I will present two studies that are the first tests of the relationship between power and the construal of crisis situations (Magee, Milliken, & Lurie, 2009; Milliken, Magee, Lam, & Menezes, 2008). Specifically, we examine whether the possession of power systematically affected individuals’ interpretations of events in the immediate aftermaths of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the Hurricane Katrina disaster. We conceptualize hierarchies of power amongst the individuals who occupied roles related to the disasters, from the President of the United States down to the victims, based on a combination of their formal authority, control over critical resources, capacity to use force, and expertise. Building on theories of power and construal (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Smith & Trope, 2006; Trope & Liberman, 2003), we hypothesized that the language that high-power individuals used to describe the events was more abstract (vs. concrete), positive (vs. negative), and certain (vs. uncertain) than the language used by those with less power. Analyses of individuals’ speech (i.e., quotations appearing in media sources) using multilevel models generally demonstrate support for our hypotheses. Position power (a combination of legitimate, reward, and coercive power), not expert power, was responsible for the effects on construal, even after accounting for a number of alternative explanations, such as the motivation to manage others’ impressions, the specific topic of individuals’ attentional focus, and individuals’ geographic location. Following Hurricane Katrina, impression management motivation was also significantly related to abstraction and certainty, consistent with heightened public pressure and frustration with government officials in that context. I will discuss the research implications of these power-related differences in construal for how to think about the psychology of power in large social hierarchies and the practical implications for interpersonal communication and organizational coordination.