A Comparative Study of Logical Fallacies in Campaign and Inaugural Speeches Delivered by Donald Trump

Abstract

This study investigates the use of logical fallacies in Donald Trump’s campaign speech (October 21, 2024) and inaugural address (January 20, 2025), examining how rhetorical strategies shift between persuasive and ceremonial contexts. Using a mixed-methods approach, 19 types of logical fallacies were identified and categorized with Zhou’s (2018) framework, combining qualitative interpretation and quantitative analysis. Results show that the campaign speech relied on ad hominem attacks, hasty generalizations, and emotional appeals (ad populum, motivism), reflecting a confrontational style aimed at mobilizing support. The inaugural address, in contrast, featured fewer personal attacks but more inductive fallacies and appeals to shared values (hasty generalizations, appeals to tradition), aligning with its unifying and legitimizing purpose. Comparative analysis indicates that logical fallacies persist in political rhetoric but vary according to context and audience. A psycholinguistic perspective suggests these patterns reflect a narcissistic and ambitious communication style, characterized by authority, confidence, and emotional engagement. The findings enhance understanding of how political leaders use fallacies to influence opinion, sustain authority, and shape collective identity, highlighting the need for critical awareness in democratic engagement.