Trump has divided a nation more than ever , lets see where the truth lies and at the same time moved it more right wing.
Donald Trump has faced accusations of fascism from numerous figures, including political opponents like Kamala Harris, former staffers, like John Kelly and critics across the political spectrum. To understand these claims, we’ll explore Trump’s rhetoric, actions, and policies in light of the characteristics often associated with fascism.
TRUMPS NEO FASCISM
The U.S. has a deeply rooted history of anti-socialism, marked by two significant "Red Scares" where suspected communists were aggressively persecuted. Since the 1917 Russian Revolution, the U.S. has been committed to opposing socialist and left-wing governments worldwide, often leveraging the Cold War and the USSR as unifying “enemies.”
Unlike much of the Western world, the U.S. has never had a social democratic party in power, keeping its political spectrum tilted further right. This lack of left-leaning governance has helped sustain conservative policies, keeping the U.S. an outlier among Western democracies.
American nationalism is deeply tied to a sense of exceptionalism, seeing itself as a “city on a hill” or a uniquely chosen nation. Patriotism and pride in its founding principles—often linked to its “blood and soil” heritage—fuel a strong belief in America’s distinct identity. It has extreme flag waving and recital of the pledge of allegiance.
The U.S. shows strong authoritarian tendencies in ways distinct from fascism but striking compared to other democracies. Racial biases in policing are especially pronounced; for instance, Black Americans are statistically more likely to be killed by police, and the justice system pressures defendants into plea deals with high conviction rates.
The militarization of American police, with officers routinely armed and equipped with military-grade gear, stands out even among Western nations, especially in comparison to countries like New Zealand, where police forces are not similarly militarized.
"U.S. unionization rates, which once stood at around 35% in the 1950s, have plummeted to just 6% today, largely due to policies initiated during the neo liberal Reagan era that undermined labor rights and facilitated deindustrialization."
Under neoliberalism, many USA Americans are struggling with high living costs, despite rising GDP and stock market gains, as the wealth gap widens. Fascism histrically arises when liberal policies fail to provide stability, as seen in the Great Depression. Economists often measure economic success through metrics like GDP, which overlook the impact of inequality on the average voter. As neoliberalism leaves voters disillusioned, far right ideologies gain ground in rsponse to perceived economic neglect. As Robert Reich explains here and predicted back in 1994 in his speech A warning from 1994 of a two tiered society. While the financial sector now plays a dominant role in USA economy as jobs go offshore, it has not replaced the significant job losses used by neo liberal policies, outsourcing to cheaper developed countries like china, and the rise of global markets. leaving many workers struggling in a shrinking industrial base.
Trump isn't the cause of these issues; he's simply exploiting them with an alt-right approach to "fixing" them. The Democratic Party, by sidelining figures like Bernie Sanders, eliminated the left-wing alternatives for addressing the concerns of working-class Americans. Leaving Trump now as the only anti establishment thats speaking to the people, they just dont know hes lying and will impose my neo liberalism on them .
Trump’s not only involved attacking mainstream media calling it fake news but also creating a parallel narrative through misinformation, blurring the line between news and fabrication. His persistent claims against the press reshaped public trust and discourse, pushing conversations further right and undermining media credibility. Although mainstream media does often exhibit biases in favor of government policies, capitalism, and even "deep state" agendas, Trump exploited these flaws to paint the media as an outright enemy.
For example, his tweet calling the press "the enemy of the American people" became a rallying cry that reframed journalism as partisan opposition rather than public service. This rhetoric mimicked the authoritarian tactic of discrediting perceived elites, channeling populist resentment against a "corrupt" media establishment. Meanwhile, Trump’s own "alternative facts" contributed to a deliberate misinformation campaign. By spreading falsehoods—such as falsely inflating his inauguration crowd size or promoting baseless theories about election fraud—he manipulated public perception to fit his narrative. As journalist Lesley Stahl reported, Trump admitted that discrediting journalists was a strategy so that "when they write negative stories about him, no one will believe them." This attack on truth leaves a lasting effect: a Pew Research Center survey reveals plummeting media trust, especially among conservative voters, who increasingly view the press as inherently biased and untrustworthy.
By fostering an environment of distrust, Trump has not only weakened confidence in the media but has also made political discourse more divisive and toxic. The rhetoric of "us vs. them" that Trump popularized has turned information itself into a battleground. His strategy of delegitimizing sources that challenge him, particularly by labeling them as "fake" or "biased," has created an atmosphere where facts are secondary to allegiance. This polarization of information has contributed to a widening gap in how different segments of the American public view issues, with each side retreating into ideological echo chambers, making productive debate and consensus-building increasingly difficult. In this new reality, the quest for truth has taken a backseat to the pursuit of ideological victory, pushing American politics into a deeper state of fragmentation.
Trump has repeatedly called for the imprisonment of his political opponents, notably saying "lock up the Clintons" and "lock up the Bidens," not based on any legal grounds, but as a tactic to eliminate opposition, a move that aligns with authoritarian and neo-fascist rhetoric aimed at undermining democratic norms and targeting rivals for political gain.
Historically, fascist movements, such as the Nazis in Germany, strategically relied on support from the middle class—or petty bourgeoisie—made up of self-employed shopkeepers, small business owners, and farmers. This group, situated between large capitalists and working-class laborers, often felt marginalized by both big business and unions. These middle-class individuals resented large corporations that squeezed them out of the market and labor unions that primarily served industrial workers, leaving their interests unprotected. Fascist parties appealed to these frustrations by promising economic stability while also securing financial backing from big businesses that sought protection against socialism and labor rights movements. Trump’s base shows similar patterns: he has gained substantial support from self-employed and small business owners, positioning himself as a champion for those sidelined by globalization and large corporations. Podcaster Jonas Čeika, in his CCK Philosophy series, in Why did the middle class support fascism ? highlights how Trump echoes these fascist strategies, targeting ununionized labor and small business supporters to build a coalition united by grievances against both elites and organized labor structures. Many people outside USA support Trump for this reason.
