

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Over the past year, Trump has followed the plans laid out by Project 2025 almost to the letter, leaving the rest of the world reeling.
The year 2025 was marked by the Trump shock: an unprecedented wave of extreme brutality, unapologetic nationalism, and unrestrained extractivism that shook the world as never before since 1945.
To better understand what made it all possible, and how to confront it in the future, we must turn to its roots. Namely, to Project 2025, the 920-page report published by the Heritage Foundation, Washington’s most influential conservative think tank, in 2023. From one state department to another (security, immigration, education, energy, trade, etc.), the report outlines the strategy to follow after taking office, targeted for January 2025. It even specifies the content and timetable for executive orders, the presidential decrees signed publicly and in rapid succession by Donald Trump since his inauguration.
The report drew on the work of hundreds of conservative experts—as they call themselves—brought together by the foundation, which is lavishly funded by corporations and billionaires. What stands out most when reading the report today is the degree of technical, political, and ideological preparation behind the Trump administration. Over the past year, Trump has followed the plans laid out by Project 2025 almost to the letter. The new National Security Strategy published by the White House on December 5 reads almost like a copy-and-paste of the project.
Revealingly, Project 2025 identifies several political and ideological enemies. First, there are the globalist liberals, staunch advocates of absolute free trade and unfettered globalization, who are portrayed as useful idiots. Easy to defeat and despise, these liberal elites care little for deindustrialization, job losses, and the destruction of local communities and family ties. In contrast, the proud conservatives behind Project 2025 claim to protect these communities. They do so first by asserting US power in the world, relying heavily on tariffs and all-out extractivism: outright asset seizures (Ukraine, Panama, Greenland), imposing military tribute on Europe, and doubling down on fossil fuels. Next, they champion hard work, family values, and respect for natural and cultural hierarchies. The scourge of « fatherlessness » (growing up without a father, a situation that particularly affects ethnic minorities) is repeatedly condemned and blamed on liberal narratives that deny traditional gender roles and undermine the traditional family.
In reality, the true enemy of the nationalist and extractivist right embodied by Trumpists is the global social-democratic left. That left can win, provided it learns to organize and move beyond the liberal ruts of the past.
But Project 2025 is mainly concerned with an enemy it deems much more dangerous: internationalist socialists and their plans for a global superstate. The fear may seem laughable, as Trumpists sometimes tend to conflate mild-mannered European social democrats with fearsome Marxist revolutionaries. Yet it must be taken seriously. First, because supporters of democratic socialism such as Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani have become very popular among young Americans over the past decade.
Even more importantly, the authors of Project 2025 seem genuinely alarmed by international debates on taxation, climate reparations, or reforms of the global financial system that have gained traction since the 2008 crisis and the Paris Agreement of 2015. They loathe Brazil’s proposal to create a global tax on billionaires just as much as they resent the significant issuance of international currency (Special Drawing Rights by the International Monetary Fund) that occurred after the crises of 2008 and 2020. All the more so because the US will soon lose its veto power over such decisions as its share of global GDP declines.
A particularly telling section concerns trade, which takes the very unusual form in Project 2025 of two chapters setting out opposing positions. The main chapter advocates an avalanche of tariffs closely resembling what Trump implemented in 2025. Like the US president, the author seems to be under no illusions about the extent of industrial job creation this could bring. In general, the report displays little empathy for the poorest and relies on an instrumental, paternalistic, and hierarchical approach to the working-class vote. The main objective of tariffs seems to be to generate revenue for the federal government and to continue dismantling the progressive tax system—a project shared by liberals and conservatives since the 1980s, though conservatives have always maintained a lead in this area.
Project 2025’s second chapter on trade opposes such a strategy. The dissenting conservative author fears that by so openly repudiating the principles of free trade, the door may eventually be opened to global socialist planning. In future, opponents of the market will use this precedent to regulate trade based on social and climate criteria: the ultimate nightmare for conservatives. In the end, Trumpists opted for protectionism for both electoral and financial reasons, but the fear of a socialist drift is clearly acknowledged.
In reality, the true enemy of the nationalist and extractivist right embodied by Trumpists is the global social-democratic left. That left can win, provided it learns to organize and move beyond the liberal ruts of the past. Trumpist brutality is a sign of weakness. The US is losing its grip on the world. Across the Atlantic, some believe they can escape this decline by brandishing weapons and instructing Europeans to preserve their racial purity to maintain the Western alliance. All they will do is further tarnish their country’s image and convince the rest of the world that the future will increasingly be written without them.
This column was first published by Le Monde.
A political economy of corporations and the wealthy lobbying for and receiving increased government help to snag higher profits and market share has ruled the roost of US society.
As 2025 ended, one thing was as plain as day. American small businesses and their customers are paying a price for global trade tariffs, an import tax, courtesy of President Donald J Trump. How this economic fact plays out legally and politically is an open question, connected with long-running trends.
On the legal front, small businesses, over 700 of them at last count, have joined together as part of an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to the US Supreme Court with their testimonies against President Trump’s tariffs on foreign imports (Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump).
Recall that the president promised to use tariff revenue on foreign imports to increase American manufacturing. Why the need for tariff revenue to grow private-sector manufacturing across the US?
Corporate America has been disinvesting in industrial production stateside for decades. Shifting manufacturing abroad and eliminating unionized employment for reasons of higher profits has been one of the hallmarks of the US economy under Democratic and GOP administrations. That’s a bipartisan consensus.
Centering kitchen table issues of labor and living conditions can garner working class support in rural and urban America in 2026. The Democratic and Republican parties have billions of reasons to fight such a working-class agenda.
