Politics
Opinion: For voters, what Harris or Trump say may matter less than how they say it
Imagine someone needs to convince you of a surprising fact — say, that your partner is cheating on you. Your best friend might be direct: “They’re cheating on you!” They might even exaggerate a little to get you extra worked up: “It’s been going on for ages! They’re parading around all over town!” But a stranger would need to be more circumspect and subtle: “I’m surprised to hear you’re a couple, because I saw …”
There are essentially two different ways to communicate persuasively, and the differences have everything to do with the communicator’s social authority. We’re seeing it play out on the campaign trail: Donald Trump is regularly characterized as forward and bombastic, while Kamala Harris is often criticized for being too indirect or obtuse. Both styles can be effective, but it’s helpful to consider who uses these different approaches and why.
People we see as trustworthy — either because they are familiar to us or because they are members of a race, class or gender our society treats as authoritative — can use direct and unambiguous language to push others into their way of thinking. If you trust someone, they can convince you of something by speaking straightforwardly about it — and they can be even more effective by taking advantage of their authority and exaggerating the truth. This manner of speech has been historically linked to dictators and fascists, but it’s also something you might see in your day-to-day life from someone in a position of power over you — like your boss — or someone you’re in a close relationship with, like your significant other.
On the other hand, those who are not in positions of authority must be much more subtle and measured. If you are not already inclined to take someone’s word for something, that person doesn’t have the luxury of simply stating the facts as they see them. They have to be more circumspect and make their points implicitly.
One way to be implicitly persuasive is to presuppose something rather than state it outright. One of the differences between the English articles “a” and “the” is that “the” often presupposes uniqueness, i.e., that there is only one. So a politician could bill herself as “an honest politician,” or include a presupposition by claiming she is “the honest politician.” This second option packs a bigger semantic punch but is notably less direct than explicitly saying something like “I am an honest politician, and my rival is not.”
Striving for plausible deniability is another way to be implicitly persuasive. If the point you need to communicate is controversial and potentially socially dangerous and you aren’t in a position of power, it’s a good idea to speak as noncommittally as possible. This is achievable using distancing language or hedging, for example: “If pressed, I might feel that it’s appropriate to suppose your partner might be cheating on you.” Another way to gain plausible deniability is by using oblique language, such as so-called dog whistles, which signal meaning to one group without alerting others. These techniques rely on a distinction between lying outright and being misleading. Misleading styles are used extensively in persuasion, both by people who can’t afford to be direct and by those with ulterior motives, such as advertisers and public relations experts.
On a day-to-day basis, it’s better to think of indirect language as a natural reflex based on our fluid roles in society, not a sign of weakness to be stamped out. If we had a better understanding of these linguistic power dynamics, we might have, for instance, different legal precedents. One unfortunate court ruling held that saying, “I think I would like to talk to a lawyer” to a police officer does not legally qualify as a request for a lawyer. But stating, “I think I would like a salad” would uncontroversially be seen by a restaurant server as an order — in a context in which the power imbalance is flipped.
Understanding the real motivations for indirect communication also would help us work to avoid gender and racial bias: While Harris is almost always characterized as more indirect than Trump, conversation analysis has shown that Trump used more hedging and uncertain language in their presidential debate. This is consistent with findings that women are disproportionately criticized for using indirect language, when it is more or less equally used by all genders. This is true for tag questions (statements ending with an interrogative question, such as “You watched the debate, didn’t you?”) and vocal fry (a creakiness or raspiness in one’s voice that some assume is an affectation.) Both have been disproportionately associated with women and incorrectly characterized as signaling weakness in the speaker.
It’s important to remember that generally we do not have the luxury of choosing between these two approaches to persuasive communication. The fact that those with power can afford to speak directly, while those without it cannot, means that more than anything, our communication styles reflect the inequities already established in our society.
Jessica Rett is a professor of linguistics at UCLA. Her research investigates the meaning of words and how they contribute to the meanings of sentences, either in isolation or in broader contexts.
U.S. military forces stopped and boarded a second sanctioned tanker carrying oil from Iran in the Indian Ocean, the Pentagon said on Thursday, ramping up pressure on Tehran as the Trump administration seeks to resume negotiations to end the war.
A naval boarding team roped down from hovering helicopters and fanned out on the vessel, the M/T Majestic X, according to a Pentagon statement that included a 17-second video of the operation.
The military said the boarding was part of a “global maritime enforcement to disrupt illicit networks and interdict vessels providing material support to Iran, wherever they operate.”
Earlier this week, Navy SEALS boarded another ship in the Indian Ocean, the M/T Tifani, after the Pentagon said it was carrying oil from Iran.