MAGA, Patriotism, and the Myth of a Once Great Nation
The United States has experienced a notable surge in patriotic and nationalistic fervor, fueled by fears surrounding immigration and the perceived erosion of white American culture and values. This environment has provided fertile ground for Trump's ascent, as his rhetoric effectively taps into these anxieties. His campaign consistently highlighted themes of nationalism, advocating for strict immigration controls and a return to what he described as traditional American values.
Trump portrays American society as weakened by a "culture war," claiming that various forces have "destroyed the fabric of our country." This framing promotes a fascist tactic of creating an "us vs. them" narrative, scapegoating specific groups or ideologies for societal issues. Political scientist Jason Stanley argues that this rhetoric exemplifies "fascist politics," wherein a leader stirs fear and demands loyalty to a nationalist cause (2).
This fear of cultural displacement is exacerbated by demographic shifts and economic instability, with many white Americans feeling threatened by the nation's increasing diversity. Various social and economic factors contribute to this sentiment, including job competition, crime, and shifting cultural norms, leading to a backlash against immigration and multiculturalism. Analysts note that Trump's ability to articulate these fears resonated with a significant segment of the electorate, enabling him to position himself as a guardian of American identity against perceived external threats. His slogan "Make America Great Again" encapsulates this longing for an idealized past, suggesting a return to a version of America that many supporters believe has been lost.
Trump’s rhetoric often invokes a mythical past, appealing to an idealized vision of "American greatness" that he claims is under siege from cultural changes and liberal policies. This narrative resonates deeply with nationalist and fascist movements, which thrive on a sense of grievance and the promise of a return to an "authentic" national identity. Historian Robert Paxton characterizes this as a hallmark of fascism, where leaders position themselves as saviors of the nation amidst a perceived cultural decline (1). Trump's declared in his Republican National Convention speech in July 2016, “I am your voice.” Later Trump made his now-famous statements “I am your justice” and “I am your warrior” and "I am your retribution" during his 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) speech. In that speech, he presented himself as the candidate who would act as a “retribution” for his supporters and as a defender against what he framed as various threats to America. This echo's the language of authoritarian figures who present themselves as indispensable to the nation's salvation.
This brand of nationalism—characterized by an "us vs. them" mentality—aligns with the global rise of far-right movements that similarly exploit fears of cultural displacement and economic anxiety. The political landscape has increasingly marginalized moderate voices while amplifying extremist viewpoints, complicating the discourse surrounding immigration and national identity in the U.S.
The combination of heightened patriotic sentiment and fears surrounding immigration has made the U.S. particularly receptive to Trump's message, reflecting deeper societal divisions and anxieties that continue to shape the political landscape today. This trend underscores the connection between nationalistic rhetoric and the potential for authoritarian governance, suggesting that the desire to return to a "great" America often requires an erasure of complexities in its history and identity.
References
- Paxton, R. (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism.
- Stanley, J. (2018). How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them.
- Pew Research Center - The Rise of Nationalism.
- The Atlantic - The Roots of Trump's Nationalism.
- The New York Times - Trump and White Nationalism.
- Brookings Institution - Nationalism and Politics.
- The Guardian - The Trump Effect on Nationalism.
- Foreign Affairs - Nationalism and Populism.
- Vox - Understanding Trump's Nationalist Appeal.
- Politico - The Politics of National Identity.
Throughout his presidency and beyond, Trump displayed a willingness to undermine democratic norms. In 2016, after winning the election, he reportedly asked then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper about the possibility of using military force on American protesters, an approach reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. Esper recounts this in his memoir, A Sacred Oath, highlighting Trump's demand for “loyalty” not to the nation, but to his leadership personally, mirroring a desire for military allegiance often seen in fascist systems (CNN, 2022).
Trump’s attempts to use the Department of Justice to prosecute political opponents, like Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey, further demonstrate a disregard for the rule of law. These demands echo authoritarian tendencies, aiming to use state power to silence or punish critics. Trump’s public statements and reported private conversations reveal a repeated pattern of pressuring legal institutions for personal political gain, a tactic associated with autocratic rulers.
Trump pulled a On January 6th, after losing the 2020 election, Trump falsely claimed voter fraud and incited a violent attack on the Capitol, refusing to peacefully and democratically transfer power. Donald Trump has suggested that he would not concede the 2024 election if he loses, raising concerns about a repeat of the January 6th insurrection, where he refused to accept the election results of 2020 and incited violence at the Capitol.
In his 2024 election campaign he has said he wanted generals like (Adolf) Hitler had. He wants them loyal to him not the state /USA and the constitution.
He vowed to be a dictator on day one.
He has called Americans the enemy within and would use military force to go after them once elected . He may be referring to an earlier speech when he said " We will root out the communists" .
Trump has repeatedly called for the imprisonment of his political opponents, notably saying "lock up the Clintons" and "lock up the Bidens," not based on any legal grounds, but as a tactic to eliminate opposition, a move that aligns with authoritarian and neo-fascist rhetoric aimed at undermining democratic norms and targeting rivals for political gain.
Us and Them Divisive Rhetoric
He has called Americans the enemy within and would use military force to go after them once elected . Trump is has increased hostility and political divisions devisiveness and dumbed down political discourse since first running for election .Hes a bully calls names loud angry boisterous rhetorically.
1) Anti learning and History Erasure
The far-right and conservative base supporting Trump have increasingly demonized universities as bastions of leftist ideology, labeling them as "woke" and out of touch with American values. This narrative not only undermines the credibility of academic institutions but also diminishes their effectiveness in critically analyzing society and raising important issues. As historian Jason Stanley notes in his book How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, such demonization plays a crucial role in a fascist agenda, which often seeks to erase or reinterpret history to fabricate a myth of a great nation that may never have existed. This pattern of historical erasure can be seen in various contexts, such as Russia's attempts to erase Ukraine's historical narrative, Israel's policies regarding Palestinian history, and the right's efforts to downplay America's racial history.