Looking at this trend with a class and politics lens, it's a kitchen table issue. Material reality, such as wage income and prices for groceries and rent, shapes ideology and systemic thinking about the political economy of living and working. The current moment of social tumult has been gathering steam since the end of the Vietnam War, which heralded the sunset of a postwar US economy of broad-based prosperity, with blue collar, family-wage employment for male workers.
Dubbed neoliberalism under successive Democratic and Republican presidents, a political economy of corporations and the wealthy lobbying for and receiving increased government help to snag higher profits and market share has ruled the roost of US society.
That government intervention, from copyrights and patents to misnamed free-trade pacts, favors big business and investors to the detriment of the working class. This trend ushered in the growth of the “working poor.” To be fair, President Trump didn't begin this class war of a few against the many.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court with a conservative majority is expected to issue a decision on a “demand for restitution” from businesses paying the Trump tariffs soon. The case challenges the president’s authority to impose tariffs due to a “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits,” creating a national emergency.
Persistent implies a long-standing trend. This economic emergency of an imbalance in American exports and imports is a symptom of the corporate agenda. It’s driving both political parties support to deindustrialize America.
Political resistance to this agenda exists, but it’s weak. Think of the rise and fall of the anti-corporate globalization movement decades ago.
On that note, Public Citizen does magnificent work to advance the kitchen table issues of the working majority. However, the other side has unlimited cash to buy politicians, a major reason the corporate agenda barrels ahead.
Centering kitchen table issues of labor and living conditions can garner working class support in rural and urban America in 2026. The Democratic and Republican parties have billions of reasons to fight such a working-class agenda. The parties rely in part upon division to bolster their power and privilege.
Countering such a strategy of the ruling class is a tall order, but a necessary step. There will be many opportunities to build unity against the bipartisan consensus of war and Wall Street and for peace and social justice in the new year.
In a recent focus group, one voter who supported the president in 2024 said Trump's recent claims that the economy is strong were "delusional."
New polling from The Guardian on Monday bolstered recent analyses that have shown low consumer confidence and job creation numbers and higher household costs and unemployment: Americans are struggling under President Donald Trump's economic policies, and they increasingly believe the White House—for all Trump's claims that the economy is strong—is to blame.
The poll, conducted by Harris for the news outlet between December 11 and 13, found that respondents were twice as likely to say their financial security is getting worse as they were to report an improvement.
Nearly half of those surveyed said their financial situation is worsening, and 57% said they perceived that the US is in a recession—although that would be defined by two quarters of negative growth in the US economy, which the country has not experienced at this point.
Despite that, the poll—along with recent focus groups including members of Trump's 2024 base, held by Syracuse University and reported on Monday by NBC News—illustrated how Trump's focus on imposing tariffs on countries around the world and his promotion of policies that have raised household bills for millions of people have left Americans feeling pessimistic about their own financial health and that of the country.
Democratic voters were far more likely than Republicans to tell Harris that their financial security is getting worse, with 52% of the latter saying so compared with 27% of the former.
But 54% of independent voters agreed that they are struggling more financially, despite Trump's recent claim that he would give the economy a grade of "A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.”
"We have seen a shift among these voters collectively, cracks in their faith, more questioning, oscillating, or outright change of heart about Trump."
Respondents from across the political spectrum were more likely than ever before to blame the White House for their financial struggles, Harris said.
More than three-quarters of Democrats blamed Trump's policies and "government management of the economy," along with 72% of independents and more than half of Republicans—55%.
Analyses this year have shown Trump's tariffs, which he claimed soon after taking office would "liberate" Americans from the national debt, are raising costs for small businesses and making it harder for them to stay afloat, and are passing on higher prices to consumers—resulting in ballooning grocery bills for millions of Americans.
Trump made lowering grocery prices a central promise of his campaign last year, along with repeatedly pledging that he was "going to get your energy prices down by 50%.”
But the president's embrace of artificial intelligence and the expansion of data centers—something he and congressional Republicans have aggressively pushed states to allow despite public disapproval—is unlikely to result in lower utility prices for households. Those costs have risen by 13% since Trump took office, with the president's cancellation of renewable energy projects to blame as well as energy-sucking data centers.
The focus groups held by Syracuse recently found that voters who supported the president last year have rapidly grown discouraged by his economic policies, including his tariffs, which one participant called "a tax on the American people."
"That’s who pays for it, so I don’t support it,” David S. of New Jersey told NBC. “The people who are buying those imports are paying the tax.”
With less than a year until voters are set to decide if Republicans should keep their majorities in the US House and Senate, fewer than half of the people surveyed in four focus groups said they believed Trump has made it a priority to fight inflation and reduce their costs. Robert L. of Virginia told Syracuse researchers that the president's recent comments painting a sunny picture of the economy were "delusional."
Another Virginia voter, Justin K., said the president has been focused on "prosecuting his political enemies" and "pardoning people" and has not "tried at all" to tackle the rising cost of living.
A number of those surveyed said they had decided to back Democratic candidates Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill in this year's gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey just a year after supporting Trump.
"Many of these voters gave President Trump a long runway well into the summer because they believed that he understands how business works better than they do and that his own fortune would eventually translate to enriching the country and their own finances," Margaret Talev, director of Syracuse University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism, and Citizenship, told NBC on Monday.
"But as the year wore on, we have seen a shift among these voters collectively, cracks in their faith, more questioning, oscillating, or outright change of heart about Trump," Talev said. "What we almost never see is a wish for a do-over vote or a rush toward Democrats for the answer."