The name Epic Fury does more than describe military action; it markets it. It suggests inevitability, righteousness, and even entertainment value. But war is not entertainment. It is destruction, displacement, and death. When language sanitizes or glamorizes violence, it becomes harder for the public to grapple with the ethical stakes of military force.
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on March 2, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. Secretary Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine held the news conference to give an update on Operation Epic Fury. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
In his first briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, “Two days ago, under the direction and direct orders of President Donald J. Trump, the Department of War launched Operation Epic Fury, the most-lethal, most-complex and most-precise aerial operation in history." The phrasing is unmistakably promotional—“most-lethal,” “most-complex,” “most-precise”—as though he were unveiling a new weapons platform or a blockbuster film rather than describing a real military campaign in which real people are dying.
Hegseth’s language repeatedly frames the conflict as a long-awaited moment of righteous vengeance. He describes Iran’s actions over the past 47 years as a “savage, one-sided war against America,” and casts the U.S. response as “our retribution against their ayatollah and his death cult.” He tells the public, “If you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on Earth, we will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation, and we will kill you.” This is not the sober language of a statesman explaining the gravity of war. It is the language of a revenge narrative—one that reduces complex geopolitical realities to a simple morality play.
The danger of this rhetoric is not merely stylistic. It shapes how the public understands the conflict. When Hegseth boasts that “America… is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history” and celebrates the absence of “stupid rules of engagement” or “politically correct wars,” he is not simply describing military strategy. He is signaling that restraint, proportionality, and international law are obstacles to be discarded. He is inviting the public to view the overwhelming force not only as justified but also exhilarating.
This framing obscures the human consequences of the operation. Iranian cities have been struck repeatedly. Civilian infrastructure has been damaged. Families are fleeing. Hospitals are overwhelmed. These realities are nowhere in Hegseth’s remarks. Instead, he speaks of “epic fury,” “lethality,” and a “generational turning point,” as though the suffering of ordinary people is irrelevant to the story he wants to tell. Even when acknowledging American casualties, he uses them to justify further escalation: “No apologies, no hesitation, epic fury for them and the thousands of Americans before them taken too soon by Iranian radicals.”
The rhetoric also encourages a dangerous sense of inevitability and triumphalism. Hegseth tells U.S. troops, “We are not defenders anymore. We are warriors, trained to kill the enemy and break their will.” He assures them, “We will finish this on America-first conditions of President Trump’s choosing, nobody else’s.” This is not the language of limited, carefully calibrated military action. It is the language of totalizing conflict—conflict framed as destiny, as purification, as a test of national character.
When war is framed this way, dissent becomes harder. Nuance becomes suspect. Civilian casualties become collateral to a narrative of righteous fury. And the public becomes more likely to accept open-ended conflict when it is packaged as a spectacle rather than a tragedy.
The United States has a long history of naming military operations in ways that evoke purpose or resolve—Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Inherent Resolve. But Epic Fury marks a shift toward something more explicitly theatrical. It is not a name meant to clarify objectives or communicate seriousness. It is a name meant to excite, to dramatize, to sell.
War is not a product. It is not a storyline. It is not a moment for branding. It is a human catastrophe, even when undertaken for reasons leaders deem necessary. When officials adopt language that glamorizes violence and reduces geopolitical complexity to a revenge narrative, they erode the public’s ability to understand the true stakes of military action.
The question now is whether the public will accept this Hollywood‑style packaging of war—or whether it will demand a return to language that reflects the gravity of life, death, and the responsibilities of a democratic nation.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
“Our nation is back,” Trump said. “Bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever before.”
The president also joked about “winning too much” and welcomed the Olympic gold-winning U.S. men’s hockey team, amid controversy surrounding FBI Director Kash Patel’s celebration with the team and public backlash to the players’ laughter about the women’s hockey team during a phone call with Trump.
According to a Medill News Service analysis, Trump spent more time praising the hockey players and American athletics than he did talking about Israel, Gaza, Russia, Ukraine, and Iran combined.
