Michael D. Zande, Ph.D.
The purpose of this article is not to determine motives or diagnose personality. It is to examine observable communication techniques and compare them with patterns psychologists commonly encounter in narcissistic and emotionally manipulative relationships.
The prime time presidential address to the nation on July 16, 2026 presents a uniquely teachable moment because it brings together an unusually large number of manipulative communication techniques in a single address. Regardless of one’s political views, it provides a remarkable opportunity to learn how these techniques work and why they are often so persuasive.
The same manipulative communication techniques that can influence millions of people in a presidential address are often used by narcissistic or emotionally manipulative spouses, partners, parents, bosses, coworkers, and others. Learning to recognize them is the first step toward reducing their power.
For each communication technique, I’ll examine one or more examples from the speech by asking five questions:
- What did he actually say? (using the transcript)
- Which manipulative communication technique is present?
- How does this technique attempt to influence the audience?
- To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
- How does this same technique appear in narcissistic or emotionally manipulative relationships?
My goal is to help you recognize these same communication techniques when they appear in your own life, whether they come from a spouse, partner, parent, adult child, boss, coworker, mentor, or anyone else attempting to influence your thinking.
The discussion is organized around the following manipulative communication techniques:
Grandiosity
Gaslighting
Triangulation
Manufactured Victimhood
Scapegoating
Appeals to Secret Knowledge
Black-and-White Thinking
Grandiosity
Definition
Grandiosity is a communication style characterized by exaggerated claims of superiority, success, power, or importance. While confidence is based on evidence and allows room for nuance, grandiosity relies on sweeping superlatives, certainty, and comparisons that elevate oneself while minimizing everyone else. In narcissistic relationships, grandiosity often serves to establish authority, discourage disagreement, and create the impression that the speaker possesses exceptional abilities or insight.
What did he say?
The speech begins with a rapid succession of superlative claims:
“Our country is safer, stronger, and far wealthier than it has ever been before.” (00:00-00:13)
“Two years ago, our country was dead. Now, we are the hottest country anywhere in the world.” (00:56-01:01)
“America is respected like we have never been respected before.” (01:01-01:04)
“Your president has done a great job.”
“We have more money being invested in the United States than at any time in the history of our country.” (01:04-01:12)
“More Americans are working today than ever before.” (01:12-01:16)
“We have the strongest and most powerful military by far anywhere in the world.” (Approximately 04:20-04:30)
Which manipulative communication technique is present?
Grandiosity.
Why is it manipulative?
Grandiosity influences an audience by replacing careful evaluation with emotional certainty. Rather than presenting measurable evidence, it relies on absolute statements such as “greatest,” “strongest,” “never,” “ever,” and “history.” These claims create an impression of overwhelming success that discourages nuance or critical examination.
The psychological effect is cumulative. One sweeping claim may not persuade an audience, but a rapid series of them can create an emotional narrative in which extraordinary success begins to feel self-evident. It is important to note that the speech begins this way. Once people accept the speaker as exceptionally competent or uniquely successful, they may become more willing to accept later claims without demanding the same level of evidence.
To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
Several of these statements describe measurable conditions such as employment, investment, inflation, crime, military strength, or international standing.
Some contain elements that can be supported or refuted by available data. For example “More Americans are working today than ever before.” is technically true but largely reflects population growth. It was also true repeatedly under previous administrations as employment recovered from the pandemic. Presented without context, it creates a misleading impression of unprecedented labor-market strength.
Similarly, “Drug prices are coming down by 70, 80 and 90 percent.” Is not supported by available evidence. Some negotiated prices for specific drugs have fallen, but there is no evidence of broad reductions anywhere near those percentages.
Other statements are broad value judgments or historical superlatives that are difficult or impossible to verify objectively.
Phrases such as “the hottest country anywhere in the world,” “respected like we have never been respected before,” or “the strongest military by far anywhere in the world” are rhetorical assertions rather than empirically testable conclusions. They communicate certainty and emotional impact more than they communicate measurable facts.
