Donald J. Trump’s Discursive and Neurocommunicational Playbook

Abstract

The present article employs a discursive and neurocommunicational lens to analyze Donald J. Trump’s discursive playbook. By means of a qualitative approach founded upon Critical Discourse Analysis and framing theory, the present study examines the manner in which the tactics of denial, deflection, and discrediting have structured the politician’s political communication since 2016, throughout his new presidential term. The corpus under scrutiny encompasses a range of sources, including official speeches, social media posts, media coverage, and academic literature. A particular emphasis is placed on the Epstein case, which serves to expose the structural limitations of his rhetorical strategy. The findings demonstrate the efficacy of these tactics in polarized contexts, characterized by the mobilization of emotions such as fear, anger, and victimhood, while reinforcing cognitive biases such as dissonance and confirmation bias. However, in situations involving crises that are characterized by strong social consensus—such as sexual abuse, corruption, or demands for transparency—discursive saturation has been shown to generate contradictions, cognitive fatigue, and psychological reactance, leading to a so-called ‘boomerang effect’. From a neurocommunicational perspective, this phenomenon elucidates the process by which emotional triggers, which initially serve to strengthen audience cohesion, can subsequently act as factors of disaffection and internal fragmentation. The study posits that Trump’s rhetorical populism is contingent on a delicate equilibrium between emotional mobilization and perceived credibility, whose disruption threatens to undermine the stability of his leadership and facilitate the emergence of alternative leadership figures within the MAGA movement.

1. Introduction

Since the commencement of his political career, Donald J. Trump has employed a communication strategy predicated upon a triad of discursive elements: the denial of any accusations that could potentially compromise him, the deflection of criticism by attributing blame to adversaries, and the manipulation of interpretive frameworks. Additionally, he has sought to discredit both those who question him and the institutions that exercise control within the Federal Government.

As Pettypiece (2019) observes in NBC News, this strategy has been shown to be effective in diminishing the consequences of various scandals, including the investigation into Russian interference in 2016, the Stormy Daniels case, and accusations of alleged profiteering in the presidency.

These tactics have not only been successful in mobilizing his electoral supporters but have also contributed to the construction of an anti-establishment political identity that reinforces the dichotomy of “us” (the American people or MAGA) versus “them” (the elites, the media, and political rivals). This phenomenon has been analyzed by Ott (2017) in The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of Debasement, a 2020 publication by Jennifer Mercieca, in Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump, in addition to other works on the subject.

However, this strategy cannot be understood solely through the populist opposition between “the people” and “the elites.” Various studies have shown that Trumpism articulates this logic with elements of nationalism, nativism, and identity-based exclusion, particularly visible in its rhetoric on immigration, sovereignty, and national restoration (Schertzer & Woods, 2021; Restad, 2020).

In this regard, Schertzer and Woods (2021) argue that Trump’s communication on social media constructs a form of ethnonationalist populism, while Restad (2020) demonstrates that the slogan “America First” refers to a broader dispute over American national identity and its domestic and international political projection.

This ideological dimension is linked to the production of a symbolic boundary between a legitimate “us” and a threatening “them.” From the perspective of critical discourse analysis, van Dijk (1998, 2015) explains this process through the “ideological square,” a discursive operation that emphasizes the positive traits of the in-group and the negative traits of the out-group, while simultaneously downplaying internal weaknesses and the positive attributes of the other. This framework is particularly useful for understanding why Trumpist rhetoric requires the identification of shifting enemies (media, Democrats, bureaucrats, migrants, judges, or dissenting Republicans) as a condition for reproducing its political effectiveness.

Gregory (2020) provides a complementary perspective, highlighting the systematic use of digital rhetoric, the application of epideictic discourses, disqualification through nicknames, and the configuration of a national-populist genre.

The issue of immigration constitutes one of the clearest laboratories of this discursive logic. Trump’s discourse on the wall and illegal immigration condenses prototypical features of contemporary right-wing populism: the moralization of conflict, the simplification of antagonism, and the construction of a threatening “other” that endangers the nation’s security, culture, and sovereignty.

For this reason, immigration is not a peripheral issue but a fundamental precedent for understanding how other political and media enemies are later reconfigured within Trumpist rhetoric.

It is evident that the combination of these studies and discursive parameters gives rise to a genuine playbook that, despite employing aggressive and direct language that defies conventional practices, enhances the effectiveness and authenticity of the message among its constituents, particularly the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement.

More broadly, this repertoire can also be read as a form of political performance. Moffitt (2016) proposes understanding populism not only as an ideology or strategy, but as a performative political style characterized by the staging of crisis, the transgression of norms, and the appeal to emotional proximity with “ordinary people.”

