The dataset for this study was constructed by compiling speeches delivered by (radical) right leaders at prominent transnational events from 2021 to the present. Each speech serves as a distinct observational unit, allowing for a systematic examination of individual contributions within each event and providing a foundation to assess both rhetorical consistencies and divergences across diverse platforms and contexts. The dataset centers on three principal events recognized for convening radical right leaders from multiple regions: the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), VIVA España, and the Madrid Forum. These events were chosen due to their prominence as arenas where radical right leaders articulate core themes, coordinate ideological agendas, and reinforce shared perspectives across national boundaries.7

The speeches were sourced from various locations within each event, capturing a spectrum of contexts, including CPAC Brazil, CPAC Mexico, and CPAC USA, as well as the VIVA España gathering and the Madrid Forum’s regional meetings in Bogotá, Lima, and Río de la Plata. In total, the dataset comprises 51 speeches: 4 from CPAC Brazil, 4 from CPAC Mexico, 8 from CPAC USA, 3 from VIVA21, 4 from VIVA22, 178from VIVA 24, 6 from Foro Bogotá, 1 from Foro Lima, and 4 from Foro Río de la Plata. A detailed table listing the speakers by event is provided in the Appendix, offering further insight into the dataset’s composition. Appendix A presents a summary table analyzing representative participation at right-wing events, with a particular focus on active contributors. To aid in analysis, representatives are categorized by region, highlighting countries and individuals with notable and recurrent involvement.

To examine the primary issues and themes within the speeches of various representatives, a hybrid analysis was conducted, combining automated coding with manual categorization. This approach integrated automated coding using Large Language Models (LLMs) with manual qualitative analysis performed by the researchers. In the initial phase, an inductive analysis identified three central themes within the speeches. Subsequently, based on the categories generated by the LLM, these themes were grouped and expanded into broader categories, adhering to the principles of exhaustiveness and mutual exclusivity. This process yielded a total of ten categories. The categorization procedure is outlined in Table 1.

An inductive analysis of the speeches delivered by radical right leaders followed by subsequent re-coding, reveals a pronounced division between domestic and foreign policy, culminating in a cohesive agenda centered on defending national identity and sovereignty. The identified categories highlight a range of topics prioritized by these leaders, which include a strong focus on National Sovereignty and Security (58 mentions), opposition to Socialism, Globalism, and Leftist Ideologies (54 mentions), and advocacy for Freedom, Rights, and Civil Liberties (39 mentions). Other significant themes include Cultural Identity, Values, and Heritage (36 mentions), Political Ideology and Governance (33 mentions), and International Relations and Alliances (30 mentions).

Economic considerations are also notable, with Economic Policy and Sovereignty (28 mentions) underscoring a desire for economic autonomy, often linked to nationalistic goals. Additionally, Patriotism and National Pride (21 mentions) emerges as a key theme, expressing allegiance to national symbols and values. Issues of Justice and Social Responsibility (18 mentions) are addressed in terms of legal and moral integrity, while Media, Communication, and Public Discourse (15 mentions) reflects concerns over information control and narrative shaping. These categories reveal a coherent yet contextually adaptable agenda that reflects each leader’s particular national focus, allowing for resistance to perceived external threats while maintaining individual autonomy. This approach avoids a unified, transnational agenda and emphasizes sovereignty in both policy and ideological terms.

Source: Own elaboration.

Source: Own elaboration.

The Sankey diagram illustrates that, although leaders from the three regions share thematic elements within radical right discourses, each region primarily engages with issues specific to its unique sociopolitical context rather than aligning around a cohesive transnational agenda. In Europe, discourses emphasize “National Sovereignty and Security” as well as “International Relations and Alliances”, reflecting anxieties over perceived losses of autonomy to the European Union and challenges posed by immigration. Notably, Europe has also spearheaded initiatives to establish alliances among radical right-wing leaders. In contrast, Latin American discourses focus on “Socialist Ideology, Globalism, and Leftist Currents”, along with “Patriotism and National Pride”. This orientation likely stems from a historical context marked by leftist government influence and a rejection of globalist policies perceived as external impositions. Also In Latin America, the radical right is notably characterized by a strong alignment with neoliberal principles, a trait that is less evident in Europe and the United States. This pattern suggests limited cross-regional influence, with the adoption of specific issues being shaped more by local conditions than by coordinated collaboration across regions. In the United States, the discourse is characterized by a strong emphasis on “Liberty, Rights, and Civil Liberties”, underscoring a defense of individual freedoms in response to perceived expansions of state authority—an issue that appears less central in the other regions. While the theme of “Cultural Identity and Values” recurs across all regions, this overlap appears more coincidental than reflective of direct influence or common objectives.

In conclusion, the analysis reveals a form of “selective transnationalism”, where leaders incorporate ideas from other regions only when they resonate with particular domestic contexts, rather than fostering a cohesive network of mutual cooperation.

In addition to the thematic fragmentation observed across regions, the expansion of the radical right’s discourse has been significantly facilitated by digital infrastructures, which allow messages to circulate rapidly and transnationally without requiring formal organizational coordination. Recent studies have shown that far-right actors strategically leverage social media platforms —such as Telegram, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter)— not only to amplify their narratives, but also to manipulate public perception through disinformation and algorithmic amplification (Benkler, Faris & Roberts, 2018; Fielitz & Thurston, 2019). These mechanisms of digital manipulation compensate for the absence of structural cohesion, enabling these movements to generate a sense of global resonance and ideological alignment. This suggests that the apparent ideological convergence we identify may not be the result of centralized coordination, but rather the outcome of effective symbolic diffusion across digital environments saturated with selective exposure and confirmation bias (Marwick & Lewis, 2017). Far from being marginal, this digital infrastructure functions as the connective tissue of what we conceptualize as selective transnationalism—a network of rhetorical synchronization, not institutional integration.

Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 2 illustrates that while far-right leaders across various regions share certain thematic elements in their discourse, their interpretations and emphases differ according to regional contexts, reflecting both notable convergences and divergences. First, anti-communism and anti-globalism emerge as recurring themes in both Europe and Latin America. In Europe, leaders like Abascal and Meloni associate anti-communism and opposition to globalism to the defense of national identity against external influences, particularly from the European Union. In Latin America, figures such as Kast and Milei also oppose these ideologies, yet within a context of resistance to leftist governments and state intervention, linking these ideas to a defense of neoliberal economic principles.

Second, the analysis of national sovereignty and international alliances highlights both points of convergence and region-specific distinctions. Leaders from each of the three regions —Abascal, Kast, Meloni, and Trump— emphasize the importance of safeguarding national sovereignty. However, in Europe, this sovereignty is primarily associated with resistance to supranational entities like the EU, whereas in Latin America, it aligns with economic autonomy and opposition to intervention from left-leaning initiatives such as the Puebla Group. In the United States, sovereignty is articulated through individual autonomy and control over media discourse, as seen in Trump and Gabbard’s critiques of media and political elites.

Finally, cultural identity and national values are recurring themes across these leaders’ rhetoric, though priorities vary. European leaders focus on cultural preservation in response to migration and multiculturalism, whereas in Latin America and the United States, identity is shaped by the defense of traditional values and rejection of “leftist ideology”. These differences illustrate how the global far-right adapts shared themes to local contexts, revealing a complex, heterogeneous, and adaptive movement.

Our analysis identified central topics within right-wing discourse, each framed strategically according to speaker, event, and audience. Results are organized around (1) varied framings of the same topics and (2) consistent framings across different topics, with additional insights by event type to highlight each gathering’s unique focus. To capture the diversity in framing, we segmented the speeches based on event type— CPAC, VIVA and Madrid Forum. This allowed us to observe not only how leaders frame specific topics but also how these framings adapt according to event context and regional audience.

Topics with Multiple Framings

Non-elected bodies such as the judiciary as well as the opposition to leftist ideology form a cluster of topics that, although consistently critiqued in right-wing rhetoric globally, exhibit notable variability in framing. For instance, Jair Bolsonaro frequently frames the judiciary as an “obstructive force”, suggesting that left-leaning judicial bodies actively hinder conservative progress and collude with political opposition to undermine his agenda. Santiago Abascal, in contrast, often presents the judiciary as an institution “under siege”, threatened by leftist ideologies that, in his view, compromise judicial integrity and stability. Javier Milei emphasizes a more existential framing, describing leftist ideology within the judiciary as a direct threat to both individual freedom and national sovereignty. This framing positions right wing leaders as protectors of institutional integrity against what they perceive as ideological encroachments from the left.