Trump's calls for the removal of critical race theory from educational curricula exemplify this trend. He has claimed that such teachings threaten to "dissolve the civil bonds that tie us together" and "destroy our country," framing discussions about race and social movements like Black Lives Matter as divisive rather than essential to understanding American society. This echoes Stanley's assertion that the erasure of history is a hallmark of fascism, as it seeks to undermine social movements that challenge the status quo and promote an accurate understanding of systemic racism discussions as harmful, the far-right effectively seeks to erase vital narratives and critiques, further entrenching its ideological stance while hindering progress toward social justice and equality.
2) Anti-Immigration Rhetoric and Policies;
A key component of Trump’s platform, both in 2016 and 2020, was his strict anti-immigration stance, which he framed as essential to “Make America Great Again.” His rhetoric on immigration was often inflammatory, painting immigrants—especially those from Latin America and predominantly Muslim countries—as dangerous or criminal. For example, Trump infamously claimed that Mexican immigrants were “rapists” and criminals, stoking racial and xenophobic fears. Such scapegoating is a hallmark of fascist movements, which often blame marginalized groups for a society’s problems.
Trump’s 2017 executive order 17369 banning entry from seven predominantly Muslim countries—commonly known as the “Muslim ban”—was justified as a national security measure but faced criticism as discriminatory. Amnesty International condemned the order, arguing it promoted Islamophobia and set a dangerous precedent for discrimination based on religion and nationality. Civil rights advocates and legal experts drew comparisons to fascist policies targeting minority groups under the guise of national security (BBC News; Amnesty International).
In the current election cycle, Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris, has alleged that Trump actively sought to obstruct bipartisan immigration reform efforts, preferring instead to exploit the issue to stoke fear among his supporters. This approach mirrors the propaganda techniques used in fascist regimes, where fear and hatred are used to build a cohesive national identity against an "other."
3) Media: The Attack on Truth
Trump’s relationship with the media has been a critical aspect of his divisive rhetoric. Beyond merely attacking the press as “fake news,” he created an alternative narrative that blurred the lines between news and fabrication. His persistent attacks on the media, often calling it the “enemy of the American people,” have not only eroded public trust in journalism but also reshaped the broader discourse around information. This strategy has successfully delegitimized any source of information that contradicts his views, creating an atmosphere in which facts are seen as subjective and open to manipulation.
Trump’s characterization of the press as an “enemy” aligns with authoritarian tactics aimed at discrediting perceived elites. By framing the media as a partisan, corrupt establishment, he capitalized on populist resentment. His rhetoric has fostered a deep divide, where the press is seen not as an institution to inform the public, but as an adversary to be defeated. A prominent example of this is his claim that mainstream journalism is biased and untrustworthy, especially when it reports negatively on him. This claim has had lasting effects: according to Pew Research Center data, trust in the media has plummeted, especially among conservative voters, who now increasingly view the press as inherently biased.
Trump’s approach to the media has also been intertwined with his dissemination of “alternative facts”—a phrase he popularized to justify falsehoods like the inflated crowd size at his inauguration or the baseless allegations of election fraud. His persistent spreading of misinformation has not only misled the public but has also actively fostered an environment where truth itself is questioned. This has created a polarized information landscape, with each side retreating into its own ideological echo chamber. The consequences are profound: productive debate, objective fact-finding, and consensus-building have become more difficult, while the pursuit of ideological victory has overtaken any genuine attempt to address the nation's issues.
This “us vs. them” narrative, embedded in Trump’s rhetoric, is not just about political division—it is about the destruction of a shared reality. By framing the media as the enemy, Trump has made it harder for Americans to engage in constructive dialogue based on factual information. In this fractured environment, truth is less important than loyalty to a political tribe, and the result is a deeper, more toxic polarization of American politics.
4) The Enemy Within: Socialists, Marxists, and the Red Scare Redux
Trump’s rhetoric has often invoked the specter of an internal enemy, not just in the form of the media, but also through his portrayal of socialists and Marxists. This language echoes the tactics of past political movements that have sought to identify internal threats to the nation's values. Trump’s invocation of “socialists” and “Marxists” as the new boogeymen mirrors the red scares of the 20th century, where fear of communism was used to rally the public and discredit political opponents.
In his speeches and public appearances, Trump has routinely denounced the so-called “socialist agenda” of the left. He often links socialism and Marxism to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, particularly in his critiques of figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. By labeling them as socialists, Trump capitalizes on the historical fear of communism and uses it to delegitimize their political proposals, which include universal healthcare, expanded social safety nets, and more robust government intervention in the economy.
Trump’s rhetoric frames the left-wing push for social justice as part of a broader Marxist conspiracy, a tactic commonly used by conservative ideologues to discredit leftist politics. By linking the progressive agenda to Marxist ideologies, he paints a picture of a nation under siege from radical forces that seek to dismantle American values and institutions. This framing is not just a political maneuver—it is part of a larger strategy to create fear and division, ensuring that any challenge to the status quo is perceived as a direct threat to the nation’s survival.
In this context, Trump’s rhetoric of “us vs. them” takes on even greater significance. By labeling his opponents as Marxists or socialists, he draws a stark line between those who are “true” Americans and those who seek to destroy the country from within. This polarizing rhetoric has fueled a sense of urgency and conflict, casting any form of progressive policy as a form of betrayal. This strategy not only discredits those on the left but also plays into the broader narrative of American exceptionalism, where any deviation from the status quo is equated with treason or subversion.
Exploiting Christian Nationalism
Although Trump was not known for religious devotion prior to his political career, he has adopted a Christian nationalist persona to appeal to conservative voters. Christian nationalism in the United States promotes the idea of America as a divinely chosen, predominantly Christian nation—a view that aligns with the fascist ideal of an ethnically or culturally “pure” nation. While Trump’s religious beliefs remain questionable, his alignment with evangelical leaders and his rhetoric around “saving” Christian values serve a political purpose, enabling him to claim a moral authority that resonates with a significant segment of the U.S. electorate.
