Trump’s Revolution

18 January 2025

Currently, everyone in Russia and across the world is clearly puzzled about what is happening in the United States. President-elect Donald Trump and his close associates, particularly the passionate Elon Musk, have launched an almost revolutionary level of activity. Although Trump has not yet assumed office — this will happen on January 20 — America and Europe are already shaking. This is an ideological and geopolitical tsunami that, frankly, no one anticipated. Many expected that after being elected, Trump — much like during his first term — would revert to a more or less conventional policy, albeit with his charismatic and spontaneous traits. It can now be said with certainty: this is not the case. Trump is a revolution.

Therefore, precisely during this transitional period, as power is handed over from Biden to Trump, it makes sense to seriously analyze: what is happening in America? It is evident that something very, very important is taking place.

The Deep State and the History of American Ascendancy

First, it is essential to clarify how Trump could have been elected at all, given the power of the deep state. This requires a broader review.

The deep state in the United States represents the core of the state apparatus and the ideological and economic elite closely tied to it. In the U.S., the state, business, and education form a single system of interconnected vessels rather than something strictly separate. To this, we can add the traditional secret societies and clubs in the U.S., which historically served as communication hubs for elites. This entire complex is typically referred to as the “deep state.”

Moreover, the two main parties — the Democrats and the Republicans — are not carriers of particularly distinct ideologies but instead express variations of a unified ideological-political and economic course embodied in the deep state. The balance between them serves merely to adjust secondary issues, maintaining a connection with society as a whole.

After World War II, the U.S. passed through two stages: the ideological and geopolitical era of the Cold War with the USSR and the socialist bloc (1947–1991) and the period of unipolarity or the “end of history” (1991–2024). During the first stage, the U.S. was an equal partner with the USSR, while in the second stage, it completely defeated its opponent, becoming the sole political and ideological global superpower (or hyperpower). The deep state, rather than parties or other institutions, became the carrier of this unwavering course towards global dominance.

Since the 1990s, this dominance has increasingly taken the form of left-liberal ideology. Its formula combines the interests of major international capital and progressive individualistic culture. This strategy was most fully embraced by the Democratic Party, and among Republicans, it was supported by the “neocons.” Its core idea was the belief in a linear and continuous growth trajectory: of the American economy, the global economy, and the planetary spread of liberalism and liberal values.

It appeared that all the states and societies of the world had adopted the American model — political representative democracy, a capitalist market economy, an individualistic and cosmopolitan ideology of human rights, digital technologies, and Western-centric postmodern culture. The U.S. deep state embraced this agenda and acted as its guarantor, ensuring its realization.

Samuel Huntington and the Invitation to Adjust the Course

As early as the beginning of the 1990s, some American intellectuals began to voice concerns about the long-term viability of this approach. The clearest articulation of these concerns came from Samuel Huntington, who predicted a “clash of civilizations,” the rise of multipolarity, and the eventual crisis of Western-centric globalization.

Huntington proposed strengthening American identity and consolidating other Western societies within a single — no longer global but regional — Western civilization. However, at that time, this perspective was dismissed as overly cautious by most. The deep state fully supported the optimists of the “end of history,” such as Huntington’s main intellectual opponent, Francis Fukuyama.

This explains the continuity in U.S. presidential policy from Clinton, Bush, and Obama to Biden, with Trump’s first term being an anomaly. Both Democrats and Republicans — exemplified by George W. Bush among the Republicans — expressed the unified political and ideological strategy of the deep state: globalism, liberalism, unipolarity, and hegemony.

However, from the early 2000s, this globalist optimism began to face serious challenges.

• Russia, under Vladimir Putin, ceased blindly following the U.S. lead and began strengthening its sovereignty. This became particularly evident after Putin’s Munich speech in 2007, the events in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and especially the beginning of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in 2022. All of this ran entirely counter to the plans of the globalists.
• China, especially under Xi Jinping, began pursuing an independent policy, benefiting from globalization while imposing strict limits when its logic conflicted with China’s national interests or threatened its sovereignty.
• In the Islamic world, sporadic protests against the West grew — ranging from aspirations for greater independence to outright rejection of imposed liberal values.
• In India, with the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, right-wing nationalists and traditionalists came to power.
• Anti-colonial sentiments surged in Africa, and countries in Latin America began increasingly asserting their independence from the U.S. and the West as a whole.