Freedom of speech and the defense of civil liberties is another topic subject to varied framing approaches, typically presented either as a “fundamental right under threat” or as an “essential liberty endangered by authoritarianism”. In the United States context, Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard emphasize freedom of speech as a right under siege by leftist policies and biased media, underscoring concerns about ideological suppression within U.S. institutions. Conversely, Bolsonaro frames this issue through a lens of authoritarianism, connecting the threat to state and global institutions that, in his view, aim to erode civil liberties and silence conservative voices. This distinction underscores how freedom of speech is adapted to local and international concerns about ideological control.

Narcotrafficking is consistently depicted as a societal issue with corrosive effects, though the specifics of this framing vary. Abascal emphasizes narcotrafficking as a corrosive influence, linking it to broader threats like illegal immigration and globalism. This framing suggests a perception of narcotrafficking as a destabilizing force that goes beyond crime to undermine social cohesion. In contrast, the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, presents narcotrafficking as a threat to national sovereignty, particularly within the Latin American context, where drug-related crime and transnational trafficking impact governance and security. Here, narcotrafficking is seen as a direct challenge to the state’s ability to maintain order and sovereignty. In the United States, tribalism and political polarization are frequently discussed, with significant framing differences. Gabbard describes tribalism as a “dangerous division”, warning of its capacity to weaken national unity. Trump, however, presents polarization as an “inevitable ideological clash”, positioning himself as the leader capable of unifying the nation by challenging a corrupt opposition. This contrast demonstrates how leaders might frame the same issue either as a negative force or as a necessary division that validates their leadership role.

The Ideological Divide (Right vs. Left) is consistently portrayed as a “fundamental conflict”, with leaders such as Abascal, Bolsonaro, and Milei casting the political right movements as defenders of societal values against an existential threat posed by the left. Milei intensifies this framing by describing the divide as a “battle for the nation’s soul”, suggesting that the opposition embodies moral corruption and poses a direct threat to individual freedoms. This framing establishes a moral dimension to the ideological divide, encouraging audiences to view it as more than a simple political disagreement.

Framings Applied to Multiple Topics

Several framing strategies recur across multiple topics, each with distinct rhetorical purposes. Framing topics as threats is particularly prevalent, mobilizing conservative audiences by depicting essential values —such as freedom of speech, national sovereignty, and cultural integrity— as endangered by internal and external forces. Bolsonaro exemplifies this strategy, applying the “threat” framing across issues ranging from national sovereignty to freedom of speech, which he characterizes as under attack from leftist and globalist forces. This framing strategy fosters a defensive stance, encouraging supporters to protect these values against perceived encroachments.

The framing of topics as corrosive influences is also widely applied, particularly to issues like narcotrafficking, socialism, and globalism. Abascal frequently connects narcotrafficking, socialism, and globalism under a common “corrosive” framing, suggesting that these forces weaken societal integrity and values. Milei similarly applies this framing to socialism, describing it as a threat to individual freedom and economic stability. This framing strategy positions conservative leaders as defenders against ideologies or influences that they argue erode societal stability.

A third framing pattern portrays issues as fundamental conflicts, casting topics such as the ideological divide, national identity, and capitalism versus socialism as existential battles. By framing these issues as conflicts over the “soul” or “identity” of the nation, leaders like Bolsonaro, Abascal, and Milei position themselves as champions of national integrity against leftist ideologies that they argue threaten these core values. This framing strategy not only emphasizes the stakes of the political debate but also calls for committed support from conservative audiences.

Finally, topics like the judiciary and political opposition are often framed as either under siege by leftist forces or as obstructive to progress. Bolsonaro frequently employs the “obstructive” framing, accusing the judiciary of blocking conservative policies and serving as an impediment to his agenda. Abascal and Milei often frame the judiciary as “under siege”, positioning themselves as defenders of these institutions against leftist encroachment. This framing casts the judiciary not as a neutral entity, but as a politically charged institution vulnerable to ideological manipulation.

