A multi-theoretical analysis of Trump’s rhetorical strategies in the 2025 pro-Israel policy speech

Why the Words of Leaders Matter

When presidents speak about war, peace, and foreign allies, their words do more than fill news cycles—they help justify real-world decisions that affect millions. This article looks closely at one such moment: a press conference where U.S. President Donald Trump stood beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in early 2025 and outlined a strongly pro-Israel vision, including ideas for Gaza’s future. By dissecting this single event in fine detail, the researchers show how carefully choreographed language can turn simple phrases into powerful tools that make certain policies feel natural, necessary, and beyond debate.

Looking Under the Hood of a High-Stakes Speech

The authors focus on Trump’s joint press conference with Netanyahu shortly after Trump’s 2025 inauguration, a time marked by a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and heated arguments over Gaza’s reconstruction and governance. Trump’s comments floated bold proposals, such as giving the United States a leading role in Gaza’s security and rebuilding, using language that evoked ownership and stewardship. The study argues that these word choices were not random. Instead, they framed Gaza less as a place with its own people and politics and more as an object to be managed, raising alarms about displacement, sovereignty, and whose voice counts in deciding the region’s future.

From Small Phrases to Big Stories

To understand how this framing works, the researchers break the speech into 241 separate clauses—short stretches of talk that each do a bit of communicative work. At this micro level, they classify what Trump is doing with each clause: making factual-sounding claims, promising future actions, expressing feelings, or urging others to act. Most of the time he is asserting, stating things as if they are settled facts, and quite often he is promising what the United States will do next. The team also tracks when he exaggerates or bends conversational norms, such as using dramatic overstatement to describe punishing enemies, which turns complex events into simple stories of strength and resolve.

Patterns of Repetition and Metaphor

At the next, meso level, the study looks for patterns that stretch across many clauses: repeated phrases, parallel sentence structures, and recurring metaphors. Certain themes keep resurfacing. Ownership language—talk of “taking over” or “owning” territory—casts U.S. involvement in Gaza as a kind of guardianship or property management, rather than an intrusion into someone else’s political space. Security language—references to weapons, terrorists, and harsh measures—builds an atmosphere of constant threat that seems to demand tough responses. At the same time, warm, repeated talk of friendship and “unbreakable” ties with Israel paints the alliance as timeless and unquestionable. Even a single image likening part of the region to a sunny resort area subtly recasts a conflict zone as a place for investment and leisure.

How Language Shifts Power and Erases Alternatives

At the broad, macro level, the authors use critical discourse analysis to ask what these patterns do politically. They find that naming and describing key players in certain ways—Israel as a close friend and partner, unnamed opponents as “terrorists” or inherently dangerous—narrows the moral landscape. Once a group is fixed in the public imagination as beyond the pale, extraordinary actions against them can sound reasonable or even required. The speech repeatedly centers U.S. and Israeli perspectives while leaving Palestinian voices and humanitarian concerns almost entirely offstage. Possible alternatives, such as shared governance, regional cooperation, or negotiated political solutions, barely appear. That silence is not accidental; it helps make an expansive U.S. role in Gaza feel like the only serious option.

What This Study Tells the Rest of Us

In the end, the article shows that the power of political speech lies less in any single slogan than in the steady layering of many small choices about words, tone, and imagery. By moving from individual clauses, to mid-level patterns, to big-picture stories, the researchers lay out a transparent “audit trail” linking Trump’s phrasing to broader narratives that justify strong U.S. alignment with Israel and a managerial role in Gaza. For non-specialists, the message is clear: when leaders talk about security, friendship, and ownership in international crises, they may be doing more than describing events. They are quietly shaping which futures seem thinkable, who is heard, and which policies come to feel like common sense.

Citation: Banikalef, A., Al-Khawaldeh, N., Al Bataineh, K. et al. A multi-theoretical analysis of Trump’s rhetorical strategies in the 2025 pro-Israel policy speech. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 13, 550 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06892-y

Keywords: political rhetoric, presidential speeches, critical discourse analysis, US–Israel relations, Gaza policy