It is important to note that Grandiosity doesn’t require lying. Grandiosity is about the presentation of reality: selecting only favorable evidence, exaggerating successes, using superlatives, speaking with absolute certainty, taking maximum personal credit, minimizing complexity. Someone can communicate grandiosely while saying things that are technically true.
How does this appear in narcissistic relationships?
This pattern is familiar to psychologists who work with narcissistic personalities.
Instead of saying:
“I think I handled that situation well.”
the narcissistic communicator is more likely to say:
“No one could have done what I did.”
or
“I’m the only one who understands what’s really going on.”
The purpose is not simply to express confidence. It is to establish psychological authority. If one person consistently presents themselves as uniquely intelligent, uniquely competent, or uniquely successful, others may begin to defer to their judgment even when the evidence is weak.
Whether the setting is a marriage, a workplace, a family, or a presidential address, grandiosity encourages people to trust the speaker’s confidence rather than independently evaluate the facts.
Gaslighting
Definition
Gaslighting is more than lying or making false claims. It is an attempt to persuade people to distrust their own perceptions, memories, judgment, or understanding of reality while accepting the speaker’s version of events instead. The goal is not simply to change someone’s opinion but to replace their confidence in their own observations with confidence in the speaker.
What did he say?
Several statements in the speech illustrate this pattern.
“The third set of documents we are releasing proves that for many years Americans were blatantly lied to about the security of our election infrastructure…” (14:14-14:44)
“Documents show that during this period, dozens of significant CIA and NSA reports… were kept out of the presidential briefing… Everything was kept out that was of importance.”
“Tonight, we’re publishing… reports proving that our government has long known these machines are extremely exposed to attack.” (14:44-15:16)
Which manipulative communication technique is present?
Gaslighting.
Why is it manipulative?
Notice that the speech does not simply present evidence and invite the audience to draw its own conclusions. Instead, it repeatedly tells listeners what the evidence proves before they have an opportunity to evaluate it themselves.
The audience is encouraged to conclude that trusted institutions, intelligence agencies, election officials, and much of the media deliberately deceived them for years. At the same time, the speaker positions himself as the only reliable source capable of revealing what is “really” true. This illustrates one of the defining features of gaslighting. Rather than encouraging independent evaluation, it asks people to distrust their own previous understanding of reality and replace it with the speaker’s interpretation.
To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
The speech repeatedly asserted that newly released documents “proved” Americans had been deceived for years about the 2020 election and that trusted institutions had concealed the truth. Independent analyses reached more limited conclusions. While the documents described genuine election-security vulnerabilities, foreign influence efforts, and intelligence concerns, they did not establish many of the broader conclusions the speaker claimed they proved. Rather than allowing the documents to speak for themselves, the audience was repeatedly told what they demonstrated before having an opportunity to evaluate the evidence independently. In effect, listeners were encouraged to replace their previous understanding of events with the speaker’s interpretation, even where the documents themselves did not clearly support that interpretation.
How does this appear in narcissistic relationships?
This communication pattern is remarkably common in narcissistic and emotionally abusive relationships.
A partner may insist:
“Everything you’ve believed about what happened is wrong.”
“Everyone else has been lying to you.”
“Only I know what’s really going on.”
Over time, the goal is to weaken confidence in independent judgment and increase dependence on the manipulator’s interpretation of reality. Once that happens, the victim becomes less likely to trust their own perceptions and more likely to accept the manipulator’s explanations without question.
The setting may differ, but the psychology is strikingly similar. Whether the audience is one person or millions, gaslighting attempts to replace independent thinking with reliance on the speaker’s version of reality.
Triangulation
Definition
Triangulation occurs when someone manipulates a relationship by introducing a third party to create distrust, conflict, dependency, or loyalty. Rather than addressing issues directly, the manipulator portrays others as dishonest, dangerous, or working against you, encouraging you to rely on the manipulator instead. In narcissistic relationships, triangulation often isolates people from alternative perspectives and strengthens the manipulator’s influence.
