This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
“The era of big government is over,” Bill Clinton declared 29 years ago. Donald Trump never got the memo.
In his second term, the president is embracing perhaps the most sweeping expansion of federal power since that of Franklin D. Roosevelt: bullying state governments, using military force if necessary; telling private institutions, including media corporations and universities, how to operate; extorting law firms into doing free work for the government; and, in the latest escalation, taking a stake in the tech firm Intel.
For decades, the American right and the Republican Party held themselves up as the defenders of individual citizens, corporations, and state and local governments against intrusive control from Washington. But where Ronald Reagan joked that the nine most terrifying words in the English language were I’m from the government, and I’m here to helpTrump’s credo is “I’m from the government, and I’m here to take over.” The debate in America is no longer about whether socialism can gain a foothold. It’s whether the socialism that dominates will be progressive or right-wing.
Conservative pundits and trolls have long used socialist as a ready-made epithet for any left-of-center policy ideas. Trump himself even called Kamala Harris a “communist” during the 2024 campaign. But Trump is offering proof that a government can be both socialist and reactionary. As recently as 2016, the right-wing writer Michael Anton argued in favor of a Trump presidency by warning of “the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions.” Today, that’s a pretty good description of Trump’s approach to power. (Anton now serves in Trump’s State Department.)
Last week, the Trump administration announced that the government was taking a 10 percent stake in Intel. This would be remarkable enough on its own: The federal government doesn’t usually take stakes in any companies, except in cases of imminent collapse that endanger the national economy. Yet the circumstances of this case were even more shocking. As Wall Street Journal reporting indicates, this was more of a protection racket than a business deal. First, the announcement came after the president demanded that Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, resign over past business dealings with the Chinese military. Second, the stake was “bought” with $8.9 billion already promised to Intel as grants under a 2022 law passed by Congress. (If Tan’s ties to China were really a national-security threat, going into business with him would be a curious choice.)
Speaking with reporters today, Trump agreed that his action is a form of industrial policy. When the Biden administration adopted this approach, in which government is more closely involved with private businesses, Republicans and conservatives attacked it as socialist. The top economic adviser Kevin Hassett says more investments will come soon.
The self-described socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is, in a rare case of agreement with Trump, on board with the Intel deal, but the arrangement has enraged some Trump allies. “This is actual socialism happening by a Republican administration,” Erick Ericksonthe veteran conservative commentator, fulminated. “You may be comfortable with socialism. You may decide you like socialism, because someone from the Trump administration wants socialism, but my God, people, what have we been fighting for for the last decade?”
Fair question—except that this is hardly a major divergence from Trump’s modus operandi. Over the weekend, Governor Wes Moore of Maryland, Governor J. B. Pritzker of Illinois, and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson responded with verbal jousts to Trump’s threats to federalize National Guard forces (over the governors’ objections) and send them to Chicago, and Baltimore, following his militarization of Washington, D.C. Trump has still not laid out what the goal of these actions is, short of vaguely enforcing order, nor when they should stop, nor why the National Guard is suited to them. But conservatives have traditionally been very uncomfortable with this kind of federal intrusion on states, even in far more justifiable cases, such as enforcing desegregation.
Meanwhile, Trump is attempting to force states to stop using mail-in ballots, which he falsely claims are linked to fraud, a notion fed to him recently by the notorious election thief Vladimir Putin. As Barton Gellman wrote in The New York Timesthis is an astonishing attempted grab of power over elections. The Constitution vests control of elections with Congress or the states, not the president. Some Republicans even objected when the Obama administration tried to set up cybersecurity assistance for election systems, but few are questioning Trump today. At the same time, he is trying to depose a Federal Reserve governor so that he can exert more control over monetary policy.
