Trump bringing Marxism to U.S. better than Marx could’ve hoped

By David McElroy · May 25, 2025

Donald Trump is the most effective agent of Marxist economics the United States has ever seen.

Let that sink in.

The president who is beloved by many who scream about the dangers of socialism and wave flags that say “Don’t Tread on Me” is dragging this country further into the economic worldview of Karl Marx than the Soviets ever dreamed possible. And what’s worse? His followers cheer him for it.

I know better than to think Trump is reading Das Kapital in the middle of the night. He probably couldn’t distinguish Karl Marx from Groucho Marx. But his policies — his economic instincts — align with the collectivist, central-planning ideals that defined Marx’s vision of how to run a society. The irony is grotesque. The former host of The Apprentice is becoming the accidental apprentice of Marx himself.

Let’s look at the facts.

Start with Trump’s love for tariffs. In his first term, he slapped fairly minor tariffs on Chinese goods in a self-proclaimed effort to “bring jobs back” and “protect American workers.” And as soon as he was back in office, he doubled and tripled down on this economic illiteracy.

He launched a massive trade war. He pretends the targets are people in other countries who won’t do what he prefers. The truth is the you and I are the targets.

Trump doesn’t believe we have the freedom to trade with those of our own choosing. He doesn’t believe you and I have the right to buy from people in other countries who are willing to sell us cheaper goods. He has the idea that he should be able to decide where products are made and who makes them.

Even this week, he’s threatening to slap even more tariffs on iPhones if Apple doesn’t find a way to assemble them in the U.S. instead of India. (Apple has been trying to shift production from China to India to escape tariffs against China.)

Trump claims all of this is going to “make American wealthy again.” Even if you can ignore the fact that he wants to take away our freedom to trade however we choose, he is trying to bring jobs back to America that Americans do not want.

All of this rhetoric sounds great if you’re the kind of person who thinks an economy is just a football team that needs a strong coach in total control to tell everybody what to do. But in reality, it’s central planning dressed in red, white and blue. Trump decided he could manipulate international trade with a few signature strokes. Instead, he’s sending the world economy — including the U.S. economy — into the tank.

In Marxist theory, the state protects and controls the “means of production” for the supposed benefit of the workers. Trump’s economic nationalism claims to do exactly that. He doesn’t trust the market. He trusts himself. He treats the economy like it’s his former casino in Atlantic City, thinking he can call the shots and rig the tables. That’s not capitalism. That’s cronyism soaked in nationalism. That’s the state seizing power over what’s supposed to be a free market.

And remember that his casinos went bankrupt multiple times and he was able to walk away. That’s the sort of economic carnage this economic idiot is going to leave us with.

Then there’s the bailouts. Trump sent out many millions of dollars in “stimulus” checks during the COVID-19 pandemic. He presided over massive federal programs that doled out cash to businesses and individuals alike. Like politicians everywhere, he wasn’t one to allow an emergency to pass without making things even worse. The U.S. government went far more deeply into debt because of this. (And then Biden came along and continued the Trump policy of handing out money like candy to babies.)

Trump’s followers claim they love freedom. But Trump doesn’t hesitate to embrace the tools of central economic control that every Marxist government in history has dreamed of. Direct government payments. Government deciding who gets to survive and who doesn’t.

Under Trump, the federal government’s role in the economy ballooned. Spending exploded. Deficits grew. The Federal Reserve turned on the money printer like a Soviet factory worker trying to meet his quota. All in the name of “stimulus.” All in the name of helping the people. And yet those of us who believe in economic freedom, who believe in letting individuals make their own choices in a market unmolested by Washington power games — we were told to shut up and wave the flag.

If Barack Obama had done all this, Trump’s supporters would have screamed “Socialism!” until their lungs gave out. But because their strongman did it, they mostly smiled and called it leadership.

Do you remember when the Right used to at least pretend to care about limited government? Balanced budgets? Free markets? That’s all gone now, buried under red hats and chants about making things great again.

And what about Trump’s obsession with “bringing back” manufacturing jobs? The man talks like it’s 1950 and the future of the American dream lies in reopening steel mills. Instead of accepting the reality of a post-industrial economy where innovation and service industries dominate, he wants to rewind the clock. He talks about the American worker like he’s a cog in a machine, something to be plugged into a government-directed economic engine.

That’s Marxism. That’s not free enterprise. That’s not capitalism.

None of this is to say the Democrats are any better, of course. They’re just more honest about their love for socialism. But Trump? Trump is worse in some ways. He hijacked the rhetoric of liberty and used it to sell state control. He cloaked his collectivism in patriotism, so millions of people cheered for policies they would have rioted against if they came from the other party.

If Marx is watching from the afterlife — and if he has any sense of humor — he has to be laughing.

Because the Soviet Union never figured out how to destroy the American free market. But Donald Trump is doing it from the inside. He’s centralizing power. He’s deciding who wins and who loses. He’s using fear and populism to justify control.

And the people most likely to yell about “Marxists in Washington”? They’re the ones wearing his T-shirts and red hats.

When you put your faith in a man instead of in liberty, you will always be disappointed. The cult of personality is the gateway drug to tyranny.

Karl Marx never could have pulled this off. But Donald Trump might.

And he didn’t even have to read a single page of Marx’s terrible books.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts