TRUMP

Critiques From The Right – OpEd

October 30, 2025 
By Allen Gindler


The Trump Presidency is not boring, that is for sure. His public appearances, pressers, interviews and, most importantly, the actions of his administration have given ample cause for ongoing and heated debates.

Such exchanges of opinions, happen not only on podcasts, TV programs, or newspaper columns but also among family members and close friends. As a rule, there are two camps that take part in the discourse: Trump supporters and his opponents. However, my personal experience has added a more nuanced position, which I called critique from the right, that is, from the libertarian point of view. More precisely, from the point of view of classical liberalism.

My friends utterly reject the leftist policies of progressivism, wokeism, DEI (“Don’t Earn It”), cancel culture, mandatory redistribution of wealth, open borders and illegal immigration, and any form of collectivization. They are proponents of freedom and against all forms of terrorism or aggression (whether Hamas or Russia). And yet, we manage to find a discrepancy in the understanding and explanation of Trump’s policies. I chose the neutral, independent stance politically, as libertarianism does not have a viable political organization in the US political duopoly settings. But libertarianism has a rich philosophical tenet that forms a pretty coherent worldview. My friends jumped onto the MAGA bandwagon, and their worldview shrank to the slogan “Trump is always right.”

So, what is my critique from the right of Trump’s policies? His program started with a slew of presidential orders, and some of them caused genuine amazement and made me wary. One of the first orders was “renaming” of the Gulf of Mexico. I put renaming in quotes as the body of water designated in the presidential order does not encompass the entire gulf but renames the U.S. Continental Shelf portion, which does not adhere to the definition of the gulf. Thus, the actual renaming has never happened. Trump’s assistants fooled the President, and he in turn continues to deceive the public, firmly believing that his vision is fulfilled.

The renaming business continues. Now we have the Department of War and the Secretary of War. Did we? Not really. The order stated, “The Secretary of Defense is authorized the use of this additional secondary title — the Secretary of War — and may be recognized by that title in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts, and non-statutory documents within the executive branch.” And further, “Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on the actions required to permanently change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War.” (italic is mine). Statutory references to the Department of Defense remain controlling until changed by law. Thus, the main and the official names for all branches of government and governments abroad are still the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense. Some can use the secondary titles (aliases) — the Department and the Secretary of War — to appear tougher, I guess.

Second, elimination of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion). These are good words in themselves; what matters is how the policy is implemented. I dreamed that the Trump administration would be smart enough and turn the tables on Democrats by using DEI to promote its own programs and actions, thus bringing this policy to reductum ad absurdum and naturally sinking it into oblivion. Instead, the administration simply banned it, which formally puts them as negators of so-called Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, giving Democrats trump cards for future attacks. And our big businesses showed their lack of principles and spinelessness: they easily implemented DEI, obeying administrative pressure from Democrats, and with the same ease changed course, following new directives from the White House.

Third is the most serious matter—the economy. My friends embraced his trade war using tariffs, citing the usual fallacy that tariffs will bring production back to the US, that inflation will not rise as tariffs will be paid by foreign countries, etc. But one can’t be simultaneously against forced wealth redistribution and embrace additional taxes on imported goods. No one sees how or where the government will spend the additional revenues, but for sure the ordinary consumers have no benefit from increased prices or a shrunken assortment of commodities. The trade war with China during Trump’s first term failed to reduce the trade deficit or bring manufacturing back onshore. The overall merchandise trade deficit grew to $911 billion in 2020, and careful estimates show even eliminating the deficit would only modestly raise manufacturing’s job share. Independent modeling found the tariff regime reduced U.S. GDP and raised consumer costs. What empirical data make someone believe that this time around the outcome would be much different? But what will happen is that we will bail out farmers this time as we did in Trump’s first term, as in 2018–2019, when USDA paid about $23B under the Market Facilitation Program.

The Trump administration’s major sin is that they try to steer the economy by interfering in the affairs of enterprises. The Intel deal, where the government holds 10%, is utterly outrageous (a 10% equity stake funded via remaining CHIPS grants and Secure Enclave awards). The previous administration decided to give them a grant, and the current one decided to have partial ownership of the company. Both policies are wrong, and the latter is even worse than the former. This opens a door for the democratic socialists to do the same, but on an even bigger scale. I mean nationalization of enterprises or entire industries because they are vital to the national defense, food supply, or any other pretext. Again, one can’t be against collectivization and agree with Trump’s policies on the issue.

