The article examines the rhetorical dimensions of US counterterrorism policy post‐9/11 through a comparative analysis of four key speeches by Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. Using Van Gorp’s (2007) hermeneutic framing analysis, the study explores how each administration balanced (or did not) the demands of national security and civil liberties across different political and historical contexts. The findings show these US presidents employed framing devices like metaphors, examples, catchphrases, and depictions to construct a narrative of existential threat, fear, and urgency, securing public support for expansive government action. While Bush and Trump framed terrorism as an existential threat to justify aggressive measures, Obama and Biden adopted more moderate rhetoric, balancing security with civil liberties. The study identifies enduring patterns in the way framing devices are adapted across administrations and reveals how metaphors continue to be effective despite changing rhetorical strategies. These findings demonstrate the bidirectional role of framing devices: They can either drive securitisation, as evident in the rhetoric of Bush and Trump, or promote desecuritisation and a more balanced approach, as seen with Obama and Biden.
Ristevska et al. (Tue,) studied this question.