this "American trinity" would be both sacrilege and betrayal. The repeated structure and emphatic final phrase (“Can’t do that”) create a performative ritual of collective remembering, reinforcing group identity. This isn’t policy—it's symbolic storytelling, anchoring the audience in a shared sense of moral duty and spiritual patriotism. Fantasy-theme criticism shows how this language draws supporters into a worldview where political loyalty is equivalent to spiritual faithfulness.

Ideologically speaking, his posturing here is a symbolic assertion of the nationalistic superiority of American values- that Country, Constitution, and God, all collectively favor America and tangibly ground its higher moral position. This can be attributed to a specification

In his Anatomia del Fascismo, Robert Paxton expands on the symbols chosen by nationalistic and populist rhetors:

“Fascisms seek out in each national culture those themes that are best capable of mobilizing a mass movement of regeneration, unification, and purity, directed against liberal individualism and constitutionalism and against Leftists class struggle. The themes that appeal to fascists in one cultural tradition may seem simply silly to another. The foggy Norse myths that stirred Norwegians or Germans sounded ridiculous in Italy, where Fascism appealed rather to a sun-drenched classical Romanita....Fascism was an affair of the gut more than the brain.” https://econsystemsthinking.medium.com/summary-anatomy-of-fascism-eed6d626ee8

Fascism being "an affair of the gut" illustrates that facts and policy are not of any value or worth to those who participate in nationalistic ideological rhetoric- feelings, emotions, and resonance are far more important qualifying factors.

Echoing populist sentiments, this passage ideologically asserts the legitimacy and totality of Trump’s mandate, not through formal institutions but through a sweeping, emotionally charged portrayal of national consensus. Listing race, gender, and geography, Trump claims inclusivity not to broaden representation but to assert universal alignment with his vision, suggesting dissent is insignificant or illegitimate. The reference to swing state victories and the “popular vote” bolsters this claim, regardless of factual basis, to imply that power now morally and numerically belongs to him. This is a classic populist move: constructing political dominance as national unanimity, thereby collapsing the people and the leader into one.

"Benedict Anderson famously suggested that nationalism was not so much one modern political ideology, like liberalism or communism, as it was a pervasive way of imagining the world—more like religion and kinship." https://calhoun.faculty.asu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/articles/the_rhetoric_of_nationalism.pdf

Fantasy Theme: This passage acts as the explicit theisis to Trump's religiously infused martyr-hero narrative, cementing Trump as a spiritually chosen leader. The survival of an assassination attempt becomes a sacred sign—a divine endorsement of his mission. Trump taps into religious fantasy themes, where national destiny is tied to a providential figure tasked with restoring greatness. The rhetorical logic posited is that his survival equals divine approval therefore enforcing the conclusion that his mission is sacred. Trump transforms personal trauma into theological validation, collapsing spiritual and political authority into a single figure.

Neo Classical: The religious framing of Trump's rhetoric ensures his ethos and cements his authority by capitalizing on the pre-existing religious biases of his audience.

This line escalates Trump’s role within the martyr-hero fantasy, portraying his survival as not just political but as a divinely fated turning point in the American story. It frames Trump’s leadership as divinely preserved in the face of evil, reinforcing the us-vs-them binary central to the fantasy-theme structure.

Additionally, Trump capitalizes on the symbolism of messianic narratives and religious christian story devices to create a divine portrait of himself. Trump sells his fantasy theme using one that he knows is base already ascribes to.

Trump here is referring to the democratic party, specifically Biden's administration, saying that he will overturn Biden era policy and restore his base's political agenda. This is incredibly divergent from formats provided by previous Inaugural addresses.

As narrated by Politico,

"For instance, most new presidents begin by putting the partisan struggle of the past election behind them. “We are all Republicans; we serve all Federalists,” Thomas Jefferson said a few months after the vicious election of 1800. “We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom,” John F. Kennedy said in 1961. In 1989, George Bush literally held his hand out to the Democratic speaker of the House in his appeal for bipartisanship."

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/20/trump-inaugural-address-analysis-00199361

Neo Classical: This line constructs ethos through personal martyrdom, exaggerating hardship to portray Trump as a uniquely persecuted and thus uniquely resilient leader. The hyperbolic comparison to “any president in 250 years” is not factually defended; rather, it functions rhetorically as invention, inviting admiration and emotional identification through perceived endurance. The claim activates a form of moral ethos: if he has survived more than any past president, then he has earned not just authority, but reverence. It also serves an enthymematic function—the audience supplies the injustices (impeachments, investigations, media) that confirm the claim.

