End Times Militarism

Daniel Falcone

 May 26, 2025

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Specna Arms.

In 2016, in response to a critical yet incoherent ad by the Super-PAC Priorities USA, Donald Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway pushed back against what she described as a misleading portrait of Trump’s stance on war and national security as reported by Nick Gass. The 30-second ad entitled “I Love War,” used Trump’s own words to question his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief, and highlighted statements about his admiration for military power and nuclear weapons. Trump’s handlers appeared on Good Morning America to deflect and accuse the Clinton campaign of taking Trump’s comments out of context to draw attention away from Clintonian hawkishness. The ad, to be clear, was not a criticism of U.S. power, but just reaffirming the belief that Trump would mishandle our God given right to police the world.

In 2017 alone, Trump approved nearly twice as many arms deals as Barack Obama did in his final year in office. In, “Actually, Donald Trump Loves War” Akbar Shahid Ahmad exposed the stark contrast between Trump’s diplomatic rhetoric and his actual policies. Although Trump often claimed to oppose “endless wars” and criticize the military industrial complex, his presidency was and is, marked by increased military spending, expanded arms sales, and deeper ties with defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Trump used these deals to boost the economy and promote his image, particularly in swing states while overlooking concerns about human rights or congressional oversight. For example, he pushed through weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite the kingdom’s role in Yemen and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

After 100 plus days of the Trump Administration’s second term in office, CounterPunch reflects on Trump’s foreign policy actions and rhetoric thus far. Trump’s approach to international relations generates comparisons to the policies of past U.S. presidents who relied heavily on military power and interventionism both foreign and domestic — leaders such as William McKinley, Andrew Jackson, and Theodore Roosevelt. Extending much more broadly, the prolific American historian Eric Foner once commented on Democracy Now! about how Trump was a composite figure featuring the international hypermasculinity of Silvio Berlusconi, the confederate populism of George Wallace, and the anti-institutional business libertarianism of Ross Perot.

Each of these figures ultimately defended state violence and military force to further American interests on a domestic and global stage, a legacy that Trump has at times selectively embraced. Despite presenting as a champion of prosperity, diplomacy and peace, Trump’s actions in office suggest a complex reality that combines his admiration for strongmen along with decisions that often favor the illegal use of force.

Trump foreign policy paradoxes are often found in statements made by officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who just recently on Face the Nation, defended the administration’s policies despite the prominent inconsistencies and vast factual misrepresentations. Rubio is yet another person motivated by a desire to label Trump as “ a builder, not a bomber,” although the Trump military record contradicts this dubious branding made by Rubio. As stated, Trump’s foreign policy legacy was already marked by significant military operations, increased spending, and frequent military interventions. These actions are driven in part by a belief in American exceptionalism and the use of force to maintain dominance, as Trump has openly admired historical actors and their approaches to securing unchecked power.

In that same interview on May 18^th, Rubio discussed the recent Russia-Ukraine peace talks in Turkey and the drafting of ceasefire proposals emphasizing how U.S. patience is limited. Rubio added that a direct Trump-Putin meeting could help break the diplomatic deadlock and confirmed that the Senate was moving forward with a “veto-proof” sanctions package against Russia with Putin’s own knowledge of it. Further, and like a well-disciplined commissar, Rubio rejected the findings that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was not a proxy for Nicolas Maduro. On the issue of South Africa, Rubio essentially defended the bizarre white genocide thesis and asserted the Trump administration’s prioritization of Afrikaner refugees, although he stopped short of confirming it as a literal genocide.

Regarding the nightmare of Gaza, Rubio reflexively offered the standard Biden-esque, “what about Hamas” slogan, but said another ceasefire remained possible. The Biden policy of perpetual war and genocide has reached a new critical phase under Trump, Operation Gideon’s Chariot, a ruthless takeover that calls for a relocation plan for any surviving Gazan. Concerning the topic of Iran, Rubio made clear that the U.S. will never allow Iran to obtain nuclear weaponry. It was here that he imprecisely labeled the president as a builder, not a bomber. Trump is in fact, as Fintan O’Toole argued in the New York Review of Books, a leader dedicated to “shredding the postwar order,” but this is an obvious far cry from diplomatic and strategic peacebuilding, peacemaking, and peacekeeping. Just ask a Palestinian, Syrian, Somalian, Afghan or Yemeni, if Trump equals peace. Furthermore, the mere appointments of dedicated yet failed neocons like Rubio and Gabbard, show that team Trump’s takes and rhetorical flourishes on detente are unserious but their commitments to Bush style deep-statism are real.

