The socio-political realignment fostered by Trump’s presidency can be traced back to long-standing economic grievances and cultural anxieties among the so-called “losers of globalization,” a demographic that, as scholars N. Begum, A. Mondon, and A. Winter argue, has become emblematic of radical populist movements. Trump’s ability to frame these grievances not just as economic discontent but as a battle for cultural and national identity resonates deeply with the “us vs. them” dichotomy central to populist ideology. His administration’s cabinet composition, described by many as a blend of populism, climate denial, and nativism, further reinforced concerns about the erosion of democratic norms.
The future trajectory of American democracy in the aftermath of Trump’s presidency remains fraught with uncertainty. The executive orders and administrative changes initiated during his tenure – including the controversial attempt to end near-universal birthright citizenship and the temporary halt of all rulemaking processes – have set legal and institutional precedents that continue to provoke intense litigation and political debate. Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric and policy decisions, which authors like Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (2019) frame as part of a broader pattern of democratic backsliding, challenge the stability of political norms once considered sacrosanct.
In examining these developments, it becomes evident that Trump’s influence extends far beyond his immediate policy choices. His presidency catalyzed a reconfiguration of political alliances and intensified the culture wars that now dominate American political discourse. The rise of this cultural backlash, as Norris and Inglehart describe, underscores a strategic effort to mobilize resentment and undermine the foundational principles of liberal democracy. As scholar Lillian Mason has noted, grievance-based populism transcended traditional partisan divisions, fostering a political landscape that redefined engagement across racial and ethnic lines. Whether the nation can navigate these challenges and emerge with its democratic institutions intact will depend on its ability to reconcile the forces of populism, grievance, and a reimagined American identity in the years to come.
What is Populism and why does it not go well with Democracy?
Populism has become a significant political phenomenon in contemporary society, often challenging traditional democratic frameworks. While it can arise as a response to legitimate grievances within the political system, populism often undermines democratic principles. Populism is a political ideology that emphasizes a binary distinction between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite.” Populist leaders and movements claim to represent the unified will of the people against established political, economic, and cultural elites who are portrayed as self-serving and disconnected from the concerns of ordinary citizens. This narrative simplifies complex social and political issues into a struggle between virtuous common folk and an immoral establishment. There are several defining features of populism:
- It operates on a Manichean worldview, framing politics as a moral battle between good and evil. Populists present themselves as the embodiment of moral virtue, standing in opposition to corrupt elites.
- Populism is characterized by anti-elitism, often targeting political leaders, media, and intellectuals who are accused of betraying the interests of the people.
- Populist movements frequently center around charismatic leaders who claim to have a direct connection to the populace and promise to fulfill their desires.
- Populism often reduces complex social, economic, and political issues to simple solutions, appealing to emotions rather than reasoned debates.
Although populism may initially emerge from democratic processes and can serve as a corrective mechanism by voicing the concerns of marginalized groups, it ultimately poses significant threats to democratic governance. Democracy is built on the principle of protecting the rights and voices of all citizens, including minorities. Populism, however, tends to prioritize the will of the majority, often disregarding or undermining the rights of minority groups. This tendency to prioritize majoritarian dominance aligns closely with certain characteristics of fascism. Fascism, like populism, is rooted in the idea of a strong, unified identity that often excludes or vilifies minority groups. Both ideologies rely heavily on charismatic leadership and the erosion of democratic checks and balances. However, while populism may begin as a critique of democratic elites, fascism seeks to dismantle democratic governance altogether, replacing it with authoritarian rule. The emotional and simplistic solutions offered by populism can pave the way for the more rigid and oppressive structures of systems, making it crucial for democracies to safeguard pluralism, institutional integrity, and the rule of law.
Two Main Fascist Trends Explicitly Targeting Human Rights:
Trump Administration’s 2025 Executive Order on Gender Identity:
In a move that has drawn widespread criticism and raised significant human rights concerns, President Donald Trump’s administration issues a sweeping executive order in 2025, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order explicitly aims to curtail protections for transgender individuals and rejects the validity of gender identity itself. This development aligns with worrying global trends that mirror the hallmarks of fascism, particularly in their explicit targeting of marginalized communities and erosion of fundamental rights.
The order seeks to redefine “sex” within federal policy as strictly binary and biologically determined at conception, thereby excluding the concept of gender identity altogether. It establishes rigid definitions:
- “Sex” refers to an immutable biological classification as either male or female.
- “Women” or “girls” refer exclusively to adult and juvenile human females.
- “Men” or “boys” refer exclusively to adult and juvenile human males.
Moreover, the order pledges to withhold federal funding from programs that promote what it terms “gender ideology,” echoing rhetoric commonly used by right-wing movements across Europe and Latin America to undermine sexual and reproductive rights. Federal agencies are instructed to reinforce sex-segregated spaces and services, such as bathrooms and shelters, effectively excluding transgender individuals from critical services and safe spaces.