Fantasy Theme: Trump inserts himself into the martyr-hero narrative central to his fantasy rhetoric. The phrase positions him as a figure who has endured extraordinary trials, not for personal gain, but as part of a larger epic struggle. This aligns with the fantasy theme of a leader chosen through adversity to redeem a fallen nation. By presenting his suffering as surpassing that of all past presidents, Trump establishes himself as a historical exception.

This line employs enthymematic logic, where a central premise is implied rather than stated outright: that liberties have been denied and the nation’s destiny has been obstructed. The audience fills in the missing premise, likely imagining the culprits as corrupt elites or previous administrations. This unspoken assumption deepens identification, as it allows listeners to apply their own grievances as the unstated cause. At the same time, the emotionally rich terms “liberties” and “glorious destiny” evoke pathos, framing Trump’s leadership as the reactivation of a sacred national trajectory. The rhetorical force comes not from argument but from shared implication, relying on the audience’s preexisting convictions to complete the logic.

Fantasy Theme: This statement marks a pivotal turning point in Trump’s overarching fantasy narrative. By declaring the end of decline “from this moment,” he signals that the speech—and his inauguration—represents the exact break between national suffering and national rebirth. This aligns with Bormann’s fantasy-theme structure, where a collective drama reaches its moment of reversal, and a new symbolic order emerges. The phrase functions as a fantasy cue, embedding Trump’s leadership into the audience’s emotional timeline of decline and redemption. The simplicity and certainty of the declaration invites listeners to adopt a shared sense of victory, regardless of his policy positions.

Ideological Criticism: Additionally, this line reinforces a populist-nationalist myth: that America has been in a state of managed decline due to elite betrayal, and that Trump alone has the authority to reverse it. “America’s decline” is never defined in empirical terms—it’s a symbolic stand-in for a host of grievances (economic loss, immigration, cultural change) that are repackaged as a unified collapse. This line condenses historical complexity into a single oversimplified ideological position—making Trump's rise synonymous with national revival.

On the effects of Trump's stance as a rhetor in building this fantasy theme, one study notes,

"This kind of ruthless approach appeases their [his supporters'] potential desire for an aggressive, maybe even angry leader. In his previously mentioned article for The Atlantic, titled “The Real Roots of American Rage,” Charles Duhigg discusses the power of anger in public opinion. His theory is that people perceive angry leaders as effective ones. Trump puts his theory into practice in this speech. His use of sharp statements and inflected tone of voice create a powerful combination to portray his strength and anger at vague issues. His anger is either undirected or directed at everything that is not him or his followers. His angry othering validates his audience’s beliefs and allows them to ignore the frequent lack of policy detail in favor of his rhetorical style."

Often it seems that Trump's ability to capture the fantasy themes of "the forgotten people" and "martyr/hero" are integral to his affect on audiences where logical and political exposition is all but ignored.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1772&context=honors201019

Additionally, highlighting instances of failure and instigating distrust, Trump effectively furthers his fantasy themes of "the forgotten people" as well as his own position as a hero in the story of the people's struggle against their oppressor.

Trump's citing of institutional failure in this section plays many roles in addition to invoking pathos and establishing ethos.

Generic Criticism: It shows us further how Trump is guiding his speech under different motivations as that of his predecessors by effectively undermining popular belief in America and its democratic systems as opposed to emboldening the people in their support and appreciation. Such an effect in his speech demonstrate that his purposes here are not to satisfy the criteria of the inaugural address, but rather his own political motivations.

This contrasts directly from Regan in his Inaugural address who literally initiates his speech by asserting his faith in the democratic process and highlight the sanctity and legacy of the American peaceful transition of power.

In the context of Regan's speech, it can be seen that Trump chooses to undermine faith in American democratic institution achieve a catastrophic depiction. This is perhaps a central part of his rhetorical strategy as it allows for the efficacy of his speech when he later diagnoses the failures listed here, with strong, assertive policy positions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPt7xGx4Xo

Trump applies a structure to his speech in this section where he essentially lists the failures of the previous administration and American institutions in general...

By touting the ironic nature behind the failures of the institutional powers that serve the people, Trump is asserting that the current powers are acting in the opposite interest of the greater good. He is emphasizing feelings of distrust and betrayal and undermining the belief in authority. This ultimately has an emotional effect on the readr while establishing his own ethos.