This culminated in the formation of BRICS as a prototype for a multipolar international system that operates largely independently of the West.

The American deep state faced a serious dilemma: should it continue to insist on its agenda while ignoring the growing antagonistic trends, attempting to suppress them through information dominance, leading narratives, and outright censorship in the media and social networks? Or should it acknowledge these trends and seek new responses by adjusting its foundational strategy to a reality increasingly at odds with the subjective assessments of some American analysts?

Trump and the Deep State

Trump’s first presidency appeared to be an accident — a technical glitch. Yes, Trump rose to power on a wave of populism, drawing support from segments of the U.S. population increasingly rejecting the globalist agenda and woke culture (the left-liberal ideology advocating hyper-individualism, gender politics, feminism, LGBTQ rights, cancel culture, and the promotion of both legal and illegal immigration, among other elements). This marked the first time the term “deep state” gained prominence in U.S. public discourse, highlighting the growing contradiction between it and the sentiments of the broader populace.

However, between 2016 and 2020, the deep state did not take Trump seriously, and Trump himself, during his presidency, did not manage to implement structural reforms. After the end of his first term, the deep state supported Biden and the Democratic Party, pushing through the elections with unprecedented pressure on Trump, whom they perceived as a threat to the entire globalist and unipolar course the U.S. had followed for decades — with a certain degree of success. This explains Biden’s campaign slogan: “Build Back Better,” meaning “Let’s rebuild even better.” This slogan implied that after the “disruption” of Trump’s first term, it was necessary to return to the implementation of the globalist liberal agenda.

However, everything changed between 2020 and 2024. Although Biden, supported by the deep state, restored the previous course, this time he needed to prove that all indications of a crisis in globalism were nothing more than “propaganda by adversaries,” “the work of Putin’s or China’s agents,” or “the schemes of domestic fringe groups.” Biden, with the support of the Democratic Party elite and the neocons, tried to present the situation as if there were no real crisis, no genuine problems, and that reality did not increasingly contradict the ideas and projects of the liberal globalists.

Instead, he argued that it was necessary to intensify pressure on ideological opponents: to deal a strategic defeat to Russia, suppress China’s regional expansion (the “Belt and Road Initiative”), sabotage BRICS, quell populist movements in the U.S. and Europe, and even eliminate Trump (legally, politically, and physically). This resulted in the encouragement of terroristic methods and the tightening of left-liberal censorship. Under Biden, liberalism effectively became a totalitarian system.

Biden Loses the Trust of the Deep State

However, Biden failed to deliver on these objectives for a variety of reasons.

Russia under Putin did not capitulate and withstood unprecedented pressure, including sanctions, conflict with the Ukrainian regime supported by all Western countries, economic challenges, and sharp reductions in natural resource exports. Despite these, Putin prevailed, and Biden could not achieve victory over Russia.

China remained resolute, continuing its trade war with the U.S. without suffering critical losses.

Modi’s government in India could not be toppled during the electoral campaign.

BRICS held a spectacular summit in Kazan, on Russian territory in the midst of its confrontation with the West, marking the rise of multipolarity.

Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon escalated into genocide, undermining any globalist rhetoric. Biden had no choice but to support this, further discrediting his administration.

And most importantly, Trump did not give up. He consolidated the Republican Party on an unprecedented scale, continuing and even radicalizing his populist agenda.

Over time, Trump’s movement developed into a distinct ideology. Its central premise was that globalism had failed, and its crisis was not a fabrication by adversaries or propaganda but the actual state of affairs. Consequently, the U.S. must follow Samuel Huntington’s approach rather than Francis Fukuyama’s, return to realism, and revive its core American (and more broadly Western) identity. This involves abandoning woke culture and the liberal experiments of recent decades, effectively resetting American ideology to its early classical liberal roots with a significant emphasis on nationalism and protectionism. This ideological project became encapsulated in Trump’s slogan: “Make America Great Again” (MAGA).

The Deep State Changes Priorities

Because Trump managed to assert his position within the ideological landscape of the U.S., the deep state refrained from allowing Democrats to eliminate him. Biden (partially due to his mental decline) failed the test of “Build Back Better,” failed to convince anyone of the continued viability of globalism, and thus the deep state recognized the reality of the crisis of globalism and the need to abandon old methods of promoting it.