Policy at the forefront
Trump spent more than a quarter of the address promoting new policy measures and touting his past accomplishments.
With midterm elections on the horizon, Trump focused roughly 10 minutes on the Republican Party’s roadmap for the next two years. He spoke about regulations for artificial intelligence data centers, nationwide voter identification laws, new retirement plan options, and further restrictions on insider trading.
However, Trump spent twice as much time touting what he viewed as the successes of his second administration.
“I do think a lot of the success outlined in the State of the Union will be a part of the Republican message in the fall,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told the Associated Press.
One reference to affordability
Trump spent about 10 minutes on one of the key issues in the upcoming midterm elections: the economy.
According to a February AP-NORC poll, 59% of people disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, compared to just 39% that approve.
Trump only said the word “affordability” once in his entire speech — and it was to attack Democrats, not explain his own economic policies. However, he highlighted increased stock market growth and American oil production, as well as lower inflation and prices on various goods, including gas and eggs, to support his record.
In the Democratic response to the State of the Union, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who ran on an “affordable Virginia” agenda, argued that Trump’s policies are not helping American families.
“Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family?” Spanberger said. “Is the president working to keep Americans safe, both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you?”
Trump also said it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court on Friday struck down his tariffs, a large part of his economic agenda. He added that existing deals with countries and businesses will hold because “a new deal could be far worse for them.”
10 minutes on immigration
In the middle of a Department of Homeland Security shutdown over Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding — and while two-thirds of Americans say ICE agents’ actions have gone too far — the president spent less than 10% of his speech on the topic.
But when he did talk about his immigration crackdown, he didn’t change his usual rhetoric.
Trump did not use the word “immigrant” once during his entire speech. But he mentioned the border 16 times and referred to immigrants as “criminals,” “aliens,” and “illegal” 25 times in total.
The president spent around two minutes of his address attacking Somali residents of Minnesota, calling them “pirates” and accusing them of corrupting the state. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who is the country’s first Somali-American legislator, heckled Trump during his speech.
“You have killed Americans,” Omar yelled across the chambers, in a reference to the fatal shootings of two Americans by ICE agents in her home state this year.
Trump spent another four minutes promoting his immigration policy by telling stories of Americans who were harmed by “illegal aliens.”
The state of Venezuela
After focusing on his domestic agenda for roughly an hour and 15 minutes, Trump pivoted to foreign policy by highlighting the “eight wars” he claimed to have ended in his second term.
“We’re proudly restoring safety for Americans at home, and we are also restoring security for Americans abroad,” Trump said. “Our country has never been stronger.”
In total, Trump spent less than 20 minutes discussing foreign policy.
He used more than half of this time on Venezuela, where U.S. forces captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in January. Trump recognized a freed Venezuelan politician and awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor to an American pilot who participated in the operation.
Trump spent just three minutes discussing Iran and preventing the development of nuclear weapons.
The President added that he wanted to “solve this problem through diplomacy.” The Associated Press reported that the U.S. has assembled the largest force of aircraft and warships in the Middle East since 2003.
Everything else
Trump spent the second-most time, about 26 minutes, introducing non-policy-related guests.
For about seven minutes, he gave a Purple Heart to Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe and the parents of Sarah Beckstrom, a West Virginia Army National Guard specialist. An Afghan national was charged with killing Beckstrom and injuring Wolfe in a Washington, D.C., shooting in November.
Trump also recognized Erika Kirk, the widow of late right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk, two World War II veterans, and a rescuer and survivor of the 2025 Texas floods.
Trump spent almost the same amount of time celebrating the Olympic U.S. men’s hockey team as he did criticizing Democrats for their handling of the economy and immigration. He did not criticize any Republicans who have spoken out against him.
He also praised Secretary of State Marco Rubio for approximately a minute and First Lady of the United States Melania Trump for almost two.
Marissa Fernandez covers politics for Medill on the Hill.
Ben Shapiro is a Politics & Policy Reporter for Medill News Service.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn how by clicking HERE.
Will Trump’s moves ever awaken conservatives?