This perspective helps explain why verbal aggressiveness, simplified language, insults, and confrontation are not incidental elements in Trump’s discourse, but rather constitutive components of a style designed to maximize visibility, perceived authenticity, and identity-based loyalty.

In his new presidential term, both Trump and his allies continue to employ this strategy to address challenges such as the economic situation, immigration policies, and the controversy surrounding the documents related to the Epstein case. It is therefore imperative to examine the intricacies of the discursive strategy that has been articulated around denial, deflection and discrediting.

Moreover, the relationship between populism and disinformation reinforces this interpretation. Waisbord (2018) points to an elective affinity between populism and post-truth communication, insofar as this type of leadership distrusts expertise, discredits professional journalism, and favors emotionally effective alternative narratives even when they are empirically weak. This observation helps explain why the strategy of denying, deflecting, and discrediting does not function merely as a contingent defense against scandal, but as a stable mode of managing political and media conflict.

Finally, based on this theoretical framework, the following subsections no longer simply summarize contributions from the literature but apply these analytical categories to specific episodes within the selected corpus, distinguishing between primary evidence, journalistic contextualization, and academic interpretation.

Contextualization of the Cases Analyzed

The episodes considered in this study belong to different controversies, but share a common communicative structure: accusations or information potentially damaging to the leader’s image, followed by responses aimed at denying facts, redefining responsibility, and discrediting those who raise the allegations. These include controversies related to Russian interference in 2016, legal proceedings associated with Stormy Daniels and Georgia, attacks on critical media, and, more recently, the political and discursive management of the Epstein case.

The inclusion of the Epstein case is not driven by its media sensationalism, but by its analytical value. It constitutes a useful episode for observing whether a strategy that is effective in highly polarized contexts retains its effectiveness when a controversy triggers cross-cutting demands for truth, accountability, and transparency.

2. Objectives

Before conducting the analysis, a series of key objectives was established to guide the research and support its conclusions:

• To identify the key communicative elements of Trump’s speech.
• To explain the strategy of denying, diverting, and discrediting, as a communication tool.
• To provide specific examples of the implementation of this strategy.
• To analyze the results derived from his discursive practice.
• To examine the communicative specificity of the Epstein Case.

This study analyzes the discursive strategy of Donald J. Trump based on a delimited corpus of public statements, media coverage, and specialized academic literature. Rather than examining “Trump’s discourse” in the abstract, the research focuses on highly visible public episodes in which the then-candidate and later president repeatedly relied on three rhetorical moves: denial, deflection, and the discrediting of opponents, media, or institutions.

Within this framework, the objectives of the research are as follows:

(a)

To identify the predominant communicative features within a defined corpus of Donald Trump’s public interventions.

(b)

To explain how the strategy of denial, deflection, and discrediting operates within Trumpist political communication.

(c)

To examine how this strategy is articulated with dynamics of polarization, enemy construction, and identity-based mobilization.

(d)

To analyze specific examples of its application in political and media controversies selected for their high visibility and documental traceability.

(e)

To assess, through the Epstein case, the limits of this strategy when societal demands for transparency exceed the ordinary logic of partisan polarization.

From an analytical standpoint, the article does not aim to offer a general theory of all Trumpist communication, but rather a situated interpretation of a recurring discursive pattern. To this end, it distinguishes between literature review, case contextualization, and analysis of empirical examples, in order to avoid overlap between the state of the art and the study’s findings.

3. Methodology

The present study undertakes a qualitative and exploratory approach, with a focus on the discursive and neurocommunicational analysis of Donald J. Trump’s communicative playbook. Accordingly, the research is part of the tradition of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (van Dijk, 2003), complemented by contributions from the framing theory and neurocommunication (Morin, 2011; Marcus et al., 2000).

3.1. Criteria for Corpus Selection and Methodological Approach

The study adopts a qualitative discourse analysis strategy supported by source triangulation. The corpus consists of three types of materials:

(a)

Original statements by Donald Trump or institutional actors directly involved;

(b)

Journalistic coverage from leading media outlets with national and international relevance; and

(c)

Academic literature on populism, nationalism, digital rhetoric, polarization, and political communication.

The selection of cases followed four cumulative criteria:

• High public visibility and political centrality of the episode;
• Availability of verifiable direct statements;
• Broad media coverage enabling reconstruction of the context; and
• Availability of academic literature useful for interpreting the case.

Under these criteria, the selected examples are not intended to exhaustively represent Trump’s entire communicative universe, but rather to illustrate a recurring and analytically identifiable pattern.

From this perspective, primary sources include social media posts, public interventions, and statements reported by the media; secondary sources consist of academic works and journalistic analyses used to contextualize and interpret these materials. This distinction allows for a clearer separation between the empirical and interpretative levels, addressing one of the main methodological validity requirements of the study.

