Replication Data for: US Military Intervention and Presidential Communication Frames

Nations militarily intervene in other countries for a variety of reasons—strategic, economic, humanitarian, and more. Not all interventions are equal, and publics do not endorse the risk and expenditure of blood and treasure evenly across instances. Knowing this, democratic leaders are both constrained by and attempt to shape public attitudes. One way that executives can lead the public is in framing the reasons for military action. I argue that executives justify the international use of force in popular schemas even when they do not apply, and censor less popular ones even when they do, to strategically maximize public support. Using quantitative text analysis and regression techniques, this paper examines the congruence between military objectives and communication frames employed in US presidential speeches, remarks, and Congressional announcements to justify international militarized interventions. Results show that presidents carefully craft rhetoric to bolster public buy-in for international uses of force, even at risk of electoral costs for dishonesty if discovered down the line.