"I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them"
How Trump's comms playbook rips up the rules
"I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them."
That single line from Donald Trump captures a communication style that turns crisis management on its head. Traditional PR emphasises empathy, transparency, and reassurance; Trump intentionally breaks those rules to achieve narrative control and base mobilization.
If there's one thing PR professionals agree on, it's that a crisis must be handled with care. The textbook approach is a fine-tuned process of de-escalation, empathy, and narrative control. You apologise sincerely, you show compassion for the victims, and you promise to do better.
The 1982 Tylenol poisonings remain the gold standard of crisis response. CEO James Burke recalled 31 million bottles at a cost of $100 million, communicated with transparency, and strategically shifted the blame to an unknown perpetrator, positioning Johnson & Johnson as the victim of product tampering.
Then there’s Donald Trump.
His communication style seems to replace traditional approaches with a strategy that prioritises disruption and dominance. But what appears to be chaotic, impulsive, or even self-destructive communication is, from a PR perspective, a remarkably consistent and strategic approach. Trump’s strategy intentionally subverts established theories to achieve a different set of goals… ones that prioritise base mobilisation and narrative dominance over broad public consensus. It is undeniably effective at achieving his specific goals to mobilise his base, dominate media narratives, and maintain loyalty among his supporters.
How does he do this? Why does it work for his audience? What are the long-term risks?
The Rules Trump Breaks
Traditional crisis management is built around several core principles designed to build trust and reduce uncertainty. Trump systematically breaks most of these.
The first source of information is often the most trusted, but that speed must be paired with accuracy and credibility to be effective.
Trump often breaks news about his own “crises” on social media before the media can frame them, creating the initial narrative that everyone else is forced to react to (for example, his recent post on Truth Social, which appeared to call for the prosecution of political opponents). However, he frequently sacrifices correctness and credibility for speed. This creates an information vacuum that he fills with his own speculative and often factually inconsistent take.
Acknowledge people’s fears, express genuine empathy for those affected, and admit when you don't have all the answers.
This humanises and builds trust. In moments of national tragedy, such as the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a president would typically take on a “comforter-in-chief” role. However, Trump did not, and frequently replaces empathy with defiance and attacks. Rather than focusing on unity and shared experiences, he often shifts blame to an adversary (the left, my opponent, the corrupt media). Furthermore, instead of acknowledging uncertainty, he often projects absolute confidence, presenting speculation as fact. His recent press conference on autism illustrates this strategy: he warned pregnant women “don’t take Tylenol,” claimed it may be linked to autism, and echoed vaccine-sceptical arguments by suggesting that the current vaccine schedule could be contributing to rising rates of autism. He framed autism as a “horrible, horrible crisis,” described the rise in diagnoses as “meteoric,” and delivered these claims with certainty, despite medical experts emphasising that the evidence remains inconclusive.
Attacking your critics is a classic pitfall that can make you look arrogant and escalate the conflict.
This is not a pitfall for Trump. It’s a central tactic.
In Benoit’s Image Restoration Theory, attacking the accuser is a strategy for “reducing the offensiveness” of the act. Trump uses this constantly, reframing a crisis about his actions into a crisis focused on the supposed bias or corruption of his accusers, whether they are journalists, political opponents, government agencies, or even individuals.
“Outrage Marketing”: Why This Works
Peter Sandman’s Risk = Hazard + Outrage formula is another core of risk communication, where the hazard is the event and the outrage is the collection of public emotions surrounding it. The PR goal is typically to manage the hazard while minimizing the outrage. But outrage marketing (or rage-baiting; think the recent commentary surrounding Sydney Sweeney's jeans ad) instead relies on provoking moral outrage to drive attention and engagement. A thoughtful consensus isn't even in the picture.
It works. Social media and the 24/7 news cycle promote the rapid dissemination of content that challenges beliefs and evokes negative emotion, and it gets considerably more attention than neutral or positive content. People are more likely to engage with content that contradicts their views. Without social media algorithms that reward engagement over truth, Trump’s strategy would be far less effective. These systems ensure that visibility is driven by controversy as opposed to accuracy.
Trump’s strategy often appears designed to weaponise outrage similar to the rage-baiting approach to marketing. He leverages the nuances of modern media, where anger and controversy fuel engagement. His defiance resonates because it mirrors his supporters’ distrust of institutions, resentment toward elites, and a desire for a leader who fights back. Social media algorithms prioritise interaction, not truth. A provocative, outrage-inducing statement generates a storm of angry replies, shares, and commentary. This result ensures that Trump’s message dominates the news cycle, regardless of whether it is positive or negative.
Critics who react with fury inadvertently become Trump’s biggest amplifiers. They share his posts to condemn them, which only feeds the algorithm and extends his reach. This strategy creates intense backlash that would be damaging to a traditional brand but keeps Trump at the centre of the conversation and in favour with his supporter base. He is an expert at appearing to act in line with what his voters want, even when he cannot deliver. His approach prioritises uniting against a common enemy over uniting the country, feeding the MAGA movement’s belief that he is fighting for them. Because Trump can be quite a powerful and cohesive speaker, his words often matter more to his base than his actual actions or the truth.
Twisted Theories
Trump’s style often exploits the mechanics of established crisis communication theories by using strategies in ways they were never intended.