The corpus comprises primary and secondary materials:

• This study focuses on statements and speeches delivered by Donald Trump between 2016 and 2025, specifically in the context of political crises or media scandals.
• The data set includes social media posts, with Twitter included until 2021 and Truth Social from 2022.
• Media coverage was garnered from major national and international news outlets, including NBC News, The New York Times, The Guardian, and BBC News, among others.
• Academic documentation and specialized essays that focus on the former president’s communication strategies (Ott, 2017; Mercieca, 2020; Gregory, 2020).

3.2. Analysis Techniques

A qualitative inductive analysis was employed, which was divided into three phases:

• The identification of discursive patterns linked to the tactics of denying, diverting, and discrediting.
• A thematic coding approach was employed to analyze relevant excerpts, with examples of systematic denial, deflection of responsibility, and delegitimization of the messenger being categorized.
• The interpretation of neurocommunication is approached through the application of concepts of cognitive biases (Kahneman, 2011; Nickerson, 1998), affective cognition (Marcus et al., 2000), and psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). This approach seeks to elucidate the impact of these strategies on electoral perception and loyalty.

3.3. Selection Criteria

The cases selected for analysis were chosen based on their media and political relevance, including the alleged bribery of Stormy Daniels, the call to Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, and the Epstein case. These episodes are notable for their high level of public scrutiny, and they serve to illustrate Trump’s playbook with remarkable clarity and thoroughness.

3.4. Validity and Reliability

In order to ensure the reliability of the results, source triangulation was employed, whereby original statements, press coverage, and academic literature were compared. Priority was also given to the use of established media outlets and peer-reviewed scientific publications, allowing the findings to be based on verifiable evidence.

The methodology employed in this study enables the analysis of Trump’s discursive tactics, facilitating an exploration of their effectiveness and limitations from a neurocommunicational standpoint. This approach offers an interdisciplinary perspective on contemporary political communication, contributing to the broader field of research in this area (Barrientos-Báez et al., 2025).

4. Neurocommunication and Persuasion in Donald Trump’s Discourse

The analysis of Donald Trump’s political discourse necessitates an interdisciplinary approach that synthesizes theories of political communication, populism, digital rhetoric and neurocommunication (Caruncho, 2025).

The prevailing nature of contemporary political communication is characterized by the centrality of leadership and sensationalism in the media (Mazzoleni, 2010). In the context of populisms, discourse is characterized by the establishment of a homogeneous populace in opposition to an elite perceived to be corrupt (Laclau, 2005; Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017). Trump’s discourse, characterized by its antagonistic portrayal of the “American people” as opposed to the “system” (comprising media, institutions and opponents), serves to perpetuate the dichotomy of friend and enemy (Díaz Guisasola, 2021).

As Pettypiece (2019) and Mercieca (2020) have demonstrated, Trump has systematized a discursive playbook based on three recurring tactics:

• Deny: categorical rejection of accusations and scandals, appealing to the “witch hunt” narrative.
• Divert: attention is redirected to external or internal enemies (media, Democrats, deep state).
• Discredit: the credibility of journalists, judges, political rivals or institutions is under attack.

This communicative triangle responds to what Ott (2017) calls “politics of degradation,” where language seeks to erode the legitimacy of adversaries.

4.1. Digital Rhetoric and Polarization

The digital environment has served to extend the reach of populist discourse. As Gregory (2020) has demonstrated, Trump has exploited digital rhetoric through the use of Twitter and Truth Social in order to establish immediate interpretive frameworks, epithets and emotional narratives. This phenomenon is associated with the so-called “post-truth” era (McIntyre, 2018), in which emotional persuasion prevails over objective evidence. This phenomenon is fueled by the widespread ability to create false evidence to support any desired postulate (Ballesteros-Aguayo & Ruiz del Olmo, 2024; Montero Corrales, 2025). Campaigning on social media is no longer a novel phenomenon; rather, it has become an integral component of the broader landscape of political communication (De Sola Pueyo & Pascual Santisteve, 2024; Marín Albaladejo & Navarro-Beltrá, 2024).

4.2. Neurocommunication and Political Persuasion

From a neurocommunication perspective, it has been demonstrated that Trump’s discourse taps into basic emotional drivers such as fear, anger, and hope, thereby activating instinctive responses in the electorate (Morin, 2011). The “hot cognition” theory (Marcus et al., 2000) posits that emotions guide political perception, thereby elucidating the efficacy of the Trumpist narrative in engaging his supporters.

