Shutdown Syntax: Parsing Power, Politics and Portfolio Risk

By JB Beckett in collaboration with DDL

In the spirit of New Fund Order, we must interrogate the narratives, not just the numbers. JB Beckett

The October 2025 shutdown of the United States government is not merely a fiscal event. It is a linguistic theatre, a semantic battleground where power is wielded not just through policy, but through prose. In the spirit of New Fund Order, we must interrogate the narratives, not just the numbers. For asset allocators, the implications are not only economic but epistemological. What is said, how it is said, and what is left unsaid, all shape the investment landscape.

Forensic Statement and Linguistic Analysis: A Primer

Forensic statement and linguistic analysis (FSLA) is the dissection of language to uncover deception, intent, and psychological state. It is used in law enforcement, intelligence, and increasingly, in political risk analysis. In the context of the 2025 shutdown, FSLA reveals the fault lines in American governance and the rhetorical strategies of its key actors.

Let us examine the statements of three central figures:

· President Donald Trump

· House Speaker Mike Johnson (R)

· House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D)

And contrast these with the responses from NGOs such as Feeding America and PolitiFact, who serve as linguistic counterweights.

Trump: The Syntax of Strength and Scapegoating

Trump’s language is performative, declarative, and often binary. In 2013, he famously said: “Problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top.” [1] This quote resurfaced in 2025, ironically weaponised against him. His current statements, however, shift from leadership to blame: “Democrats have shut down the government.” [2]

This is a classic deflection. The use of third-person plural ("Democrats") distances Trump from responsibility. The passive construction of "have shut down" avoids agency. Compare this to his 2013 active voice: “The president’s the leader and he’s got to get everybody in a room.”

Trump’s rhetorical pivot from solution to scapegoat is telling. His administration’s use of AI-generated memes, including one depicting budget director Russ Vought as “The Reaper,” [3] is not just political theatre, it is linguistic warfare. The metaphor of death is deployed to justify layoffs, cloaked in dark humour.

Mike Johnson: The Language of Legitimacy and Leverage

Speaker Johnson’s statements are procedural, legalistic, and accusatory: “Democrats have officially voted to CLOSE the government.” [4] The use of capitalisation ("CLOSE") is a visual linguistic device, amplifying emotional resonance. Johnson’s syntax is structured to imply finality and blame. He avoids modal verbs ("could," "might") that suggest uncertainty. Instead, he uses declaratives to assert control.

Yet, forensic analysis reveals a contradiction. Johnson claims the House passed a “clean continuing resolution,” [5] but omits the embedded policy riders that triggered Democratic opposition. The omission is strategic, a linguistic sleight of hand.

Hakeem Jeffries: The Syntax of Solidarity and Subversion

Jeffries, in contrast, employs inclusive pronouns and moral framing: “We remain ready to find a bipartisan path forward… but we need a credible partner.” [4]

The use of "we" signals unity. The phrase "credible partner" is a linguistic challenge—an implicit accusation of bad faith. Jeffries’ rhetoric is calibrated to appeal to institutional norms, contrasting Trump’s populist tone.

His joint statement with Senator Schumer refers to Trump’s behaviour as “erratic and unhinged,” [4] a psychological framing that undermines Trump’s ethos. This is not just political critique, it is character assassination via syntax.

NGOs: The Language of Impact and Empathy

Feeding America’s statement is a masterclass in empathetic linguistics:

“Shutdowns create instability in people’s lives each day they continue and could force many to make impossible choices.” [6] The phrase “impossible choices” evokes pathos.

The repetition of “shutdown” as subject reinforces urgency. Unlike political actors, NGOs use language to humanise, not politicise. PolitiFact’s analysis [7] reveals how linguistic manipulation, such as exaggeration of WIC program cuts can distort public perception. Their forensic rebuttals serve as linguistic disinfectants in a toxic rhetorical environment.

Historical Context: Shutdowns and Market Reactions

Since 1976, the US has experienced over 20 shutdowns. The longest, in 2018–2019, lasted 35 days. Yet, markets have shown resilience. The S&P 500 rose 10% during the 2018–19 shutdown [8]. In 2013, it gained 3.1% [9]. However, the 2025 shutdown is different. It coincides with: · A fragile labour market [10] · AI-induced job displacement · A delayed nonfarm payroll report [11] · Potential permanent layoffs [12] Gold has surged to record highs [13], signalling a flight to safety. The dollar has weakened [14], and Treasury yields have dipped [15]. Asset allocators must now navigate a landscape where linguistic risk is as real as credit risk.

Implications for Asset Allocators

1. Political Risk Premium: Expect increased volatility in sectors reliant on federal funding—defence, healthcare, infrastructure.

2. Currency Hedging: The dollar’s weakness may persist if the shutdown extends. Consider FX overlays or gold exposure.

3. Data Blindness: With key economic reports delayed, allocators must rely on alternative data sources. This increases model risk.

4. Narrative Arbitrage: Investors who can decode political language may gain an edge. Forensic linguistic analysis is now a tool in the allocator’s arsenal.

Conclusion: From Narrative to Navigation

In New Fund Order, we argued that fund selection is not just about numbers—it’s about narratives. The 2025 shutdown proves this anew. Language is not neutral. It is a weapon, a shield, a signal.

Asset allocators must become linguistic analysts. Because in a world where the president posts memes and the speaker capitalises blame, the real risk lies not just in what is done but in what is said.

References [1] Snopes [2] USA TODAY | MSN [3] www.cbsnews.com [4] CBS News [5] Yahoo [6] www.feedingamerica.org [7] www.politifact.com [8] Yahoo Finance [9] finance.yahoo.com [10] The Conversation | MSN [11] Forbes [12] www.morganstanley.com [13] Trustnet [14] www.cnbc.com [15] Invezz