Search Agenda Signals
Search for subjects across all topics and axes.
Across Topics (100 results) — filtered
US figures are framed as adversarial influencers, amplifying UK domestic tensions through anti-immigration rhetoric
U.S. portrayed as adversarial toward African nations in sports diplomacy context
UK portrayed as hostile to European cooperation and peace
US excluded from diplomatic action on settler violence, implying disengagement or inconsistency
US science-in-policy processes are framed as failing under political influence
U.S. foreign policy framed as assertive and militarily proactive against Iran
US political figures are framed as adversarial actors exploiting local incidents for division
US diplomatic efforts framed as ineffective despite repeated claims of progress
US portrayed as an aggressive, destabilizing force in the Middle East
Framing presidential presence as a disruptive intrusion rather than diplomatic engagement
US framed as the primary adversary in regional geopolitical narrative
U.S. leadership framed as adversarial toward Canada
US framed as a dominant, assertive actor in conflict with Iran
US figures portrayed as adversarial to UK social cohesion through amplification of divisive narratives
US actions framed as hostile and unilateral in a conflict zone
US response framed as justified and necessary
US portrayed as confrontational and unilateral actor
Frames state-federal relationship as adversarial, with New Jersey as defiant and uncooperative
US actions implicitly framed as hostile toward Iran through exclusionary measures
US media institutions are framed as adversaries to democratic integrity
Framing US involvement as hostile or inappropriate interference
U.S. foreign policy action framed as legitimate and legally grounded
US foreign policy framed as confrontational and coercive toward Iran
Foreign influence (via social media) framed as adversarial to local stability
US (as co-host and geopolitical actor) implied to be acting corruptly by revoking access
Presidential presence framed as an exceptional disruption to normal civic space
US-Israel actions in region framed as contributing to destabilization, though not directly linked
Presidential movement framed as logistically disruptive rather than symbolically significant
Framed as compromised by corporate-political collusion
US portrayed as a decisive and dominant actor in the region, Iran as passive adversary
US portrayed as assertive but not overtly hostile; framing emphasizes control and continuity
US portrayed as dominant and victorious over Iran
Frames US federal infrastructure investment as a broadly beneficial national achievement
US foreign military interventions framed as harmful and misguided
Presidential visibility linked to recurring security emergencies
US Foreign Policy framed as hostile and confrontational
US diplomatic and military actions portrayed as legitimate and central to resolution
Event framing introduces unusual disruption to diplomatic norms
US corporate actors framed as adversarial to EU regulatory authority
Framed as an adversarial force interfering in UK domestic policy
US foreign policy is implicitly framed as reckless and destabilizing by contrast
US political figures (JD Vance) are framed as adversarial by linking the attack to false narratives about immigration, prompting rebuke from UK leadership
US response portrayed as necessary and justified
US foreign policy framed as reactive and crisis-driven
US foreign policy framed as decisive and necessary
US military action is implicitly framed as justified and legitimate in response to Iranian aggression
US leadership portrayed as decisive and compelled to act
implied instability around high-profile US political figures abroad
Peru's political instability framed as a regional crisis affecting democratic stability
US foreign policy framed as reactive and destabilizing
Ukrainian refugee framed as ally and victim of American dysfunction
Federal executive branch actions framed as adversarial toward state governance
US framed as justified responder to aggression
U.S. foreign policy framed as reactive and escalatory rather than diplomatic or stabilizing
US-EU relations framed as tense due to political backlash over tech regulation
UN efforts are portrayed as insufficient to prevent human rights violations, suggesting failure
US actions framed as reactive and in crisis mode
U.S.-brokered diplomacy framed as ineffective and collapsing
US military presence portrayed as under unjustified threat
framed as adversarial toward domestic political opponents
Framing UK foreign aid as harmful political appeasement rather than beneficial development cooperation
US political actors framed as hostile influencers in UK domestic affairs
Framed as a dominant, coercive force demanding submission from Iran
Framed as a dominant, coercive force using military pressure to extract concessions
framed as inconsistent or failing due to internal divisions and far-right alignment
Framed as inconsistent or permissive toward allies involved in surveillance abuses
US portrayed as adversarial toward African officials
US portrayed as an obstructive actor in international sporting cooperation
US portrayed as adversarial toward participants from certain nations in international events
Indirect reputational harm to Western legal institutions through leadership scandal
Framing US military presence as a stabilizing force despite ongoing conflict
US actions portrayed as untrustworthy or politically motivated
US portrayed as assertive partner countering Iranian hostility
Immigration enforcement extends adversarial stance to immigrant populations
framed as entering a period of urgency and potential intelligence failure
US tech firms and their political representatives are framed as adversarial to EU regulatory authority
Presidential behavior framed as norm-breaking and destabilizing to ceremonial traditions
US portrayed as adversarial toward international legal institutions
US diplomacy portrayed as ineffective and reactive
US foreign policy framed as hostile and unilateral aggressor
US portrayed as dominant and controlling over Israel’s actions
Implies the U.S. is endangering international norms and goodwill
Framed as untrustworthy and inconsistent with international commitments
US visa policy framed as adversarial toward skilled foreign workers
Portrays US military operations as routine and under control
Framed as confrontational and aggressive toward Iran
Portrayed as undermining international norms in sports access
framed as legitimate and authoritative in military and diplomatic actions
Framing Russia as an adversary in the context of war in Ukraine
US foreign policy framed as complicit in hostile actions via support for Israel
US actions framed as untrustworthy and obstructive without due process
US portrayed as imposing on Kenyan sovereignty
The new sex-based harassment law is portrayed as a justified and necessary advancement in justice
US portrayed as hostile toward Iran in geopolitical context
U.S. portrayed as acting against Kenyan interests, imposing risk without consent
US technological influence framed as adversarial to UK sovereignty
France framed as inflexible and protectionist in defence cooperation
US framed as an unreliable ally, prompting European defence efforts
framed as a model for dangerous domestic mimicry
US portrayed as hostile and petty toward international participants