The Guardian · March 2026

• foregrounds Trump administration failures and controversies
• uses distancing verbs like 'claims' and 'relied on unverified intelligence'
• frames US actions as aggressive or problematic ('war of choice', 'ego-trip war')
• highlights domestic crackdowns and economic harms

The entity is 'US' as a country, but coverage overwhelmingly focuses on the Trump administration's actions and policies, which are treated critically. Some headlines are neutral or unrelated to stance (e.g., sports, culture). The negative stance is toward the current US government, not the nation as a whole, but the entity label 'US' conflates the two.

• evaluative framing of Trump's actions as reckless or damaging
• quoting critics and opponents without balancing Trump's perspective
• use of sarcastic or ironic language in headlines
• foregrounding negative consequences and failures

The entity's quoted content is often aggressive toward third parties, but the outlet's own vocabulary and selection consistently frame Trump negatively, not neutrally.

• factual reporting of events without evaluative language toward GB
• GB appears as passive context or location, not as actor
• some headlines reference UK institutions or officials neutrally
• no consistent positive or negative framing of GB as entity

The entity 'GB' (country) is rarely the direct subject of evaluative framing; most headlines mention UK institutions, officials, or events without taking a stance toward the country itself. Headline 14 quotes Trump rebuking Starmer, which reflects on US-UK relations but not on The Guardian's stance toward GB. Headline 6 mentions UK engineers helping Ukraine, which could imply positive alignment, but is factual. Overall, the bundle lacks sufficient direct editorial treatment of GB to determine a clear stance.

• Amplifies Iranian voices (anonymous, activists, experts) with empathy
• Reports on Iran as a victim of US-Israeli military action
• Uses neutral or critical language about Iran's government (e.g., 'regime', 'evil')
• Focuses on humanitarian and economic consequences of war on Iran

The outlet's stance toward Iran as a country is mixed: it gives platform to sympathetic Iranian voices (e.g., anonymous Tehran resident, Ali Vaez) and highlights civilian suffering, but also uses delegitimizing terms like 'evil regime' (quoting UK defence secretary) and reports on Iran's internal repression (e.g., missing mathematician). The overall stance is neutral because the coverage balances empathy for the Iranian people with critical distance from the Iranian government.