Political analyst Tim Whitaker of The New Evangelicals points out that Trump’s appeal to Christian nationalist ideals is selective and political rather than spiritual. This embrace of Christian nationalism has intensified his support among those who fear a secularization of American society, mirroring how fascist regimes have historically allied with religious institutions to gain legitimacy and enforce traditional gender roles.
Robert Reich - Is donald Trump a Fascist ?
Renegade Cuts video - MAGA and fascism
Pakman The disturbing link between Trump, Hitler, Stalin, Putin
Sarah Churchwell interview on the New Statesman Trump and the Dark History of Fascism
Finally the last word on Trump fascism, all the other fascist parties and fascist states in the depression and up to WWII while having some core commonalities had differences and Trumps rhetoric fulfils much of the "blood and soil" elements which is the main element of fascism which drives all the social and economic policies . Trumps conservative policies and some of his authoritarian and violence rhetoric aligns with conservatism. But Trumps a neo liberal so his economic policies differ from fascism while fascism was built on third wayism . This is why we refer to Trump as a neo fascist because hes not a full traditional fascist.
Israel is considered the no1 and more fascist even than USA with its colonial expansion for space. The failure of neo-liberalism and the resulting wealth gap has prompted in recent years several other countries from across the world to be overtaken by a certain kind of far-right nationalism in government ; the list includes in ranking order from highest after Israel and usa ; Russia, Turkey, Hungry, India , Poland, Many others have strong far right partys like France.
TRUMPS BUSINESS FAILURE'S AND QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS PRACTISE
Donald Trump has often portrayed himself as a successful, self-made businessman, yet many aspects of his business record tell a different story. Trump’s business history is marked by significant financial losses, a reliance on inherited wealth, and numerous unethical practices that raise serious questions about his self-claimed business acumen.
Reliance on Inherited Wealth, Not Self-Made Success
Despite his claims of being a self-made billionaire, Trump’s initial wealth came from his father, Fred Trump, a real estate developer who lent his son millions to launch his ventures. According to The New York Times, Trump received roughly $413 million from his father’s business empire through various channels, often involving tax avoidance schemes giving financial backing that contradicts his claims of rising from humble beginnings, a narrative he frequently emphasizes to appeal to working-class supporters (source).
Business Failures and Bankruptcies
Throughout his career, Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy six times, using legal loopholes to avoid repaying debts while leaving creditors and workers in difficult situations. His ventures included failed projects like Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, and Trump University—each plagued by poor management and overpromising. For instance, Trump University, marketed as a way for students to gain insider knowledge of real estate, was found to be a fraudulent operation, resulting in a $25 million settlement after students alleged they were misled and scammed (The Guardian).
Tax Controversies: A Picture of Losses and Low Payments
Trump’s reluctance to release his tax returns throughout his political career led to significant public scrutiny, raising suspicions about his financial transparency. In 2020, The New York Times obtained his tax records, revealing that he paid only $750 in federal income tax in both 2016 and 2017. In ten of the previous fifteen years, he paid no federal income tax at all, primarily because he claimed vast business losses, suggesting either significant business failings or aggressive tax avoidance strategies (NYT article).
Exploiting Workers While Campaigning on Job Protection
Despite his promises to protect American jobs, Trump’s business practices often reflect a disregard for workers. During his campaign, he promised to “bring jobs back” and support American workers, yet many of his businesses relied on outsourced labor and exploited workers in low-wage positions. In 2016, workers at Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas went on strike over low wages and poor working conditions, highlighting the gap between Trump’s campaign promises and his treatment of employees in his own enterprises (Des Moines Register editorial).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZZH14vT3KA
Real Estate Scandals and Discriminatory Practices
Trump’s real estate business has faced numerous legal challenges. In the 1970s, the Department of Justice sued the Trump Organization for discriminating against Black tenants, accusing the company of systematically denying them rental opportunities. Although Trump settled the case without admitting wrongdoing, this suit was one of several allegations against his business practices, which critics argue reveal discriminatory tendencies that have followed him throughout his career (PBS Frontline).
Business practice
Trump has been charged with 4 felony crimes of political nature and so far convicted of one , that of falsifying business records . Namely hiding a payment to prostitute Stormy Daniels of $130,000 hush money as a business expense. Trump's reimbursement arrangement to Cohen violated tax laws as well. While ordinarily a misdemeanor it became a felony when it concealed a separate violation of a New York election law that prohibits conspiring to promote a political candidate (in this case, Trump himself) through "unlawful means". The hush money to Daniels, prosecutors said , was unlawful because it violated campaign finance laws. Trump got the sentencing delayed until Nov 26th, and now has been further delayed until July 2025. Trump cannot overturn this one as its a New York state case not federal. The other 3 charges are federal and relate to whether Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden. The other charges are;
* Conspiracy to defraud the USA, is punisable by fine or up to 5 years in prison.
* Obstructing an official proceeding , is punishable by a fine or up to 20 years in prison.
* Conspiracy against rights , is punishable by a fine or not more than 10 years in prison or both.
As these are federal cases they can and will be overturned by Trump if he wins the election. A Florida judge dismissed a case relating to his handling of classified documents . A similar one Hilary Clinton managed to avoid too.
TRUMPS CHARACTER FLAWS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONCERNS
Donald Trump’s personality and behavior have been subject to intense scrutiny, with many characterizing him as narcissistic, compulsively dishonest, and ethically compromised. These attributes have been documented by numerous experts, political analysts, and former associates, raising questions about his suitability for leadership.
Narcissism and Psychological Traits
Many mental health experts have expressed serious concerns about Trump’s temperament. Psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a compilation of essays from 37 mental health professionals who argue that Trump’s psychological profile poses a public risk. They describe him as demonstrating traits of narcissism, impulsiveness, and a relentless need for validation—qualities that can become dangerous in a person wielding significant power. Dr. Lee argues that Trump’s rhetoric and behavior reflect a combination of grandiosity and hostility, with statements such as "I am your retribution" revealing a sense of authoritarian self-importance (source).
