In political discourse, certain assumptions shape how leaders justify policies and frame national progress. These assumptions often go unquestioned, forming the foundation of persuasive narratives. Using Alvesson & Sandberg’s problematization framework, we can examine how political speeches construct meaning by identifying underlying assumptions, questioning their validity, and exploring alternative perspectives.
President Donald Trump’s 2025 address to Congress presents a compelling case study in how political narratives rely on specific assumptions about governance, democracy, and national identity.
The Power of Assumptions in Political Speech
Every political speech is built on core assumptions that shape how issues are presented. These assumptions determine what is emphasized, what is left unsaid, and how policies are justified. In Trump’s speech, five key assumptions stand out:
- America is experiencing a “restoration”—a golden age following a period of decline.
- The election outcome represents an unquestionable mandate for sweeping policy action.
- Crisis resolution is best achieved through executive orders and emergency measures.
- National identity is fixed and must be preserved through policy interventions.
- Economic growth is an immediate and direct result of new policies.
These assumptions are not inherently right or wrong, but they shape how governance is framed. Problematization invites us to step back and critically examine these assumptions, asking whether they truly reflect reality or if alternative perspectives are being excluded.
Problematizing the Assumption of National “Restoration”
The speech frames America as undergoing a revival, implying that previous conditions were in decline. This assumption suggests a linear, binary progression—a nation either rising or falling, with leadership as the sole determinant.
However, history rarely unfolds in such clear-cut cycles. National progress is often shaped by long-term structural forces—economic shifts, technological advancements, and global trends—that extend beyond any single administration. Instead of viewing governance as an on/off switch where problems disappear with leadership change, a more nuanced approach would recognize continuity and gradual transformation in national development.
Rethinking the “Mandate” Assumption in Democratic Governance
The speech presents Trump’s electoral victory as a definitive public endorsement of his policies, describing it as a historic mandate. This framing suggests that election results provide absolute legitimacy for policy changes.
Yet, democratic governance is not simply about winning elections—it is an ongoing process of negotiation, accountability, and institutional checks. Elections capture a moment of public sentiment, but governance requires continuous engagement with diverse viewpoints. Treating electoral victory as a permanent justification for unilateral action overlooks the role of deliberation, opposition, and shifting public priorities over time.
Challenging the Assumption of Crisis Resolution Through Executive Action
The speech highlights the use of executive orders and emergency declarations as a primary mechanism for solving crises. This assumption positions rapid, top-down intervention as the most effective way to address national challenges.
While decisive leadership is sometimes necessary, problematization invites us to ask: Does swift executive action always lead to the best outcomes? Many political, economic, and social issues require collaborative governance, where multiple institutions—including Congress, state governments, and civil society—play a role in crafting long-term solutions. Efficiency must be balanced with institutional resilience to ensure that policies are sustainable rather than reactionary.
National Identity as a Fixed Concept vs. a Dynamic Process
The speech assumes that national identity is static and clearly defined, suggesting that policies should reinforce traditional symbols and language to preserve a clear sense of national belonging.
However, history shows that national identity is not a fixed entity—it evolves over time due to demographic shifts, cultural exchanges, and historical reinterpretations. Problematization challenges the idea that identity should be restored to a previous state and instead frames it as a fluid and adaptive concept shaped by changing realities.
Rather than viewing identity as something that must be preserved through legislation, a problematized perspective recognizes it as an ongoing negotiation between history, culture, and contemporary social dynamics.
Is Economic Growth Always a Direct Result of Policy?
The speech claims that economic improvements are a direct and immediate outcome of new policies, attributing increases in small-business optimism and investment to government action. This assumption presents a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between policy and economic outcomes.
Problematization challenges this view by asking: Are economic shifts always driven by government intervention? Economic growth is influenced by a wide range of interconnected factors—global trade, technological innovation, consumer behavior, corporate strategy, and market cycles. While policy plays a role, it is often one factor among many rather than the sole driver of change.
Why Problematization Matters
Applying Alvesson & Sandberg’s problematization framework to political speeches does not aim to disprove arguments but rather to expose alternative ways of understanding political narratives. By identifying and questioning the assumptions embedded in speeches like Trump’s, we gain a more complex and multi-dimensional view of governance, democracy, and national progress.
Rather than accepting political claims at face value, problematization encourages us to ask:
- What assumptions shape this argument?
- What perspectives are being left out?
- Are there alternative ways to frame the issue?
Political narratives are powerful because they structure how we interpret events, policies, and leadership. By critically engaging with these narratives, we move beyond binary thinking and develop a richer understanding of the political landscape.
Final Thoughts: The Importance of Critical Engagement
Problematization is not about agreeing or disagreeing with a political speech—it is about understanding the mechanisms that shape political rhetoric. Whether it is Trump’s address to Congress or any other political speech, the way issues are framed influences how they are perceived and acted upon.
By applying critical questioning to political narratives, we move closer to a political discourse that is not just persuasive, but also thoughtful, reflective, and open to complexity.
Would you like to see more problematization-based analyses of political rhetoric? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!
Next Steps
If you enjoyed this post and want to explore more critical approaches to political communication, make sure to:
✅ Subscribe for more political analysis through the lens of problematization.
✅ Share this post with others who value critical thinking in politics.
✅ Comment below—what political speech should we analyze next?
Let’s keep the conversation going!