In this context, the repetition of simple messages, the use of emotional labels such as “fake news,” “crooked,” and “radical,” and the appeal to external threats (migration, terrorism, and conspiracies) act as drivers of neurological reactions that reinforce electoral loyalty (Lakoff, 2016). Barrientos-Báez et al. (2024) observe that the president’s discourse once again focuses on purely emotional aspects, leaving little or no room for intellectual argumentation. For instance, the politician’s electoral promise to construct a border wall with Mexico to curb immigration can be cited as an illustrative example. In the discourse surrounding the proposed wall, each argument against it was either refuted within a Manichean logic of detachment from otherness (“If the wall is expensive, we will make Mexico pay for it”) or by redefining the concept of the wall (“It doesn’t matter that it’s useless because most illegal immigrants enter legally by plane and let their visas expire. The wall is no longer there to stop immigration; it’s a symbol”) (Rivera, 2022; Alonso, 2025).

This perspective aligns with the insights offered by Juan Manuel García (Mestres, 2025) on the functioning of the human brain, emphasizing its proclivity towards cognitive satisfaction derived from the sense of intellectual validation rather than towards the pursuit of happiness. In reality, this phenomenon has been extensively researched within the field of psychology. Rather than seeking happiness or openness to others, the human mind has a natural tendency to confirm and defend its existing beliefs. This tendency can, however, result in a limitation of the possibility of understanding different perspectives. This phenomenon is attributed to the concept of confirmation bias, whereby individuals selectively process information that aligns with their preconceived notions, while disregarding information that challenges these beliefs. This selective processing leads to a sense of emotional gratification, which is believed to be rooted in the human desire for control, security, and self-esteem (CogniFit, 2025).

Consequently, the populist style of Trump and analogous figures, such as the Argentine Javier Milei (Del Pino Díaz, 2024), characterized by a blend of business and media-polemical backgrounds, is characterized in general terms by a communication strategy that emphasizes attack, insult, provocation and Manichaeism, where emotion and belonging supersede actual proposals and content (Casquete, 2023).

If the infamous Dr. Goebbels is to be credited with the statement that every speech should be written to be understood “by the lowest IQ in the room” (Doob, 1950), this was undoubtedly for this reason. Bravo Rivas et al. (2025) determined that there is a measurable relationship between this IQ and the ability to resist social pressure. As demonstrated in the works of Nicasio Varea et al. (2023), Dávila Piñón et al. (2024), and Sánchez et al. (2024), this phenomenon can be attributed to a general absence of information literacy.

4.3. Deny: The Systematic Refutation

Categorical denial constitutes the primary defense mechanism employed by Trump in the face of any potential scandal, regardless of its originating context or perceived magnitude. During the 2016 campaign and his first term in office, Trump systematically downplayed or denied irregularities, including Russian interference and alleged financial crimes. Given the prevailing circumstances, including ongoing legal proceedings such as the alleged bribery of Stormy Daniels and the electoral intervention in Georgia, where Trump is reported to have requested that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “get 11,780 votes” to overturn the election result (Amy et al., 2021), it is evident that the pattern under scrutiny persists.

In each instance, the denial is characterized by a rejection of any substantive involvement or relationship, with the accusations being labelled as a “witch hunt.” As Ott (2017) has demonstrated, this resource fulfils a dual function, serving both a defensive purpose and reinforcing the narrative of political persecution (‘witch hunt’) in a manner that contributes to the construction of victimization arguments against a supposedly ‘corrupt system’. From a communications perspective, the objective is to saturate the media agenda with denials that redirect the conversation towards favorable topics.

Denial, therefore, should not be read merely as a punctual response to an accusation, but as a technique for managing political damage that is compatible with a populist logic of permanent antagonism. When the accusation is reframed as an illegitimate attack, the content of the allegation loses centrality, and the conflict shifts toward the supposed bad faith of the accuser, thereby reinforcing internal group cohesion (van Dijk, 1998; Moffitt, 2016).

A recent case exemplifies this approach. In the aftermath of the Epstein scandal and the subsequent revelation of Trump’s potential connections, the president disseminated a statement on Truth Social. In this statement, he accused his political rivals of fabricating “false” cases and labelled the Epstein case a hoax. Moreover, he criticized his followers for “falling into the trap” (Trump, 2025). This example underscores his endeavor to repudiate previously established connections with Epstein, while concurrently attributing responsibility to the Democrats, thereby articulating the second discursive pillar.

From a neurocommunication perspective, systematic denial fulfils a political and media function, whilst also activating emotional and cognitive mechanisms that are deeply rooted in the human brain. As demonstrated in the research conducted by Marcus et al. (2000) on the subject of “affective cognition”, in circumstances involving political uncertainty, individuals have a propensity to process information in a manner that is more influenced by emotions than by reason. In this sense, Trump’s categorical denial directly appeals to cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957): by repeatedly denying scandals and labeling them as “witch hunts,” he reduces his followers’ discomfort between what they observe in the media and the image of an incorruptible leader they wish to preserve. Furthermore, the emotional labelling of accusations as either ‘fake’ or ‘hoax’ is a neurolinguistic driver, thereby reinforcing cognitive shortcuts (Kahneman, 2011). This enables the audience to reject adverse information without having to engage in exhaustive critical processing. Consequently, denial transcends its role as a mere defensive rhetorical device, metamorphosing into a neurocommunicational persuasion strategy that fosters cohesive identity among its adherents. This strategy serves to shield his supporters from potentially dissonant narratives emanating from external sources, such as the media, political rivals, or institutional entities. This phenomenon is increasingly observed not only in analog political discourse but also in the general digital debate (Alcolea Parra et al., 2024).