For this reason, the deep state allowed Trump to be re-elected and even supported the formation of a radical group of ideological Trumpists. This group included such prominent figures as Elon Musk, JD Vance, Peter Thiel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Tucker Carlson, and even Alex Jones.

The key point is this: by acknowledging Trump, the American deep state recognized the objective necessity of revising the U.S.’s global strategy in ideology, geopolitics, diplomacy, and other areas. Henceforth, everything is subject to review.

Trump and Trumpism, and more broadly, populism, are no longer viewed as technical glitches or anomalies but as markers of a genuine and fundamental crisis of globalism and, moreover, its end.

This current term for Trump is not merely another episode in the alternation between Democrats and Republicans — both of whom traditionally pursued a unified agenda supported by the deep state regardless of electoral outcomes. Instead, it marks the beginning of a new chapter in the history of American hegemony: a deep rethinking of its strategy, ideology, presentation, and structure.

Post-Liberalism

Let us now examine the emerging contours of Trumpism as an ideology step by step. Vice President JD Vance openly identifies as “post-liberal.” This signifies a complete and total break from the left-liberalism that has dominated the U.S. in recent decades.

The deep state, which generally lacks any coherent ideology of its own, now appears willing to experiment with a significant revision of liberal ideology, if not its outright dismantling. Before our eyes, Trumpism is taking on the characteristics of a distinct and independent ideology, often directly opposing the left-liberalism that has prevailed until now.

Trumpism as an ideology is not monolithic and contains multiple poles. However, its general framework is becoming increasingly clear:

Rejection of globalism, left-liberalism (progressivism), and woke culture

Trumpism firmly and openly rejects globalism — the vision of a single global market and cultural space where national borders are increasingly blurred and nation-states gradually relinquish their powers to supranational bodies (e.g., the EU). Globalists believe this will soon lead to the establishment of a world government, as openly advocated by Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and George Soros. In this vision, all the world’s people become global citizens with equal rights within a unified economic, technological, cultural, and social framework. Tools for this process, or the “Great Reset,” include pandemics and environmental agendas.

For Trumpism, all of this is completely unacceptable. Instead, it advocates the preservation of nation-states or their integration into civilizations — at least within the context of Western civilization, where the U.S. takes the lead. But this leadership no longer rests on the banner of liberal globalist ideology; rather, it is based on Trumpism’s values. This closely resembles Huntington’s original argument for consolidating the West in opposition to other civilizations.

Rejection of Globalism

Trumpism aligns more closely with the school of realism in international relations, which acknowledges national sovereignty and does not demand its abolition. The rejection of globalism also entails criticism of vaccination campaigns and environmental agendas. Figures such as Bill Gates and George Soros are portrayed as embodiments of pure evil within this framework.

Anti-Woke

Trumpists are equally resolute in their opposition to woke ideology, which they define as encompassing:

• Gender politics and the legalization of perversions;
• Critical race theory, which wants historically oppressed groups to exact revenge on White populations;
• Encouragement of migration, including illegal migration;
• Cancel culture and left-liberal censorship;
• Postmodernism.

Instead of these “progressive” and anti-traditional values, Trumpism advocates a return to traditional values (as they pertain to the U.S. and Western civilization). Thus, an anti-woke ideology is being constructed.

For example:

• The concept of multiple genders is replaced by a declaration of only two natural sexes. Transgender individuals and the LGBTQ+ community are seen as marginalized deviations rather than social norms.
• Feminism and harsh criticism of masculinity and patriarchy are rejected. Consequently, masculinity and the role of men in society are restored to their central positions. Men should no longer feel the need to apologize for being men. For this reason, Trumpism is sometimes called a “bro-revolution” or “revolution of men.”

Critical race theory is countered by a rehabilitation of White civilization. However, extreme forms of White racism are generally confined to fringe movements within Trumpism. More commonly, this results in the rejection of mandatory criticism of White people while maintaining a fairly tolerant attitude towards non-Whites, provided they do not demand obligatory repentance from Whites.

Against Immigration

Trumpism demands strict limits on immigration and the complete expulsion of illegal immigrants. The deportation of undocumented immigrants is seen as a necessity. Trumpists call for a unified national identity, asserting that anyone immigrating to Western societies from other civilizations and cultures must adopt the traditional values of their host nation. Liberal multiculturalism, which allows migrants to remain culturally autonomous, is wholly rejected.

