The confrontational communicative threat tactics in Nancy Pelosi’s speeches and interviews

This article investigates the confrontational communicative threat tactics in Nancy Pelosi’s public speeches and interviews who was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, from 2019 to 2023. In the context of increasing political polarization and the growing mediatization of power, the speech practices of leaders have become a strategic tool of influence aimed at opponents, allies, and the mass audience. In this framework, a threat is not merely an expression of aggression but an institutionally legitimized speech act combining the functions of warning, pressure, and mobilization. The theoretical foundation of the study is based on the principles of speech act theory, the concept of face-threatening acts, and the theory of the institutional legitimization of speech strategies. The research material consisted of 33 public speeches and interviews by Nancy Pelosi, published as press releases and television interviews. The methods of discourse analysis, conteny analysis, and contextual and linguistic-stylistic analysis were applied. The results show that the threat tactics is a systematic element of Pelosi’s political rhetoric, aimed at strengthening her institutional authority and consolidating the electorate. The texts revealed 134 quotes containing threats, where 43 quotes (32 %) were explicit and 91 quotes (68 %) were implicit. Explicit threats are implemented through modal verbs of obligation (will, must, shall), vocabulary of sanctions (punish, sanction, hold accountable), directive constructions, and metaphors of retribution (price to pay, train coming after you). Implicit threats are expressed through conditional constructions (if…then), negative forms (we cannot allow), institutional references, and morally evaluative vocabulary (undermines our democracy, endangers our Constitution). It is concluded that the predominance of implicit threats reflects a strategy of “democratic deterrence”, typical for Nancy Pelosi’s speech. This strategy combines decisiveness and legal rigor with rhetorical politeness and democratic correctness, allowing to use the threat as a a tool of institutional pressure, moral leadership, and maintaining political balance in the context of confrontational communication.