These are attempts to expand the federal government’s reach within the public sector; more unusual still are the incursions into private enterprises. The Intel stake is only the most recent and most expansive. Trump strong-armed law firms into agreements in which they’re reportedly doing free work to boost his agenda. Last night, he threatened to revoke the broadcast licenses for NBC and ABC stations—omitting CBS, which already knuckled under to him—in his latest attack on free speech and attempt to force the press to cover him positively. Not content to merely police universities’ use of affirmative action or potential civil-rights violations, the federal government has effectively fired a university president and is trying to control what curricula they can teach and dictate what students they can and cannot admit. Trump is even trying to tell the National Baseball Hall of Fame whom it should enshrine.
Paradoxically, Trump is also shrinking the federal government’s footprint, as measured by headcount and agencies. He’s closed or sought to shut down USAID, the Education Department, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and has fired or bought out hundreds of thousands of federal employees; the exact number is difficult to know because of unresolved litigation and the administration’s opacity. Yet even as he shrinks the size of the government, he is expanding its role into new and unprecedented areas. And the pace of government spending continues to rise, in part because of ill-conceived “efficiency” cuts.
The result is a government that is less effective at providing services, more expensive, and more intrusive. This is just the nightmare that right-wing politicians and thinkers have been warning about for a century, and now their party has made it reality. The era of small government is over.
Related:
Here are four new stories from The Atlantic:
Today’s News
-
Days after reuniting with his family, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was taken into ICE custody after an immigration check-in. The Trump administration announced plans to deport him to Uganda, but a judge has temporarily blocked his deportation.
-
President Donald Trump signed an executive order that could hold federal funds from jurisdictions using cashless bail. He claimed that the practice fuels crime, despite studies showing no such link.
- Trump signed an executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to create “specialized units” in the National Guard trained for “public safety and order” and designated to be available for rapid deployment.
Dispatches
Explore all of our newsletters here.
Evening Read
What Parents Lose When They Don’t Read to Their Kids
By Ilana Kurshan
The moment my oldest child was born, I reached for an anthology of Romantic poetry that I have owned for decades and began reading. “Sweet joy befall thee,” I said to my baby, through tears, bestowing a blessing with the words of William Blake.
The benediction was unplanned. I had brought the book to the hospital for myself, along with a memoir by Shirley Jackson and a pile of well-worn novels, because I’d imagined that I would want to be surrounded by my favorite writers at a time of such magnitude. But as soon as my squirming newborn was placed on my chest, I was overcome by the desire not to keep these works to myself, but to share my love of literature with my baby.
More From The Atlantic
Culture Break
Read. “Irresistible Contentment,” a poem by Prageeta Sharma:
“I am talking my way back to the poem’s turn / and where it might lie outside my skirted body, / a corded place where bluish sky paints my attention, / and empties itself into a golden silence”
Watch. In 2021, David Sims recommended a list of indie films that will prompt you to ask, “What did I just watch?”
Rafaela Jumich contributed to this newsletter.
When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Table of Contents
- 1. To what extent does the prioritization of national interests in “right-wing socialism” differ from conventional socialist goals of international worker solidarity?
- 2. Trump’s Right-Wing Socialism: Analyzing the Intersection of Conservatism and Social Policy
- 3. The Paradox of Trumpian Economics
- 4. Defining Right-Wing Socialism: A New Political Spectrum?
- 5. Trump’s policies: Evidence of a right-wing Socialist Tendency
- 6. Trade Wars and Protectionist Measures
- 7. Industrial policy and Strategic Investments
- 8. Immigration Restrictions and Labour Market Control
- 9. The Atlantic’s Coverage and Critical Perspectives
- 10. Benefits and Drawbacks of Right-Wing Socialism
The Paradox of Trumpian Economics
The term “socialism” typically evokes images of wealth redistribution,robust social safety nets,and government control of key industries. Applying it to Donald Trump, a figure synonymous with conservative business interests and deregulation, seems counterintuitive. However, a closer examination of his policies reveals a surprising strain of economic nationalism that shares characteristics with certain socialist approaches – albeit filtered through a distinctly right-wing lens. This isn’t socialism in the traditional sense, but a form of state-directed capitalism prioritizing national interests and domestic production, often at the expense of free-market principles. We can call it “right-wing socialism” for analytical purposes,recognizing its unique ideological blend.