Navy destroyers are also shadowing several other Iranian vessels, including the Dorena and Sevin, which had left from the Iranian port of Chabahar before the U.S.-imposed blockade began on April 13, a U.S. military official said. The Navy is directing those ships to return to an Iranian port, the official said.
With the M/T Tifani and M/T Majestic X now at least temporarily in the custody of the military, a U.S. military official said it was up to the White House to decide what to do with the sanctioned vessels and their cargo. The administration previously seized several tankers carrying illicit oil from Venezuela after a U.S. commando raid there in January that seized Nicolás Maduro, the country’s president.
“International waters cannot be used as a shield by sanctioned actors,” the Pentagon said in its statement on Thursday, adding that the department would “continue to deny illicit actors and their vessels freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain.”
Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hinted last week that the U.S. military would likely commence boarding operations like the ones this week. He said that U.S. military commanders elsewhere in the world, and especially in the Indo-Pacific region, would “actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran.”
The U.S. Navy has turned back at least 31 ships trying to enter or exit Iranian ports since an American blockade outside the contested Strait of Hormuz began about a week ago, U.S. Central Command said late Wednesday.
Last Sunday, a Navy destroyer disabled and seized the Touska, an Iranian cargo ship, after it tried to evade the blockade. It was the first time a vessel was reported to have tried to evade the U.S.-imposed blockade on any ship entering or exiting Iranian ports since it took effect last week.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained why President Donald Trump does not consider Iran’s seizure of two ships in the Strait of Hormuz a violation of the ceasefire agreement.
Leavitt made the statement during an interview with Fox News’ Martha McCallum on Wednesday just hours after Iran captured the Greek and Mediterranean-flagged vessels.
“Does the seizure of two ships — as we said, they were Greek and Mediterranean-owned ships with cargo on them, and the reports are that Iran basically seized them and then moved them into Iranian waters. We don’t know what’s going to happen to these crews. We’re not sure where all of this is going. Does the president view that as a violation of the ceasefire?” McCallum asked.
“No, because these were not U.S. ships. These were not Israeli ships. These were two international vessels,” Leavitt responded.
US FORCES ATTEMPTING TO BOARD SANCTIONED RUSSIAN-FLAGGED OIL TANKER IN NORTH ATLANTIC, SOURCES SAY
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, conducts a press briefing. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“And for the American media, who are sort of blowing this out of proportion to discredit the president’s facts that he has completely obliterated Iran’s conventional Navy, these two ships were taken by speedy gunboats. Iran has gone from having the most lethal Navy in the Middle East to now acting like a bunch of pirates. They don’t have control over the strait,” she continued.
“This is piracy that we are seeing on display. And the naval blockade that the United States has imposed continues to be incredibly effective. And, to be clear, the blockade is on ships going to and from Iranian ports. And the point of this is the economic leverage that we maintain over Iran now. While there’s a ceasefire with respect to the military and kinetic strikes, Operation Economic Fury continues, and the crux of that is this naval blockade,” she added.
The Iranian made ‘Seraj’ a high-speed missile-launching assault boat on display in Tehran on August 23, 2010, as Iran kicked off mass production of two high-speed missile-launching assault boats the ‘Seraj’ (Lamp) and ‘Zolfaqar’ (named after Shiite Imam Ali’s sword) speedboats which will be manufactured at the marine industries complex of the ministry of defense. (YALDA MOAIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said the vessels, identified as the MSC Francesca and the Epaminondas, were operating without proper authorization and had tampered with navigation systems, accusations that could not be independently verified. The ships had earlier reported coming under fire near the strait, underscoring the increasingly volatile conditions in one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.
US ‘LOCKED AND LOADED’ TO DESTROY IRAN’S ‘CROWN JEWEL’ ‘IF WE WANT,’ TRUMP WARNS
The Guard attacked a third ship, identified as the Euphoria, which had become “stranded” on the Iranian coast, Iranian media reported. It did not seize that vessel.
Ships and tankers in the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Musandam, Oman, April 18, 2026. (Reuters)
Both the U.S. and Iranian sides have targeted commercial and cargo vessels as part of a broader pressure campaign tied to stalled negotiations. U.S. forces have also moved to seize at least one Iranian-linked vessel in the region, with each side accusing the other of violating the terms of a fragile ceasefire.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global oil shipments, with roughly 20% of the world’s supply passing through it. Traffic has slowed dramatically as ships reroute or avoid the area amid gunfire, seizures and conflicting directives from both militaries.
Fox News’ Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met privately with President Trump and administration officials Wednesday to press for federal support and yet-unpaid wildfire recovery funding as the region continues to rebuild from the 2025 fires.
