Genocidal political communication: the case of the U.S. presidential administration at the start of Donald Trump’s second term

Abstract

This article conceptualizes and empirically examines genocidal political communication as a distinct and highly destructive form of political discourse that functions to initiate, justify, legitimize, and normalize mass violence, territorial aggression, and systemic violations of human rights. Relying exclusively on the analysis of public statements, live speeches, and communicative practices of the U.S. presidential administration at the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term, the study develops an original analytical framework for identifying genocidal political communication and applies it to the context of the Russia–Ukraine war. Genocidal political communication is defined as a structured, intentional, and repetitive use of language that produces public consent for violence by erasing responsibility, dehumanizing the victim, and reframing aggression as pragmatism or inevitability. The article demonstrates that key rhetorical mechanisms include the moral equalization of aggressor and victim, strategic silence and disinformation, appeals to existential fear (particularly nuclear escalation), transactional framing of human suffering, and the instrumentalization of peace rhetoric to legitimize territorial conquest. Through detailed discourse analysis, the study shows how the examined communication normalizes Russian aggression, shifts blame onto Ukraine, delegitimizes Ukrainian sovereignty and resistance, and reframes genocide-related practices as matters of negotiation, economic interest, or geopolitical realism. The findings underscore that such communication does not merely reflect political positions but actively shapes an alternative political reality in which mass violence becomes acceptable and accountability is systematically undermined. The article argues that recognizing genocidal political communication as a communicative technology of power is essential for early warning, normative resistance, and the prevention of further escalation of mass atrocities in international politics.