UCSD - University of California - San Diego

06/02/2026 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 06/02/2026 03:18

Why Are Politicians Swearing More

Published Date

June 02, 2026

Article Content

Key Takeaways

  • Political swearing has increased as cultural attitudes toward profanity have changed.
  • Voters often interpret swearing as a sign of authenticity and emotion.
  • Women and minority politicians generally have less freedom to swear and may face harsher judgments when they use profanity.

In American politics, cursing and "four-letter words" are no longer confined to hot mics or hidden behind closed doors. Politicians and pundits are increasingly using so-called "bad words" in speeches, social media posts and campaign ads. Benjamin Bergen, professor of cognitive science and Pamela Ban, associate professor of political science, both from UC San Diego's School of Social Sciences, examine why swearing among politicians is on the rise and what it reveals about persuasion, emotion and modern public discourse.

Ben, you've said the F-word has lost some of its sting over the last 15 to 20 years. What does that shift tell us about how public norms around language - and especially political language - have changed?

Ben Bergen: It's true that, at least according to our data, the F-word has slipped down the list of the words that American English speakers find most offensive. It's part of a larger trend, where taboo words relating to body parts, bodily functions, sex and also religion are becoming less offensive, while slurs have replaced them at the top of the list. As of fall 2025, our survey data showed that the F-word was judged the 24th most offensive word, at least among students in an undergraduate cognitive science course at UC San Diego.

At the same time, there have been important changes in the media that people are exposed to. With the advent of social media and the democratization of the language we consume, we have far more access to informal, uncensored language than, say, 20 years ago. Because informal language is more likely to include profanity, that means there's just a lot more of it around us. That increased exposure is desensitizing, resulting in measurably weaker physiological and psychological reactions when people are exposed to profanity.

That's just as true in political language as it is elsewhere. A study from a few years ago tracked the use of profanity in politician tweets and found sizable increases year over year, starting in about 2014. And of course that trend has continued, with politician swearing increasingly prominent not only in informal, but also in formal communication, like speeches and political ads.

Ban (left) is an Associate Professor of Political Science at UC San Diego. She studies American politics and political economy, including electoral politics, legislatures, political parties, congressional committees and lobbying. Bergen (right) is director of the Language and Cognition Lab and author of What the F: What Swearing Reveals About Our Language, Our Brains, and Ourselves. Ban studies American politics and political economy, including electoral politics, legislatures, political parties, congressional committees and lobbying. Image created with chatGPT with assets from UC San Diego.

Pam, when politicians swear in speeches, interviews or online posts, what are they usually trying to signal - anger, authenticity, relatability, or something else?

Pamela Ban: When politicians swear, they're likely performing rather than venting and the function may be a claim about who they are in relation to the people they represent. A long-standing idea in American representation scholarship is that legislators cultivate a "home style" - a way of presenting themselves to constituents that builds trust through identity rather than policy, signaling "I'm one of you, not one of them in Washington." Because polished political speech is often assumed to be consultant-filtered, profanity could work as a signal that the politician isn't tailoring their speech to elite expectations.

Another function is about the idea that legislators help personify the identity of their constituents and some legislators serve as a stand-in for aggrieved groups whose anger rarely reaches elite venues. Swearing could both signal a shared social identification with voters whose everyday vocabulary gets filtered out of official politics and it could channel moral outrage on behalf of people who feel unheard.

As a linguist and cognitive scientist, Bergen's book opens a new window onto how our brains process language and why languages vary around the world and over time.

Ben: In politics, is swearing most effective when it feels spontaneous and emotionally genuine, rather than scripted for a campaign ad or social media clip? What makes audiences hear the difference?

People judge those who swear in both positive and negative ways. Various studies have shown that swearers are overall thought to be less intelligent, less educated and more out-of-control, but also more truthful, authentic and funny. But these judgments are contextual. When the swearer is someone you like or identify with, for instance, if they're saying something you agree with, then you're more likely to apply positive judgments. But if you already dislike them or their message, then the effects of swearing on your opinion of them tend to be more negative.

Because swearing is perceived as expressing genuine emotion, when the context suggests otherwise, say, if the use of profanity comes off as scripted or inauthentic, this could detract from the positive effects it might be intended to have, though I don't know of specific work on this.

Pam, do voters hear profanity from politicians as honesty and passion, or can it backfire as performative and calculated? What determines which way it lands?

Whether it's taken as honesty or as performance likely depends on between the speaker, the audience and the moment. Much of the broader literature on legislative communication suggests that voters evaluate not just what politicians say but whether it aligns with the persona they've built over time. So, swearing may land as authentic when it's consistent with a politician's established self-presentation, directed at a target their constituents are genuinely angry about and matched with the venue they're speaking in. It could backfire if any of those three is off, since voters are often sensitive to perceived pandering. The costs may not fall evenly, though - work on gender and race in legislative behavior suggests that women and minority politicians are held to different expectations and so they may pay different, likely steeper, penalties for the same expressive choices.

Work on gender and race in legislative behavior suggests that women and minority politicians are held to different expectations and so they may pay different, likely steeper, penalties for the same expressive choices. Pamela Ban, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC San Diego.
UCSD - University of California - San Diego published this content on June 02, 2026, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on June 02, 2026 at 09:18 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]