Stephen Zunes, a leading critic of U.S. militarism, has argued that the portrayal of Trump as moderate, or less interventionist, is a dangerous myth. Although Trump attacked Hillary Clinton’s hawkish record in 2016, Zunes contends this was largely a rhetorical ploy from the right, to win over war weary voters, and not a reflection of any real peaceful restraint. In practice, Trump dramatically expanded military spending, loosened rules of engagement, and escalated bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, where he set forth a new high in recording over 7,000 bombings of the country, including the creation of the MoAB.

In Iraq and Yemen, where Trump ordered large scale air-strikes as well as Somalia and Syria, his actions led to large amounts of civilian casualties. He also embraced authoritarian regimes and became a top arms negotiator and supplier to flagrant human rights violators such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Morocco. Trump openly and brazenly fantasizes about military displays on his birthday with military parades that are costly. In his first term, he created the ominous United States Space Force, a special addition to the cabinet to reinforce his love for increased militarism.

Zunes explained how Trump gained traction by exploiting public disillusionment with endless wars, especially in perceived working-class and military communities, both devastated by past interventions. His “America First” rhetoric appealed to both conservative isolationists and disaffected liberals, helping suppress Clinton support in key purple states. Zunes stressed however, that Trump’s actual policies showed very little ability to be checked. It should be remembered, that he increased troop deployments in some areas, supported repressive regimes, and pushed the world to the brink of cataclysmic war with both Iran and North Korea. Trump’s brand of nationalism, Zunes cautioned, was not rooted in peace but in authoritarianism and force. Much like Jackson, McKinley and Roosevelt, Trump favors a style of racialized militarism that gets cloaked in diplomatic messaging and political ability. Like every other U.S. President however, Trump is, of course, only interested in expanding American dominance through bombings, arms deals, and complete disregard for global rights and international norms.

Abandoning the Washington Consensus and the liberal world order while waging war against institutions such as NATO and the European Union might differentiate one from other establishment politicians, but it doesn’t remove the fact that Trump targets places such as Greenland and Canada and instills and invokes fear in the Mideast, Africa, and Asia. Justice Malala recently explained how Trump’s ambush of Cyril Ramaphosa reveals how low the U.S. has fallen with policies that fail to build.

Simply put, Trump is a bomber and not a builder, (we have Yemen, Somalia and Syria to show for it) regardless of what Rubio recently described on television. The record of Trump’s presidency, as does the record of history, offers a more complex and nuanced story. It is true that Trump has often criticized imperial Democratic warmongering and has managed to dupe intellectuals and cultural managers on the left and the right. Politically, he has emphasized diplomacy and disparaged “endless wars,” but the Trump administration in actual practice, has authorized numerous military operations and air strikes across multiple countries. Recall that after the two major air strikes of Syria in 2017 and 2018, his administration facilitated the assassination of the Iranian commander General Soleimani.

This is not building. End times militarism escalates tensions with regional powers and provokes global condemnation. While these moves align with his supporters’ expectations of strong leadership, they place the United States on a dangerous path of ongoing confrontation. Coupled with what Naomi Klein calls “end times fascism,” the Trump administration fosters an environment of permanent warfare through drone strikes, military alliances, and support for dictatorial regimes. This ushers in a renewed level of catastrophes for not just global governance but for civil society and for resisters. The contradictions between Trump’s America first bombast and the interventionist policies of his administration, underline the complicated nature of his chaotic love of U.S. Navy Super Hornets, the super-weapon, and cruel foreign policy measures of destruction.

Daniel Falcone is a historian specializing in the revolutions of 1848 and the political refugees who sought asylum in New York City. His academic work focuses on Giuseppe Garibaldi’s influence on New York’s local history and the politics of memory in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Aside from his research, he is a teacher and journalist whose work has appeared in additional publications such as The Journal of Contemporary Iraq & the Arab World, The Nation, Jacobin, and Truthout. His journalistic pieces, Q&As with public intellectuals, intersect history with modern-day geopolitical issues.

CANADA

Lessons from the last federal elections: Towards the renewal of the status quo ante or the desperate search for an agreement with Trumpism

Sunday 25 May 2025, by André Frappier, Bernard Rioux


While various polls for 2024 predicted a landslide victory for the Conservative Party of Canada, the last federal election gave the Liberal Party of Canada a fourth term. The election campaign was dominated by widespread public apprehension over the trade war and Donald Trump’s threats of annexation of Canada. These fears weighed heavily on voting intentions.


