Trump’s insult of the Manchester attacker gained support beyond his usual backers in the media in this instance, but some call it offensive to the victims

Following the Manchester bombing, Donald Trump’s announcement that he would henceforth be referring to terrorists as “losers” won praise in some quarters.

But foreign policy and linguistics experts warned on Tuesday that the president’s new designation risked cheapening the impact of terrorist attacks, potentially adding to some relatives’ grief and lessening the public’s awareness of the threat.

Donald Trump says 'evil losers' were behind Manchester attack Read more

“I won’t call them monsters,” Trump said in a speech reacting to the attack in Manchester, which killed 22 people and injured 59.

“Because they would like that term, they would think that’s a great name; I will call them from now on losers because that’s what they are, they’re losers. And we’ll have more of them but they’re losers – just remember that.”

Trump’s use of the term “loser” swiftly gained support beyond his reliable backers in the right-wing media.



The Atlantic said the categorization “could be a savvy strategy”. Philip Cunliffe, a senior lecturer in international conflict at University of Kent, thought it represented “that rare occasion when Trump is right – losers, not monsters is accurate”.

But some experts told the Guardian they disagree – while pointing out that, for all Trump’s change in tone, his actual policies towards Isis bear similarities to his predecessor.

“It could be argued that the use of ‘losers’ in this speech and its association with more casual types of talk has the effect of diminishing the seriousness of the events that transpired,” said Jennifer Sclafani, associate teaching professor at Georgetown University’s department of linguistics.

“People with this reaction may understand the word ‘loser’ as someone who is impotent or incapable of causing real harm. For people who interpret it this way, his speech is likely to be seen as insensitive and offensive to all those who have been deeply affected by the tragedy.”

“Loser” is one of Trump’s favorite slurs – on Tuesday, USA Today compiled a list of more than 40 people and items the president has categorized as such – but while the president’s language may represent a new direction, Sclafani said “many other world leaders have referred to terrorist acts as acts of ‘cowardice,’ which could be argued to have the same effect”.

“Trump loves to play his branding game,” said Republican strategist Rick Wilson.

“‘Lil Marco’ or ‘Low Energy Jeb’ or ‘Lyin’ Ted’ is the kind of tabloid and entertainment TV game through which he views the world. If you’re a nihilistic death cult, I’m not sure it really has the same effect.”



Barack Obama tended to strike a more high-minded tone in his response to tragedies. After the terrorist attack in Nice in July 2016 Obama offered “thoughts and prayers” and noted “the extraordinary resilience and democratic values that have made France an inspiration to the entire world”. In December 2016 the Obama White House referred to thoughts and prayers again and sent “heartfelt condolences” to people in Germany following the attack in Berlin.

George Lakoff, professor emeritus of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, said Trump’s obsession with losers was a symptom of his personality – that people are either win or they lose. But despite the difference in styles, Trump and Obama had the same aim with their statements, Lakoff said.

“The idea is that terrorism is supposed to make you feel afraid,” Lakoff said. “And the idea is to calm people down. So for Obama that means be cool. Go about your business; the way to defeat terrorism is to show it doesn’t work.

“The Trump logic is different. It’s ‘show that they are not going to win. Show that they are losers and they’re going to lose.’”

But Lakoff said that Trump’s logic could lead people to frame a terrorist incident as: “My daughter died because of a loser”.

“The gravity is taken away,” he said. “And the notion of a threat is gone. Are you going to be afraid of losers?”

Despite the difference between Trump and Obama’s tone, foreign policy experts said that Trump had actually pursued a similar strategy towards Isis so far. Despite Trump chastising Obama during his presidential campaign for not using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism”, Trump did not use the phrase himself on Tuesday.

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, said that while Trump’s Isis strategy is “nascent and still developing”, compared to Obama’s, “to date they have a lot in common”.

Solidarity and outrage as global leaders react to Manchester attack Read more

“Working with partners, relying on special forces abroad and intelligence as well as homeland security at home, cultivating coalitions to limit the movements of Isis and al-Qaida fighters and money, and so forth,” he said.

Tom Sanderson, senior fellow and director, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ transnational threats project, said Trump’s strategy is “ostensibly more aggressive”, but Trump “will run into the same realities” as his predecessor – including foreign leaders not necessarily backing certain action, and people protesting intervention at home.

Sanderson said he was puzzled by Trump’s vehement commitment to his new term.

“Rhetoric is important. And calling people who murder young girls ‘losers’ is stupid,” Sanderson said. He said people tend to refer to people who perpetrate terrorist attacks as “killers, murders and terrorists, which is accurate”.

“The term loser is not going to resonate. So I don’t know why he made such an effort to announce a new name for terrorists. There’s no value to it.”