Particularly harsh rhetoric is directed against illegal immigrants from Latin America, whose influx is seen as altering the ethnic balance in entire states, where Latinos are becoming the majority. Islamic communities, which are also growing and largely resist Western norms and demands, are another source of concern — especially since liberals have not only failed to demand their assimilation but have actively encouraged minority communities to assert themselves.

Economically, Trumpists view Chinese activity in the U.S. with extreme hostility. Many Trumpists demand the outright confiscation of Chinese-owned properties and businesses within the country.

African-Americans generally do not evoke significant hostility, but when they organize into aggressive political movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) and turn criminals or drug addicts into heroes (as in the case of George Floyd), Trumpists respond firmly and decisively. It is likely that the narrative surrounding Floyd and his “canonization” will soon be revisited.

Against Left-Liberal Censorship

Trumpists are united in their opposition to left-liberal censorship. Under the guise of political correctness and combating extremism, liberals have created a sweeping system of public opinion manipulation, effectively eliminating free speech. This applies to both mainstream media and social networks under their control.

Anyone who deviates even slightly from the left-liberal agenda is immediately branded as “far-right,” “racist,” “fascist,” or “Nazi” and subjected to exclusion, deplatforming, and legal prosecution, sometimes leading to imprisonment.

This censorship gradually became totalitarian in nature. Trumpism — alongside other anti-globalist movements, such as those in Russia or European populist currents — became its primary target. Liberal elites openly regarded ordinary citizens as unintelligent and unconscious elements of society, redefining democracy not as “majority rule” but as “rule by minorities.”

Anything that diverged from the woke left-liberal agenda was labeled “fake news,” “Putin’s propaganda,” conspiracy theories, or dangerous extremist views requiring punitive measures. As a result, the zone of acceptable discourse narrowed drastically, with anything outside woke dogma being deemed unacceptable and subject to suppression. This extended to all aspects of liberal globalism, including gender issues, migration, critical race theory, vaccination, and so on.

In effect, liberalism became totalitarian and utterly intolerant, with “inclusivity” defined as turning every person into a liberal.

Trumpism radically rejects all of this, demanding the restoration of free speech, which has been gradually eliminated over recent decades. According to Trumpism, no single ideology should be given preferential treatment, and the protection of free speech across the entire ideological spectrum — from the far right to the far left — forms the foundation of its ideology.

Against Postmodernism

Trumpists also reject postmodernism, which is generally associated with progressive left-liberal trends in culture and art. Trumpism has not yet developed its own cultural style but focuses on dismantling the dominance of postmodernist culture and advocating the diversification of cultural pursuits.

In opposition to the nihilism inherent in postmodernism, Trumpists champion traditional values such as religion, sports, family, and morality.

Most Trump supporters are not sophisticated intellectuals; they primarily demand a reassessment of postmodernist hegemony and the reversal of the trend to elevate degenerative art as the norm.

However, certain Trumpist ideologues propose “reclaiming” postmodernism from left-liberals and building an “alternative postmodernism,” which could be described as “postmodernism from the right.” They suggest adopting irony and deconstruction, turning these tools against left-liberal formulas and canons — much like they were previously used against traditionalists and conservatives.

During Trump’s first presidential campaign, his supporters united on platforms like 4chan, producing ironic memes and absurdist discourses that mocked and intentionally provoked liberals. Some thinkers, such as Curtis Yarvin or Nick Land, went even further, advancing the idea of a “Dark Enlightenment” and advocating its counter-liberal interpretation, with some even calling for the establishment of a monarchy in the U.S.

From Hayek to Soros and Back Again

From the perspective of left-liberals, the political history of humanity over the last century has moved from classical liberalism to its leftist and even far-left extreme. Classical liberals tolerated deviations, but only on an individual level, never elevating them to norms or laws. Progressive liberals, on the other hand, normalized such deviations, even enshrining them in law, while continuing the classical liberal project of dismantling any form of collective identity, pushing individualism to its logical extreme.

