The Union is a State

Opinion by Benjamin Lo (Grade 9)

At a time when State of the Union speeches act largely as a historical relic, a precedent set by George Washington, the SOTU speech this year was nothing less than a “State of the President’s Personal Ego” speech.

California Governor, Gavin Newsom, posted this on his socials on the day of the speech

The SOTU is supposed to be a constitutional ritual with a very specific civic purpose: an accounting of overall national conditions and an explanation of a president’s legislative roadmap. In a country that prides itself on being the “land of the brave” and the “home of the free,” the SOTU address acts as a way for the president to connect with his people, since a president is supposed to “serve his people rather than rule them.”

In practice, however, it has become something else: an early campaign event in formalwear. The speech is not a deliberation, but instead a performance, a branding to avoid accountability.

President Donald Trump’s 2026 speech was not aimed at persuading skeptics, convincing swing voters, or building a governing coalition heading into an election year. Instead, it was designed to validate his own personal narrative, in which he is successful, he is correct, and he is absolute. That is why, to many viewers, including myself, it felt like absolute nonsense, while also being unmistakably him: maximally egotistical and narcissistic.

While the speech certainly included multiple sections of Trump praising his own economic approach and its general broad popularity, and excessive standing ovations given by the Republican Party, polling suggests otherwise.

A February 2026 ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs and 65% of his handling of inflation. On the economy overall, 57% disapprove. His general approval rating, among 2024 voters, is deep underwater in every single state that voted for Harris in 2024, every single swing state, and is even negative within Iowa, Ohio, and Texas.

Tariffs and inflation weren’t just side notes of his speech; they were central to his overall self-portrait. He spoke of the economy as “the best ever” while the public is underwater on the two most concrete dimensions: prices and trade policies. To any ordinary American, the speech felt more like a victory lap than a report of the actual “state of the union.”

Of course, the immigration section followed the same logic. He declared his success, his toughness, and his persistence. However, polls show that six in 10 Americans think the president has gone “too far” in major U.S. cities, and that 60% hold an unfavorable view of his handling.

Most importantly, and evidenced by his personality, was the section on international policy. The situation in Iran was framed as a canvas for his own character and definition of the country; he wanted to show the United States as strong and decisive rather than address national concerns. Polls show that Americans disapprove of U.S. strikes against Iran 43% to 27%.

In other words, he is continuing with international policies that are deeply unpopular, as if he is deaf to the people’s concerns and criticism.

Within his speech, he displayed the Venezuelan intervention as a clean "good and bad" story, without recognizing the long-term risks and costs, especially when the act is already deeply unpopular both domestically and internationally.

Any other State of the Union address uses the country as the subject and the president as the agent for said subject’s success. However, Trump’s version flips that logic; he uses himself as a measurement of the country’s success rather than the other way around. That is why many label him nothing less than a narcissist and his speech as an extravagant display of self-importance.

If a president is going to claim success on economics while the clear majority disapprove of its handling, we certainly should demand specifics, such as what changes and what tradeoffs occur within what timeline. If a president is going to claim success while the public is uneasy, we should demand actual strategy and policy.

A SOTU speech should be an argument to check and one to discern facts from fancy. However, his speech was not on the condition of the union, which is in total disarray, but the condition of a political style that treats him as its centerpiece and uses criticism as proof that the spotlight is still on him.