The latest economic decree is adjusting the import of timber, lumber, and derivatives. The administration found out that such products are used in military applications and current import amounts, they were sure, weaken our economy. As a result, for the sake of national security, they found a solution. The solution—to tariff, to regulate, with possible additional duties pending an Oct. 1, 2026 review. One does not need a degree in economics to deduce an immediate increase in construction prices.

Both President Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance are on record saying that the government can manipulate the prices of the products produced by private firms. In particular, it concerns the prices of drugs. President Trump on many occasions said that the prices of drugs in the US are 1,000% or so more expensive than abroad. He is determined to reduce drug prices by 1,000 percent or more, causing incredible delight among the MAGA crowd. But this makes me sad. First of all, he did not outline the exact mechanism of price reduction. If he meant to eliminate government contribution in the price construction, I am for it. But most likely, it would be yet another presidential decree pompously signed in the Oval Office. Second, for God’s sake, is there anyone in the administration capable of explaining to Mr. Trump that his percentage math is wrong? It is OK for a public person to make a slip of the tongue mistake, but repeating the same nonsense over and over again is simply embarrassing.

Another disturbing habit of the administration is announcing on social media all kinds of deals with foreign countries and companies that the White House touts as totaling “$17 trillion.” But a social media post is not a binding treaty even if the President posted it. Where are the real binding agreements, and where is the money? It took 2 years plus for the USMCA treaty to be negotiated and ratified. I refuse to believe that all announced deals are real until I see the actual text on the Commerce Department website. Those announcements send the wrong signal to the market, which, upon discovering the truth, might disappoint many.

Open borders and illegal immigration. This issue has found huge resonance with American voters not because of bigotry but because of common sense. We have the right to regulate the influx of population as any other countries do; we have the right to know and regulate who is coming and who we want to welcome in the country. The Trump administration tightened the borders, which is a positive result. But afterward we observed mistake after mistake. It is OK to promise a mass deportation before elections, but another thing to demand the execution of such a policy and hand down a deportation plan from above. Carrying out such a plan leads to many unforgivable mistakes. The administration should not target people who are in the realm of the judicial branch, that is, whose cases are in the system and await judicial resolution. As of August 2025, about 3.43 million cases are pending in Immigration Court. And yet, ICE targeted such individuals, and instead of accepting an error and moving on, they made it worse, including misinterpretation of the 9-0 Supreme Court order and losing a bunch of cases on lower courts.

Targeting illegal criminals, members of gangs first, is a logical and good idea. By targeting ethnic crime, it will make communities of both legal and illegal immigrants safer and would be politically preferable for the administration and the Republican Party. However, the administration lacks patience. The local ICE tried to fulfill and exceed the plan, earning extra bonuses in the process. They target people that they should address probably in the last turn. Such a policy has very bad optics and might have a generational effect—people will not vote Republican just on an emotional level. I suspect Democrats set up such a trap that Republicans foolishly stepped in.

When I raise my critique from the right, my friends make as they thought the powerful argument: “Do you think Kamala would be better?” Well, strictly speaking, we can’t answer this inquiry definitively, as it is a hypothetical question. We did not give her the opportunity to become president. We inferred from her speeches and actions that she would continue Biden’s course, and we did not want that. (However, some historical figures transformed the course dramatically, for example Lech Wałęsa or Mikhail Gorbachev). They, of course, conflate the issue. I am analyzing Trump’s actions and how they adhere to the classical liberal worldview and really, with common sense in the political fight. I am not comparing their election promises. But one note I might suggest. If Kamala won, we would know for sure what to expect from the left-wing politician; we would fight a political battle not compromising our ideal of economic and individual freedom.

Trump’s policies blurred the line on many and important issues between Democrats and Republicans. He opened Pandora’s box that the left will exploit on an even bigger scale. Just watch and see. He normalized statism, aggressive intervention into the economy, citing national emergency or national security, which was a taboo, at least in words, by Republicans. The political duopoly blends and shifts to the left as never before in the recent history of the USA. Which policy matters will be discussed in the near future? Are we really destined to choose not by principle, but by the dosage of proposed collectivization?

Allen Gindler

Allen Gindler is an independent scholar specializing in the Austrian School of Economics and Political Economy. He has taught Economic Cybernetics, Standard Data Systems, and Computer-Aided Work Design in Ukraine. His academic articles have been published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies and The Independent Review. He has also contributed opinion pieces to Mises Wire, Independent Institute, American Thinker, the Foundation for Economic Education, Eurasia Review, and Biblical Archaeology Review.