This characterization is further supported by Trump’s frequent public assertions that only he can “save” America and claims that he is the sole protector of its interests. Statements such as “I alone can fix it” and “I am your warrior” point to a sense of infallibility and superiority, hallmarks of narcissistic personalities. Many observers argue that his refusal to admit mistakes or take responsibility—qualities displayed throughout his presidency and business career—exacerbates this perception.
Compulsive Dishonesty and Manipulation
Fact-checkers documented that Trump made over 30,000 false or misleading statements during his four years in office, an unparalleled volume for any U.S. president. His frequent disregard for truth on critical issues—from COVID-19 policies to election results—has severely impacted public trust. According to The Washington Post, he lied frequently about both minor and major issues, undermining confidence in the presidency and fostering polarization. His insistence on the false narrative of a "stolen" election in 2020 culminated in the January 6 Capitol riot, where he incited followers to contest the electoral process violently.
In his business career, Trump’s pattern of bending or ignoring facts is well-documented. He has a history of refusing to pay contractors, manipulating tax records, and misleading investors about the success of his ventures. These practices paint a picture of a person willing to deceive others for personal gain. For example, The New York Times investigation into his taxes revealed that he paid only $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017, and none in several previous years, raising suspicions about his financial transparency and business acumen.
Political lies
"Public schools giving sex changing surgery without parents permission"
"Obama care is bad , and Ive got a great plan to replace it" (hes being saying this since 1015 ie 9yrs including 4 yrs in parliament )
"Those illegal immigrants are eating dogs "
Selling Trump bibles made in China
Has never read the bible t qute his favurite verse
"The only way im guna lose is if they cheat , they dont want voter id cause they wana cheat" "they are professional thieves when it comes to elections"
Ethical Violations and Exploitation
Trump’s approach to business has often been described as unethical and exploitative. He has been accused of shortchanging contractors, pressuring workers, and pursuing legally dubious ventures. The controversy surrounding Trump University is emblematic of this approach: it was marketed as a real estate education program but ended in a $25 million fraud settlement due to allegations that it misled students with false promises of success. His record of exploiting bankruptcy laws and failing to honor financial commitments further exemplifies his willingness to exploit others for personal benefit (PBS Frontline).
Additionally, Trump’s conduct during his time in office raised ethical concerns, as he faced multiple allegations of using the presidency for personal gain. His refusal to divest from his business holdings led to accusations of conflicts of interest, and he faced allegations of violating the Emoluments Clause by accepting payments from foreign governments through his hotels. His insistence on holding events at Trump-owned properties even as president also raised questions about his prioritization of personal profit over public service.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fQUPvxmDUyM
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/H45KUOXxNb4
Donald Trump's foreign policy has been characterized by a series of bold claims about making deals, often accompanied by a significant departure from traditional U.S. diplomacy. His administration prioritized an “America First” approach, which emphasized protecting U.S. economic interests and reevaluating long-standing alliances and agreements.
Trade Deals
One of the major components of Trump's foreign policy was his focus on trade. He touted his renegotiation of NAFTA, resulting in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), claiming it would provide better terms for American workers and industries. However, critics argue that the USMCA largely maintained the framework of NAFTA, with only minor changes. Trump also imposed tariffs on China, asserting that they would reduce the trade deficit and bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. While some sectors benefited from these tariffs, they also led to increased costs for consumers and retaliatory measures from trading partners, raising concerns about trade wars and their impact on the global economy's
Cuba
Right wing neo liberals shout about freemarket from the rooftops but that only applies to USA not other countries . USAs foreign policy is directed to controlling the world as espoused in the Horiwotz doctrine. This has been in its anti socialist interventionist wars and coups for 100 years and in Cubas embargo
President Barack Obama partially removed removed U.S.A embargo on Cuba during his tenure. While he implemented measures to ease certain restrictions and improve diplomatic relations, the comprehensive embargo and core tenants remained in place. The embargo's complete termination requires legislative action by the U.S. Congress, which did not occur during Obama's presidency.
Under President Obama, significant steps were taken to normalize relations with Cuba:
Restoration of Diplomatic Ties: In 2015, the U.S. and Cuba reopened their respective embassies, marking a significant step toward improved relations.
Removal from State Sponsors of Terrorism List: In May 2015, Cuba was officially removed from the U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, facilitating certain economic and diplomatic engagements.
Easing of Travel and Trade Restrictions: The Obama administration relaxed some travel and trade restrictions, allowing increased travel and commerce between the two countries.
Subsequent administrations have varied in their approach to U.S.-Cuba relations:
Trump Administration: President Donald Trump reversed many of Obama's policies, reinstating stricter sanctions and designating Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in January 2021.
Biden Administration: President Joe Biden has taken steps to ease some restrictions, such as removing Cuba from the list of countries not fully cooperating in the fight against terrorism in May 2024.
Despite these measures, the comprehensive embargo remains in effect, and significant policy shifts would require legislative action.
The United Nations General Assembly has consistently called for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba, passing annual resolutions condemning it. In October 2024, the Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the embargo for the 32nd consecutive year, with 187 countries in favor and only the United States and Israel opposing.
These resolutions are non-binding and have not led to a change in U.S. policy.
India and Modi
Narendra Modi, India’s BJP leader, and Donald Trump share nationalist rhetoric, a populist appeal, and a focus on “strongman” leadership, which has led to their mutual admiration. Modi’s promotion of Hindu nationalism under the BJP's "Hindutva" ideology has drawn accusations of authoritarianism and the marginalization of religious minorities, particularly through policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act, which excludes Muslims from its refugee provisions. Scholars like Christophe Jaffrelot and Jason Stanley observe that Modi’s government displays patterns seen in authoritarian and neo-fascist regimes, such as targeting minority groups and prioritizing a singular national identity.
