What does Donald Trump’s radical agenda mean for America? Who stands to benefit? And why are the rich and powerful flocking to support the new regime?
If you have been following America’s political news stream as of recently, it would be impossible to miss the already eclipsing influence Donald Trump’s second term is having.
Within a week of his inauguration the 47th president followed up on promises consistently made on his campaign trail; a wave of executive orders brought on mass deportations, a change to gender identity regulations and a range of other decisions which although likely to be challenged in congress, highlights the ruthless nature of the new administration.
These orders infringe on the rights of a range of groups, particularly those in the transgender and non-binary community, with the president declaring the country will only recognise two genders. Alongside this, the president has ordered the construction of a migrant detention camp at the infamous Guantanamo Bay facility.
An analysis by the Times highlighted similarities between Trump’s initial actions and those set out in Project 2025 – the highly controversial blueprint proposed by the Heritage foundation, which Trump distanced himself from during his campaign. The brain-child of a right-wing political think tank, the project aims to solidify executive control of federal organisations such as the FBI, limit abortion rights and massively increase deportation. Although some of the decisions taken do not line up with the project, these overlaps highlight a direction lacking any compromise, and a future which for many could bring real worry.
The administration’s actions bring worry not only for Americans, but to those who would have thought their freedom was never in doubt until the last few weeks.
Trump has made multiple jabs at Canada becoming the 51st state of America – and displayed perhaps a much more likely and worrying dedication to taking Greenland under American control, refusing to rule out either economic or military action. It would be hard not to describe the president’s comments towards both Greenland and Canada as expansionist, as harsh as that label may seem.
Although the new administration may not represent the beliefs of all Americans, the conservative policies being implemented are a part of the mandate over 77m voted for. Many would argue Trump’s policies aim to improve the economy and tackle other issues important to voters. It could also be argued, however, that even the most right leaning of voters should still be concerned at the slippery slope American politics is heading down.
When Elon Musk, comfortably the richest man in the world, can directly influence the democratic process and find himself in a significant position of power close to the president – despite not being democratically elected into this position – alarm bells should ring.
Tech billionaires such as Musk have been cosying up to Trump throughout his campaign and were seen front and centre at his inauguration. Among them includes Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose company donated $1m to fund the event. These individuals not only hold significant influence due to their wealth but also have a majority control in some of the world’s largest social media sites, directly controlling in many ways what people are exposed to daily. The strategy to gain political favour with the new administration is not simply because they adore Trump, but rather a way for the rich to increase their influence even further, and benefit from a lack of policies which would challenge them.
This issue directly links to a simple fact of American politics – that the candidates who can afford to spend the most will almost always win.
Some of the largest political donors in America are groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), who make it nearly impossible for republican candidates to campaign for more relaxed gun control laws. The organisation makes substantial contributions to republican candidates with pro – gun stances, and almost never democrats, meaning their funding can be a vital boost in a candidates push for office. This leaves republicans with more liberal second amendment views at a significant disadvantage. The necessity of funding makes running a grassroots campaign without outside political influence nearly impossible.
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is a rare example of successful grassroots campaigning, and for many is a breath of fresh air in politics. Sanders is the antithesis to the impossible uphill climb the funding – orientated political machine represents.
Politics across the world is changing; along with this necessity to cater to large lobbying groups and the richest in society, politicians are adapting to how our world favours discussion.
The advent of social media has meant communication is best served in bite sized portions, with political discussion seemingly coming down to 15 second clips and short explanations into the basic rhetoric a candidate or party is portraying. You need look no further than the last British general election, where much of the TV debates were filled with party leaders insulting each other, and little time being allocated to the candidates answering the questions put to them.
This perpetuation of a lack of dialogue results in higher political divide, leading to ‘fast’ politics and little discussion of real policy.
Trump said in a statement recently that he was a fan of TikTok, prompted by the recent short-lived ban of the app due to rampant privacy concerns. Apps such as TikTok provide a perfect platform for figures such as Trump, whose main message is often blaming other individuals – primarily immigrants – for any problems his country may be facing. More left leaning policy, or political views in general which are more nuanced but perhaps harder to articulate, therefore see less representation. It should be no surprise then that right wing nationalism is on the rise throughout much of western politics, considering the lack of discourse the current political climate seems to culture.
Is there a way out of this downward spiral we have found ourselves in?
Apathy is of course never the answer, and putting some trust in the democratic process – despite its faults in much of the world – is necessary to ensure we do not give up in fighting for the things that matter to us.
Last year French politics saw a result that surprised many; a coalition of left-wing parties named the New Popular Front won an electoral victory over the far-right group National Rally. This win for a collection of smaller groups which all agreed to put their differences aside for a greater goal presents a potential alternative to reactionary politics and may predict a more promising political future.
The embracement of our differences is essential to a successful democratic process. If we can commit to discourse and compromise in some areas which we would not like to, more of us will feel accepted and heard in a world which is already so polarising.