4.4. Divert or Blame: Redefining the Common Enemy

Secondly, Trump employs a tactic of deflection, diverting attention and attributing blame to others. Within the paradigm of populist politics, Mercieca (2020) posits that the discursive construction of conspiracies or external threats serves to perpetuate an adversarial framework, wherein criticism emanates from a delegitimized “other.”

The tactic of deflection does not consist merely in changing the subject, but in reordering the moral map of the conflict. When Trump shifts responsibility onto Democrats, the media, bureaucrats, or actors associated with the so-called “deep state,” he transforms a specific accusation into yet another episode of persecution against the group he claims to represent.

In this way, the scandal ceases to be evaluated on the basis of its factual content and instead comes to be interpreted as further evidence of the system’s hostility toward the leader and his political community (van Dijk, 2015; Moffitt, 2016).

Indeed, the Trump administration has responded to various scandals by allocating responsibility in two main directions:

• Blaming classic adversaries: Democrats, public figures (Clinton, Obama, etc.), the press, or foreign powers.
• Blaming the State apparatus itself (Congress, courts, etc.) or the “corrupt” members of the system (deep state).

This practice can be considered a prime example of the well-known political phenomenon of “whataboutism” (Kulin, 2024), though taken to the extreme and exaggerated.

From a neurocommunication perspective, the strategy of diverting attention towards an ‘external enemy’ exploits mechanisms of selective attention and confirmation bias, thereby activating cognitive processes that render individuals prone to accept explanations that serve to reinforce their prior beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). By resorting to whataboutism, Trump stimulates the availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) to the extent that he constantly reminds his followers of negative examples of political adversaries or institutions that reinforce the framework of corruption and persecution. This discursive redirection serves to reduce the cognitive burden of evaluating the original accusation, replacing it with a simpler and more emotionally rewarding narrative: “the others are worse”. This approach enables deflection to fulfil two functions. Firstly, it serves to delegitimize the rival, which is a political objective. Secondly, it functions as a neurocommunicational anchor that guides the interpretation of reality through emotions such as anger and distrust (Tasente, 2025). In doing so, it preserves the group cohesion of the Trumpist potential voters.

4.5. Discredit: Attacking the Messenger

The third dimension of discourse consists of discrediting those who oppose its narrative (Hernández-Santaolalla et al., 2024). Personal delegitimization is the most common procedure, as illustrated by the following examples:

• Press: In 2018, during a press conference in the United Kingdom, Trump degraded CNN (typically being on the critical side) by labelling them as purveyors of “fake news”, while simultaneously elevating Fox News as “a real outlet” (Schwartz, 2018). Since that time, the attacks have expanded to encompass outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, Politico, ABC, CBS, and others.
• Investigators, prosecutors and courts: In the period between 2021 and 2024, Trump repeatedly asserted that he was the victim of a “political persecution” and a “witch hunt” (Wiseman, 2023). This assertion was made in response to various investigations into classified documents, alleged attempts at electoral interference, and bribery.
• Public figures and political opponents: Trump frequently uses derogatory nicknames to refer to opponents and critics, such as “Sleepy Joe” or “Crooked Joe” for Joe Biden, and labels Democrats and, occasionally, Republican that are critical as “radicals,” “communists,” and “lunatics,” as in the case of Dick Cheney (Wikipedia Contributors, 2024; Kapur, 2023; Miller, 2024).

The discrediting of the messenger occupies a central place in this process because it weakens in advance the legitimacy of any corrective source. When the press, the courts, the public administration, or even technical experts are portrayed as corrupt, biased, or unpatriotic actors, the capacity of these institutions to establish a shared frame of reality is diminished.

In communicative terms, this operation does not necessarily eliminate adverse evidence, but it does erode the authority of those who could render it politically damaging (Waisbord, 2018; van Dijk, 2015).

