Donald Trump’s frequent claims of being unfairly targeted were not just rhetorical flourishes; they map onto strategic victimhood, a communication tactic that legitimizes retaliation and, once executive power is obtained, is used to enact coercive and illiberal policies. A March 27, 2024 comparative study of Trump and Viktor Orbán defines this as “hijacked victimhood” and traces how role‑reversal narratives blunt rights‑based claims and then operationalize into governance tools when leaders control the executive. Subsequent 2024–2025 analyses connect the rhetoric to proposed trade retaliation and anti‑democratic executive assertiveness. [1]

Key Takeaways

– shows a 2024 study across two leaders—Trump and Orbán—codifies “hijacked victimhood” and warns it enables coercive policies once executive power is secured. [1] – reveals August 30, 2025 analysis ties economic victimhood to announced global tariffs and retributive measures in the post‑2024 inauguration period. [2] – demonstrates 2024 research on the “China threat” constructs Americans as collective victims, mobilizing punitive economic and geopolitical preferences amid rising distrust trends. [3] – indicates November 6, 2024 reporting quotes democracy experts warning victimhood and “lawfare” narratives accelerate erosion and justify more expansive executive actions. [4] – suggests March 31, 2025 opinion, citing Freedom House and 2024–2025 institutional changes, flags unchecked executive retaliation enabled by persistent victim narratives. [5]

How strategic victimhood moves from narrative to policy

The concept at the center of new scholarship—“hijacked victimhood”—describes how dominant groups recast themselves as the wronged party to delegitimize opponents’ rights claims. Published on March 27, 2024, the Perspectives on Politics study analyzes elite rhetoric by Viktor Orbán and Donald Trump, documenting recurrent role‑reversal patterns across speeches and media and warning that such narratives become governance instruments once leaders secure executive authority. [1]

Mechanically, the narrative performs two moves: first, it reframes oversight, protest, or legal accountability as persecution of the in‑group; second, it asserts a moral warrant for “defensive” retaliation. The rhetoric thereby repositions coercive measures—tightened controls, expanded enforcement, or punitive economic steps—as necessary protection of the “victimized” majority, blunting civil‑liberties arguments and narrowing the space for procedural constraints. [1]

When a leader who deploys this framing gains executive power, the study argues, the story of injury is put to work in policy. Role‑reversal narratives can then be used to rationalize sweeping executive actions that would be harder to defend on their substantive merits, especially when cast as emergency redress for alleged harms suffered by the nation or its “forgotten” citizens. [1]

Strategic victimhood in Trump’s economic agenda

Following the 2024 inauguration period, a 2025 analysis examines Trump’s “economic victimhood” rhetoric and its connection to proposed global tariffs and retributive trade moves. The study finds that claims of prolonged economic injury—framed as losses inflicted by external adversaries and internal “saboteurs”—are leveraged to justify new coercive measures, recasting retaliation as restoration. By linking grievance to policy, the rhetoric provides a ready script for sanctioning, tariff escalation, and executive hardball in trade governance. [2]

Crucially, the analysis characterizes this as performance: the leader styles himself as both victim and avenger. This double role translates into policy proposals that aim to rebalance perceived asymmetries not by negotiation, but by punitive instruments announced from the executive center. In this way, grievance becomes operationalized into a retaliatory policy platform that is presented as common‑sense defense of the nation’s economic body. [2]

The approach does more than sell tariffs; it normalizes a governance logic in which executive discretion is the principal means of righting wrongs. By narrating injury as ongoing and existential, the rhetoric creates an open‑ended rationale for continued measures—expansive, coercive, and illiberal—under the banner of protection and payback, particularly in trade arenas where unilateral executive action can move rapidly. [2]

The China‑threat narrative as strategic victimhood

A 2024 study in the International Political Science Review shows how Trump‑era “China threat” rhetoric produced a collective victim identity, treating Americans as traumatized by external predation and status loss. That framing, the authors argue, mobilized preferences for punitive economic and geopolitical measures, aligning audience sentiment with policies such as restrictions, sanctions, and tariff intensification amid rising distrust trends. The victim imaginary thus functions as a bridge between grievance stories and hardline policy appetites. [3]

By transforming complex structural shifts into an injury narrative, the China frame substitutes trauma for trade‑off analysis. Policy choices that might ordinarily require evidentiary debate and legislative bargaining instead become urgent acts of redress, with the “victimized” public positioned as the rightful beneficiary of coercive state power. This substitution helps explain why punitive options gain momentum even when costs to consumers, exporters, or allies are salient. [3]