What did he say?
Throughout the speech, the president repeatedly identifies groups that supposedly worked together against both him and the American people.
“Members of the Deep State… worked to actively suppress and downplay information…” (8:10-8:39)
“They and others in the media are part of a plot. They want to continue this fraud… They want to protect the radical left.”
“Members of the deep state… worked to actively suppress and downplay information… covering it up from both the President and the American people.”
Which manipulative communication technique is present?
Triangulation.
Why is it manipulative?
Rather than encouraging listeners to evaluate competing sources of information, triangulation encourages them to distrust those sources altogether. Notice how many groups are portrayed as working together against the audience:
Intelligence agencies, The FBI, The Department of Justice, Election officials, The media, Democrats, and The “Deep State”
The message is not simply that these groups made mistakes. It is that they are dishonest, coordinated, and working against the interests of ordinary Americans. At the same time, the speaker presents himself as the one trustworthy source who is finally revealing the truth. This creates a classic “us versus them” dynamic. As more institutions are portrayed as corrupt or deceptive, the audience becomes increasingly dependent on the speaker’s interpretation of reality.
To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
Individual government agencies, journalists, and political leaders have certainly made mistakes, disagreed with one another, and, in some cases, engaged in misconduct. However, claims that these diverse institutions collectively participated in a coordinated effort require substantial evidence because they allege widespread cooperation across organizations with different missions, leadership, and legal responsibilities.
The speech presents many of these groups as acting together toward a common purpose. Readers should distinguish between evidence of isolated misconduct and evidence supporting a broad, coordinated conspiracy. It is also worth remembering that these events allegedly occurred while the speaker was President and these agencies were part of his own administration. If such extensive concealment occurred, it raises legitimate questions about why it was not discovered or addressed while he was in office.
How does this same technique appear in narcissistic or emotionally manipulative relationships?
Triangulation is one of the most common tools used by narcissistic individuals.
A manipulative spouse might say:
“Your family has turned against you.”
A controlling parent may insist:
“Your therapist is filling your head with lies.”
An abusive employer may claim:
“Don’t trust your coworkers. They’re trying to make you look bad.”
In each case, the goal is the same: weaken the target’s trust in other people while increasing dependence on the manipulator.
Whether the setting is a marriage, a family, a workplace, or a presidential address, triangulation works by narrowing the circle of trust. The more people the audience is taught to distrust, the more authority and influence the speaker gains.
One of the clearest warning signs of triangulation is when someone repeatedly encourages you to distrust nearly everyone except them.
Manufactured Victimhood
Definition
Manufactured victimhood occurs when someone repeatedly portrays themselves as the target of unfair attacks, conspiracies, or persecution in ways that exaggerate, distort, or selectively present events. The effect of this communication is to generate sympathy, deflect responsibility, justify anger, and strengthen loyalty by convincing others that the speaker is being unfairly targeted.
In narcissistic relationships, the individual is often both the hero and the victim. They are portrayed as uniquely capable while simultaneously claiming that others are constantly trying to undermine them.
What did he say?
Throughout the speech, the speaker repeatedly portrays himself as the target of coordinated efforts by numerous individuals and institutions.
“They did not disclose to me as president…”
“China engaged in other election-related activities to undermine my first administration and our 2020 campaign.”
“The Chinese government wanted the US president to lose the next election.”
“Members of the Deep State… worked to actively suppress and downplay information…”
“NBC and ABC… are part of a plot.”
Which manipulative communication technique is present?
Manufactured victimhood.
Why is it manipulative?
Victimhood naturally evokes empathy. Most people want to defend someone they believe has been treated unfairly.