“This afternoon we met with President Trump and Administration officials to advocate for families who lost everything,” Bass and Barger said in a statement. “We had a very positive discussion about FEMA and other rebuilding funds as well as the support of the President to continue joining us in pressuring the insurance companies to pay what they owe — and for the big banks to step up to ease the financial pressure on L.A. families.”
Barger said the two leaders had a “high-level discussion” with the president in the Oval Office, sharing stories about what fire survivors are experiencing day to day. She added that “we left details behind with the President,” but did not specify whether Trump made any funding or policy promises during the meeting.
“First and foremost, today’s meeting was to thank the President for his initial support of infusing federal resources to expedite debris removal, as well as his recent tweet about insurance companies, which have already proven fruitful,” she said in a statement provided to The Times.
Bass was similarly reserved about the discussions, telling reporters that “we will follow up with the details,” but signaled progress is being made on federal support.
“I think what’s important is that we certainly got the president’s support in terms of, you know, what is needed, and then the appropriate people were in the room for us to follow up. And that was Russ Vought, who is the head of the Office of Management and budget,” Bass told KNX on Wednesday.
The meeting comes on the heels of a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over wildfire recovery funding, disaster response and whether the federal government should have a say in local rebuilding permitting.
California leaders, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, have accused the Trump administration of withholding billions in critical wildfire aid, prompting a lawsuit over stalled recovery funds. Officials allege political bias in the delay of billions of dollars from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Newsom visited Washington in December. When he made his rounds on Capitol Hill, he met with five lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to renew calls for $33.9 billion in federal aid for Los Angeles County fire recovery.
But the governor said he was denied a meeting with FEMA and would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to discuss the issue.
Bass, meanwhile, appears to have found a path to the president on a subject that has been paramount for her community.
The fruitful meeting comes after Trump lobbed insults at the mayor at a news conference earlier this year, where he called her “incompetent” for how she handled last year’s wildfire recovery efforts. He alleged that under Bass’ leadership, the city’s delay in issuing local building permits will take years when it should have taken “two or three days.”
California officials, including Newsom, have urged the Trump administration to send Congress a formal request for the $33.9 billion in recovery aid needed to rebuild homes, schools, utilities and other critical infrastructure destroyed or damaged when the fires tore through neighborhoods more than 15 months ago.
What Bass and Barger’s meeting with the president ultimately produces remains to be seen.
The billions in recovery aid have not yet materialized, but the meeting could potentially give those discussions new momentum.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment about the meeting.
Earlier this month, Trump criticized insurance provider State Farm on Truth Social for its handling of the devastating Los Angeles County wildfires. He accused the insurance giant of abandoning its policyholders when tragedy struck.
“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large Premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump wrote.
But the rebuke didn’t come out of the blue. It stemmed from a controversial February visit to Los Angeles by Trump administration officials.
Trump tapped Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin in an effort to strip California state and local governments of their authority to permit the rebuilding of homes destroyed in the Eaton and Palisades fires.
Within the week, Zeldin was in Los Angeles, bashing Newsom and Los Angeles officials at a roundtable with fire victims and reporters, saying that residents were suffering from “bureaucratic, red tape delays and incompetency” and that leadership was “denying them … the ability to rebuild their lives”.
During the trip, officials heard direct complaints from local leaders and fire victims about insurers being slow, restrictive and insufficient with their claim payouts.
After these meetings, Trump directed Zeldin to investigate the insurers’ responses. State Farm, facing roughly $7 billion in fire-related claims, is also under formal investigation by California’s insurance commissioner over its handling of the crisis.
Despite tensions with the administration, Bass and Barger appeared confident that progress was being made on the insurance and funding issues.
“Our job is to fight for our communities,” their joint statement concluded. “When it comes to this recovery, our federal partners are essential, and we are grateful for the support of the President.”
-
Kentucky8 minutes agoIntrepido horse trainer, jockey, owner for Kentucky Derby 2026
-
Louisiana14 minutes ago2 critical, multiple hurt following mass shooting at Mall of Louisiana
-
Maine20 minutes agoSouthern Maine’s 5 boys track teams to watch
-
Maryland26 minutes agoVirginia, Pennsylvania breweries dominate World Beer Cup; MD medals
-
Michigan32 minutes agoLSU big man Jalen Reed commits to Michigan | UM Hoops.com
-
Massachusetts38 minutes agoMassachusetts tops U.S. in AI job loss risk, Tufts report says
-
Minnesota44 minutes agoMinnesota woman detained by ICE needs emergency surgery for tennis ball-sized ovarian cyst, lawmakers say
-
Mississippi50 minutes agoJackson council reviews water authority as Horhn offers few details on plan