In the context of neurocommunication, the practice of discrediting the messenger is predicated on the processes of negativity bias and emotional framing. Direct attacks on journalists, judges, or political rivals have been shown to activate brain regions associated with threat and defense responses (amygdala), thereby facilitating a visceral identification with the leader who denounces a supposed common enemy (Morin, 2011). Labelling the press as “fake news” or bestowing derogatory nicknames upon adversaries are examples of Trump’s use of “linguistic framing”, a concept coined by Lakoff (2016). This term refers to the use of simple, emotionally charged, and memorable terms that serve to reconfigure the perception of reality in favor of the sender. This linguistic phenomenon functions as a cognitive shortcut, whereby the intricacies of political discourse are distilled into binary oppositions (good/bad, real/fake), thereby fostering group cohesion and perpetuating distrust towards alternative sources of information. Furthermore, such repetition has been shown to activate implicit memory and enhance the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968), thereby increasing the familiarity and acceptance of the discursive frameworks imposed by the leader. Consequently, the delegitimization of the messenger not only erodes the credibility of the opposition but also strengthens a neurocommunicational circuit based on emotion, repetition, and identity loyalty. This phenomenon has also been observed in other cases, such as that of anti-vaccine groups and the way in which they evolve into a confrontation with those who believe in vaccines (Salazar Martínez et al., 2020; Arce García et al., 2023).

4.6. The Result: Parallel Realities

As posited by Rachel L. Ewing in her 2024 article for The Guardian, the observable result of these discursive strategies is the creation of an “alternative reality” which effectively fragments the audience. For a significant proportion of the electorate, Trump is perceived as the only solution to national problems, while for others, he is viewed as a threat to democracy, associated with corruption and authoritarianism.

This dynamic can be understood as a cumulative effect of discursive polarization, populist performance, and a crisis of epistemic authority. In other words, the Trumpist “playbook” does not merely seek to win a specific controversy, but also to weaken the shared foundations upon which any public controversy can be resolved (Moffitt, 2016; Waisbord, 2018).

This polarization has the effect of rendering even economic data a potential source of dispute: As demonstrated in the report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2025), the number of jobs generated in July was 73,000, falling short of initial expectations. Furthermore, the data pertaining to May and June underwent a downward revision, with the figures being adjusted from 139,000 to 19,000 jobs and from 147,000 to 14,000 jobs, respectively. This represented a revision and reduction of 253,000 jobs, resulting in the lowest number of jobs since December 2020 during the period of the pandemic that resulted in the loss of millions of jobs.

It has been reported that Trump has accused the Bureau of Labor Statistics of “fabricating the data” against him (Collinson, 2025). The accusation has been attributed to Commissioner Ericka McEntarfer, an official appointed by Joe Biden in 2022 who received the support of 86 senators, compared to eight votes against her, in her Senate confirmation. In a press conference held in the Oval Office, the President cited Stephen Moore, an economist from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative organization with which the President is aligned), to demonstrate that the economy is performing better than that of his predecessor, Joe Biden (Broadwater, 2025). The objective of this initiative is to ensure that “he has the real data against the politicized State office”, thereby absolving himself of blame for a potential economic downturn and subsequent decline in the economy resulting from his economic policies. However, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to delegitimize the official data in this specific case. Nevertheless, his strategy has not yielded the desired results in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

5. The Particularity of the Epstein Case: The Limits of Rhetoric

Among the cases reviewed, the Jeffrey Epstein case is particularly useful for assessing the limits of the strategy under analysis. Unlike other controversies in which partisan polarization allows for a rapid reconfiguration of public debate, in this instance, the sensitivity of the topic, the centrality of demands for transparency, and the expectation of access to official information complicate the effectiveness of the usual tools of denial, deflection, and discrediting.

The Jeffrey Epstein case has been identified as a critical juncture for Donald Trump and his communications strategy, thereby unveiling the inherent limitations of his approach. In contradistinction to other such scandals, the social expectation for justice and transparency transcends ideological polarization, encompassing sensitive issues within American society, including sexual abuse, especially of minors; elite corruption; and institutional complicity.

It is important to note that the pressure to release all the documents has come primarily from, and has been fueled for at least a decade by, the media and voices of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, from Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN to digital voices such as Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, and Tucker Carlson (Keith et al., 2025). Confronted with criticism regarding the administration’s management of the situation, particularly from the Department of Justice and the FBI, Trump has adopted his customary approach: to deny, deflect, and discredit. However, this approach has been criticized for its ability to generate more problems than solutions, as it is able to transcend partisan divides, as previously mentioned.

The efficacy of the denial tactic is waning, as he has been compelled to deny previously undisclosed facts and relationships. Initially, he attempted to refute the claim of a close friendship, but subsequent evidence in the form of images, reports, and statements from the 1990s and early 2000s has emerged, contradicting his initial assertion. In an attempt to refute the claim that he had informed him that his name appeared in documents related to the case (which, it should be noted, do not necessarily imply the commission of a crime), he attempted to deny the accusation. However, this assertion was subsequently discredited by internal FBI sources (Smith, 2025). The present study explores the factors that have rendered the narrative under scrutiny unfeasible. The Department of Justice’s assertion that no “list” or other material is to be made public (Tucker & Richer, 2025) has been particularly impactful, despite the promises made by associates of the subject to disclose information regarding a “deep state” conspiracy.

