Donald Trump’s frequent use of name-calling when discussing critics and political opponents—often labeling them “haters,” “bad people,” “fake,” or “crazy”—is not an impulsive reaction but rather a deliberate political strategy, according to experts on rhetoric and communication.
Experts highlight that Trump’s reliance on such rhetorical tactics draws directly from classical methods traced back to ancient Greece and Rome. Jennifer Mercieca, a communications and journalism professor at Texas A&M University, explains that Trump utilizes what is known as “ad hominem,” a Latin term translating as “to the person.” Rather than engaging with an opponent’s actual argument, an ad hominem strategy redirects attention to personal attacks, thereby seeking to undermine the critic’s credibility. Historically, ad hominem approaches have long been recognized as distractions and are traditionally forbidden in formal debate competitions, yet they continue to be politically effective.
Trump has repeatedly wielded this rhetorical method throughout his public career. Notable examples include labeling his competitors as “low-energy” (Jeb Bush), “sleepy Joe Biden,” and “crazy Nancy Pelosi,” and branding critical media outlets as “fake” or “low-rated.” According to Mercieca, Trump’s deliberate name-calling reinforces a stark “us versus them” narrative, fostering polarization among supporters. By framing his opponents as morally deficient or mentally unstable, Trump effectively delegitimizes any criticism and positions his adversaries as inherently undeserving of consideration or compromise.
Patricia Roberts-Miller, a professor emerita of rhetoric and writing from the University of Texas at Austin, refers to Trump’s tactics as classic demagoguery—defined as political rhetoric designed to manipulate public emotions and prejudices to advance a leader’s agenda. Trump’s rhetoric frequently employs what Roberts-Miller calls “the bad math of demagoguery,” or “whataboutism,” which attempts to dismiss his or his group’s mistakes by pointing to alleged wrongdoing by political opponents. Such tactics short-circuit productive political discussion, replacing substantive debate with divisive and inflammatory rhetoric.
Beyond silencing opponents, experts warn that Trump’s rhetorical style poses more significant dangers. By demonizing critics and shutting down genuine dialogue, Trump avoids accountability for his policies and leadership decisions, which ultimately undermines democratic norms. Mercieca argues that Trump’s verbal attacks contribute to a situation where he faces less scrutiny, as potential queries about his actions or policies are easily diverted or dismissed as illegitimate personal hostility or partisan bias.
Roberts-Miller further emphasizes that productive political discourse requires open dialogue and tolerance of disagreement, two elements Trump’s rhetoric actively discourages. A political environment in which dissenting voices are consistently branded as “evil” or “stupid” tends inevitably toward authoritarianism. This leadership style allows a privileged “in-group”—those loyal to the leader—to exempt itself from accountability, standards, and rules that the larger society must follow.
Recently, Trump demonstrated this strategy when confronted by CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins about an erroneous deportation case. Instead of addressing the issue directly, Trump deflected by accusing CNN of bias, labeling it as a network “that hates our country,” thereby avoiding answering the substantive question posed. Such an approach demonstrates an ongoing effort to maintain a veneer of authority without accountability.
The consequences of this unaccountability are profound. Experts caution that an unaccountable leader, unchecked by criticism or oversight, can pose considerable risks to a society, organization, or community. Without mechanisms to hold such figures responsible, they become free to disregard established rules and norms as it suits them, fundamentally undermining democratic governance and fairness.
Ultimately, experts agree that Trump’s insults and derogatory language are not casual lapses but components of an intentional and historically informed rhetorical toolkit. Far from simple schoolyard taunts, Trump’s strategies aim to delegitimize opponents, inflame divisions, suppress meaningful discourse, and evade responsibility—behaviors with significant implications for democratic societies.
