A Critical Discourse Analysis of Hegemony and National Identity in the U.S. Security Documents

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that solidify in-group identity and marginalise out-group identity in institutional discourse. It is a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis of "The 2025 National Security Strategy" and "The 2026 National Defense Strategy ", applying van Dijk's (1998; 2011) 'Ideological Square' and Fairclough's (2013) 'Three-Dimensional Model' to analyse discursive hegemony and identity. The results show how both documents construct a polarised discursive structure to institutionalise 'warrior ethos' and 'saviour' to frame the present U.S. administration as a unilateral authority. They also show that the systematic use of high transitivity and martial metaphors results in the framing of military force as the ultimate 'practical' option. Therefore, it delegitimises diplomatic alternatives as 'cloud-castle abstractions'. The administration builds a discursive architecture that defines the boundaries of national belonging by presenting complex geopolitical issues as a moral dichotomy of 'Us versus Them'. The study concludes that this discourse is not merely a representation of reality but actively constructs a zero-sum security model. This institutionalises executive power and reduces the realm of legitimate political debate.