Conversely, despite numerous endeavors, he has been unsuccessful in diverting the discourse. As Cameron (2025) details in The New York Times, “Trump has endeavored to attack, divert, and deny a course of action through the scandal, with limited success.” The president has characterized the case as “irrelevant,” yet his supporters have expressed disapproval, as evidenced by comments on Truth Social, his social media platform. He has attempted to shift the focus to his recently approved budget legislation, which has met with limited success. Additionally, he has sought to label former President Barack Obama as a “traitor” for allegedly fabricating intelligence regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election (Associated Press & NBC Chicago Staff, 2025).

Consequently, he has encountered significant challenges in discrediting his critics. The president has attempted to attribute responsibility to the Democrats for the alleged fabrication of the case, and has denounced his supporters as lacking intelligence for falling prey to his alleged “trap” (Trump, 2025). This has resulted in an unparalleled schism within his potential voters, giving rise to expressions of disappointment and accusations of hypocrisy from conservative spokespeople and MAGA voters. This profound erosion has manifested itself in various forms (Zurcher, 2025):

• Criticism from former allies and figures in the MAGA movement who are calling for more honesty.
• “Silences” and contradictions in official speeches have led to the emergence of theories that suggest the possibility of a cover-up.
• Proliferation of content on social networks, such as X, Truth Social, and Telegram. In this context, the conventional trust placed in the leader’s word has been supplanted by a demand for substantiated evidence and tangible actions.

The president’s conventional approach, rather than mitigating the crisis, has led to the exacerbation of the perception of concealment and the promotion of a sense of impunity within the political system (NBC News, 2025). The initial indications suggest the emergence of a potential boomerang effect.

5.1. The Boomerang Effect

The boomerang effect is predicated on the principle of reciprocal causation. When applied to the case of Trump, his entire narrative of distrusting the state, delegitimizing institutions, attacking the press, and insulting his rivals is coming back to haunt him (Associated Press & NBC Chicago Staff, 2025). This phenomenon is typically attributed to specific situations, as outlined by Alonso (2025):

• The saturation of polarizing discourse has been demonstrated to lose its capacity to influence public sentiment on issues where widespread outrage is prevalent, such as justice, childhood, and the right to information.)
• The leader’s own words contain verifiable contradictions, such as promises to open up, yet a refusal to share information.)
• The advent of social media and data journalism has engendered a greater collective scrutiny, whereby statements can be compared in real time, and inconsistencies made visible.

The Epstein case makes it possible to observe a potential boundary condition of this discursive repertoire. While in other episodes partisan polarization facilitates selective adherence to narratives of persecution or cover-up, here a different tension emerges: the very political community that has been mobilized for years through anti-establishment suspicion demands evidence, transparency, and consistency. In other words, the rhetoric that for years capitalized on institutional distrust can become vulnerable when that same distrust is directed back at the leadership that originally fostered it (Waisbord, 2018; Moffitt, 2016).

This addresses a fundamental question: how can the public trust the government and justice system that they have been led to believe is corrupt? This mistrust has been further exacerbated by the rhetoric of Trump and his associates, a factor that has now come back to haunt them (Zurcher, 2025). Consequently, the president’s discursive triad, which had previously functioned as an impenetrable shield, becomes a wellspring of internal vulnerability and disunity.

From a neurocommunication perspective, the boomerang effect is a consequence of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). When an audience perceives its freedom of judgment as manipulated or limited, cognitive resistance develops, provoking an opposite effect. In Trump’s case, the saturation of polarizing discourse and the insistence on attacking institutions generate cognitive fatigue, wherein excessive reiteration diminishes persuasive effectiveness (Lang, 2006). Similarly, verifiable contradictions activate cognitive dissonance processes (Festinger, 1957), which can erode trust, even among audiences predisposed to supporting the leader. Finally, digital amplification through social media and data journalism creates an environment of hyperexposure, in which inconsistencies are detected in real time, further intensifying the loss of credibility. In neurocommunication terms, the boomerang effect occurs when the emotional drivers that unite people (e.g., fear, anger, and group identity) become drivers of skepticism and disaffection. This transforms the discursive triad into a factor of political vulnerability.