Tomorrow, the new Carney government will have to defend the Canadian economy against the effects of the trade tariffs imposed on the country, reaffirm national sovereignty, and even protect territorial unity. The Canadian bourgeoisie, its federal government, and its provincial governments will be under pressure from the American administration, determined to subjugate Canada to its own interests. The trade-union movement, the various social movements, and the political left—at least what remains of it—will have to work to build their unity, demonstrate strong combativeness, and political autonomy vis-à-vis the choices of the governments of the Canadian oligarchy in order to resist the Trumpist project with a view to achieving genuine social emancipation.

Electoral dynamics and party positioning

The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) elected 169 members of parliament , with 43.73 per cent of the vote. It will have to form a minority government, having fallen short of the 172 seats needed for a majority. The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) recorded significant gains, with 143 seats elected and a jump in votes from 33.7 per cent in 2021 to over 40 per cent in 2025.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) suffered a collapse, its number of MPs dropping from 25 to 7, causing it to lose its status as a recognized party. Much of its traditional electorate, worried about Trump’s threats and eager to prevent a Conservative victory, opted instead to vote for the Liberals.

The Bloc Québécois lost ground, securing 23 seats . The Green Party elected only one representative, with just 1.23 per cent of the vote. The far-right People’s Party of Canada (PPC) received only 0.7 per cent of the vote, six times less than in 2021.

These elections therefore led to a minority government, revealing a polarization of the electorate around the two major neoliberal parties and a marginalization of third parties. The social democratic and ecological left saw its parliamentary representation and popular support reduced to a bare minimum.

The Conservative Party driven by populist demagogy

The Conservative Party has championed an ultraliberal, climate-sceptic, and militaristic agenda: corporate tax cuts, privatization, deregulation of oil and gas exploitation, and attacks on union rights. It has combined this approach with populist demagogy aimed at the working classes, presenting itself as the defender of purchasing power and access to housing.

Through a tour of factories and workplaces, it managed to build significant support for his programme, anchoring it to popular anger. A conservative bloc was thus formed, ranging from supporters of fossil fuel capital to certain sectors of the working class.

The trade union movement and progressive social movements clearly perceived this strategy, but they responded not with a united and massive mobilization, but with support for the Liberal Party and its new leader.

Faced with the Trumpist offensive, the Liberal Party is surfing on Canadian nationalism

The new Liberal leadership quickly realized that the CPC’s rise in the polls reflected a significant shift to the right of the electorate. It repositioned itself accordingly.

Upon taking office, Mark Carney abolished the carbon tax on road users thereby short-circuiting CPC leader Pierre Poilievre’s "Axe the tax" slogan . During the campaign, he promised tax cuts and the abandonment of the capital gains tax introduced by Trudeau. He also supported pipeline projects, advocated for increased oil production, promised to reach 2 per cent of GDP in military spending, strengthened border surveillance, and restricted immigration.

He thus adopted many elements of the Conservative platform, which the CPC denounced as a plundering of its ideas. Taking advantage of the resurgence of Canadian nationalism, sparked by Trump’s comments on the annexation of Canada, Carney touted the purchase of local products, energy independence, and the diversification of export markets.

As Romaric Godin wrote in Mediapart : "Finding new outlets for Canadian businesses is likely to be tricky. […] The US market represented nearly 75.9 per cent of Canadian exports and 62.2 per cent of imports in 2024."

The economic diversification project therefore seems unrealistic, especially since Canada has long since abandoned any policy of economic nationalism, notably the orientations of the Watkins report. Every government since Mulroney has supported continental integration , embodied by NAFTA and then CUSMA. The Carney government’s objective is thus a return to the status quo ante, in the interests of the Canadian bourgeoisie. But any negotiation with Trump will involve unilateral concessions: expansion of fossil capital, increased military spending, tougher immigration policy, deportations of asylum seekers and border reinforcement.

The government’s embarrassed silence in the face of Trump’s authoritarian excesses shows that it is prepared to compromise with Washington to preserve a facade of Canadian autonomy.

