This paper proposes to investigate the public responses to situationally-triggered metaphors as these have been
observed in political argumentation. Situationally-triggered metaphors occur when a nonmetaphorical connection is made between the
metaphor and an aspect of the relevant situational context. The question addressed in this research is: how are such metaphors
perceived by the public when these form part of the political argumentation? To answer this question, the study focuses on a
particular instance of political situationally-triggered metaphor i.e., Boris Johnson’s “James Bond” metaphor produced during
COP26. The paper draws on Critical Metaphor Analysis and Deliberate Metaphor Theory to analyse the public comments and reactions
posted on the social media platform Twitter in response to the politician’s arguments. The analysis reveals that most of the
public responses exploit the “James Bond” metaphor to dispute Johnson’s self-identification to the fictional character and provide
meta-arguments that revolve around the politician’s misuse of metaphors. In contrast, responses that exploit the metaphor to
convey political arguments or endorsement are much more limited. It is thus argued that situationally-triggered metaphors not only
represent a political rhetorical device, but they are also effective political tools to shift public attention towards discursive
patterns instead of arguments presented in discourse.