Manufactured victimhood expands this instinct by portraying ordinary disagreement, criticism, or institutional conflict as evidence of deliberate persecution. As additional enemies are introduced, the speaker increasingly appears surrounded by hostile forces, making supporters more likely to rally to their defense.
This technique also discourages critical thinking. Questions about the speaker’s conduct become secondary because attention shifts to the alleged mistreatment of the speaker.
Notice that throughout the address, the speaker is portrayed as being opposed by foreign governments, intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice, the media, political opponents, and unnamed bureaucrats. The larger the alleged conspiracy becomes, the more extraordinary the victimhood appears.
To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
Public officials are routinely criticized by political opponents, journalists, foreign governments, and even members of their own administration. While the released documents describe Chinese influence efforts and legitimate election security concerns, independent reviews have not concluded that they demonstrate coordinated manipulation of vote totals or the outcome of the 2020 election. The more important question is whether the available evidence supports the broader claim that these diverse individuals and institutions were acting together as part of a coordinated effort against a single individual. Readers should distinguish between documented misconduct by individual actors and evidence of a broad conspiracy involving numerous independent organizations.
How does this same technique appear in narcissistic or emotionally manipulative relationships?
Manufactured victimhood is one of the most effective ways to avoid accountability.
A narcissistic spouse may insist:
“Everyone is against me.”
A difficult parent may claim:
“After everything I’ve done for this family, everyone treats me like the bad guy.”
A manipulative coworker may repeatedly tell others:
“Management is trying to get rid of me.”
Sometimes these statements contain elements of truth. What makes the pattern manipulative is the repeated use of victimhood to redirect attention away from one’s own behavior and toward the alleged wrongdoing of others.
Over time, the listener begins defending the victim instead of evaluating the facts. Sympathy replaces critical thinking, and accountability fades into the background.
Scapegoating
Definition
Scapegoating occurs when responsibility for complex problems is repeatedly assigned to a particular person, group, or institution. Rather than acknowledging that most major events have multiple contributing causes, the scapegoat becomes the primary explanation for whatever has gone wrong. Scapegoating simplifies complicated issues by providing a clear villain. This can reduce uncertainty, reinforce group loyalty, and redirect attention away from competing explanations.
What did he say?
Throughout the speech, the speaker repeatedly identifies specific individuals and institutions as responsible for the nation’s problems.
“According to the DHS review… approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote… Since Democrat states refuse to share their voter files, the real number is actually much higher than that.”
“Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt.”
“Our elections were left vulnerable to being rigged and stolen, and the trust of the American people was lost.”
“China engaged in other election-related activities to undermine my first administration and our 2020 campaign.” (09:07-09:43)
These examples portray a wide range of institutions as sharing responsibility for a common set of problems.
Which manipulative communication technique is present?
Scapegoating.
Why is it manipulative?
Most significant events are influenced by many factors. Scapegoating replaces that complexity with a simple explanation: identify a villain and assign primary responsibility.
This approach appeals to our natural desire for certainty. Once a single person or group is blamed, difficult questions become easier to answer and competing explanations are less likely to be considered.
Scapegoating also strengthens group identity. If “they” are responsible for society’s problems, then “we” become the people trying to save it.
To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
Following the 2020 election, allegations of widespread fraud and coordinated misconduct were subjected to extensive scrutiny through dozens of lawsuits, recounts, audits, and investigations by federal and state agencies, including many led by Republican officials. While these reviews identified isolated irregularities, administrative errors, foreign influence efforts, and election security concerns, they did not substantiate claims of a coordinated conspiracy involving the numerous individuals and institutions identified throughout the speech. Readers should distinguish between documented instances of misconduct and evidence supporting a broad, unified effort to alter the outcome of the election.
How does this same technique appear in narcissistic or emotionally manipulative relationships?
Scapegoating is common in difficult relationships. A manipulative partner may insist that every conflict is the other person’s fault. A difficult parent may blame one child for disrupting the entire family. A supervisor may attribute every workplace problem to a single employee while ignoring broader organizational issues.