In Quebec: decline of the Bloc Québécois and impasse of the independence movement

The Bloc Québécois suffered a sharp setback. Focusing its campaign on defending a distinct society, it did not challenge federalism or address the issue of independence. It pledged its support to the Liberal Party for the first year and suggested the creation of a border ministry, which angered the leader of the Parti Québécois.

The Liberal Party’s victory in Quebec strengthens the legitimacy of Canadian federalism and weakens the PQ’s referendum plan. Collaborating with the Liberal Party is tantamount to reinforcing the status quo. To believe otherwise is politically naive.
The foundations of the marginalization of the political and social left

The left has been weakened by the NDP’s prolonged support for the Liberal government, parliamentary manoeuvring, union apathy and the fragmentation of social movements.

Unions, in Quebec, as in Canada, have failed to mobilize their members against conservative policies. As Sid Ryan writes : "The voice of millions of union members has been shamefully lacking. This is as much a reflection of social democracy as it is a lack of political autonomy."

The NDP, having become a mere parliamentary back-up force, has cut itself off from real social struggles. Its strategy based on compromise has weakened its credibility. Its electoral decline can also be explained by its inability to defend a programme of radical change in action.

The major unions developed platforms of demands, but limited themselves to asking their members to challenge the candidates. The Liberal Party’s shift to the right went unchallenged. The Canadian Labour Congress quickly expressed its willingness to collaborate with the Liberal government, confirming the abandonment of any political autonomy.

The feminist movement has certainly challenged the parties, but its demands have been marginalized. The mobilization for abortion rights has come up against the rise of a pro-life right that has received little opposition.

The international solidarity movement has led campaigns, particularly in defence of the Palestinian people, without achieving significant traction. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have denounced Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza.

Social movements remained dispersed, each acting in its own field without building a common front.

Paths to Rebuilding the Left in the Canadian State

These elections took place in a climate of heightened Canadian nationalism. In Quebec, the Bloc adopted a nationalism compatible with federalism. Both forms of nationalism assume that national interests converge with those of capitalists, to the detriment of solidarity between peoples.

The Canadian and Quebec left can only rebuild itself by breaking with these nationalisms. It must bring together the working classes, Indigenous peoples, and subaltern groups in a multinational liberation project.

This project must be feminist, anti-racist, socialist and decolonial. It implies the rejection of any alliance with the PQ and of any defence of the Canadian state as it is, that is to say, based on the negation of the multinational reality of the territory.

A left of social transformation must link its action to an ecosocialist project, support the self-determination of indigenous and Quebec peoples, and develop solidarity with ecological, feminist and popular movements.

It must work to build a social bloc around climate justice, the fight against patriarchy, reparations for Indigenous peoples, the creation of popular constituent assemblies, the nationalization of resources and the dismantling of the Canadian military-industrial complex.

The results of the last elections show that everything must be rebuilt from a veritable field of ruins. But there are battles that cannot be avoided.
Returning to the road to solidarity and updating our perspectives

The first observations:

Building a pan-Canadian activist network has always been a laborious undertaking. This challenge was described in the article "The Challenge of Fighting Together" by Andrea Levy and André Frappier, published in issue 24 of NCS. In 2020, this article described the political situation in the Canadian state and in Quebec and its challenges. It is clear that the arrival of Trump and the rise of fascism on our doorstep have changed the situation. We must now examine how we can and must fight together, and on what basis.

The imperialist character of the Canadian state is still very real, as we stated in 2020:
"The Canadian state was built against the rights of peoples, through the oppression of Indigenous peoples who were dispossessed of their territories and ancestral rights, and through the oppression of the French-Canadian nation. This state then developed into an instrument of industrial corporations and finance capital, increasingly playing an imperialist role internationally as a junior partner of American imperialism."

A difficulty arose, on the one hand, in understanding the national liberation struggle: "To think of a uniquely Quebec strategy for changing society is to ignore the power of financial institutions and corporations... Let us remember the fate that the European Central Bank reserved for Greece (which is nevertheless a sovereign state) a few years ago."

And, on the other hand, we considered the problem of the progressive forces in the Rest of Canada: fragmented and limited to regional perspectives, while identifying with the federal state, as the CLC does.

The rise of the far right and the arrival of Trump have changed this situation. The mantra has become "Save Canada," with a right-wing stance from the Liberal Party that adopts Poilievre’s policies. Building a pan-Canadian left movement is becoming an unavoidable necessity, but it cannot be achieved without understanding, in the Rest of Canada as much as in Quebec, a perspective that combines the dynamics of the national liberation struggle in Quebec, the struggle of Indigenous peoples for their ancestral rights, and the fight for an egalitarian society. The unity of the pan-Canadian left cannot exist if it falls into supporting the Canadian ruling class in the hope of blocking Trump.