This line, indicative of a highly nationalistic/populist rhetorical approach, is a textbook deployment of exclusionary identity politics. It constructs a moral binary between “magnificent, law-abiding American citizens” and “dangerous criminals,” implicitly racialized or foreign, without naming them. Trump positions the government as failing its core constituency—real Americans—by redirecting protection toward undeserving, dangerous outsiders. This move functions ideologically to redefine who is seen as belonging to the political community and who is framed as a threat to it. Ideological criticism reveals how such language isn't just descriptive—it actively shapes perceptions of justice, loyalty, and civic worth, reinforcing a worldview where safety, power, and moral legitimacy are reserved for those who conform to a narrow vision of national identity.

Calhoun in his analysis on "The Rhetoric of Nationalism" hints that ideological themes can often be embedded within the mind of listeners in subtle, unconscious ways- resulting in processes of inferences and implications which the receiver is often unaware that he or she is is participating in.

"Billig has called our attention to the pervasiveness of both fagging nationalism and rendering fagging self-consciously unflagged—that is, deploying the symbols and rhetoric of nationalism in ways that stay mostly below the level of explicit consciousness."

https://calhoun.faculty.asu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/articles/the_rhetoric_of_nationalism.pdf

Neo Classical: Trump erodes the ethos of the existing government by labeling it incapable of basic governance, building his own credibility by implication. The line also uses reductive logic (if the state cannot handle the simple, it cannot handle the complex) to persuade through, what is presented as, an obvious, clear deduction. This blends credibility and reason to elevate Trump as a more competent alternative.

Ideological: This line also advances Trump’s anti-establishment ideology by reducing complex policy failures to a narrative of elite incompetence. The phrase “even a simple crisis” rhetorically frames the government as inept and detached, promoting a worldview where institutions are inherently broken and outsiders—like Trump—must reclaim control. It reinforces populist distrust and repositions state failure as deliberate abandonment of the people.

Neo Classical: Trump’s invention in this passage relies heavily on pathos- using charged and evocative imagery to elicit anger and feelings of disenfranchisement from the listener. The phrase “extracted power and wealth” positions the government as the source of economic frustrations while “pillars of our society lay broken” paints a bleak and vivid image, invoking symbolism to create an almost mythic sense of hopelessness.

This emotional appeal heightens the stakes of the moment and primes the audience for a savior narrative, effectively establishing Trump's credibility. Trump builds ethos by positioning himself as the only figure willing to expose these abuses- by naming the enemy he presents himself as morally courageous. In a classical sense, this passage aims to establish trust through shared outrage and moral alignment with the audience.

Fantasy Theme: By portraying a long-standing elite force that has "extracted" resources from the public, Trump casts the American people as innocent victims in a narrative of systemic betrayal. Creating a clear villian as well as a clear hero- himself. The metaphor of “pillars... broken and in disrepair” utilizes symbolism to insinuate a narrative of total institutional collapse to position Trump in a position to correct the "disrepair" he cites.

Nathan Crick compiles a collection of works regarding Facist and Nationalistic values in his, How to Spot a Fascist: A Review of The Rhetoric of Fascism. The sentiments here shed light on the context of Trump's rhetoric and his use of these fantasy cues-

in explicating his work, Carlee E Baker cites that-

The “trope of carnage” and the resultant evocation of the “trope of manly consciousness” play upon many of the same assumptions that “Make America Great Again” does, where Trump presents the current state of the U.S. in terms of catastrophe and disaster, calling upon fears of societal decline felt among the Alt-Right and legitimizing the threat of violence and intimidation. The “trope of betrayal” appears most clearly in Trump’s open anti-intellectualism and disdain for “the elites.” His utilization of the “trope of specious nomenclature” works as an exclusionary rhetorical tactic intended to mark the Other as definitionally excluded from the meaning of “American.” Hartnett explains that these two tropes involve a subtle but persistent degradation of Others that works to “‘[deliver] the poison of prejudice in small but increasing doses” (48). At the heart of the use of each of these tropes in public political rhetoric is an appeal to fear, strong enough to motivate threats of violence at the behest of the former President.

https://constell8cr.com/issue-6/the-rhetoric-of-fascism/

Generic Criticism: This line marks a significant departure from the traditional inaugural genre, which typically opens with unifying affirmations and ceremonial reverence for American institutions. Instead of enacting continuity and civic confidence—as we see in Biden’s 2021 inaugural (“Democracy has prevailed”)—Trump opens by casting the government as a failed and suspect entity. This violates a core generic convention: inaugurals traditionally reaffirm the legitimacy of the republic even in times of transition. Trump’s framing instead performs a kind of rhetorical inversion, treating the occasion not as a transitioning of power but as a "day of reckoning". The genre of the inaugural is thus subverted into a platform for populist grievance, more reminiscent of a campaign rally than a ceremonial oath of office.