The distinct contexts of CPAC, VIVA, and Madrid Forum reveal specific emphases in framing, each tailored to resonate with the respective audience. CPAC events focus on threats to freedom of speech and the ideological divide, rallying U.S. conservatives to defend civil liberties against leftist censorship. At CPAC, leaders like Trump and Gabbard frame freedom of speech as fundamentally under threat, advocating for protective measures for conservative voices. In contrast, VIVA events emphasize national sovereignty and cultural values relevant to Latin American audiences. Leaders like Bolsonaro and Abascal frame narcotrafficking, socialism, and globalism as threats that erode societal stability, linking these issues to regional concerns. The focus on defending Latin American cultural and religious values from foreign and globalist influences is a recurring theme in VIVA, aligning with regional conservatism. The Madrid Forum prioritizes nationalism and ideological purity, with leaders such as Abascal and Milei portraying leftist ideologies and judicial institutions as direct threats to national sovereignty and cultural integrity. Madrid Forum serves as a platform for leaders to advocate for ideological purity, framing the defense of conservative institutions as essential to preserving national identity against progressive influence.

For the analysis of outgroups and ingroups, a specific prompt was developed to enable the AI to conduct an inductive analysis of the 51 speeches, identifying who is classified as “us” versus “them” according to different radical right representatives. Through a combination of inductive (LLM-based) and deductive (human) coding and analysis, seven ingroup categories and nine outgroup categories were identified. Appendix B presents two tables summarizing the categories identified, with definitions and groupings based on the inductive analysis conducted by the model.

After presenting and explaining the categories used to classify outgroups and ingroups, we proceed to analyze the most recurrent references (mentions) within the speeches examined for both categories (see Appendix B for an exhaustive list of the groups). Given that the radical right constructs its rhetoric primarily through the exclusion and identification of “others”, (Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser, 2013; Zanotti, 2023; Zanotti, forthcoming) we find it pertinent to first analyze the outgroups before examining the ingroups to assess the coherence of their overall narrative.

Figure 3 illustrates the most frequent “outgroup” categories in the speeches of far-right leaders at events such as CPAC, the Madrid Forum, and VIVA, based on the most repeated mentions across a set of 51 speeches. Each bubble represents a category, with its size and color corresponding to the frequency of mentions associated with that category.

The data indicate that the category Socialism, Communism and “leftist ideologies” is notably prominent, with 53 mentions, making it the most frequent “outgroup” referenced in radical right discourse. This prominence suggests that communism and the left are perceived as central threats, positioned as the primary ideological adversaries within the radical right’s rhetoric. The significance of this category underscores the radical right’s approach, which not only opposes these ideologies but actively constructs a deeply anti-left and anti-communist discourse, elevating it above other local public policy concerns. This rhetorical strategy serves to simplify the discourse by shifting focus from internal issues to an external ideological enemy. This emphasis on the communist threat aligns with the broader rhetoric of the radical right, which frequently associates leftist ideologies with the erosion of traditional values and social destabilization, as noted in previous studies (see Zanotti, 2023; Rovira Kaltwasser, 2023). Beyond its national context, anti-communism serves as an effective discursive tool for the radical right to mobilize its base and foster transnational alliances. This is particularly evident in the discourses analyzed, which include leaders from diverse regions —Latin America, Europe, and the United States— all converging in their portrayal of the left as a shared threat. Consequently, anti-communism functions as a unifying element, connecting these leaders and enabling their messages to resonate with varied audiences, despite differing local contexts.

“Globalism and International elites” (27 mentions) and “Media and Establishment” (24 mentions), and Corrupt Political Class/Caste occupy a secondary position in terms of frequency. Nevertheless, the presence of these categories reflects an anti-establishment narrative in which globalist elites and critical media are perceived as components of a power structure threatening national and traditional values. Together, these elements contribute to a discourse of oppression, framing the left, elites, and media as external forces conspiring against an authentic national identity. Additional relevant categories, such as “NGOs and International Organizations” (12 mentions) and “Environmentalists and Woke Agenda” (6 mentions), further reinforce this anti-establishment theme. International organizations and NGOs are portrayed as agents undermining national sovereignty, while environmentalists and the “woke agenda” are depicted as imposing progressive values that threaten traditional cultural norms and social cohesion. This framing positions these groups as part of a broader ideological challenge, one that seeks to reshape national identity and diminish the autonomy of conservative governance.

Source: Own elaboration.

Overall, the prominence of anti-communism and criticism of the left in radical right discourses, surpassing other public policy issues, suggests a communications strategy crafted to mobilize followers through a unified ideological adversary. This transnational anti-left discourse enables the radical right to portray itself as the defender of traditional values and national sovereignty against an external ideological threat. By centering on critiques of communism, these leaders simplify the political narrative, sidestepping the complexities of specific local issues in favor of constructing a unified, global vision of the threats they face.