Trump has openly praised Modi's leadership, particularly in a 2019 Houston rally, and Modi has called Trump a "true friend" of India. Trump’s real estate ventures in India, one of his most profitable international markets, include luxury towers in cities like Mumbai and Gurgaon, developed in partnership with Indian firms linked to the BJP. This raises concerns among critics about potential conflicts of interest and undue influence on U.S.-India policy.
Their relationship reflects a global trend of nationalist leaders aligning on issues of identity, security, and economic nationalism, though some observers warn that this partnership often sidelines democratic norms and exacerbates social divisions.
Sources:
- Jaffrelot, C. Modi's India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy
- Stanley, J. How Fascism Works
- “How Modi’s India is Undermining Democracy,” The Economist
- “India’s Modi and Trump: Two Leaders, Many Parallels,” The Atlantic
Iran
Trump took a hardline stance on Iran, withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal and implementing “maximum pressure” sanctions aimed at curtailing Iran's regional influence, a strategy that increased tensions but did not produce a new agreement Middle East Institute.
With Trumps usa hate of Iran its got worse with the Irans support of Palestine. This will double downs Trumps efforts to make Iran weaker and more subservient to USA interests including Israels interests.
Wars
When evaluating Trump's record in terms of war and peace, his presidency is often seen as a mixed bag. He took credit for facilitating peace agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, including the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. However, his approach to conflicts such as the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Syria revealed a more complicated legacy. Despite his rhetoric about bringing troops home, U.S. military involvement continued in various forms .
.While Trump didn’t initiate any new wars during his presidency, he significantly intensified ongoing conflicts and escalated U.S. military actions abroad. His administration expanded drone strikes, loosened restrictions on military operations, and increased airstrikes in conflict zones, contributing to greater casualties. According to data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Trump’s first year saw an unprecedented surge in drone strikes, with a 432% increase in Yemen and a tripling in Somalia compared to the previous administration. By removing Obama-era rules that aimed to reduce civilian casualties, Trump expanded the Pentagon’s latitude, resulting in “more aggressive rules of engagement” as reported by military analysts.
Trump’s approach in Afghanistan demonstrated this intensified stance. In August 2017, he announced a “fight to win” strategy, which included more troops and a significant uptick in airstrikes, with the U.S. dropping more bombs in 2019 than in any other year of the two-decade war. By relaxing previous restrictions on targeting, the Trump administration allowed for higher-risk operations. "We’re not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists," he stated in a 2017 speech, reflecting his simplified, combative approach to foreign policy.
In Iraq and Syria, Trump also ramped up efforts against ISIS, with the coalition dropping over 39,000 bombs in his first year alone—a stark increase from previous years. In 2017, a significant number of airstrikes targeted heavily populated areas, contributing to a rise in civilian deaths; estimates from Airwars suggested that at least 6,000 civilian deaths could be attributed to U.S.-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq under Trump’s escalated campaign. The devastating effects on civilian populations drew international criticism and further tarnished the U.S.'s global image as a responsible power.
His policies also demonstrated a disregard for diplomatic avenues, particularly with Iran. After unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018—a move condemned by European allies—Trump imposed heavy sanctions on Iran, contributing to heightened tensions. He further escalated the situation in early 2020 by authorizing the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, a move that nearly led to full-scale conflict. In the words of then-Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, the assassination was "an act of war," and it brought both nations to the brink of open hostilities.
Despite claiming an “America First” policy, Trump’s approach often exacerbated global conflicts rather than containing them, demonstrating that, while he may not have launched new wars, his administration actively intensified ongoing ones.
Ukraine and Russia
Trump’s approach has been contentious. While he provided military aid to Ukraine, his administration's rhetoric often downplayed Russia’s actions, and he expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin. Critics argue that his policies failed to address the underlying causes of Russia’s aggression, particularly NATO's eastward expansion. Now Trump is suggesting he could broker peace within 24 hours. His statements lean towards pressuring both sides to negotiate, a position that contrasts with the current U.S. stance of supporting Ukraine's efforts to reclaim its territories Middle East Institute , Brookings
Israels colonisation of Palestine
Trump has been inconsistent regarding support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with statements and actions that suggest different stances over time.
In 2017, Trump said he was "looking at two-state and one-state" options, adding that he would "be happy with the one that both parties like" Middle East Institute
In terms of conflict, Trump’s administration took a firm stance in favor of Israel, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and reducing funding for Palestinian aid. Critics argue that these actions undermined any potential for peace negotiations and exacerbated tensions. In contrast, Kamala Harris has indicated a willingness to support a more balanced approach, potentially allowing for resolutions in the UN regarding Palestinian rights and holding Israel accountable for its actions
. In 2020, during the unveiling of his administration's "Peace to Prosperity" plan, Trump expressed support for a two-state solution in principle, promising to recognize a Palestinian state if certain conditions were met. However, this plan placed substantial limitations on Palestinian sovereignty, including maintaining Israel's control over Jerusalem and a significant portion of the West Bank. The Palestinian leadership rejected the proposal, viewing it as favoring Israeli interests and undermining the viability of an independent Palestinian state Brookings , Trump’s policies leaned heavily toward Israel, as seen through actions like moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. These moves were seen by many as undermining the two-state framework by validating Israeli territorial claims, which complicated future negotiations .Trump made occasional statements in support of a two-state solution, his administration's policies primarily aligned with Israeli interests, leading many to believe his commitment to a two-state framework was rhetorical rather than actionable.
Harris is only slightly better. Her rhetoric is more towards a 2 state but hasnt in 4 years in power tried to achieve it.
The Trump administration has used the right-wing interpretation of anti-Semitism, which conflates it with criticism of Israel's Jews and Israel's colonisation policy behaviour , as a way to silence pro-Palestinians speech on college campuses. By adopting a brad definition that equates legitimate critique of Israeli policies with prejudice against Jewish people, it has effectively stifled academic freedom and curtailed open debate on Palestinian rights - engaging in its own brand of cancel culture , ironically mirroring what the right often criticises.