When asked about the departure of Trump's remarks from pre-existing expectations based on presidential precedent, John M. Murphy, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who studies the history of American public address and political rhetoric responds as follows:

"Was there anything striking about Trump’s second address and the rhetorical devices he used when referring to his policy agenda, the Congress and his definition of the U.S. and its standing in the world order?

First, President Trump used dark, divisive campaign rhetoric rather than the usual unifying, uplifting words that characterize normal inaugurals.

Second, an inaugural address usually offers only general principles, rather than specific policy, in order to unify the country behind new leadership. Trump listed a long series of bitterly contested executive orders that again divided the nation.

Inaugural addresses usually emphasize the humility of the new president as they face the profound responsibilities of the office. George Washington acknowledged “his own deficiencies” and nearly all presidents place themselves under God and rely on the help of the people.

Trump does not do so. In fact, he says he was “saved by God” to make America great again. His arrogance does not indicate he will respect constitutional limits."

https://las.illinois.edu/news/2025-01-24/how-did-president-trumps-inaugural-address-stack-previous-speeches

Murphy's remarks, given his position as a scholar of political rhetoric, illustrates that even the academic subdomain of American politics is continuing to adjust to the non-traditional themes in Trump's address.

Ideological Criticism: By stating that “our government confronts a crisis of trust,” Trump invokes deep anti-establishment sentiment, a defining feature of his ideological appeal. This rhetoric casts suspicion not just on a particular party or administration, but on the very structure of American governance, framing it as inherently broken.

Trumps here, establishes himself as the primary facilitator of the "golden age" fantasy theme: The Great momentum”—is not defined by institutions or laws but is instead a symbolic, almost magical force generated by his return to power. The phrase “the world is now witnessing” adds a performative quality: the fantasy is not only emotionally real but publicly recognized, intensifying the audience’s sense of historical participation and America's "return to the spotlight"

Fantasy Theme: This line exemplifies Trump’s continued reliance on the “golden age to come” fantasy theme, a core symbolic device in his speech. By declaring America will be not only great, but “far more exceptional than ever before,” Trump paints a utopian future rooted in hyperbolic claims of surpassing historical precedent. This rhetorical exaggeration as well as the accessibility and absoluteness of his language (“greater, stronger, more exceptional”) function as fantasy cues, inviting the audience into an emotionally gratifying vision of the future while providing a shared emotional satisfaction, even in the absence of specific policy detail.

Neo-Classical: The hyperbolic nature of Trump's language as well as its dramatic construction allow for an appeal to his Audience's emotions.

The logical structure of Trump’s Inaugural address relies heavily on the use of enthymematic logic to assume certain premises or shared beliefs which are integral to his arguments.

In implementing such enthymematic devices, Trump circumvents the need to rationalize his depiction of a deteriorating government opting instead to imply such presuppositions as a given, oversimplifying genuine domestic and foreign issues as being attributed to a single antagonizing force that only Trump himself can stand up to.

By saying “From this day forward, our country will… be respected again all over the world”, he is implying it currently isn't respected. By asserting that “we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer” Trump takes as a given that his audience is being taken advantage of. In cementing his stance as restoring the “integrity, competency, and loyalty of America’s government” he is forcing his listener to internalize the subtext that it currently lacks integrity, competency, and loyalty.

On Trump's use of enthymematic logic as a rhetorical device, Hayes remarks: "In enthymemes, using Gerard Hauser’s (2002) definition, the rhetor and audience share common beliefs and actively participate in building and creating the argument together. Enthymemes give Trump the ability to deny alleged statements or argue he was misunderstood since enthymemes are generally implicit and can be interpreted differently by diverse audiences. An analysis of Trump’s tweets exemplifies how he builds and connects with those sharing and willing to contribute to the end result of creating a divide between Americans by casting them against each other, establishing an Us versus Them philosophy."

