In the Feb. 25, 2026 State of the Union at the U.S. Capitol, President Donald Trump delivered a near two-hour address that prioritized theatrical confrontation over a slate of new policy proposals. Rather than outline a midterm agenda, he framed Democrats repeatedly as unpatriotic and extreme, at one point labeling a policy theme as a “dirty, rotten lie.” The move came as his approval rating sat at 41 percent and a majority of voters opposed his immigration approach, with more than 70 percent saying his priorities are misplaced. The speech appears designed to reshape the political narrative ahead of the fall midterm contests.
Key Takeaways
- Timing: The address on Feb. 25, 2026 was delivered in the run-up to the 2026 midterm elections and ran nearly two hours.
- Rhetoric over policy: The president offered few new legislative proposals, focusing instead on portraying Democrats as “sick” or “crazy” and attacking their patriotism.
- Poll numbers: Mr. Trump’s approval rating stood at 41 percent at the time of the speech, with over 70 percent of respondents saying his priorities are wrong.
- Immigration backlash: A majority of Americans opposed his anti-immigration agenda, a political vulnerability the address sought to counter.
- Confrontations on site: Several loud exchanges occurred in the chamber, including Representative Al Green’s removal after he displayed a sign criticizing a racist social media post shared by the president.
- Campaign posture: The address blended ceremonial SOTU elements with explicit campaign tactics—staged asides, hero imagery and direct taunts at opponents.
Background
The State of the Union is traditionally both a constitutional report and a political performance; this year it was staged against a backdrop of low approval ratings and fragmented public opinion. As midterm campaigns accelerate, presidents often use the speech to present policy wins and rally supporters. This year, however, national polling showed Mr. Trump lagging on basic pocketbook issues and drawing criticism for his hardline immigration policies.
Republicans control the White House and are defending seats in the House and Senate that could determine control of Congress after November. With the electorate focusing on cost-of-living concerns, the usual expectation—new initiatives aimed at voters’ top worries—gave way to a strategy of reframing opponents as the root cause of national problems. The result was a performance that doubled as a campaign rally inside a constitutional forum.
Main Event
Mr. Trump used extended asides and rhetorical flourishes throughout the address to dramatize his message, spotlighting military families and law-enforcement imagery while accusing Democrats of undermining American values. He repeatedly blamed his opponents for issues ranging from election security to inflation, sketching a narrative in which he and his supporters are defenders of the nation’s core institutions.
On multiple occasions the president turned to personal anecdotes and charged examples to provoke a partisan response from the chamber. He recounted the case of a young person who underwent a gender transition and used that story to argue Democrats were out of step with most Americans. At one point he told the chamber, “These people are crazy, I’m telling ya, they’re crazy,” a line that drew loud reactions on both sides.
The speech also featured visible friction on the House floor. Representative Al Green of Texas—who had been removed previously for disruptive conduct—was again escorted out after holding a sign condemning a racist video Mr. Trump had shared on social media. Those expulsions and on-the-spot confrontations fed the president’s spectacle-driven approach by providing immediate, dramatic visuals.
Analysis & Implications
Strategically, the address resembled a campaign event more than a legislative blueprint. With control of Congress at stake in November, the president chose to energize his base and define opponents rather than offer detailed policy responses to the public’s top economic worries. That calculation accepts short-term polarization in exchange for clearer messaging to core supporters.
Politically, painting Democrats as unpatriotic aims to nationalize local and congressional races: candidates aligned with Mr. Trump can run against a painted national antagonist rather than defend individual records. But that approach carries risk; broad negative framing can deepen polarization and alienate moderate voters who prioritize issues like affordability and health care over cultural fights.
Institutionally, the spectacle raises questions about the boundaries between ceremonial constitutional duties and overt campaigning. Using the SOTU stage primarily to provoke opponents could prompt renewed debate over decorum, enforcement of chamber rules and the role of televised addresses in democratic accountability.
Internationally, a highly partisan domestic address projects a confrontational image that foreign audiences can interpret as political instability. Allies and adversaries alike monitor U.S. political cohesion when assessing bilateral cooperation, economic policy continuity and security commitments.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Reported Value |
|---|---|
| Presidential approval (Feb. 2026) | 41% |
| Respondents saying priorities are wrong | More than 70% |
| Public stance on anti-immigration approach | Majority opposed |
The figures above, as reported contemporaneously in major media coverage, underscore the political calculus behind the address: Mr. Trump’s team appears to have chosen a high-intensity rhetorical strategy to counter unfavorable public metrics rather than focus on granular policy proposals. That mismatch—high rhetoric, limited new policy—will shape how different voter blocs respond ahead of the midterms.
Reactions & Quotes
“These people are crazy, I’m telling ya, they’re crazy.”
President Donald Trump
The president used blunt, mocking language to characterize his opponents during the speech, a tactic that drew sustained applause from supporters and sharp rebukes from Democrats.
“BLACK PEOPLE AREN’T APES.”
Representative Al Green (displayed sign)
Representative Green’s public protest and subsequent removal from the chamber became a focal point of the evening’s confrontations and was widely reported as a direct response to a racist video the president had circulated online.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the speech will materially shift undecided voters’ preferences in competitive districts remains unclear and will depend on follow-up messaging and local dynamics.
- Internal Republican polling cited by aides as justification for the speech’s tone has not been released publicly and therefore cannot be independently verified.
Bottom Line
The Feb. 25, 2026 address prioritized spectacle and partisan theater over a detailed midterm policy platform, signaling a deliberate strategy to reframe Democrats as the political antagonists. That approach may consolidate core supporters but risks alienating moderates and voters focused on economic and day-to-day concerns.
In the months ahead, the effect of this rhetorical strategy will hinge on whether it can translate into turnout advantages and whether Democrats can capitalize on policy gaps to win back persuadable voters. Observers should watch subsequent campaign messages, local race dynamics and independent polling to judge the strategy’s durability.
Sources
- The New York Times — News coverage and reporting on the Feb. 25, 2026 State of the Union address.