The State of the Union Address (SOTU) was given by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, January 30, and its format stuck to tradition. Past presidents have used the address as a call for togetherness and as a venue to promote the spirit of American unity. Trump launched into a similar theme, but wanted to especially promote his idea of “America First,” while congratulating his own administration’s successes and justifying his planned policies for protecting the country.
Trump first restated his “Make America Great Again” ideals, and highlighted his plans to rebuild America’s “crumbling” infrastructure quickly. The Trump administration claimed to have created 2.4 million new jobs, implemented the biggest tax cuts in history, and been responsible for rising wages and employment rates throughout his first year in office. These claims were derided by Democrats responding to the address, who claimed that he had inherited a good economy from the Obama administration.
As in previous years, throughout the speech, he featured Americans in the audience whose backgrounds complemented his administration’s goals. He sought out a family that had been victims of gang violence from the MS-13 gang, and a Homeland Security special agent named Celestino Martinez, who had been a target of the gang and was successful in arresting some of its members. He also integrated the discussion on opioid and drug addiction into his speech, and incorporated a human element by acknowledging a family who had adopted a child from a mother suffering from a heroin addiction. He commended the bravery of soldier Justin Peck, who saved an associate from an ISIS attack, and using it as an opportunity to congratulate his administration’s efforts with combating terrorism.
Trump then mentioned the deal to keep open the penitentiary system at Guantanamo Bay, a clear deviation from the Obama administration’s efforts to scale back use of the facility. In terms of foreign policy, he emphasized his pride in the administration’s steps to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital by moving the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, a controversial decision that met heavy criticism from Arab countries. He finally told the story of Ji Seong-ho, who escaped from North Korea after a gruelling escape that included surviving a train accident as well as severe torture from the Kim Jong-Un regime. He used this as an opportunity to stress his administration’s commitment to destabilizing the North Korean government.
After the speech, which concluded with a positive and inclusive tone,the Democratic rebuttal to the address was presented by Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III from Massachusetts. In his response, Kennedy defended the rights of Dreamers, or beneficiaries of the DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) from the Obama administration. Kennedy highlighted the positive influence of immigrants on Fall River, Massachusetts, the town where he spoke. He also spoke about transgender individuals, people of color, and others who he felt the Trump administration did not protect. On a final note, addressing the unprotected migrants he stated in Spanish, “We will fight with you, and we will not walk away.”
Following the speech, the media was divided over what to make of it. Most notably, Trump was criticized for not mentioning Russian interference in American elections, a contentious topic at the time. Division also ensued from his decision to call out the NFL players who were not saluting the flag, remarks which some saw as going in the direction of being an attack on free speech. Democrats were also skeptical of his stated achievements on immigration, believing that the focus on MS-13 was only successful in inflaming racial tensions, and also that his implications that dreamers were gang members creates further racial divides. The media on the right was more congratulatory, and agreed with his emphasis on tax cuts and tighter rules on immigration, with several sources stating the speech was a success that would win even more support for his policies from Republicans. Overall, the speech fit in the trend of recent partisan addresses, and was seen as insignificant in altering the political landscape, with opinions about the speech split along partisan lines.