The goal is not simply to assign blame. It is to create a simple narrative that discourages critical thinking and relieves the speaker of examining alternative explanations or their own contribution to the problem.
One hallmark of scapegoating is the repeated claim that one person or one group is responsible for problems that almost certainly have multiple causes. Whenever complex issues are reduced to a single villain, it is worth asking what other explanations are being overlooked.
Black-and-White Thinking
Definition
Black-and-white thinking, sometimes called all-or-nothing thinking or splitting, is the tendency to view people, events, or ideas in extreme, mutually exclusive categories while ignoring nuance or complexity. Individuals are portrayed as entirely good or entirely bad, honest or corrupt, patriots or traitors, with little room for ambiguity. This style of thinking simplifies complex issues and encourages emotional rather than analytical decision-making.
What did he say?
Throughout the speech, the speaker repeatedly presents people and institutions in sharply contrasting terms.
“You can’t have a great country without free and fair elections.”
“These disclosures reveal an election system so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it. It is not defensible.”
“The only reason you wouldn’t do it is you want to cheat, because your policies are so bad and your candidates are so pathetic that you can’t get elected any other way.”
“This was one of the greatest scandals in American history.” (07:46-08:10)
The speech consistently contrasts honest Americans with corrupt institutions, truth with deception, and patriotism with betrayal.
Which manipulative communication technique is present?
Black-and-white thinking.
Why is it manipulative?
Complex issues rarely fit into simple categories of good versus evil. Most public institutions contain both dedicated professionals and individuals who make mistakes or engage in misconduct. Likewise, political decisions often involve competing priorities rather than obvious right and wrong answers.
Black-and-white thinking removes this complexity. By dividing the world into heroes and villains, it becomes easier to persuade people to accept sweeping conclusions without carefully evaluating the evidence. Once someone is placed into the “good” or “bad” category, new information is often interpreted in ways that reinforce that initial judgment rather than challenge it.
This type of thinking also discourages compromise. If opponents are viewed not simply as mistaken but as dishonest or malicious, meaningful dialogue becomes increasingly difficult.
To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
Public institutions, political parties, and news organizations are imperfect. Investigations have documented instances of bias, misconduct, and poor judgment within many organizations. At the same time, these institutions also perform legitimate and often essential functions.
The investigations that followed the 2020 election revealed a more complex picture than the speech suggests. Multiple lawsuits, audits, recounts, and official reviews identified isolated irregularities and legitimate election security concerns but did not support broad claims that entire institutions or large groups of people acted as uniformly corrupt participants in a coordinated conspiracy. The evidence points to a far more nuanced reality than the clear division between heroes and villains presented in the speech.
How does this same technique appear in narcissistic or emotionally manipulative relationships?
Black-and-white thinking is common in narcissistic relationships.
A manipulative partner may insist that someone is either completely loyal or completely disloyal. A difficult parent may alternate between describing a child as “the best thing that ever happened to me” and “the source of all my problems.” A supervisor may label an employee as either exceptional or worthless based on a single disagreement.
Healthy relationships tolerate complexity. People can make mistakes without becoming villains. They can disagree without becoming enemies. One of the clearest warning signs of black-and-white thinking is when someone consistently discourages nuance and insists that every person or situation must fit into one extreme category or the other.
Exclusive Access to the Truth
Definition
Exclusive access to the truth occurs when someone claims to possess hidden information that others cannot or will not see. The speaker portrays themselves as uniquely capable of revealing what is “really” happening while suggesting that other sources of information are deceptive, uninformed, or intentionally misleading. This technique encourages listeners to become increasingly dependent on the speaker as their primary source of truth.
What did he say?
Throughout the speech, the speaker repeatedly suggests that critical information has been deliberately concealed and that he is now revealing what others have tried to hide. These statements repeatedly frame the speaker as someone with privileged access to hidden knowledge.
