What services does Instrumental Communications offer?

Instrumental Communications offers content strategy development, AI tools for marketing, ethical storytelling, crisis communication management, media relations, and digital content strategy, specializing in nonprofit and advocacy communications.

Why is ethical storytelling important for nonprofits?

Ethical storytelling ensures that nonprofit narratives are authentic, respectful, and empower the people they feature. It builds trust with audiences and prevents exploitation of vulnerable communities.

How does Instrumental Communications work with clients?

We work collaboratively with nonprofits, advocacy groups, and mission-driven organizations, offering tailored communication strategies, training, and content creation to amplify their impact and reach strategic audiences.

Do you offer how to use AI in communications services?

Yes, Instrumental Communications specializes in AI communication management, helping organizations plan, prepare, manage, and integrate AI into their work without losing their humanity.

Autocratic Vistas

Aug 20

Written By Travis Nichols

August 20, 2025

Trump Logic Reloaded

TLDR: We tested Trump’s statements about the war in Ukraine against our Trump Logic Generator. Peace was promised and caveated but (surprise!) the war continues.

What?

Last week, we debuted a five-step framework for modeling how Trump (or his surrogates) transform statements into their opposite, all while claiming total consistency.

We called it the “Trump Logic Generator”, and so far it’s been a hit, with so many queries that it actually shut down our account for an hour or so this morning.

Here’s a quick refresher on its structure:

Trump Logic

Step 1: Make a bold claim or denial.
Step 2: Undermine it with an equivocation.
Step 3: Broaden the equivocation with a big conspiracy.
Step 4: Name the enemy. Blame the enemy.
Step 5: Collapse the premise. Turn assertion into denial, denial into assertion.

We found it works surprisingly well, so we decided to put it to the test against Trump’s try-hard campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize (don’t laugh!).

Here’s what Trump said before his meeting with Putin in Alaska:

“If it’s a bad meeting, it’ll end quickly. If it’s good, we’ll have peace in the near future.”

Based on that statement, here’s how we thought his logic would play out

So What?

So, how are we doing? What phase of the derangement are we currently wallowing in? Well, before we dive in, a bit on why this matters beyond just being a goofy thing to do with AI.

For those of us fighting it out with the Attention Warlords, it’s crucial we don’t bring The Elements of Style to a gun fight.

The right’s success with “Trump Logic” shows how repetition, emotional urgency, and structure can overpower facts. If we want to counter disinformation and move people to action, we need to stop assuming the “public” can be persuaded by proper thesis + supports or by pointing out inconsistency or hypocrisy.

Ghost Moby GIFfrom Ghost GIFs

But we can intervene in the process once we stop clutching our pearls in surprise at every predictable step in the framework. And we can work to develop stories and content that is equally compelling but actually rooted in truth instead of Truth Social.

Speaking of!

After the Alaska meeting, Trump posted on “Truth” “Social”:

“President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE.”

And after the meeting with Zelensky at the White House, Trump told Fox & “Friends”:

"I don't think you need a ceasefire…We can work a deal where we're working on a peace deal while they're fighting. They have to fight. I wish they could stop. I'd like them to stop, but strategically, that could be a disadvantage for one side or the other.”

Step 1: Make a bold claim or denial.

“We’re going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future.”

Check. This is a classic Step One: an assertive, optimistic prediction that appears simple and decisive.

Step 2: Undermine it with an equivocation.

“President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to...”

Check. That if is doing a lot of work. It turns a promise of peace into a bit of Trumpian extortion. It also starts the process of shifting responsibility. Peace is possible IF Ukraine does what Trump/Putin wants. Historical blame (weird, ahistorical Obama claim) also surfaces, setting up the big bad THEY and a rationale for the inversion.

Step 3: Broaden the equivocation with a big conspiracy.

“Remember how it started—Obama gave away Crimea…”

Close but not quite. The implication is there (Obama, NATO, “how it started”) but it’s not yet the fully formed Big Lie just yet.

Similarly, we’re not quite to Step 4 (“Name the enemy. Blame the Enemy”) or Step 5 (“Collapse the premise”) just yet, but Trump has definitely set the table, and his surrogates are hinting that we’re getting there.

Now What?

We’re primed for the Trump Derangement Force to begin framing the war’s continuation as part of a larger anti-Trump conspiracy and giving him an easy out for failing.

“The media wants this war to go on, they love it, and they don’t want me to win the Nobel Peace Prize, so they block peace any time I try to make it happen.”

“They gave Obama the phony Nobel Peace Prize, and they’ll keep this war going for as long as they can so they don’t have to give it to me.”

It’s clear, though, that the original assertion of “peace in the pretty near future” has already started to buckle under the weight of Trump’s semantic overload.

“Peace” is now something that happens while the fighting continues, and a ceasefire where the violence actually, you know, ceases, is optional.

The war doesn’t end, but the branding holds.

NB: There are no typos in this emiall.

How can I make Instrumental better?