This tactic aligns with the psychological manipulation often associated with gaslighting, where a party reframes fats to control the narrative and undermine others confidence in their positions.
Global Perception
How do world leaders view the Trump and the USA. Some leaders perceive him as a joke due to his unpredictable behavior and controversial statements, while others believe he has restored a level of fear and respect for the U.S. in the international arena. However, the long-term efficacy of such a strategy is debatable, as it often alienated traditional allies and fostered distrust .
Leaders who relied on U.S. military or economic support—such as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, certain Gulf state leaders, and Eastern European leaders like Poland’s Andrzej Duda—generally viewed Trump favorably or respected him, even if out of pragmatic need. They appreciated Trump’s firm stance on issues like Iran, his vocal support for Israel, and his willingness to confront perceived adversaries. Netanyahu, for instance, publicly praised Trump, saying, “We have no better friend in the world” due to Trump’s strong support for Israeli policies, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital , which of course made peace deals harder for Trump if he ever intended it theweek , IOL | News that Connects South Africans.
On the other hand, leaders who didn’t depend on U.S. aid or approval—such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and Canada’s Justin Trudeau—often viewed Trump with skepticism or even disdain. Macron and Merkel openly clashed with Trump on issues like climate change, trade, and NATO commitments, with Macron stating that “nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” a critique many saw as directed at Trump’s America First stance, as mentioned, Trudeau and Macron were seen laughing about Trump’s behavior at a NATO summit, showing a lack of respect theweek , leaders who benefited from Trump’s foreign policies tended to show deference or appreciation, while those with independent or opposing interests saw him as a volatile figure, often regarding him with humor or outright criticism. This split reflects the diverse global reaction to Trump’s approach to international relations.Sources
- The Guardian - Trade Deals and Trump's Policies
- Reuters - Trump's Tariffs and Trade Wars
- Foreign Policy - Trump’s Mixed Peace Legacy
- Brookings - Understanding Trump's Foreign Policy
- CNN - Harris’s Approach to Israel-Palestine
- The New York Times - Impact of Trump's Policies on Palestinians
- The Atlantic - Ukraine and Trump
- Politico - The Ukraine Crisis and American Leadership
- The Hill - Global Reactions to Trump's Leadership
- The Diplomat - Trump’s Foreign Policy Legacy
DRAINING THE SWAMP
When Trump spoke about "draining the swamp," he broadly aimed to eliminate corruption, bureaucracy, and what he described as self-serving political elites entrenched in Washington, D.C. His campaign targeted corruption that he claimed prevented the government from serving the public effectively. According to Trump, this corruption included a “revolving door” that allowed corporate executives, especially from sectors like banking, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals, to move between industry and government, leading to policies that favored private interests over the public good. He argued that billionaire donors and lobbyists influenced political candidates and government decisions in ways that prioritized private over public interests.
In practice, Trump’s anti-corruption measures included:
Lobbying Bans and Restrictions: Early in his presidency, Trump signed an executive order placing a five-year lobbying ban on administration officials after they left government service and a lifetime ban on former officials lobbying for foreign governments. While these measures initially aligned with his campaign promises, critics pointed out that enforcement was lax. According to reports, some former officials found ways to influence government from the private sector by exploiting loopholes in the restrictions. Politico reported that these bans often had limited effect, as some former Trump officials quickly joined lobbying firms or advisory roles that continued to shape policy.
Criticism of Bureaucrats and the "Deep State": Trump frequently described the "deep state" as a network of entrenched career officials, particularly within agencies like the FBI, CIA, and State Department, who he claimed were working against his administration’s agenda. By framing these agencies as part of the “swamp,” he could justify replacing key officials with loyalists. This tactic, echoing authoritarian approaches, allowed him to claim that efforts to dismiss or replace officials were part of his anti-corruption campaign. Critics argued that this narrative served more to cement loyalty than to address genuine corruption or reform bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Revolving Door of Corporate Executives: Despite his anti-elite rhetoric, Trump’s administration did not implement substantial measures specifically aimed at limiting the revolving door between corporations and government. While he condemned this practice on the campaign trail, no comprehensive policy was enacted to prevent corporate executives from moving between government and industry roles. In fact, Trump appointed several former corporate executives and lobbyists to high-ranking government positions, a move that appeared to contradict his commitment to fighting special interests. For instance, he appointed Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, as Secretary of State, and Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, as Treasury Secretary. This led many to question the sincerity of his pledge to combat elite influence, as many appointees had deep ties to the very industries they were tasked with regulating.
Tax Cuts and Deregulation: While not directly tied to corruption, Trump promoted tax cuts and deregulation as part of his "drain the swamp" agenda, arguing that reducing government intervention would curb government overreach. However, critics argued that these policies disproportionately benefited corporations and wealthy individuals, further consolidating elite influence rather than reducing it. According to The New York Times, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gave major corporations and the wealthiest Americans significant tax breaks, sparking criticism that it contradicted Trump’s promises to put “America First” by primarily benefiting the wealthy and connected.
Despite these efforts, Trump’s anti-corruption pledges often led to mixed results. As The Washington Post reported, by the end of his term, his administration had hired numerous lobbyists and corporate allies, often in senior roles, and was marked by high turnover and several ethics investigations. Many of Trump’s appointments and policy choices ultimately reinforced the very conflicts of interest and corporate ties he claimed to oppose, casting doubt on his promise to “drain the swamp” and leading to the perception that this slogan was more a populist appeal than a consistent, enforceable policy.
ECONOMIC POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
Job Creation and Employment
Trump campaigned on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., and there was job growth during his early years. However, data from the BBC notes that while jobs did grow under Trump, they fell sharply toward the end of his term, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused significant layoffs and economic slowdown. Under Biden, jobs have rebounded, though the COVID-induced losses meant overall job growth from Trump's term was ultimately negative economic Growth and GDP
The BBC reports that GDP growth rates under Trump and Biden were similar, though Biden’s term also saw a spike in inflation, which settled only slightly higher than Trump’s later years. Under Trump, the U.S. economy initially grew steadily, but the 2018 trade war with China and other countries created volatility, and it was unclear how much growth was tied to his policies as opposed to the pre-existing economic trajectory set during the Obama administration .