5.2. Communicative Impact and Political Repercussion

The immediate impact of the Epstein case is the erosion of trust in the government, both in the eyes of the public and within the voting bloc on which Trump based his return to the presidency. Excessive delegitimization tactics can lead to cynicism and political withdrawal (Borja-Orozco, 2024), creating an unprecedented scenario in American populist dynamics. These tactics can also have other effects, such as:

• Increased skepticism about fake news and “witch hunts,” which were previously considered effective resources.
• Fractured membership and the emergence of alternative leadership within the conservative wing have been driven by demands for more substantive responses.
• Negative influence on the electoral cycle, with political adversaries capitalizing on the credibility crisis to undermine the MAGA movement’s image of strength and “authenticity.”

At the media level, reference media outlets have strengthened their fact-checking processes to promote contrast and verification for a more discerning audience.

This scenario suggests that the effectiveness of the Trumpist “playbook” depends on specific conditions: intense polarization, strong charismatic authority, and the ability to construct credible external enemies. When these conditions weaken, the combination of denial, deflection, and discrediting may cease to produce cohesion and may instead begin to erode the leadership’s own authority (Mercieca, 2020; Moffitt, 2016; Waisbord, 2018).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

The analysis conducted suggests that the strategy of denial, deflection, and discrediting has been a central tool in Donald Trump’s political communication and that its effectiveness depends largely on contexts of high polarization, strong group identification, and low public penalty for contradiction.

Upon completing the study, it was determined that although the strategy of denial, deflection, and discreditation is practical and functional, it reveals certain structural limitations in the face of highly sensitive scandals and a broad consensus on the need for transparency and justice.

Rather than achieving its traditional goal of mobilizing and consolidating support, the rhetoric of polarization and victimhood contributes to demobilization, disappointment, and internal disputes that threaten the legitimacy of Trump’s leadership. As Mercieca (2020) points out, the future of “Trumpism” depends on its ability to adapt to contexts where its usual narrative is insufficient to contain the social dynamics at play.

Rather than fully invalidating the Trumpist rhetorical repertoire, this finding calls for a more nuanced understanding of its scope. Future research should expand the corpus, systematize the units of analysis in greater detail, and compare this pattern with other contemporary populist leaders in order to determine under what conditions the discursive triad remains effective and when it produces effects of fatigue or backlash.

This outcome invites the research community and the public to reflect on the scope and limits of rhetorical populism, especially in the face of demands for transparency and justice that transcend old partisan lines. Thus, should the discourse be rethought in times of crisis?

In this regard, the communication strategy is not new but rather reflects a discursive tactic used in the Roman Senate to satisfy and maintain the support of ideological loyalists as a stable source of power.

An analysis of Donald J. Trump’s discursive strategies confirms that denial, deflection, and discrediting have consistently served as key tactics throughout his political career. Previous research (Ott, 2017; Mercieca, 2020; Pérez-Curiel et al., 2021) has widely documented these strategies and proven their effectiveness in scenarios of political polarization, where emotion prevails over rationality and cognitive biases reinforce the loyalty of potential voters.

Nevertheless, the study reveals that this communicative repertoire has structural limitations when confronted with crises involving strong moral charges and broad consensus, such as the Epstein case. In these contexts, the discursive triad ceases operating as a rhetorical shield, becoming a vulnerability factor as the insistence on denial, deflection, and discrediting fuels internal contradictions, erodes credibility, and generates a boomerang effect (Brehm, 1966; Festinger, 1957; Lang, 2006).

From a neurocommunication perspective, the results suggest that repeatedly using simplifying labels (e.g., “fake news,” “witch hunts”) and emotional narratives can activate cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the availability heuristic (Nickerson, 1998; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Yet, when these mechanisms become saturated or they are proven false, they transform into drivers of skepticism and disaffection. Consequently, the strategy that previously united the audience ends up fragmenting it, weakening the shared political identity and undermining the leadership.

From a political perspective, this finding implies that rhetorical populism is not inherently effective; rather, its effectiveness hinges on a balance between emotional mobilization and perceived credibility. When this balance is disrupted, the discourse loses its seductive power, opening the door to alternative leadership within the same ideological group. This has already been observed within the MAGA movement.

Doob’s (1950) work suggests that there is a multiplier effect when addressing the public segments most susceptible to emotional arguments. These arguments require less intellectual exercise to be accepted. These segments presumably comprise a larger proportion of the public than individuals with higher IQs. They are easier to reach and, once reached, exert an influence on the rest of the public whose effectiveness decreases according to the individuals’ intellectual level. Ultimately, the minority that cannot be won over with emotional arguments is isolated, but the numerical gain in votes is clear.

The case under analysis provides evidence that, despite its success in previous periods, Trump’s discursive populism faces increasing difficulties in scenarios where the demand for transparency and justice transcends partisan divide. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the academic discussion about the scope of political communication based on emotions and delegitimization, as well as the neurolinguistic and cognitive limits of populist persuasion. Ultimately, the study suggests that contemporary democracies retain collective resilience, calling into question the effectiveness of narratives based on fear, anger, or victimization.