From Donald Trump to Jacob Frey — has politics lost its profanity filter?
There are scores of examples of political figures in the English-speaking world who are openly embracing the expletive as a way to signal authenticity and connect with voters on a more emotional level, experts say.
If there was ever a set of rules for politicians interfacing with the public, steadfast avoidance of profanity might have been at the very top of such a list. Robert’s Rules of Order, which are often invoked in political spaces, certainly prohibit personal insults, including profanity. But these are new times.
Just last week, President Donald Trump dropped the F-bomb in a social media post urging the Iranians to open the Strait of Hormuz before a ceasefire was implemented. And it’s not just Trump. In January, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, in what was arguably his first public moment in the national spotlight, used several expletives in a public address condemning a federal immigration crackdown unfolding in his city that resulted in the deaths of two Minnesotans.
What the (bleep) changed?
The dawn of social media, experts say, ushered in a shift in political communication — one that now panders to get new audiences and constituencies. There are now scores of examples of political figures in the English-speaking world seeking or holding office who are embracing the expletive as a way to signal authenticity and connect with voters on a more emotional level, said Katherine Haenschen, assistant professor in Northeastern University’s departments of communication studies and political science.
What a difference compared to a notable episode in the 1970s when then-President Richard Nixon’s use of profanity behind closed doors in the Oval Office elicited national shock. Nixon later expressed regret, acknowledging that neither he “nor most other Presidents had ever used profanity in public.”
Haenschen pointed to a growing body of literature suggesting that there’s been a generational shift toward acceptance of profanity as part of a larger cultural ethos prizing individualism and free expression. Linguists and social scientists have also documented this change, which they attribute to widespread recognition that cursing is beginning to shed its taboo and helps engender a sense of camaraderie and connection, they say.
“There’s been a general societal acceptance of swear words, and a decline in reaction to them in popular and mainstream culture,” Haenschen said. It might explain why, after initially introducing tight rules around swearing on TV in the 1970s, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began loosening them in the 1990s. “Exposure has gone up, and pearl-clutching has gone down; so it’s not surprising to see that trend carry into politics,” Haenschen said.
In politics, Haenschen suggests that an increasingly fragmented media environment might have played a role in the trend. Where candidates once relied almost exclusively on press releases, press conferences and other traditional media channels to promote themselves, they can now bypass a centralized press’s gatekeeping role to speak directly to voters, chasing “clicks and engagement” through platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, Haenschen said.
“This shift has weakened the agenda-setting and framing power of mainstream media, especially as trust in those institutions has declined,” she said. “At the same time, audiences increasingly engage in selective exposure, seeking out media that aligns with their views.”
Figures such as U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York, exemplify this change, she said. Ocasio-Cortez uses Instagram Live prolifically to connect directly with her supporters, who skew younger, are more diverse, and digitally engaged.
Also changing are the filters and constraints that once shaped how politicians communicated with the public, Haenschen said. Live messaging from candidates on social media aren’t subject to television or radio censorship — the so-called “profanity delay,” especially since FCC rules do not apply to social media, where speech is largely unregulated or left up to the platforms to moderate.
This environment might then seem ideal for the emergence of a candidate like Donald Trump, whose coarse language and fiery rhetoric speak to the frustrations of Americans who voted for him. The president’s — successful, some might argue — use of profanity has similarly put pressure on his opponents to respond in kind, which has helped normalize a more confrontational and emotionally-charged style of political speech, Haenschen said.
According to a New York Times analysis of lawmakers’ social media posts, a growing number of Democrats — including Sens. Ruben Gallego and Brian Schatz, and outgoing Reps. Eric Swalwell and Robert Garcia — have increasingly turned to profanity online, often framing it as a way to express frustration and connect more directly with voters.
“Heading into 2026, Democrats know voters want more fighting, more vigor, more confrontation with Trump,” said Nick Beauchamp, an associate professor of political science at Northeastern University. “But there’s also frustration because those efforts haven’t produced much tangible effect over the past several years. So there’s a kind of escalation happening — rhetoric has to get more intense to have the same impact.”
Beauchamp said the trend among those center-left Democrats who were the subject of the Times analysis is especially telling. Ideologically, that cohort is less extreme than their more progressive colleagues and far-right counterparts, meaning they may paradoxically have to rely more on charged political rhetoric to differentiate themselves.
In other words, he said, “as policy differences narrow or become less salient, rhetoric has to do more work. And when rhetoric is doing all the work, it has to become more extreme to stand out.”
