How are the systemic constraints transformed through the transmission belt of leader's idiosyncrasies and domestic pressures in order to result in the outcome, which is the pursuance or non-pursuance of regime change policy by the United States? This study analyses the foreign policy decision making of President Bush vis-a-vis Iraq, President Obama vis-a-vis Libya, and President Trump vis-a-vis Iran. It raises the following questions: What is the US policy of regime change, and why and how has it pursued this policy? Why were the US policies different in Iraq, Libya, and Iran, and what have been the implications of these policies upon the region as a whole? While using neoclassical realism as the theoretical paradigm and using qualitative content analysis, this study hypothesizes that the interplay of systemic and domestic level variables results in the foreign policy outcomes in the form of action or inaction towards a particular issue.

The policies formed by US leadership play a vital role in establishing US hegemony all over the world. The foreign policy of a state made according to the national interest. A rational decision of a leader plays a vital role in the effectiveness of the foreign policy. The challenges faced by Barack Obama in 2008 were somehow different from the challenges faced by Trump in 2016. The comparative analysis of both foreign policies would make it easy to determine the right and wrong decision taken by both leaders. The changing circumstances of the world would be identified through this research paper. The world is moving towards multipolarity, and somehow the decisions taken by Trump after his incumbent of office had the worst impact on US foreign policy because Trump was trying to isolate the US from world affairs, including trade and security.

This study intends to explore the rise of Donald Trump to the White House. Why was Donald Trump considered a populist leader, and how did his populist rhetoric and actions impact the contours of American domestic and foreign policies? The study adopted qualitative exploratory and explanatory research techniques. Specific methods utilised to conduct the study remained political personality profiling. It finds that the populist leaders construct the binaries in the society by dividing the nation into two groups: 'us' the people, against 'them' the corrupt elite or other groups presented as a threat to the lives and livelihood of the nation. Though populism as a unique brand of politics remained active through most of the US history, yet these were only two occasions that populists were successful in winning the American presidential elections -Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Donald Trump in 2016. Structural and historical reasons became the biggest cause behind the election of Donald Trump, who successfully brought a revolution in American domestic and foreign policies. And if structural issues in the United States are not addressed, there is a clear chance that Trump - who is not withering away- will come back to contest and challenge any competitors in the 2024 presidential elections.

This study conducts an analysis of Donald J. Trump’s 2018 speech at the United Nations General Assembly through the lens of Van Dijk’s (2005) Socio-Cognitive Model, with a particular emphasis on political and critical discourse analysis. It investigates the mechanisms by which Trump defends his positions and persuades his audience, notably through the use of hyperbole and numerical exaggerations to underscore his accomplishments. The research posits that political speech has a notable impact on influencing public ideology. The linguistic analysis reveals variations in Trump’s communication strategies, highlighting his use of boastful and exaggerated statements to promote his achievements. The study employs Van Dijk’s Ideological Square along with a socio-cognitive approach as its theoretical and analytical frameworks, focusing on four key strategies. The findings suggest that Trump prioritizes exaggeration over logical argumentation and frequently engages in aggressive rhetoric against nations that challenge America’s superpower status.

Trump’s discourse stands out for his use of divisive language and combative style of communication, and his preference for Twitter (now X). He is more often than not under discussion for being a racist and a white supremacist. Drawing on the concept of White Rage given by Anderson and the analytical tools of linguistic categories by Hillary Janks (2005), the study examines the key linguistic characteristics in Trump’s tweets and what White Rage is for him. The study is qualitative in nature and the data set consists of Donald Trump’s tweets during his first presidency. The analysis reveals that Trump’s White Rage is more than Anderson’s conceptualization of the phenomenon that extends beyond race, and is closely tied to power preservation and political expediency.