The room was packed. The nation watched. It was Donald Trump’s first address to Congress, and the stakes couldn’t have been higher. With the weight of the presidency on his shoulders, Trump had to do what every leader in his position has done before: convince the American people that he was in control — without taking responsibility for the mess he inherited.

And so, on February 28, 2017, Trump did what he does best. He controlled the narrative, delegated responsibility, and structured policies in ways that minimized blame.

Political scholar Christopher Hood (2011) called this strategy Blame Avoidance — a political survival instinct that keeps leaders from taking the fall when things go wrong. It’s not just about pointing fingers. It’s about crafting a story where someone — anyone — else is at fault.

Trump’s speech was a masterclass in blame avoidance, and if you listen carefully, you’ll notice three powerful tactics at play.

The first rule of blame avoidance? Rewrite history.

Standing before Congress, Trump painted a grim picture of America’s state. But according to him, this wasn’t his doing — it was a disaster left behind by those before him.

“In the last 8 years, the past Administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other Presidents combined.”

It was classic framing. If America was struggling, it wasn’t because of his policies — it was because of Obama’s economic stagnation, immigration problems, foreign policy blunders? He didn’t create them — he was simply the one left to clean up the mess.

But Trump didn’t stop there. Blame without hope is just complaining — so he sold a new vision, one filled with national pride and optimism.

“A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning. A new national pride is sweeping across our Nation.”

By shifting focus from past failures to a bright future, he redirected attention away from present struggles. It wasn’t about the problems America faced — it was about the promise of something greater.

And when things got tricky, he turned to the oldest trick in the book: find an external enemy.

“We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America — we cannot allow our Nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.”

By emphasizing threats from abroad, Trump made sure his controversial immigration policies weren’t seen as his choices, but rather as necessary actions to protect the American people.

Another golden rule of blame avoidance? Make someone else responsible.

Trump wasn’t just the President — he was the outsider, the fighter against a broken system. And when things weren’t working, it wasn’t his fault. It was Washington’s.

Take government bureaucracy, for example. Instead of acknowledging inefficiencies as something his administration had to fix, he put the blame squarely on slow-moving agencies:

“But our slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration keeps too many advances, like the one that saved Megan’s life, from reaching those in need.”

The problem wasn’t his leadership — it was the government itself.

When it came to policy-making, Trump made sure that if things didn’t go as planned, Congress would take the fall.

“On this and so many other things, Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country.”

Translation? If policies didn’t pass, if progress wasn’t made, it wouldn’t be because of his administration — it would be because lawmakers failed to act.

And on the economy? That was corporate America’s responsibility.

“Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart, and many others, have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States.”

The message was clear: if the economy soared, he’d take credit. If it struggled, well, the private sector wasn’t doing its part.

3. Structuring Policies to Avoid Blame: “The System Is the Solution”

Sometimes, the best way to avoid blame is to build policies in a way that shields you from it altogether.

For Trump, that meant designing initiatives where future failures couldn’t be pinned directly on him.

Take deregulation, for example. Trump positioned his efforts to roll back regulations as a way to preemptively protect the economy:

“We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job‑crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every Government agency.”

If businesses still struggled despite his policies? It wasn’t his fault — it was because of excessive government regulations from before.

Similarly, when it came to crime, Trump made sure law enforcement bore the responsibility.

“To protect our citizens, I have directed the Department of Justice to form a Task Force on Reducing Violent Crime.”

If crime went down, it was because his leadership was working. If it went up? Well, that was on law enforcement, not him.

And in foreign policy, he made it clear that America wouldn’t carry the burden alone:

“We expect our partners, whether in NATO, in the Middle East, or the Pacific –- to take a direct and meaningful role in both strategic and military operations, and pay their fair share of the cost.”

If things fell apart on the world stage? It wouldn’t be America’s fault — it would be because other countries didn’t do their part.

Trump’s 2017 address to Congress was more than just a speech — it was a political maneuver, carefully crafted to keep blame at bay while solidifying his position as a strong leader.

By:
✅ Framing failures as inherited crises, he ensured that any shortcomings were seen as someone else’s mess.
✅ Delegating responsibility, he made sure that bureaucrats, Congress, and corporations would take the fall for any setbacks.
✅ Structuring policies to minimize blame, he set up a system where future problems could be blamed on outside forces.

And this wasn’t unique to Trump. Politicians across the globe master the blame game, shifting responsibility while keeping the spotlight on their successes.

So the next time you hear a political speech, ask yourself: Who is actually being held accountable?

What do you think — was Trump’s strategy effective? Do today’s politicians use the same tactics? Let’s discuss in the comments below. 👇