Measuring strategic victimhood against democratic guardrails

Democracy scholars interviewed on November 6, 2024 warned that the continued deployment of victimhood and “lawfare” narratives accelerates democratic erosion by manufacturing false equivalences and justifying stronger executive actions. These frames can present institutional checks, independent judiciaries, and investigative oversight as persecution, preparing the ground for unilateral moves framed as defensive counter‑strikes, and thereby consolidating power in the executive branch. [4]

A March 31, 2025 opinion synthesis, citing Freedom House and 2024–2025 institutional changes, argues that the same repertoire—victimhood claims, anti‑institutional rhetoric, and a retaliatory agenda—has expanded authoritarian tendencies in government. The author warns that the victim script enables unchecked executive retaliation against perceived enemies, shrinking the role of pluralistic compromise and degrading the integrity of guardrails designed to withstand partisan pressure. [5]

Taken together with the March 2024 comparative study, the evidence suggests the narrative is not incidental flourish but a governance strategy. When injury stories are institutionalized, the executive can recast rights protections and oversight as obstacles to national recovery, using emergency‑style justifications to fast‑track coercive instruments across policy domains. The result is a measurable drift toward illiberal rule: more discretion at the top, fewer constraints below. [1]

The policy toolkit of strategic victimhood

What does the toolkit look like in practice? Research points to four recurring instruments once the narrative takes hold: punitive economic steps (e.g., tariffs and sanctions), escalated executive directives, selective enforcement framed as “restoration,” and communications campaigns that stigmatize critics as perpetrators of the in‑group’s suffering. Each tool derives its legitimacy from the injury story; the more acute the claimed trauma, the broader the requested powers to “fix” it. [2]

Media reporting and expert commentary caution that this repertoire can crowd out normal bargaining and judicial scrutiny. By labeling investigations as persecution and oversight as sabotage, leaders broaden the domain for exceptional action and reduce the political costs of coercion. Over time, repeated use of retaliatory instruments changes expectations about what is “normal,” converting temporary hardball into standard operating procedure across agencies and policy processes. [4]

How strategic victimhood reshapes political incentives

Strategic victimhood also alters incentives for allies and opponents. Within the governing coalition, officials gain reputational benefits for advancing the retaliation storyline, while dissenters risk being cast as complicit in the supposed injury. Outside government, opposition parties and civic groups face a dilemma: contest the narrative head‑on and be portrayed as aggressors, or temper criticism and concede the terrain on which policy is justified. [1]

Because the narrative rewards demonstrations of toughness over evidence‑based deliberation, it shifts the policy marketplace toward speed and spectacle. Announcing sweeping measures—tariffs, bans, investigations—signals “defense” of the victimized public, whereas caution or compromise can be spun as surrender. That logic is particularly potent in areas like trade and immigration, where the executive can act quickly and claim immediate symbolic wins without waiting for legislative consensus. [2]

What to watch next: indicators and accountability

There are identifiable markers that strategic victimhood is moving from speech to statecraft. Watch for role‑reversal claims that convert legal scrutiny into “persecution,” for sudden expansions of executive discretion justified as “defense,” and for punitive economic measures introduced as moral payback rather than as negotiated policy. Also monitor whether civil‑society critics are rhetorically recast as perpetrators, a sign the narrative is being operationalized against pluralistic opposition. [1]

Accountability requires forcing specificity: asking for evidence thresholds, time‑bound measures, independent review, and cost analyses for each proposed “retaliatory” step. In trade, that means scrutinizing tariff rationales and downstream consumer and exporter impacts; in governance, it means testing claims of emergency against statutory limits and judicial oversight. The scholarship suggests that when the victim script is not interrogated, it becomes the de facto policy framework. [2]

Sources:

[1] Perspectives on Politics – Strategically Hijacking Victimhood: A Political Communication Strategy in the Discourse of Viktor Orbán and Donald Trump: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592724000239

[2] Media (MDPI) – From Victim to Avenger: Trump’s Performance of Strategic Victimhood and the Waging of Global Trade War: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-5172/6/3/134 [3] International Political Science Review / SAGE – Imaginaries of trauma and victimhood: The role of the ‘China threat’ in Trump’s populism of the privileged: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13691481241259383

[4] The Washington Post – Trump’s triumph threatens an already battered democracy, experts say: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/06/trump-victory-threatens-democracy/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/06/trump-victory-threatens-democracy/ [5] The Washington Post – Opinion: Trump’s authoritarian rule and its long term effects on democracy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/31/united-states-authoritarianism-trump/

Image generated by DALL-E 3