Throwing Shade

On January 8th, 2019, President Trump delivered a prime-time speech to the nation. The speech lasted roughly nine minutes and 30 seconds, and focused entirely on components of border control. Within the speech, President Trump highlighted the main reasons for an increase in border control resources. Inclusive with the statistics predicated on the existence of illegal immigrants in the country, the address outlined reasons why the current methods and resources provided were not sufficient, as well as what monetary resources were required to increase the efficiency and success within the United States border control. He requests $5.7 billion to be given to Homeland Security, and verifies that this amount of money will effectively assist in border control methods. His speech was primarily directed at the Democratic party, as a call for them to take action themselves and allocate the resources necessary for what he believes will assist in border control. In simpler terms: President Trump was directly throwing shade, a phrase used to describe a some-what subtle way of showing disrespect or distaste for another, at the Democratic party. 

The purpose of this speech, to influence the Democratic party to act, creates a very persuasive component to this address. Throughout the speech, President Trump utilizes logos as his main method of persuasion. His rhetoric is predominately centered around the statistics he is offering, which he adds in hopes to show the reasoning behind his purpose. Additionally, he focuses heavily on the relevance of this issue. Speaking in the present tense, he uses strong words and phrases, like “growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border” (Trump J.). In addition, his speech serves the purpose of appealing to the American people. I believe this is in hopes of gaining the support of the people, and thereafter translating that support into a form of coercion for the Democratic party. 

The speech raised controversy across the country, as do a lot of addresses and decisions made by President Trump. The Democratic party almost immediately released a statement in response to demands made by the commander in chief. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, as well as Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, issued a rebuttal the following day. During which, both leaders criticized Trump’s method of thinking. As the speech was done during the time period of the government shutdown, they questioned where his priorities lied, as this was the first national address he had released since the shutdown had begun. Additionally, they rejected his request for the $5.7 Billion. 

There were several instances in which people did not agree with both the statement, and the reasons behind it. For example, a New York Times article highlighted everything wrong with what was said. The article called Trump “wall-obsessed”, and also made comments on his past experience with sexual assault in response to a comment made by him in relation to sexual assault in Mexico. In another article, Time Magazine slams the speech entirely. focusing their rebuttal on the “facts presented” by Trump during the address; the piece responded to the claims regarding violence of illegal immigrants, as well as his past insistence of Mexico paying for the wall. There was support given for the speech, primarily by members of the Republican Party, but the overwhelming majority of journalists and people exhibited negative response.

I, myself, understood the speech but could not disagree with what Trump was saying more. I am not a supporter, never have been a supporter, and never will be a supporter of the current commander in chief. However, still I do believe that a lot of what is released in the media has negative connotation regarding Trump’s words and actions. But in my opinion it is allocated properly. Politicians receive more negative media than anyone else in society. It has happened to every president, and will probably continue to happen to every president. I think the media frame displayed was appropriate and an accurate interpretation of Trump’s choice.