Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered is the title of the highly influential 1973 book written by the German-born British economist E.F. Schumacher. The book marked its 50th anniversary in 2023, but a couple of years later, we find ourselves in a time where “big is best,” at least according to the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump, and his administration. The most recent example of their the-bigger-the-better mentality is the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill that recently became law.Understandably, the focus in the extensive news coverage of the nearly 900-page document has been on the contents of the bill, especially the economic implications for American citizens, institutions and organizations. But very little attention has been paid to the actual language of the bill, not least because, well, who has the time to pore over 900 pages of language? Linguistic analysisThis is where a new kind of political language analysis can help.In my 2022 book, I deconstructed and analyzed the speeches of past American presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. In my subsequent 2024 book, I subjected five of Trump’s major campaign speeches to an in-depth level of linguistic analysis that had not been applied before. One of the findings of my 10 years of analyzing Trump speeches since 2015, when he famously announced his plans to run for the presidency while riding on a golden escalator, is how effective the advice was of his former adviser, Steve Bannon. He reportedly told Trump in 2018 “to flood the zone with shit.”In other words, Bannon was advising Trump to ensure there was so much information, disinformation and misinformation coming from the Trump campaign that neither the political opposition nor the media could keep up with it.And even if they tried, distinguishing fact from fiction and disentangling exaggeration and bombastic hyperbole from carefully calculated lies became an insurmountable task even for the most dedicated of investigative journalists, including Canadian-born Daniel Dale.Why another four years?Applying Schumacher’s idea that “small is beautiful” to language analysis is one way of countering the kind of deliberate language overload employed by the Trump administration. Taking small but complete slices of language and subjecting them to a new kind of forensic, linguistic analysis can help us understand, in this case, why more than 77 million American voters decided that what their country and the world needed was another Trump presidency. What role did Trump’s language play in that outcome?An example of a small but complete piece of language is the official announcement of the One Big Beautiful Bill on the White House website on July 7.The announcement was entitled: “President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill: A Win for Workers, Farmers, and America’s Future.”The first thing to notice is what this is not. It is not presented as a bill passed by the U.S. government or even the Republican Party. It is Trump’s bill, which may be a small but clear, concise example of the ways in which a nation’s government can be reduced to a single person, like autocratic dictatorships and absolutemonarchies. Then there is the title of the legislation, which has been described as “absurd” and therefore easy to dismiss. But the three-B alliteration is nonetheless catchy, which makes it memorable and all the more irresistible to the world’s mainstream media. The title also identifies three supposedly big winners in the bill: American workers, American farmers and America the Beautiful. Stoking fears“Winner takes all” appears to be the mantra of the second Trump administration, but it’s important to notice the exclusions of large groups, including those who live in the U.S. but aren’t working — like children, retirees and the unemployed, which is the majority of citizens — and those who aren’t farmers, which is more than 99 per cent of all Americans. It’s also critical to be aware of the aggrandizing and misleading language of the bill. The introductory paragraph on the page announcing the bill describes it as a “sweeping legislative triumph” — despite the fact that the legislation passed by a single vote — while referring to “the largest tax cuts in history” and “historic funding for national security.” The recurring references to American history are at odds with the fact that Trump lacks knowledge of both U.S. and world history, which has been on display many times over many years. The introductory paragraph also highlights the importance of “America’s defences” and “our nation’s defence,” which continue to give the impression that the U.S. is a country under siege and vulnerable to attack from various enemies at any time. But given how much the U.S. spends on its military, there is probably no other country in the world more capable of defending itself.But the language is the point. By constantly repeating the “we are under attack” line, fear is effectively created and maintained, especially the fear of anyone who doesn’t look or sound like Trump and his followers. Using words to manipulateKeeping with the wartime-like language, the introduction claims that the One Big Beautiful Bill “unleashes economic prosperity and empowers every American.” Such statements are already being shown to be untrue, as many millions of American are likely to be severely, negatively impacted by the legislation.The introduction is followed by 10 statements that are, in effect, “product endorsements” published in obscure, pro-Trump media, like The National Hog Farmer, all expressing gushing enthusiasm and unqualified support for the points made in the introduction.This new kind of in-depth linguistic analyses of the language of the world’s most powerful people can help us move beyond their obviously false and misleading statements and claims, to become more aware of how their words may be being used not to communicate — but to manipulate.Andy Curtis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.