All in all, the contemporary radical right discourse is structured around an anti-left and anti-communist axis, used not only to unify followers but also to forge alliances among leaders across different regions. This strategy allows the radical right to project a globalized narrative that, while disregarding many local issues, succeeds in constructing a shared threat narrative, thereby reinforcing its ideological stance on the international stage.

Conversely, Figure 4 displays the most frequent “ingroup” categories in the speeches of radical right leaders. Notably, the category “Supporters and Allies of Specific Leaders/Movements” appears 53 times, underscoring the centrality of alliances with ideologically aligned figures and movements. This emphasis on forming a network of like-minded supporters reflects a vision of shared ideological struggle, where allies are seen as collaborators defending traditional and national values against perceived external and internal threats.

The second most frequent category, “Patriots and National Identity” with 37 mentions, highlights the radical right’s focus on reinforcing a strong sense of national pride and cohesion. By associating patriotism and national identity with authenticity and the defense of sovereign interests, this approach resonates with audiences that prioritize national sovereignty and self-determination. This contrasts sharply with globalist or anti-national sectors, which are often portrayed as undermining these values. Another significant category is “Conservative and Right-Wing Movements” (26 mentions), signaling the importance of aligning with other conservative forces to uphold traditional ideologies. This category highlights the shared ideological foundation that the radical right establishes with other conservative actors, reinforcing a sense of belonging to a broader right-wing community that opposes progressive or secular ideologies. The category “Freedom and Defenders of Liberty” (22 mentions) emphasizes the radical right’s portrayal of itself as a defender of individual freedoms, often framing this struggle as one against authoritarianism, leftist oppression, or government overreach. In this context, the right to free expression and civil liberties are framed as under threat, resonating with audiences who see freedom as a core value at risk. “Religious and Christian Groups” with 14 mentions, underscores the centrality of religious and moral values within the radical right’s identity.

Source: Own elaboration.

This reflects a positioning as defenders of conservative morality and religious traditions, in opposition to secular or progressive trends perceived as threats. Scholarly work, particularly focused on Latin America, has highlighted that in contexts where immigration is less prominent, the radical right often politicizes traditional moral values as a cornerstone of its agenda. In the United States, a similar trend is observed, where the growing influence of evangelical churches intensifies the focus on conservative morality over other socio-political issues (Zanotti and Roberts, 2021; Boas 2023; Payne et al. 2023; Rovira Kaltwasser and Zanotti 2023; Margolis 2020).

The categories “Families and Traditional Values Advocates” (12 mentions) and “Nations and Citizens” (25 mentions) further emphasize the radical right’s connection to social sectors regarded as foundational to the nation. These categories represent an appeal to family values and social cohesion as fundamental components of national identity, portraying the radical right as defenders of the social order against forces seen as destabilizing or morally corrupting.

The emphasis on youth as part of the “Engaged Youth” category (subsumed within broader categories in the re-coding) reflects an attempt to secure generational continuity for radical right ideologies, framing young activists as part of a movement committed to the nation’s future. This narrative combines historical legacy with future aspirations, aiming to build a multi-generational support base.

A comparison between these ingroups and outgroups reveals a coherent strategy of inclusion and exclusion in the radical right’s discourse. The outgroups —comprising leftist and communist ideologies, globalist elites, and critical media— are consistently depicted as ideological or external threats undermining the values and identity embodied by the ingroups. This constructed dichotomy between ingroups and outgroups enables radical right leaders to project a narrative of resistance and defense: ingroups represent the authentic bearers of national values, while outgroups are cast as destabilizing and anti-national forces. This narrative structure consolidates the discourse of the radical right by distinctly defining who belongs and who poses a threat. The alignment between the values of the ingroups and the portrayal of an external adversary legitimizes a defensive stance and mobilizes followers around a national and conservative identity. This flexible, context-specific messaging allows the radical right to adapt its appeal across diverse geopolitical settings, consistently framing ingroups as protectors of the nation and outgroups as existential threats. In essence, the figure illustrates a discourse in which ingroups are not only depicted as the true representatives of the nation but also as defenders of the values that the radical right seeks to uphold, sharply contrasting with outgroups, whose perceived threats justify and reinforce this cohesive identity.

Lisa Zanotti acknowledges the support of the Millennium Nucleus Center for the Study of Politics, Public Opinion and Media in Chile (NCS2024_007).