Trump shows signs of cognitive shift after 2024 shooting, study suggests

A new study presented at the 2025 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence suggests that Donald Trump’s metaphorical language changed in the wake of the 2024 assassination attempt. By analyzing his campaign speeches using a computational metaphor analysis tool, the researchers found evidence that Trump’s cognitive patterns, as reflected in his speech, appeared to return to styles he used in 2016. This shift may indicate a psychological retreat to familiar mental frameworks following the trauma.

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, raised new questions about the psychological impact of traumatic events on public figures. Research on trauma has often centered on long-term outcomes such as post-traumatic stress disorder, partly because measuring immediate cognitive responses can be difficult. Standard tools like interviews, brain imaging, or physiological monitoring are rarely practical or appropriate in high-profile cases involving political leaders.

To address this challenge, the research team adopted a different strategy. Drawing on ideas from cognitive linguistics and trauma theory, they explored how trauma might shape the way people use metaphors in language. Rather than treating metaphors purely as stylistic elements, the researchers approached them as reflections of underlying thought processes. By tracking changes in metaphorical language across Trump’s campaign speeches, they sought to detect cognitive shifts that might occur in the aftermath of trauma—without requiring direct clinical access to the subject.

For their study, the researchers collected official campaign speeches from three periods: his 2016 presidential run, his 2024 campaign before the assassination attempt, and his 2024 campaign after the shooting. These speeches were sourced from “The American Presidency Project” and “C-SPAN,” which archive political content with a focus on formal public communication.

They used MetaPro, a computational tool designed to identify and analyze metaphorical language in large bodies of text. MetaPro works by detecting metaphors at the word and sentence level, then translating those figurative expressions into a structured format known as “concept mappings.” These mappings represent the underlying cognitive framework of a metaphor by pairing an abstract idea—called the “target” concept—with a more concrete, sensory-based “source” concept.

For instance, in the phrase “a big success,” the abstract idea of success (the target) is described using the physical characteristic of size (the source), resulting in the mapping “IMPORTANCE is SIZE.” This process allows researchers to systematically capture how individuals use familiar physical experiences to describe intangible ideas, offering a way to infer patterns of thought and mental framing from language alone.

Across the dataset, MetaPro identified thousands of metaphors: 7,346 in the 2016 speeches, 3,650 in the 2024 pre-shooting speeches, and 8,303 in the 2024 post-shooting speeches. Each period revealed hundreds of unique source and target concepts, as well as over a thousand unique concept mappings. By comparing the most frequently used mappings across these timeframes, the team sought to determine whether Trump’s metaphorical language—and by extension, his cognitive framing—shifted after the traumatic event.

The researchers did not find evidence of a wholesale change in Trump’s speech patterns following the shooting. His most commonly used metaphors remained relatively stable across all three periods. Concepts like “ACT,” “ACTION,” “EVENT,” “SIZE,” and “IMPORTANCE” featured prominently in each set of speeches. Common metaphors such as “SIZE is IMPORTANCE” and “DIRECTION is POSITION” consistently appeared, emphasizing themes of magnitude, direction, and agency.

However, a closer look at the data pointed to subtler shifts. Notably, Trump’s post-shooting metaphorical language bore a stronger resemblance to his 2016 speeches than to his own speeches earlier in 2024. The researchers used a statistical technique known as Jaccard Similarity to compare the overlap between sets of concept mappings. The analysis showed that the metaphors used after the shooting were more aligned with those from 2016, suggesting a return to earlier cognitive frameworks.

This pattern may indicate a psychological coping strategy. The researchers propose that trauma might lead individuals to revert to previously established ways of thinking. In Trump’s case, the metaphors from 2016 may have represented a mental template that he returned to in an effort to regain stability after the shooting.

There were also notable differences in metaphor themes before and after the shooting. Before the gunshot incident, Trump’s metaphors leaned toward action, production, and success. He used expressions that framed action as equivalent to achievement, such as “ACT is SUCCESS” and “POSSESSION is PRODUCTION.” These reflected a goal-oriented perspective that emphasized movement, results, and personal agency.

After the shooting, his metaphorical patterns shifted toward inner states and cognitive processes. New dominant metaphors included “BASIC COGNITIVE PROCESS is STATE,” “STATEMENT is CONCEPT,” and “HIGHER COGNITIVE PROCESS is PERCEPTION.” These suggest a deeper engagement with mental states and self-reflection. There was also an increase in metaphors connecting production to construction and effort, such as “PRODUCTION is ACT” and “ACTIVITY is WORK,” which may indicate a reframing of success as something that requires sustained labor rather than mere accomplishment.

Additionally, certain metaphors that emerged after the gunshot emphasized disappearance and elimination. “ACTION is DISAPPEARANCE” was among the top mappings post-shooting, which might reflect a stronger emphasis on removing threats or solving problems through decisive action. This could relate both to Trump’s messaging around safety and control and to his heightened sensitivity to vulnerability following the attack.

Another finding concerned the narrowing of certain metaphors after the incident. Before the shooting, concepts like “ACT” were associated with multiple source domains such as “PRODUCTION,” “COMMUNICATION,” and “SUCCESS.” After the shooting, this diversity shrank, with “ACT” primarily tied to the concept of “POSITION.” The researchers interpret this as a simplification of thought patterns, possibly reflecting a defense mechanism to cope with stress.

The team also observed shifts in how Trump used metaphors related to the body. For instance, the concept of an “OBJECT” moved from being associated with “ARTIFACT” to “BODY PART” after the shooting. This change may reflect an increased focus on physical vulnerability and personal safety. Similarly, metaphors related to “POSSESSION” shifted from themes of production to themes of communication, suggesting a greater emphasis on social connection and public messaging after the traumatic event.

As with all case studies of public figures, the findings should be interpreted with caution. The study does not make clinical claims about Trump’s mental health, nor can it establish definitive causality between the shooting and the changes in his metaphor use. The researchers also relied exclusively on formal campaign speeches, which are typically scripted or semi-scripted, meaning they may reflect the input of speechwriters and advisers rather than Trump’s spontaneous thought processes.

And while metaphor analysis provides a compelling lens into cognitive framing, it remains an indirect method. Factors like speech context, audience, and political strategy may also influence metaphor use. It is difficult to separate changes in personal cognition from calculated messaging shifts designed for rhetorical effect.

Still, the study offers an innovative way to assess cognitive responses to trauma without requiring invasive measures. By analyzing language over time, the method provides a window into how traumatic experiences may shape thought patterns, even in the absence of direct access to the subject. Future research might apply similar techniques to other political leaders or public figures who have undergone high-stress events, helping to build a broader understanding of how trauma shapes cognition in public life.

The study, “Analyzing the Cognitive Impact of Trauma from a Metaphorical Perspective: A Case Study on the Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump,” was authored by Meihui Jia, Rui Mao, Yunhe Xie, Shen Ren, and Erik Cambria.