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 and 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 offers 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 rests on core assumptions that determine how issues are presented. These assumptions shape 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 profoundly influence how governance is framed. Problematization invites us to step back and critically examine whether these assumptions truly reflect reality or whether alternative perspectives are being excluded.
Problematizing the Assumption of National “Restoration”
Trump’s speech frames America as undergoing a revival, implying that prior conditions were marked by decline. This assumption suggests a linear, binary progression—a nation either rising or falling, with leadership as the pivotal factor.
However, history rarely unfolds in such clear-cut cycles. National progress is shaped by long-term structural forces—economic shifts, technological developments, and global dynamics—that extend beyond any single administration. Rather than viewing governance as an on/off switch where problems vanish with a leadership change, a more nuanced perspective recognizes continuity and gradual transformation in national development.
Rethinking the “Mandate” Assumption in Democratic Governance
Trump portrays his electoral victory as a definitive public endorsement of his policies, describing it as a historic mandate. This framing suggests that election results confer absolute legitimacy for sweeping changes.
Yet democratic governance is not merely about winning elections. It is an ongoing process of negotiation, accountability, and institutional checks. Elections capture a moment of public sentiment, but governance demands continuous engagement with diverse viewpoints. Treating electoral victory as a permanent justification for unilateral action overlooks the role of deliberation, opposition, and the evolution of public priorities over time.
Challenging the Assumption of Crisis Resolution Through Executive Action
The speech highlights executive orders and emergency declarations as primary mechanisms for addressing crises. This assumption presents rapid, top-down intervention as the most effective approach.
While decisive leadership can be valuable, problematization prompts critical questions: Does swift executive action always produce the best outcomes? Many complex challenges—political, economic, and social—require collaborative governance, involving Congress, state governments, and civil society. Effective governance balances the need for efficiency with the necessity of institutional resilience to ensure that policies are sustainable and inclusive.
National Identity: Fixed Concept or Dynamic Process?
Trump’s speech assumes that national identity is static, suggesting that policies must reinforce traditional symbols and values to preserve a clear sense of national belonging.
Yet history demonstrates that national identity is not fixed. It evolves through demographic changes, cultural exchanges, and reinterpretations of history. Problematization challenges the idea that identity should be restored to a previous state and instead frames it as a fluid and adaptive concept, continually shaped by changing realities. Rather than viewing identity as something to be preserved through legislation, we should recognize it as an ongoing negotiation among history, culture, and contemporary experience.
Is Economic Growth Always a Direct Result of Policy?
The speech attributes improvements in small-business optimism and investment directly to new government policies, suggesting a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between policy decisions and economic outcomes.
Problematization challenges this view by asking: Are economic shifts always driven by government intervention? Economic growth depends on a range of interconnected factors, including global trade, technological innovation, consumer behavior, corporate strategies, and market cycles. While policy can influence outcomes, it is often only one factor among many. Overstating its immediate impact simplifies a far more complex reality.
Why Problematization Matters
Applying Alvesson and Sandberg’s problematization framework to political speeches is not about disproving arguments; it is about exposing the assumptions that shape political narratives. By identifying and questioning these assumptions, we gain a more nuanced, multidimensional view of governance, democracy, and national progress.
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. Critical engagement allows us to move beyond binary thinking and to 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 analyzing Trump’s address to Congress or any other speech, it is essential to recognize that 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 public discourse that is not only persuasive but also thoughtful, reflective, and open to complexity.
by Andreas Michaelides
If you enjoyed this post and want to explore more critical approaches to political communication, be 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.
 |
 |