This concept challenges conventional political categorization. It’s not about embracing egalitarianism or collective ownership. Instead, it’s about leveraging state power to benefit specific domestic groups – often industries and workers perceived as vital to national strength – while concurrently upholding a hierarchical social order. Key features include:
Protectionism: Imposing tariffs and trade barriers to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum are prime examples.
Industrial Policy: Actively supporting and subsidizing specific industries deemed strategically significant. This echoes socialist ideas of state planning, but with a focus on national competitiveness rather then social welfare.
Nationalization (Limited): While not widespread, Trump’s rhetoric occasionally flirted with the idea of greater state control over critical infrastructure, particularly energy.
Anti-globalization Sentiment: A rejection of global economic integration in favor of national self-sufficiency.
Emphasis on National Identity: Policies framed as protecting the interests of “real Americans” – frequently enough defined along ethnic or cultural lines.
several policies enacted during the Trump management demonstrate this tendency. These weren’t presented as socialist measures, of course, but their effects align with certain socialist principles when viewed through a specific lens.
Trade Wars and Protectionist Measures
The most visible manifestation of this approach was the trade war with China.Imposing tariffs on billions of dollars worth of goods aimed to:
- Reshore Manufacturing: Encourage companies to bring production back to the United States.
- Protect American Jobs: Shield domestic industries from cheaper foreign competition.
- Reduce Trade Deficits: Narrow the gap between imports and exports.
While framed as promoting free and fair trade, these actions were fundamentally interventionist, disrupting established global supply chains and prioritizing domestic production. This mirrors socialist arguments for protecting domestic industries, but with a nationalist rather than a worker-centric justification. The recent news regarding Trump’s legal battles, such as the New York court lifting a $464 million penalty (as reported by n-tv.de), highlights the ongoing legal ramifications of these policies and the scrutiny they face.
Industrial policy and Strategic Investments
Beyond tariffs, the Trump administration pursued policies aimed at bolstering specific industries. Examples include:
Energy Independence: Promoting fossil fuel production and loosening environmental regulations to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
Space Force: Creating a new branch of the military dedicated to space warfare, signaling a strategic investment in a high-tech sector.
Infrastructure Week (Unfulfilled): While largely symbolic, the repeated calls for infrastructure investment reflected a desire for state-led economic development.
These initiatives, while often hampered by political obstacles, demonstrate a willingness to use government resources to shape the economy in line with national priorities.
Immigration Restrictions and Labour Market Control
Restrictive immigration policies,a cornerstone of Trump’s platform,also played a role. By limiting the supply of labor, these policies aimed to:
Increase Wages for American Workers: Reducing competition for jobs.
Protect Domestic Employment: Prioritizing American citizens and legal residents.
This intervention in the labor market, while driven by nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiment, shares similarities with socialist arguments for protecting workers’ rights and ensuring fair labor practices.
The Atlantic’s Coverage and Critical Perspectives
The Atlantic has consistently offered insightful analysis of the Trump presidency, frequently enough highlighting the contradictions and complexities of his ideology. Articles have explored the ways in which Trump’s rhetoric and policies appealed to a sense of economic insecurity and national decline, tapping into anxieties that traditionally fuel both left-wing and right-wing movements. Their coverage often frames Trump’s approach as a rejection of the post-World War II liberal international order, favoring a more transactional and nationalistic worldview.
While seemingly paradoxical, this approach can offer certain benefits:
Economic Resilience: Reduced reliance on foreign supply chains can enhance national security and economic stability.
Job Creation: Protectionist measures can stimulate domestic production and create jobs.
* Strategic Advantage: Investing in key industries can bolster national competitiveness.