In Benoit’s Image Restoration Theory, the main options are denial, evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification (apologizing). Trump relies almost exclusively on the first three, evidenced in his recent post on Truth Social directed at Pam Bondi:
Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT
He almost never uses the sincere apology approach. Strategically. Research on identity-protective cognition suggests that people are more likely to embrace information that reinforces their group identity regardless of the facts. For Trump’s base, his refusal to apologise signals strength, while his attacks on opponents validate their own sense of grievance.
Timothy Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory advises tailoring the crisis response to the level of responsibility the public attributes to the organization. Crises are either in the victim cluster (where the organization is also a victim and of minimal responsibility; natural disaster, product tampering), accidental cluster (the organization's actions were unintentional e.g., technical error; low responsibility), or preventable cluster (the organization knowingly placed people at risk or acted irresponsibly; high responsibility).
Trump often frames a crisis as if he is in the victim cluster, regardless of its nature. Whether it's a policy failure, a personal scandal, or an administrative misstep (all preventable crises), the narrative is often the same: he is the target of a witch hunt, biased media, the left, or a corrupt deep state. This reframing allows him to justify using denial and attack strategies, which would typically be reputationally disastrous for an organization in a preventable crisis.
The Goal Is to Win, Not Win Everyone Over
Trump has a fundamental difference in goals versus traditional PR, which aims to restore normalcy and repair an organization's reputation with all its stakeholders. Trump’s success not measured by a move toward national trust but a strengthened base of supporters. The trade-off is clear: governing becomes harder when coalition-building is replaced by base consolidation. But that doesn’t seem to be a deterrent…
Trump’s primary audience is not the general public, but his core supporters. His defiant, anti-establishment rhetoric reinforces their loyalty and validates their own grievances. He controls the narrative by constantly communicating and creating new flashpoints, forcing the media and his opponents to play on his turf and respond to his version of events. His brand is not built on being a president for all citizens but on being a champion for his constituents. Every attack reinforces this identity.
This strategy accepts significant reputational damage with one group to solidify his standing with another. It’s a high-risk, high-reward approach that has fundamentally altered the role of presidential communication, moving it away from a unifying force toward a tool for political mobilization.
What’s Next?
There's no denying the short-term effectiveness of Trump’s communication style. It achieves narrative control, constant media attention, and intense base loyalty. But the long-term risks are substantial. Constantly providing conflicting information erodes credibility, which is the most important thing a leader has. Each new issue that arises has an intensifying effect in alienating large segments of the public. This approach weakens the institutional authority of the presidency, making it harder to build the broad coalitions needed to govern or unite the nation in moments of genuine tragedy or celebration. It could also backfire substantially if and when it stops working on the subset that Trump is speaking to when he uses these tactics.
Trump’s approach might also encourage other political figures (or even corporations) to prioritise base loyalty over broad credibility. Brands with highly segmented audiences (e.g., niche consumer products or partisan media outlets) might find Trump’s “playbook” appealing. But short-term engagement gains come at the cost of long-term reputational resilience. The erosion of credibility and institutional authority could lead to an increase in messaging that prioritises outrage and division over unity and accountability. Trump’s ability to make this strategy a success for him does not necessarily mean it will work for others. Brands and leaders that adopt similar tactics to appeal to segmented audiences risk reputational damage and a loss of public trust.
Will Trump’s communication model become a sustainable long-term strategy, or is it a unique phenomenon tied to one individual? That is a question that can only be answered once we have seen the implications. But for anyone studying communication, it’s a masterclass in how to break every rule in the book and… at least for now… succeed in doing so.
This raises a critical question: Should effectiveness ever outweigh empathy and truth, especially when the long-term erosion of trust and credibility is at stake?
Sources:
Benoit, William L. Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: Image Repair Theory and Research. 2nd ed., State University of New York Press, 2014.
Benoit, William L., and James J. Lindsey. “Argument Strategies: Antidote to Tylenol's Poisoned Image.” The Southern Speech Communication Journal, vol. 53, no. 2, 1987, pp. 136–146.
Bloch, Olga. Corporate Identity and Crisis Response Strategies: Challenges and Opportunities of Communication in Times of Crisis. Dissertation, Faculty of Humanities, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, 2013. Frankfurt, Germany: Springer VS, 2014. ISBN 978-3-658-06221-7.
Coombs, W. Timothy. “Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT): Refining and Clarifying a Cognitive-Based Theory of Crisis Communication.” In The Handbook of Crisis Communication, edited by W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay, Wiley-Blackwell, 2022
“‘I Hate My Opponent’: Trump’s Remarks at Kirk Memorial Distill His Politics.” The New York Times, 22 September 2025.
Graziosi, Graig. “Officials wondered if Trump’s public post to Bondi about targeting enemies was meant to be private: Report.” The Independent, Sept. 22, 2025.
Kahan, Dan M. “Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition.” Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 605, 24 May 2017.
McPherson, Molly. Indestructible PR Playbook.
LLC, 2025.Mochon, Daniel, and Janet Schwartz. “The Confrontation Effect: When Users Engage More with Ideology-Inconsistent Content Online.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 185, Nov. 2024, 104366.
“New Trump Administration Packed with Project 2025 Architects.” AFGE.org, 25 November 2024.
NPR. “Trump, RFK Jr., Autism, Tylenol, Leucovorin, Pregnancy.” Shots — Health News, Sept. 22, 2025.
Sandman, Peter M. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2012.
“Trump Requests Release of Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts.” The Guardian, 18 July 2025.