När FN blir ett problem: Retorik, legitimering och makt i Trumps presidentskap : En diskursanalys av Donald Trump retoriska strategier för att legitimera kritik och avgång ur FN – organ

Sammanfattning

The purpose of this study is to analyze how Donald Trump, during his presidency, legitimized criticism of and withdrawal from multiple organs of the United Nations (UN) through political speech. Furthermore, the study examines the discursive strategies used to construct the UN as a problem or threat to American interests. To conduct this analysis, Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was employed. This methodological approach enabled the material to be examined through the lens of power structures and underlying causal mechanisms beyond explicit political statements. In addition, to analyze processes of legitimation, Theo van Leeuwen’s legitimation theory was applied. The theoretical framework is based on four categories, authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis. Through which the material was coded and analyzed. Subsequently, CDA was used to conduct the broader analysis and discussion. The empirical material consists of speeches delivered by Donald Trump at the United Nations General Assembly, as well as unilateral directives issued by the White House during Trump’s first and current presidential terms (2016- 2021 and from 2025). The findings indicate that Trump employs discursive formulations that construct a negative evaluation of the UN’s structure and activities. These formulations are subsequently used to legitimize criticism of, and withdrawal from, multiple UN organs. Furthermore, the study identifies an underlying power structure within the U.S. government in which such discursive strategies may function to deflect criticism directed at American political decisions, while simultaneously emphasizing U.S. national interests and promoting their implementation within international organizations.