LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Jennifer Mercieca

January 22nd, 2025

The 2024 Elections: In his second inaugural address, Donald Trump spoke as a dictator, not as a president

3 comments | 26 shares

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

Jennifer Mercieca

January 22nd, 2025

The 2024 Elections: In his second inaugural address, Donald Trump spoke as a dictator, not as a president

3 comments | 26 shares

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

Following his swearing-in as the 47th President of the United States on January 20th, President Trump delivered his second inaugural address. For Jennifer Mercieca, as an unmitigated declaration of power, Trump’s address was unlike any that had come before it. She writes that the inaugural was a departure from a traditional celebration of American democracy to a war speech where Trump claimed a mandate from God and the people to enact his agenda and to redefine what it means to be an American.

  • This article is part of ‘The 2024 Elections’ series curated by Peter Finn (Kingston University). Ahead of the 2024 election, this series is exploring US elections at the state and national level. If you are interested in contributing to the series, contact Peter Finn (p.finn@kingston.ac.uk).

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump became just the second president in American history—following Grover Cleveland—to deliver two non-consecutive Inaugural Addresses. It was an unusual speech, in more ways than one. Trump’s speech was unusual because it was an unmitigated declaration of power unlike any previous Inaugural Address in American history. Trump had campaigned for president with threats that he would use the awesome powers of the office to seek political “retribution” and promised to be a “dictator on day one.” Did Trump give the speech of a president or—as he had promised—did he give the speech of a dictator? And, if he gave a speech of a dictator, then how did he assert dictatorial power?

The Inaugural Address is about the new president’s values

Presidents typically use their Inaugural Address to articulate their view of government and American values. As scholars Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson have explained, Inaugural Addresses define the nation, invoke the values that guide it, set presidential expectations, and assure us that the new president understands the “requirements and limitations” of the office.

That last bit is essential to the nation’s free government—a president is not a King, a tyrant, or an autocrat. As the nation’s Founders designed it the American presidency is a fixed-term office with carefully delimited powers, but it’s also the most powerful political position in the world. With that in mind, America’s previous presidents took pains to assure the nation “that they recognize and respect constitutional limits on executive authority.”

Campbell and Jamieson explain that presidents typically do three things to allay the nation’s fears of tyrannical power: they affirm the balance of power between the co-equal branches of government, they claim a mandate from the people to show that they merely intend to represent the people’s will, and they show evidence of humility by noting the difficulty of the position, accepting the burdens of the office, and praying for God to protect and care for the nation. Each of these rhetorical moves signals that the new president accepts both awesome and limited powers—a difficult balance.

Trump’s speech differed from previous presidents who used their Inaugural Address to carefully assert and limit their new power. Like others have done, Trump claimed a mandate from the people, but he did not affirm the balance of power, nor did he show evidence of humility.

A war speech

Trump made three moves in his speech that can be understood as authorizing his assumption of dictatorial powers: first, he claimed that the nation is in crisis and said the he would use his powers under the National Emergencies Act and the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts to declare a “national emergency at our southern border.”

He also used the language of warfare to mark the day, stating “for American citizens, January 20th, 2025, is Liberation Day” and promising “as we liberate our nation, we will lead it to new heights of victory and success.”

Trump declared a national crisis, declared a national emergency, and assured the public that his election had liberated the nation and its people, which increased both his rhetorical and his actual power. The combination of these three moves shifted the rhetorical situation from a traditional celebration of American democracy and the rule of law to a war speech. In wartime presidents have much more power than during times of peace.

A mandate from God and the people

Second, Trump claimed that his victory represented a mandate to power. Trump’s speech was unusual because it did not acknowledge the constitutional limitations on the presidency. In fact, Trump dared to do what no president had done before: he claimed a mandate from God and the people to enact his agenda.

Other presidents have declared a mandate in their Inaugural Addresses, of course. In fact, Cleveland’s 1893 Second Inaugural begins by proclaiming “In obedience of the mandate of my countrymen I am about to dedicate myself to their service under the sanction of a solemn oath.” Typically, presidents like Cleveland have used the “mandate” language to help them to negotiate the difficult conundrum of exercising power as an effective leader but not appearing to exercise too much power as a tyrant. Mandate rhetoric is often part of what limits presidential power, even as it authorizes it.

Trump claimed that his “recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse a horrible betrayal” and claimed that his “victory showed the entire nation is rapidly unifying behind our agenda.” Trump used the “public mandate” to enable his power and declare unity, but not to limit his power.

Previous presidents have tended to end their speeches by asking for God to take care of the nation. So doing demonstrates that “presidents subordinate themselves to a higher power” according to Campbell and Jamieson. Trump did this at the end of his speech, but before that he invoked God as part of his mandate for power. “Just a few months ago,” Trump recalled, “in a beautiful Pennsylvania field, an assassin’s bullet ripped through my ear. But I felt then and believe even more so now that my life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again.”

Trump didn’t place the nation under God’s care to limit his power—as previous presidents have done—but to enlarge it. No previous president in American history has claimed that he was saved by God to enact his political agenda. Invoking the power of the unified people and God gives Trump an awesome and unquestionable power—whoever defies Trump is at risk of defying the people and God. It’s impossible to argue against Trump when he claims the power of God is behind his policies.

President Trump’s Trip to Asia” (Public Domain) by The Trump White House Archived

Redefining reality and America

Third, he vowed to use his new power to define reality and remake the nation. He explicitly used the speech to claim unusual and awesome powers: the power to name places like mountains and bodies of water and the power to define gender. “We are going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America,” Trump declared,” and we will restore the name of a great president, William McKinley, to Mount McKinley, where it should be and where it belongs.” The power to name mountains and bodies of water is the power to define reality, to erase maps (and perhaps redraw national boundaries)—such power exceeds the limited Constitutional powers of a president.

Trump also demonstrated his power to define reality by declaring, “it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.” Though science has found evidence of transgenderism in animals, Trump would use his power to overrule nature—erasing transgenderism entirely.

Speaking as a dictator

Taken together, Trump’s three moves: declaring an emergency through war rhetoric, invoking a mandate to power from the public and God, and demonstrating the awesome power to define reality and remake the nation shows us that Trump—at least rhetorically—spoke as a dictator, not as a president. Just as he had told us he would do.

Trump followed his Inaugural Address by signing 26 Executive Orders—more than any previous president signed on their first day in office. One of his Executive Orders seeks to rewrite the 14th Amendment of the Constitution—a direct violation of his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“It is my hope,” said Trump, “that our recent presidential election will be remembered as the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” His Inaugural Address shows how he has claimed power, whether the consequences of that power will be “great” remains to be seen.


About the author

Jennifer Mercieca

Dr. Jennifer Mercieca is a Professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at Texas A&M University. Dr. Mercieca’s research focuses on the relationship between democracy and our nation’s communication practices.

Posted In: Democracy and culture | Trump's second term

3 Comments

LSE Review of Books Visit our sister blog: British Politics and Policy at LSE

RSS Latest LSE Events podcasts