“Tonight we’re publishing a series of previously classified U.S. intelligence community assessments…” 00:14:44-00:15:16
“This vital information has for many years been covered up and hidden from you, the American people…. But that all changes right now.” (6:07-6:49)
“We are presenting this evening and fully confirmed their authenticity. You can see these documents for yourself at whitehouse.gov.”
“In light of the brand-new and irrefutable information I have revealed tonight…”
Which manipulative communication technique is present?
Exclusive access to the truth.
Why is it manipulative?
Most people recognize that governments, organizations, and individuals sometimes withhold information. The manipulation occurs when the speaker repeatedly implies that only they possess the real truth while encouraging the audience to distrust virtually every alternative source of information.
Once this belief is established, contradictory evidence becomes easier to dismiss because it can simply be attributed to the same conspiracy that supposedly concealed the truth in the first place. This creates a self-reinforcing system in which the speaker becomes increasingly difficult to question.
To what extent does the available evidence support the claim?
New information occasionally changes our understanding of important events, and governments do sometimes declassify documents that shed light on the past. However, the mere existence of previously undisclosed information does not automatically validate the conclusions being drawn from it.
Although the speech repeatedly described the documents as “proof,” independent reviews found that many of the documents either failed to support or directly undercut the broader conclusions the speaker invited the audience to draw. Evidence of vulnerabilities or foreign influence was repeatedly presented as evidence of a coordinated conspiracy without sufficient supporting evidence.
How does this same technique appear in narcissistic or emotionally manipulative relationships?
This pattern is common in manipulative relationships.
A controlling partner may say:
“You’re the only person who doesn’t see what’s really going on.”
A manipulative parent may insist:
“One day you’ll realize I was the only one telling you the truth.”
A difficult supervisor may claim:
“Don’t listen to everyone else. They don’t know what I know.”
The goal is not simply to provide information. It is to establish oneself as the only trustworthy interpreter of reality. Once that happens, independent thinking becomes increasingly difficult because every competing perspective is dismissed before it can even be considered.
Lessons Learned
The communication techniques discussed in this article are not unique to politics. They have been used throughout history by leaders, organizations, advertisers, cults, and manipulative individuals to shape how people think, feel, and interpret reality. That is precisely why understanding these techniques matters.
One of the clearest warning signs of manipulative communication is when someone repeatedly encourages you to doubt your own judgment while dismissing nearly every independent source of information. Instead, you are asked to rely primarily on their interpretation of reality.
Healthy relationships invite questions, differing perspectives, and independent verification. Manipulative relationships discourage them.
Manipulation is rarely obvious. The most effective forms often contain elements of truth, appeal to legitimate concerns, and present information in ways that feel emotionally compelling. The question is not simply whether every statement is true or false. The more important question is whether the available evidence actually supports the conclusions being presented.
The same communication patterns appear every day in narcissistic and emotionally manipulative relationships. A controlling partner may convince you that everyone else is against you. A manipulative parent may portray themselves as the real victim. A toxic employer may insist that only they understand what is really happening. The scale changes, but the psychology does not.
Learning to recognize these patterns is not about becoming cynical or distrusting everything you hear. It is about becoming a more careful thinker and a more confident judge of your own experience. Evaluate the evidence, seek independent verification, and pay attention to your own reactions. If you consistently leave conversations feeling confused, doubting your own memory, or sensing that something doesn’t quite fit, don’t ignore those feelings. They are not proof that manipulation is occurring, but they are often a signal to slow down, ask questions, and take a closer look.
Before accepting a dramatic claim, ask yourself a simple question:
Does the evidence actually support the conclusion I’m being asked to believe?
Once you see these patterns, you can’t unsee them. You’ll begin to notice not only what is being said, but how it’s being said, how it makes you feel, and whether the evidence truly supports the conclusions you’re being asked to accept. That awareness is one of the most effective defenses against manipulation.
Published on Drzande.com
Check out my free online guide on narcissistic relationships.