This lack of perspective has left all the ground open to neoliberalism and the right. It is urgent to reclaim a united, working-class, and popular perspective at the pan-Canadian level. We must dedicate ourselves to it now!

Tuesday , May 26, 2025

Translated by International Viewpoint from Presse-toi à gauche.


Attached documentslessons-from-the-last-federal-elections-towards-the-renewal_a9011-2.pdf (PDF - 921 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9011]

Canada
Trump’s Trade War and Canadian Workers
Trump, Europe and outraged virtue: malaise in imperial supremacism
Lives Yes, Pipelines No!
No return to ‘normal’ LGBT politics!
The Truckers Convoy, Observations from a Veteran Socialist
Quebec
’Unify the political left without sidestepping the needed debates!’
Quebec: climate strike on 23 September
Québec solidaire vows to fight CAQ government’s racist bill
With new position on secularism, Quebec Solidaire redefines left-wing politics in the province
Québec solidaire reviews the election and maps campaign on climate crisis

Bernard Rioux

André Frappier
André Frappier is an active of Gauche Socialist in Quebec.

International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

Trump Calls For Investigations of Springsteen, Beyoncé, Oprah and U2’s Bono for Endorsing Harris

by Bill Berkowitz / May 25th, 2025

Donald Trump went off the rails again early in the morning of Monday, May 19, calling for a “major investigation” of Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé and other celebrities who endorsed Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, accusing them of taking illegal payments from Harris’ campaign for their endorsement.

“Monday’s post was different in that it actually calls for retribution in the form of an investigation against Springsteen and Beyoncé, as well as Oprah Winfrey and U2 singer Bono,” the Arizona Republic’s Bill Goodykoontz reported. “I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment. In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT’S NOT LEGAL!”

How will Attorney General Pam Bondi respond?

It wasn’t long after Bruce Springsteen lashed out at what the singer/songwriter called the “treasonous” Trump in Manchester, England, on the first stop of his “Land of Hope and Dreams” tour, Trump responded on his social media platform, calling Springsteen “just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country“.

Trump added: “Springsteen is ‘dumb as a rock,’ and couldn’t see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just ‘standard fare.’ Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”

Trump and Springsteen represent two very different faces of American culture, one forged in the boardrooms, gold-plated towers of Manhattan, and realty television, while Springsteen made his bones in dive bars of New Jersey. Trump, with his bombast and branding, rose to political power by channeling discontent, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and racism into a populist wave. With Springsteen, “The Boss,” who also spent decades giving voice to that same discontent through gritty lyrics and blue-collar anthems, there is always a sense of positivity; that America can live up to its lofty ideals.

The contrast is more than stylistic, it’s visceral and philosophical. Trump, a wannabe emperor, has often spoken of winning, power, loyalty from his acolytes, and spectacle. Springsteen sings about struggle, working-class dignity, and the quiet resilience of ordinary people. During Trump’s presidency, Springsteen became an outspoken critic, saying the country had lost its soul. Trump, meanwhile, has dismissed artists like Springsteen as out of touch elites.

While Trump was mainly focusing on Springsteen’s remarks, for some inexplicable reason, he renewed his attack on Taylor Swift. Minutes before his Springsteen rant, he wrote: “Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?’” MSNBC noted that “Swift, the top-selling global artist of 2024, has stepped away from the spotlight in recent months after wrapping her record-breaking international ‘Eras Tour’ in December. Trump lashed out at her during the 2024 election cycle after she endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.

“The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada will not remain silent as two of our members − Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift − are singled out and personally attacked by the President of the United States,” the group said. “Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift are not just brilliant musicians, they are role models and inspirations to millions of people in the United States and across the world. … Musicians have the right to freedom of expression, and we stand in solidarity with all our members.”

At a performance after Trump’s rant, The Boss repeated his remarks about Trump at the E Street Band’s May 17 show at the Co-op Live in Manchester, England. Springsteen also repeated his statement on free speech before “My City of Ruins”: “There’s some very weird, strange, and dangerous (expletive) going on out there right now. In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now.”