This progression can be traced through three symbolic figures of 20th-century liberal ideology:

1. Friedrich Hayek, the founder of neoliberalism, advocated the rejection of any ideology prescribing what individuals should think or do. This represented the older classical liberalism, which celebrated absolute individual freedom and an unrestricted market.
2. Karl Popper, Hayek’s student, expanded this critique of totalitarian ideologies, targeting fascism and communism, but also extending it to figures like Plato and Hegel. In Popper’s writings, a clear authoritarian tone emerged. He labeled liberals and proponents of liberalism as members of an “open society” while branding everyone else as “enemies of the open society,” prescribing their elimination — even preemptively — before they could harm the “open society” or slow its progress.
3. George Soros, Popper’s student, took this approach further, advocating the overthrow of any illiberal regimes, supporting the most radical — often terrorist — movements opposing such regimes, and relentlessly punishing, criminalizing, and eliminating opponents of the “open society” within the West itself. Soros declared figures such as Trump, Putin, Modi, Xi Jinping, and Orbán his personal enemies and actively combated them using the immense wealth he accumulated through speculation.

Soros became the architect of color revolutions in Eastern Europe, the post-Soviet space, the Islamic world, and even Southeast Asia and Africa. He fully supported draconian restrictions on personal freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, promoting mandatory mass vaccination and harshly persecuting any dissenters. Thus, the new liberalism became overtly totalitarian, extremist, and even terrorist in nature.

Trumpism offers to reverse this sequence — from Hayek to Popper to Soros — and return to the beginning. It advocates a return to Hayek’s anti-totalitarian classical liberalism, which embraced absolute freedom of thought and a laissez-faire market. Some Trumpists go even further, calling for a revival of deep American traditionalism that predates the Civil War.

Trumpism’s Internal Divisions

Our analysis outlines the broad contours of the ideology of Trumpism. However, even within this general framework, certain factions and tensions are beginning to emerge, sometimes starkly antagonistic.

One dividing line has recently been described as the “conflict between right-wing technocrats and right-wing traditionalists” — or “tech right” versus “trad right.”

The undisputed leader and symbol of the right-wing technocrats is Elon Musk. Musk combines technological futurism — marked by his famous promises to colonize Mars and push the boundaries of innovation — with conservative values and active support for right-wing populism. Musk’s position is well-known and is being closely watched across the West.

Even before Trump’s inauguration, Musk began actively promoting a new right-conservative agenda on his platform X, effectively aiming to replace Soros’ globalist networks. Where Soros once bribed politicians and orchestrated regime changes globally, Musk is now pursuing similar tactics — but in favor of anti-globalists and European populists like Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader Alice Weidel, Britain’s Nigel Farage, and France’s Marine Le Pen.

However, within the U.S., Musk’s agenda has faced opposition from a faction led by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former national security advisor during Trump’s first term. Bannon and his allies represent the right-wing traditionalists. The conflict emerged over granting residency to legal immigrants — a policy supported by Musk but staunchly opposed by Bannon.

Bannon articulated the principles of American nationalism, demanding stricter citizenship procedures and coining the slogan, “America for Americans!” Many rallied behind Bannon, who criticized Musk for only recently aligning with conservatives, while American nationalists had been fighting for these values for decades.

This divergence highlights growing tensions within Trumpism between right-wing globalism, futurism, and technocracy on one side and right-wing nationalism on the other.

The Pro-Israel and Anti-Israel Divide

Another fault line has emerged between pro-Israel and anti-Israel Trumpists.

Trump himself, along with Vice President JD Vance and Pete Hegseth (nominated as Secretary of Defense in Trump’s new administration), is a staunch supporter of Israel. Trump’s pro-Israel stance and unwavering support for Netanyahu likely contributed to his electoral success. The influence of the Jewish lobby remains extraordinarily strong in the U.S.

However, figures like John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, and journalist Alex Jones — prominent realists in Trump’s camp — oppose this aspect of Trumpism. They argue that the U.S. must take a more pragmatic approach to the Middle East, recognizing that American interests often diverge from Israel’s.

Interestingly, individuals in Trump’s circle often hold contradictory positions on these issues. For instance, Alex Jones, critical of Israel, supports Musk, while Steve Bannon, Musk’s opponent, aligns with the pro-Israel camp.

Generational Theory

A brief discussion of generational theory, developed by William Strauss and Neil Howe, may help clarify the place of Trumpism in American political and social history.