Trade Policies
Trump’s trade policies were rooted in conservative protectionism, resembling mercantilism, an economic approach focused on limiting imports to boost domestic industries that capitalism ended in the 1800s. They were around post WWII but ended again under neo-liberalism . Because they slow free trade and in theory damage economies so Trumps trade war shouldnt work. While his tariffs aimed to reduce dependence on foreign goods, the impact was mixed. U.S. consumers faced higher prices for some goods, which contributed to inflation and affected businesses reliant on foreign suppliers. In the long term, some economists argue that these tariffs hampered growth more than they stimulated manufacturing .
Stock Market Forbes report highlights that stock market performance was slightly stronger under Trump, a point often emphasized by his supporters. However, stock market gains primarily benefit investors and don’t always reflect the broader economy’s health. While Trump’s pro-business stance and tax cuts encouraged investment and market confidence, the volatility during the trade wars and pandemic showed that the stock market’s gains were not always reflective of average Americans' economic wellbeing .
A Broader Perspective
As Frontline explains, that economic outcomes are often the result of policies set in motion years before, and presidents inherit challenges and successes from their predecessors. For instance, while Trump’s tax cuts provided a short-term economic boost, critics argue they disproportionately favored wealthy individuals and corporations, contributing to a widening wealth gap. Biden’s administration has since focused on job recovery and infrastructure investment, showing both the delayed effects of previous policies and shifts in economic priorities .
The Financial Times and other analyses have highlighted significant differences in the economic policies of Obama, Trump, and Biden, with varying impacts on growth, inequality, and government revenues.
Obama's presidency focused on recovery from the financial crisis, implementing stimulus measures that aimed to stabilize the economy and gradually reduce unemployment. His administration saw a significant drop in the jobless rate, which reached historic lows, although wage growth remained stagnant for many, contributing to rising income inequality DW News
.Trump's economic policies were characterized by major tax cuts, primarily benefiting corporations and wealthier individuals. While these cuts were designed to stimulate investment and job creation, the result was a notable increase in wealth inequality, with corporate profits rising significantly while workers’ share of income remained constant. Trump's trade policies, including tariffs, also aimed at reshaping relationships, particularly with China, but had mixed effects on the economy Reuters , DW NewsBiden has taken a different approach, focusing on increased public investment in infrastructure and strategic industries. He has also proposed modest tax increases on the wealthy to address fiscal imbalances exacerbated by the pandemic response. Although both Biden and Trump oversaw large deficits and historically low unemployment rates, Biden's administration has seen a more substantial share of income going to workers Reuters . Additionally, Biden has sought to address inflation, which spiked during the latter part of Trump's presidency, partly due to supply chain disruptions and high consumer demand DW News.
DW report here is interesting because it shows GDP moved in tandem with china and india showing it had little to do with presidents but world economic factors, and inflation moved with it .Which is normal in capitalism because you cant ever fix anything , you make tradeoffs. When GDP goes high youre usually in a bubble and you usually (not always ) get inflation , to control that measures taken slow economy and reduce unemployment .
Trumps tax cuts for the Wealthy
Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), significantly lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and provided tax cuts for individuals, with the highest benefits going to corporations and the wealthiest earners. While the administration argued that these cuts would drive economic growth and job creation, much of the benefit accrued to shareholders and the wealthy rather than the working class, thereby widening income inequality. The Washington Post reports that these cuts have contributed to a more unequal distribution of wealth, as higher-income households saw the largest reductions, while the benefits for middle- and lower-income families were modest and set to expire in 2025.
In contrast, Obama’s policies, particularly during the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis, focused on tax credits and support for middle- and low-income families. Biden’s approach has aimed at increasing taxes on the wealthiest households and large corporations, partly to fund infrastructure and social programs, which he argues would reduce inequality over time.
Other Lies and stupid, ignorant comments
* During his campaign, Trump promised to protect waiters' tips from taxation, yet while in office, he introduced a rule that would have allowed restaurant owners to take a portion of those tips from employees, a move only blocked by an amendment to the Omnibus Bill.
Trump is a billionaire who represents the billionaire class (more than the Democrats do) and does not represent workers and his policies wont help workers despite his fake rhetoric to the contrary.
* Trump made the comment "Oh, you have nuclear weapons?" during a conversation with then-UK Prime Minister Theresa May in 2017. The remark occurred during a meeting at the White House, where Trump appeared unaware that the UK possesses nuclear weapons. His comment was widely criticized as reflecting a lack of knowledge about the UK's military capabilities.
* The "Red Mirage" refers to the phenomenon in which early election results, typically from rural areas, tend to favor Republican candidates, creating the appearance of a strong victory for Trump on election night. In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, many rural areas reported their results first, showing Trump with a commanding lead. However, as mail-in and absentee ballots—often cast by urban, Democratic-leaning voters—were counted later, Joe Biden began to close the gap and eventually surpassed Trump in key battleground states. Trump capitalized on the initial "red wave" to prematurely declare victory, then shifted to falsely claiming widespread voter fraud when the votes that favored Democrats were counted, further sowing doubt and division about the election's legitimacy. This manipulation of the "Red Mirage" narrative played a critical role in fueling the false claims of election fraud that dominated his post-election rhetoric.
The irony is its more likely republicans will be doing this fraud in 2024 election . Watch Johhny Harris explain here. Sure its possible the Democrats may have done it but apart from no proof they are way less likely as the further left you go the more youre relying on cooperative collective progressive society and human nature . This implies more honesty and trust. The further right the more conservative and authoritarian and less trust and truth you require to hold your society together.
And the last word on Trump is ;
Comments
Post a Comment