Since the beginning of the Mexican war on drugs in late 2006, violence has increased dramatically. By examining six presidential speeches from different years and with an analysis grounded in the work of Norman Fairclough and his Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this thesis analyses the security discourse strategies used by the two Mexican Presidents Felipe Calderón Hinojosa and Enrique Peña Nieto. By studying the parts where they talk about insecurity and organized crime, the study aims to reveal the strategies used and thus contribute not only to more understanding of the Mexican war on drugs but also to a broader discussion of how political discourse can be used in violent contexts. By applying CDA both as theory and method, this thesis concludes that the security discourse used by Calderón differs much from that of his successor, Peña Nieto. Calderón, for example, uses more metaphors and discursive tactics against organized crime. This study also concludes that there are both similarities and differences between the security strategies of the two.