Just for funsies, I asked ChatGPT, Claude, and Google Gemini this question: If you didn't know anything about America politics, what would you notice about this state of the union speech?
Here's what ChatGPT said:
1. It’s intensely self-centered
The speech is heavily built around “I” language:
-
“I secured…”
-
“I ended…”
-
“I deployed…”
-
“I negotiated…”
-
“I rebuilt…”
-
“I designated…”
-
“I will…”
Even major national actions are framed as personal accomplishments. The presidency is presented less as an office and more as a singular force of will. The country’s success is rhetorically fused with one person.
2. It relies on extremes
Almost everything is described in superlatives:
-
“biggest in history”
-
“strongest ever”
-
“lowest ever recorded”
-
“colossal victory”
-
“no one has ever seen”
-
“never happened before”
There’s very little moderation in tone. The language lives at the edges — worst ever, best ever, total disaster, total success.
3. It mixes ceremony with rally energy
A State of the Union is traditionally institutional and formal. This one often feels like a campaign rally:
-
Direct attacks on opponents in the room
-
Mocking asides
-
“You should be ashamed”
-
“They’re crazy”
-
Audience call-and-response moments
-
Commentary about who is or isn’t standing
It moves in and out of formal governance and performance.
4. It blurs storytelling and policy
The speech frequently shifts from:
-
Statistics →
-
To emotional personal stories →
-
To awards ceremonies →
-
To applause lines →
-
Back to policy.
It reads less like a linear policy address and more like a sequence of dramatic vignettes designed to produce emotional peaks.
5. It uses repetition heavily
Phrases are repeated for rhythm and emphasis:
-
“Winning. Winning big.”
-
“We’re not going back.”
-
“Think of it.”
-
“Nobody can believe it.”
-
“You should be ashamed.”
Repetition substitutes for detailed explanation. It builds mood more than argument.
6. It creates sharp moral contrasts
There’s a consistent framing of:
-
Good vs evil
-
Patriots vs corrupt elites
-
Heroes vs criminals
-
“Us” vs “Them”
Opposition isn’t described as mistaken — it’s described as destructive, corrupt, crazy, cheating, dangerous.
That sharp moral binary is a defining rhetorical feature.
7. It elevates spectacle
Medals presented.
Athletes honored.
Live surprises.
Standing ovations.
Spontaneous commentary.
Ad-libs.
Side jokes.
The speech feels almost like a live televised event designed for emotional peaks rather than a legislative briefing.
8. It centers nationalism and destiny
The closing section shifts into mythic language:
-
Providence
-
Destiny
-
Golden Age
-
Pinnacle of civilization
-
“When God needs a nation…”
The nation is portrayed not just as strong, but uniquely chosen and historically unmatched.
9. It treats disagreement as illegitimate
Rather than “we differ,” the tone often implies:
-
Disagreement = corruption
-
Opposition = cheating
-
Policy disagreement = betrayal
That’s rhetorically powerful but structurally polarizing.
10. It’s highly performative
The speech frequently comments on itself:
-
“Did she stand?”
-
“Nobody believes me.”
-
“I didn’t name it.”
-
“They don’t like to hear that.”
There’s constant awareness of the room, the cameras, and the reaction. It’s self-aware theater.
In Summary (without political knowledge)
If I stripped away all context, I would say:
-
It’s triumphalist.
-
It’s personal rather than institutional.
-
It’s emotionally charged rather than technocratic.
-
It uses spectacle and story more than procedural detail.
-
It frames the nation as entering a “golden age.”
-
It portrays critics as fundamentally dangerous, not just different.
It reads less like a policy briefing and more like a victory speech combined with a live rally.
Here's what Claude said:
The speaker seems to hold near-total power and credit
Almost every positive development is attributed directly and personally to "I" — the speaker. He ended wars, fixed the economy, secured the border, lowered drug prices. The framing is consistently "before me, disaster; after me, miracle." This is unusual even by the standards of political speeches, which typically credit teams, institutions, or the nation itself.
The speech is structured around enemies
There's a very clear "us vs. them" architecture. One political party (Democrats) is blamed for essentially every problem — inflation, crime, open borders, corrupt health care, election fraud, child gender transitions. They're not described as wrong or misguided but as deliberately malicious — "dirty, rotten lie," "pro-crime," "destroying our country." The opposing party isn't engaged with on policy; they're cast as adversaries of the American people themselves.
Emotional manipulation through victims is systematic
The speech repeatedly introduces ordinary citizens who suffered — usually at the hands of immigrants, criminals released by Democrats, or government incompetence — and uses their stories to justify policy positions. This is a recognizable rhetorical technique, but the sheer volume and consistency here is striking. Nearly every policy proposal comes packaged with a named, present victim.