The Arizona Republic’s Goodykoontz pointed out that “according to Verify, as long as candidates disclose payment [it is legal]. The Harris campaign paid Winfrey’s production company $1 million for helping produce a campaign rally in 2024. The Harris campaign also paid Beyoncé’s production company $165,000 after the singer appeared at a campaign event (Beyoncé didn’t perform).

“The campaign has denied that it made personal payments to any artist or performer, with a spokesperson telling Deadline, ‘We do not pay. We have never paid any artist and performer.’ Payments to production companies and crews are routine.”

In 2003, at a concert in London, The Dixie Chicks (now known as The Chicks) spoke out against George W. Bush and the Iraq War, triggering a backlash that had an enormous effect on the group’s career. The Dixie Chicks were at the time one of the country’s most popular acts. The statement triggered a backlash from American country listeners, and the group was blacklisted by many country radio stations, received death threats and was criticized by other country musicians.

Was Trump threatening Springsteen by telling him that “we’ll all see how it goes for him!” when he returns to this country?

Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. Read other articles by Bill.

Trump: Shamelessly Making U.S.A. More Unequal and Government More Corrupt

Monday 26 May 2025, by Dan La Botz


The House of Representatives, dominated by the Republican Party, last week passed President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” as he calls it, by a vote of 215 to 214, giving tax cuts to the rich and more money to the military while reducing a variety of social programs for working-class and poor people. The bill, more than 1,000-pages, reduces Medicaid which provides healthcare to low-income adults and children, cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that provides aid for food for those with little or no income, and cuts to education at every level from elementary school to graduate research. And Trump is in the process of firing 100,000 federal workers.

At the same time the bill provides more money to the military and to the immigration authorities. But despite the cuts to social programs, the bill will increase the national debt by about $3.3 trillion. The bill now goes to the Senate, also with a Republican majority, which will amend the bill; then the two houses must reconcile their differences. Still in the end the law will be devastating for the poor and a bonanza for the rich.

And as he was taking food and medical care from the poor, Trump hosted a dinner at his Trump National Golf Club in suburban Washington for 250 billionaires who were the biggest buyers of his $TRUMP cryptocurrency, a digital coin that has no function but speculation. Diners who attended bought an average of $1.7 million of $TRUMP, with the top seven buying $10 million, and one bought $40 million. Many of those present—a large number from Asia—said that they had invested in $TRUMP in order to be able to influence the president and U.S. economic policy. Since he became president, Trump has added billions to his personal wealth, most recently $320 million in fees through the sale of his cryptocurrency. As diners arrived, dozens of protestors held signs with slogans like “Crypto Corruption” and “USA is For Sale,” and shouted “Shame, shame, shame.”

Democrats have criticized Trump’s use of his office to enrich himself. “Donald Trump’s dinner is an orgy of corruption,” Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said at a Democratic Party press conference held before the dinner. “Donald Trump is using the presidency of the United States to make himself richer through crypto and he’s doing it right out there in plain sight.”

Governments and businesspeople around the world make deals with Trump in an attempt to influence U.S. policies. Trump put a 46% tariff on Vietnamese imports, but perhaps in an attempt to reduce the tariffs that affect about a third of the country’s exports, the Vietnamese government has been cooperating with the Trump family which is building a $1.5 billion golf complex outside of Hanoi, the nation’s capital. But there are 20 Trump-brand properties in countries around the world, and cooperating with the president’s private businesses becomes a way to try to influence political decisions.

Trump does all of this with impunity. The U.S. president is not bound by laws regarding conflict of interest. The Supreme Court gave him immunity. His loyalist Pam Bondi controls the Department of Justice. He is untouchable.

While resistance has been slowly growing to Trump’s attacks on working people and the poor, there is little or no resistance to Trump’s corruption. Why?

Some, of course, admire Trump the businessman, others are bamboozled by him. In any case, he controls the executive, the legislature, and has the support of the Supreme Court, so he seems all-powerful. Then too, we have never in U.S. history seen corruption on this scale. The rapidity of Trump’s actions has left us breathless. In response we have only the Democrats’ criticism, while the party leadership is both divided and unpopular. And we have a few dozen protestors shouting, “Shame!”

What should be done? The task is to figure that out.

25 May 2025


Attached documentstrump-shamelessly-making-america-more-unequal-and_a9012.pdf (PDF - 905.5 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9012]

Dan La Botz
Dan La Botz was a founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). He is the author of Rank-and-File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (1991). He is also a co-editor of New Politics and editor of Mexican Labor News and Analysis.


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.