Trump's social media phrasing and its associated use of this rhetorical strategy hints that ethymematic logic is a device that, extending across multiple platforms- is central to Trump's invention and the link it establishes with his audience.

https://repository.gonzaga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1166&context=jhs

This statement furthers Trump's nationalistic rhetoric while adding anti-establishment themes into the mix. Trump here is detailing his golden age and contrasting it with the current marginalized state of the government. He presents the the Justice Department in an antagonistic light, touting the irony that it needs to be brought to Justice. This irony is meant to be felt by his audience as a symbol for the conception of current institutional authorities as being in opposition to the values of the people. This enforces an anti establishment sentiment, one that can be seen throughout Trump's speech.

Anti-establishment is central to Populist conceptions because it often oversimplifies complex issues, ascribing them to a single entity while providing validation of the cultural distrust of the people towards their institutions.

In Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist Incumbency: An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tweets and Press Briefings the authors expand on this anti-establishment capacity and its rhetorical function:

" In the USA, the rise in support for right-wing populism, and Trump's variant in particular, is often understood as a ‘Jacksonian’ revolt against supposedly misguided, corrupt elites, and linked to the Tea Party movement (Lacatus Reference Lacatus2020). ‘Jacksonianism’ is motivated by ‘resentment of the well-bred, the well-connected, and the well-paid’, by mistrust in the motives and methods of government and revolt against the political order (Bonikowski and Gidron Reference Bonikowski and Gidron2016; Lowndes et al. Reference Lowndes and Kaltwasser2017)."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/crisis-rhetoric-and-rightwing-populist-incumbency-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tweets-and-press-briefings/928DC40735BEEB1F62AE04ECBB98530C

Trump and in turn, his base, find themselves joyously awaiting a “golden era” in politics- in an advantageous position to execute their reformative agenda. At initial glance this statement is perhaps best attributed to Trump's persona as a businessman- his use of short marketable slogans incentivize his base by providing digestible and memorable policy positions. However this particular utterance is integral to Trump's rhetorical intention and effect in a multi-faceted way. As such, it plays a pivotal role in a variety of rhetorical applications:

Fantasy Theme Criticism: This line serves as uniting symbol for the fantasy in which Trump is trying to engage his base. The implication here is that what this golden age entails is mutually agreed upon by him and his supporters, they are responsible in its ushering just as much as Trump is. Starting with this statement acts as a tantalizing way to initiate his narrative, one which details the transition from national suffering to a triumphant renewal. The phrase “golden age” evokes a grand, almost mythic sense of prosperity and serves as one of the main fantasies which Trump's rhetoric is outlining for his audience.

This line also functions within the fantasy-theme which is pivotal to the function of Trump's speech- that of a fallen people redeemed by a heroic figure. Trump essentially sets up a David and Goliath parallel where his people are the underdogs oppressed by a large institution which has undermined their rights and freedoms. In this story, he casts himself as the savior who, by taking office is putting an end to this tyrrany and putting his foot down on behalf of his people.

The applause which follows is not merely approval—it is ritual affirmation of the shared fantasy. The audiences internalizes a rhetorical vision that unites them emotionally and ideologically.

Ideological Criticism: Framing his presidency as the beginning of a “golden age” reinforces Trump’s underlying nationalist ideology and capitalizes on populist themes. Trump asserts that under his leadership, America can reclaim a rightful, superior place in the world. Use of language like "golden age" constructs an ideological binary between a broken past and a utopian present, shaped entirely by Trump’s ascension. The use of “golden age” also taps into religious imagery, drawing from both nationalist and Christian overtones of promised lands and chosen leaders. On Populist Rhetorical strategies and their efficacy in the context of political speakers and their agenda, Lacatus and Meibauer explicate that:

Populists claim to promote the interest of a virtuous ‘people’ by curbing a dangerous ‘other’, especially corrupt elites, which constitutes a threat to the people's sovereignty. Populists challenge the dominant order, give voice to the collective will and promise a new order that resonates with the longings of the ‘people’ (Moffitt Reference Moffitt2015; Oliver and Rahn Reference Oliver and Rahn2016; Rooduijn Reference Rooduijn2014). Populists use a transgressive rhetorical style that allows them to portray themselves as ‘authentic’ outsiders, and that is often direct, emotional and indelicate"

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/crisis-rhetoric-and-rightwing-populist-incumbency-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tweets-and-press-briefings/928DC40735BEEB1F62AE04ECBB98530C