The claims are extraordinarily superlative
Almost nothing is merely good — everything is the best, biggest, most historic, or fastest in recorded history. The murder rate is at its lowest since 1900. Investment is 18x what the previous administration achieved. Inflation is at a five-year low. The military operation in Venezuela was "one of the most spectacular feats in world history." A neutral observer would notice this pattern and wonder how many of these claims could possibly all be simultaneously true.
The institutional landscape is unusual
The speech mentions the Supreme Court making an "unfortunate ruling" against the speaker's tariff policy — and the speaker dismisses it by saying he'll work around it through "alternative legal statutes" without needing Congress. A newcomer to politics might find it striking that a head of government openly announces plans to circumvent a court ruling rather than comply with it.
Religion is political
References to God are woven throughout not as general civic piety but as direct endorsement of the speaker's agenda. The nation is described as uniquely chosen by God. A foreign observer from a secular political tradition would find this unusual.
The tone toward the opposing party is openly contemptuous
At several points the speaker directly addresses opposition legislators in the room with phrases like "you should be ashamed of yourself" and implies they want criminals to kill Americans. This level of direct hostility toward people physically present in the chamber is striking.
Some claims are internally contradictory or logically odd
The speaker says he ended eight wars in ten months, including "Cambodia" — which hasn't been at war in decades. He describes a military operation that overthrew a foreign government (Venezuela) in the same breath as celebrating peace. He says America "never was stronger" while also saying it was nearly destroyed just a year ago.
The ceremony and spectacle are prominent
Multiple military medals are awarded during the speech itself, celebrities and heroes are introduced from the gallery, personal anecdotes about his father and goaltenders appear. It reads less like a formal government address and more like a combination of a rally, award show, and campaign event.
In short, a politically naive observer would likely notice a speech that is remarkably personal in its attribution of credit, unusually hostile toward domestic political opponents, reliant on emotional storytelling over policy detail, and built on a framework where one individual is the central force standing between the nation and catastrophe.
Here's what Gemini said:
1. A Narrative of "Radical Transformation"
The most striking feature is the extreme contrast between the "before" and "after." The speaker describes a nation that was "dead" and in "crisis" just 12 months ago, but is now in a "Golden Age."
The Scale: The numbers used are massive—moving from less than $1 trillion in investment to over $18 trillion in one year.
The Speed: Claims of a total economic and border turnaround in 365 days suggest a leader who views themselves as an exceptionally fast and singular "fixer."
2. A "Brand-Centric" Leadership Style
The speaker has a unique way of personalizing government programs.
The "Trump Account": It is unusual for a head of state to have a government-funded investment account for children named after themselves while claiming they "didn't name it."
Websites: Mentioning
TrumpAccounts.govandTrump.govsuggests the leader’s personal brand is synonymous with the state’s services.Personal Ties: The speaker mentions their father, personal conversations with CEOs (Michael Dell), and direct interactions with victims, making the presidency seem very informal and personality-driven.
3. Highly Polarized and Combative Rhetoric
Even without knowing the parties, it is clear the room is deeply divided.
Direct Confrontation: The speaker openly insults a large portion of the audience ("You should be ashamed of yourself," "dirty, rotten lie").
Us vs. Them: The speech frames "Republicans" as the sole providers of good things and "Democrats" (and "illegal aliens") as the source of "plundering" and "scams."
Audience Participation: The mention of chanting ("USA") and people refusing to stand suggests the speech is part pep rally, part trial.
4. Specific Obsessions and Unusual Details
A few specific topics receive an intense amount of focus that might seem surprising to an outsider:
The Border and "Illegal Aliens": This is the primary villain of the speech, blamed for everything from murder to car accidents to "pillaging" the budget.
Energy Prices: There is a heavy focus on the specific price of gasoline and eggs, framing these as the ultimate metrics of a nation's health.
A Focus on "Winning": The speaker uses the word "win" or "winner" repeatedly, even bringing out a sports team to physically represent the concept.
5. Contradictions in Power
The speaker describes themselves as having almost total success ("We're winning so much we don't know what to do"), yet also describes being under constant attack by:
The Supreme Court: Described as "unfortunate" and an obstacle.
The Media: Claimed to have "totally ignored" victims.
Congress: Specifically the "shutdown" that has cut off funding for his primary goals.
6. A "Return to Greatness" Theme
The timing of the speech is tied heavily to the 250th anniversary of the country. The speaker is framing this specific year (2026) as a rebirth, linking their own actions to the "Spirit of 1776." It suggests the leader views their current term not just as a four-year job, but as a historic, epoch-defining moment.
Interestingly enough, I asked ChatGPT and Gemini to create a photo based on their impression of the speech. This is what they gave me, respectively.
Anyway, I didn't listen to it, so I'll just have to guess what it sounded like. Now, I need to get back to work.
Stay blessed...john
Comments