According to this theory, U.S. history consists of recurring cycles approximately 85 years long (roughly the length of a human life), each divided into four “turnings,” or eras, akin to seasons:

1. “High” (Spring): A period of collective mobilization, optimism, and societal cohesion;
2. “Awakening” (Summer): A focus on inner life, spirituality, and individualism;
3. “Unraveling” (Autumn): Social fragmentation, materialism, and a weakening of institutions;
4. “Crisis” (Winter): A period of societal collapse, characterized by incompetence among leaders and cultural decay.

By this framework, the current “crisis” period began in the early 2000s and has culminated in events like 9/11, military interventions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. Trump’s election marks the end of this “crisis” and the beginning of a new cycle — a return to “high.”

Geopolitics of Trumpism

Now let us turn to another dimension of Trumpism — its foreign policy. The essential shift is a focus away from globalist perspectives towards American-centrism and U.S. expansionism.

A vivid example of this is Trump’s statements about incorporating Canada as the 51st state, purchasing Greenland, asserting control over the Panama Canal, and renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “American Gulf.” These declarations reflect an aggressive realism in international relations and, more significantly, a return to the Monroe Doctrine after a century of dominance by Woodrow Wilson’s globalist doctrine.

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in the 19th century, prioritized U.S. control over the North American continent and, to some extent, the South American continent, aiming to reduce and eventually eliminate the influence of European powers in the New World. Wilson’s doctrine, developed after World War One, shifted focus from the U.S. as a nation-state to a global mission: spreading the norms of liberal democracy worldwide and maintaining its structures on a planetary scale. During the Great Depression, the Wilsonian doctrine receded, but it resurfaced after World War Two, dominating U.S. foreign policy for decades.

Under Wilsonian globalism, it didn’t matter who controlled Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal, as all operated under liberal-democratic regimes aligned with the globalist elite.

Today, Trump is decisively changing this focus. The U.S. as a nation-state “matters again,” and it demands that Canada, Denmark, and Panama submit not to a world government (which Trump effectively seeks to dismantle) but to Washington, the United States, and Trump himself as the charismatic leader of the new “high” period.

A U.S. map that includes a 51st state (if Puerto Rico is counted), Greenland, and the Panama Canal vividly illustrates this shift from Wilsonian globalism back to the Monroe Doctrine.

The Dismantling of Globalist Regimes in Europe

One of the most astonishing developments, which has already perplexed the West, is the speed with which Trumpists— without yet fully consolidating power — have begun implementing their program internationally. For instance, starting in December 2024, Elon Musk launched active campaigns on his platform X to displace leaders unfavorable to the new “Trumpist” United States.

Previously, this was the domain of Soros-backed globalist structures. Musk, wasting no time, has begun executing similar strategies, but this time in support of anti-globalist and populist leaders in Europe, such as Germany’s Alice Weidel (Alternative for Germany), Britain’s Nigel Farage, and France’s Marine Le Pen.

Denmark’s government, which resisted the idea of ceding Greenland, and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who opposed his country becoming the 51st U.S. state, have also come under Musk’s intense scrutiny.

European globalists, who represent the remnants of the old network, are bewildered and have voiced opposition to the U.S.’s direct interference in European politics. In response, Musk and the Trumpists reasonably pointed out that no one objected to Soros’ interference — so now it’s their turn. They argue that if the U.S. is the master of the world, then Europe should obediently follow Washington, just as it did under Obama, Biden, and Soros — that is, under the deep state.

Musk, along with figures like Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg, appears to be dismantling the globalist system, starting in Europe. They are working to bring populist leaders who share Trumpist values to power. Some countries, such as Hungary (under Orbán), Slovakia (under Fico), and Italy (under Meloni), have found it easier to align with this model, as they already champion traditional values and, to varying degrees, oppose globalists.

In other European nations, Trumpists seem determined to change governments by any means necessary — essentially employing the same tactics as their globalist predecessors. For example, Musk has launched an unprecedented campaign against Britain’s Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, portraying him as an apologist for and accomplice of “rampant Pakistani immigrant rape gangs in the UK.” With such harsh accusations emanating from Washington, the British public may be inclined to believe them.

A similar campaign is taking shape against Emmanuel Macron in France and against Germany’s liberal establishment, which is trying to curb the meteoric rise of the right-populist AfD.

