Coercive control is a concept that was first developed to describe abusively dysfunctional personal relationships. It is a form of psychological manipulation calculated to exploit, control, create dependency and dominate. It relies on a process that is commonly referred to as ‘gaslighting’ – coercing a victim to reframe their experience, judgements and memories of a situation so they are replaced with ones the abuser prefers. A textbook example of such a process was filmed in the Oval Office last week, between Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Donald Trump and JD Vance.
When does bullying become coercive control?
‘Donald Trump is a bully; JD Vance is a bully.’ This accusation is festooned across the world’s media. That an American president used his superior position to bully a European premier is not a new accusation.
There is a well-documented case in which Franklin D Roosevelt used a meeting between the Allies in the second world war to ‘tease’ Winston Churchill, while Harold Wilson complained that Lyndon Johnson “shouted and ranted at me at the top of his voice” during a phone call about Vietnam in 1965.
Nowadays, bullying takes place not only in person, or via one-to-one telephone conversations; it also takes place on social media. Populist politicians such as Trump frequently engage in this, particularly when attempting to fuel anger among their followers towards specific individuals or groups.
Human relationships are complicated, and disagreement can frequently tip over into incidents of bullying, especially when there is an uneven balance of power. Bullying can then escalate to a form of abusive manipulation termed ‘coercive control’. This involves victimising, routinely manipulating and humiliating the weaker party, with the aim of making them a vassal of the stronger party.
What is coercive control?
The ‘power and control’ wheel was developed as a tool to analyse how abusers destroy victims’ self-confidence, choice and self-determination in order to bend them completely to their will.
Victims are coerced into frequent apology and berated for not showing gratitude to the abuser. They are continually humiliated and threatened, and ultimately beaten down into agreeing with the abuser’s constructions of reality. They learn that this is the only way to avoid repeated onslaughts that reinforce their feelings of powerlessness. As time goes by, they relinquish more and more control over their thoughts and actions to their abuser.
Trump and Vance: a textbook lesson in coercive control
This transcript of Trump and Vance’s interaction with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, drawn from The Hindustan Times, provides many worked examples of the coercive control process. To start with, the entire interaction is an exercise in ‘economic abuse’, because the principal message to Zelenskyy is ‘unless you do exactly as we say, we will withdraw all economic support for you, and that will destroy you’. This was followed up by action less than a week later, when all military support to Ukraine was suspended.
Intimidation and isolation were also embedded in the interaction itself, with two powerful native English speakers shouting at a less-powerful person who speaks English as a foreign language, facing a wall of cameras and journalists also shouting questions in English. Knowing that what he said was being broadcast live to billions of people across the world further ramped up the pressure for Zelenskyy.
The following techniques can be seen in the moment-to-moment conversation:
Vance: What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.” [Using privilege: implied – we do diplomacy, you don’t.]
Zelenskyy: In 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, Macron and Merkel. We signed a ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he would never go. But after that, he broke the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
Vance: “I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country. Mr President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.” [Coercion: ‘say thank you’.]
Zelenskyy: “Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?”
Vance: “I have been to―”
Zelenskyy: “Come once.”
Vance: “I’ve watched and seen the stories, and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr President.” [Coercion, threat: intimating to the audience that Zelenskyy is lying, that the truth needs to be redefined.]
Zelenskyy: “First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel it now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless―”
Trump: “You don’t know that. You don’t know that. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem. Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel.” [Coercion, threat, privilege: implied – only we are allowed to define these things in this conversation.]
Zelenskyy: “I’m not telling you. I am answering these questions.”
Trump: “Because you’re in no position to dictate that.” [Coercion, threat: Implied – we have all the power here, you have none.]
Vance: “That’s exactly what you’re doing.” [Coercion, threat: two against one.]
Trump: “You are in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel. We’re going to feel very good.” [Coercion, threat: implied – if you don’t do what we say, you are the only one who is going to suffer.]
Zelenskyy: “You will feel influenced.” [Sees through the threat and refuses to be coerced.]
Trump: “We are going to feel very good and very strong.” [Coercion, threat: implied – I’m going to be fine, because I am so much stronger than you.]
Zelenskyy: “I am telling you. You will feel influenced.” [Continued refusal to be coerced.]
Trump: “You’re, right now, not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” [Doubles down on previous coercion.]
Zelenskyy: “From the very beginning of the war―”
Trump: “You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.” [Coercion: implied – If you do as we say, we’ll lend you a little bit of our power.]
Zelenskyy: “I’m not playing cards. I’m very serious, Mr President. I’m very serious.” [Responds by searching for some type of ethical/moral thought in Trump.]
Trump: “You’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.” [Coercion: Trump refuses to engage with the moral/ethical level of the situation, and uses the ‘children/pets’ tactic, implied – ‘a lot of people you are responsible for will come to harm, if you don’t do as we say.’]
Vance: “Have you said thank you once?” [Coercion: ‘say thank you’.]
Zelenskyy: “A lot of times. Even today.”
Vance: “No, in this entire meeting. You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October.” [Coercion, threat: implied – we know that you are friends with people who are our enemies. You must agree to be totally controlled by us.]
Zelenskyy: “No.”
Vance: “Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.” [Coercion: ‘say thank you’.]
Consolidating control
From this point, the position is consolidated, with Trump emphatically spelling out Zelenskyy’s powerless position, and Vance following on and re-emphasising with his repetition of ‘say thank you’.
Zelenskyy: “Can I answer―?”
Trump: “No, no. You’ve done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.” [Silencing.]
Zelenskyy: “I know. I know.”
Trump: “You’re not winning. You’re not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out OK because of us.” [Implied – you are completely in our power.]
Zelenskyy: “Mr President, we are staying in our country, staying strong. From the very beginning of the war, we’ve been alone. And we are thankful. I said thanks.”
Trump demands Zelenskyy accept a ceasefire.
Trump: “If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.” [Implied – you are nothing without us.]
Zelenskyy: “In three days. I heard it from Putin. In three days.”
Trump: “Maybe less. It’s going to be a very hard thing to do business like this, I tell you.” [Implied – you are being needlessly difficult and ungrateful.]
Vance: “Just say thank you.”
At the end of the conversation, Trump sums up all the threats that have been made to Zelenskyy in his concluding remarks:
Trump: “… And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position, but you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest: that’s not a nice thing.”
And then he offers a final humiliation – implying that Zelenskyy has made himself look very small and silly live on international media:
Trump: “All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television, I will say that.”
The comment about ‘doing business’ is also telling. Clearly Trump believes that this is what all negotiations consist of: that there are no moral and ethical principles involved, and that the world is divided into winners and losers, where winners ‘hold all the cards’.
Fellow psychologist Suzanne Zeedyk has also posted a thread of analysis on this interaction on BlueSky that focuses on non-verbal signalling and is well worth reading:
The message is clear: believe what you see
I recently published an article in Yorkshire Bylines that traced the ‘doing business’ way of looking at the world back through American history. What the originator of the phrase ‘American dream’ has to say about it is thought-provoking.
“A system that steadily increases the gulf between the ordinary man and the super-rich, that permits the resources of society to be gathered into personal fortunes … is assuredly a wasteful and unjust system. It is, perhaps, as inimical as anything could be to the American dream.”
Time will tell whether this approach to power extends further in American foreign policy. But for now, it is a signal to the rest of the world that the post-war consensus is over. So the world needs to find alternatives. And in doing so, I suggest we heed the words of a great American who came through discrimination, prejudice and tragedy to have her voice revered on the world stage:
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” – Maya Angelou