Europe, which was already strictly pro-American, now faces an ideological course shift, if not a complete reversal. This abrupt change is deeply unsettling for European leaders who, like obedient trained animals in a circus, had learned to slavishly follow their master’s commands. They are now being asked to renounce the very principles they faithfully served (with cynicism and falsehood) and to pledge allegiance to a new Trumpist ideological headquarters.

Some will comply; others will resist. But the process is underway — Trumpists are dismantling liberals and globalists in Europe. Once again, this follows the recommendations of Samuel Huntington. Trumpists seek a consolidated West as an integrated geopolitical and ideological civilization. Essentially, the goal is to create a full-fledged American Empire.

Anti-China

Another key pillar of Trumpist foreign policy is opposition to China. To Trumpists, China embodies much of what they despise in left-liberalism and globalism: leftist ideology and internationalism. China, in their eyes, represents both, which they traditionally associate with the policies of American globalists.

In reality, modern China is far more complex. Nonetheless, Trumpists view China as the principal antagonist because it has leveraged globalization to its benefit, established itself as an independent power, and even acquired significant portions of U.S. industry, business, and land. The offshoring of American manufacturing to Southeast Asia in pursuit of cheaper labor has deprived the U.S. of its industrial sovereignty, making it dependent on external sources.

For Trumpists, the blame for China’s rise rests squarely on American globalists. China is thus cast as their primary enemy.

Compared to China, Russia is deemed a minor concern and has largely faded from focus. China has taken center stage as the main adversary. Once again, the responsibility for global disorder is attributed to American globalists.

Pro-Israel Trend

A second major theme in Trumpist foreign policy is support for Israel and its “far-right” factions. While there is no consensus among Trumpists on this issue (some are anti-Israel), the dominant trend is pro-Israel. This aligns with Protestant theories of Judeo-Christianity, which predict the arrival of a Jewish Messiah as a precursor to the conversion of Jews to Christianity, as well as a general rejection of Islam.

The Trumpists’ Islamophobia reinforces their solidarity with Israel. In particular, they view the Shiite pole of Islam (Iran, Iraqi Shiites, Yemeni Houthis, and Syrian Alawites) as a primary threat. Trumpism is sharply anti-Shiite and broadly loyal to right-wing Zionism.

Against Latinos

The issue of Latinos is one of the most significant concerns in U.S. domestic policy from the perspective of Trumpism. Once again, the ideas of Samuel Huntington are relevant here. Decades ago, Huntington identified mass immigration from Latin America as the primary threat to the core identity of the U.S., rooted in WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) culture. Huntington argued that, up to a certain point, Anglo-Saxons could assimilate other ethnic groups into the American “melting pot,” but the overwhelming influx of Latinos made this impossible.

As a result, anti-immigration sentiment in the U.S. has taken a specific form — opposition to mass immigration, particularly from Latin America. Trump’s Great Wall, initiated during his first term, symbolized this stance.

This attitude also shapes Trumpist views of Latin American nations. These countries are seen, in a generalized sense, as “leftist” and as sources of criminal immigration. The return to the Monroe Doctrine emphasizes the need for the U.S. to assert stricter control over Latin America, escalating tensions with Mexico and driving demands for full control over the Panama Canal.

Forgetting Russia, Let Alone Ukraine

In the realm of international relations, Russia occupies a relatively insignificant place in Trumpist geopolitics. Trumpists do not share the ideological and a priori Russophobia of globalists, but neither do they harbor particular affection for Russia.

There is a minority within Trumpism who consider Russia a part of White Christian civilization and believe it would be a mistake to push it further into China’s embrace. However, such voices are rare. For the majority, Russia simply does not matter. Economically, it is not a serious competitor (unlike China), it has no significant diaspora in the U.S., and the conflict with Ukraine is viewed as a regional, secondary issue for which globalists (the Trumpists’ adversaries) are to blame.

Ending the conflict in Ukraine would be desirable, but if a quick resolution is unattainable, Trumpists are content to leave the issue to Europe’s globalist regimes. The resulting strain on these regimes would only weaken them, which aligns with Trumpist goals.

For Trumpists, Ukraine holds no strategic importance and is primarily viewed through the lens of exposing corruption scandals tied to the Obama and Biden administrations.

While Trumpists generally do not take a pro-Russian position in the conflict, they also categorically oppose the unprecedented level of support for Ukraine provided during Biden’s presidency.

Passive Multipolarity

Trumpism’s attitude toward multipolarity is complex. The idea of a multipolar world does not fully align with Trumpist ideology. While globalists sought an inclusive unipolarity, Trumpism envisions a new American hegemony centered on traditional U.S. values: a White, Christian West with patriarchal norms that simultaneously values freedom, individualism, and the market.

For those outside this framework, Trumpism offers two options: either align with the West or remain on the periphery of prosperity and development. This is no longer about inclusivity but rather a selective exclusivity. The West becomes a club that others may aspire to join but must meet stringent requirements to do so.

Trumpists are indifferent to other civilizations. If they insist on going their own way, so be it. That’s their loss. But those who wish to join the West must pass rigorous tests. Even then, they would likely remain second-class participants.

In this way, Trumpism does not actively promote a multipolar world but passively tolerates it. Multipolarity is seen as an inevitable outcome of the globalists’ collapse, not as a positive goal.

Internal Multipolarity in the United States

One of the most striking aspects of Trumpism is its intense focus on domestic U.S. issues. The slogans “MAGA” (Make America Great Again) and “America First!” emphasize this priority. Therefore, while multipolarity is most commonly discussed in terms of international relations, Trumpists encounter its challenges primarily within the U.S. itself.

In multipolar theory, the world is divided into several major civilizations:

• Western;
• Russian-Eurasian;
• Chinese;
• Indian;
• Islamic;
• African;
• Latin American.

These civilizations form a heptarchy — seven poles, some fully realized as civilization-states, while others exist in a more virtual or emerging state. Huntington’s civilizational theory echoes this framework, adding a Japanese-Buddhist civilization to the mix.

In foreign policy, Trumpism is largely indifferent to the heptarchy, as it has no overarching goal to sabotage multipolarity (unlike globalists) or to actively promote it. However, multipolarity manifests sharply within the domestic politics of the U.S., where various civilizational influences converge in the form of significant immigrant communities.

Since woke norms and inclusivity have been abandoned, it is once again permissible in the U.S. to openly discuss race, ethnicity, and religious identities. This leads to a confrontation with the internal multipolarity represented by various diasporas.

1. Latin American Diaspora: The Latin American diaspora is seen as the greatest threat to the U.S.’s core WASP identity, actively eroding it. As a result, Trumpists demonize the entire phenomenon, highlighting its association with ethnic mafias, illegal immigration, drug cartels, human trafficking, and other issues.
2. Chinese Diaspora: The rising influence of China intensifies China-phobia among Trumpists. As the U.S.’s chief economic and financial competitor, China’s domestic presence in the American economy exacerbates tensions.
3. Islamic communities, widely present in the U.S. and the West, are traditionally viewed with suspicion by American conservatives. The Trumpists’ Islamophobia reinforces their pro-Israel stance and their opposition to Middle Eastern influences within the U.S.
4. The Indian diaspora occupies a unique position. It has grown significantly, especially in Silicon Valley, where Indians dominate key sectors. Notable Trump allies, including Vivek Ramaswamy, Kash Patel, and Vice President JD Vance’s Indian-American wife, demonstrate an openness to Indian influence. Figures like Tulsi Gabbard, who adopted Hinduism, further underscore this trend. Despite occasional opposition from nationalist Trumpists like Steve Bannon and Ann Coulter, the overall Trumpist approach to India is positive. India is envisioned as the U.S.’s preferred partner in counterbalancing China.
5. The African-American community presents a challenge due to its history of racial consolidation in opposition to Whites, which was encouraged by globalists. Trumpists aim to counteract this by promoting further assimilation while resisting efforts to establish autonomous racial blocs.
6. Russian Influence: Unlike the other poles, Russia has minimal representation within the U.S. No significant Russian diaspora exists, and Russians typically integrate into White American society alongside other European groups. As a result, Russia’s presence within U.S. domestic multipolarity is negligible.

Conclusion

Trumpism is not just a political movement; it is a fully fledged ideology. It encompasses both political-philosophical and geopolitical dimensions, gradually revealing its contours more clearly. For now, its foundational principles are already apparent, forming the basis of a radical rethinking of U.S. identity and its role in the world.

(Translated from the Russian)

Alexander Dugin’s books can be purchased here.