The executive order goes beyond administrative policy changes; it represents an explicit denial of the rights and dignity of transgender individuals. By instructing agencies to house transgender people in detention based on their sex assigned at birth and denying gender-affirming care in prisons, the administration risks violating international human rights law. The United Nations considers the denial of such care as potentially constituting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The order’s provisions also pose a direct threat to the physical safety of transgender individuals, who already face heightened risks of violence and discrimination. Housing transgender individuals according to their sex assigned at birth increases their vulnerability to physical and sexual assault within detention facilities.
While many provisions of the executive order will likely face legal challenges due to conflicts with federal law and judicial precedent, its issuance underscores a broader strategy to erase transgender individuals from public life. This approach undermines decades of progress in securing basic civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ communities.
The administration’s framing of “gender ideology” as a threat to women’s rights is both disingenuous and dangerous. By conflating gender identity with an attack on women’s dignity and safety, the order perpetuates harmful stereotypes and pits marginalized groups against one another. This tactic, historically employed by authoritarian regimes, seeks to divide civil society and distract from broader assaults on democratic norms.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has previously urged the United States to address persistently high rates of discrimination and violence against transgender people. Rather than heed these recommendations, the Trump administration’s actions are poised to exacerbate mistreatment and institutionalized discrimination.
Civil rights organizations, legal experts, and advocates for LGBTQ+ rights have condemned the order as an unprecedented attack on human rights. Legal challenges are already being prepared, with arguments centered on violations of constitutional protections and international human rights obligations.
The 2025 executive order reflects broader trends reminiscent of fascist governance, characterized by the targeting of marginalized communities, the erosion of legal protections, and the promotion of a rigid, exclusionary national identity. By invalidating the lived experiences and identities of transgender individuals, the administration seeks to enforce a narrow and oppressive social order.
Immigration and Birthright Citizenship:
The Trump Administration’s policies in 2025 have reignited concerns over the rise of fascist trends in the United States, particularly through their explicit targeting of human rights, immigration, and birthright citizenship. These policies, encapsulated by sweeping executive orders, have had a deeply unsettling impact on marginalized and vulnerable populations, disproportionately affecting people of color.
One of the most alarming aspects of these executive orders is their assault on the right to seek asylum and other forms of humanitarian protection. Refugees who have already undergone rigorous vetting and were en route to the United States have been blocked from entry. New immigration directives aim to dismantle the existing asylum system, increase immigration detention, and fast-track deportations without due process. These moves undermine the fundamental legal principles that protect the rights and dignity of individuals seeking refuge.
Furthermore, the administration’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship represent a significant threat to constitutional protections. President Trump’s executive order seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to undocumented or temporary-status parents, a direct challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. This amendment, a cornerstone of civil rights progress since its ratification in 1868, guarantees citizenship to anyone born on US soil, with very narrow exceptions.
The implications of this order are profound. Children born in the US under these new conditions would be thrust into a state of insecurity, lacking federal identity documents necessary for accessing essential services such as healthcare, nutrition programs, and education. In the long term, the absence of legal documentation could lead to exploitation in the labor market, suppressed wages, and poorer working conditions. These children would face a constant risk of deportation from the only country they have ever known as home.
The administration’s disregard for the harmful consequences of these policies underscores a troubling political calculus rooted in malice rather than a constructive vision for US citizenship. The targeting of children, historically a red line in policy considerations, signals a dangerous normalization of punitive measures aimed at vulnerable populations. Moreover, the executive orders instructing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain immigrants until deportation exacerbate an already inhumane system. Detention facilities managed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have long been criticized for abusive conditions, including inadequate medical care. By increasing the number of people subjected to detention, the administration is setting the stage for widespread human rights violations.
The orders also dismantle previous policies that prioritized certain immigrants as lower deportation risks, leading to increased prosecutions for unauthorized entry or remaining in the US. These prosecutions, rooting in racially discriminatory practices, further fuel fear and instability within immigrant communities. All people, regardless of their immigration status, have the right to fair treatment under the law and should not be forcibly separated from their families or the country they call home without due process.
The personal story of Natalie Burke, a Black woman from Jamaica with legal immigration status who was detained for over a year due to outdated marijuana convictions, illustrates the devastating human toll of such draconian policies. Natalie’s eventual release and academic success demonstrates what can be achieved when individuals are given a chance to contribute to society rather than being subjected to arbitrary detention and deportation. Under Trump’s new directives, similar success stories will become impossible.
The administration’s executive orders also mark a retreat from humanitarian commitments on the global stage. The indefinite suspension of US refugee resettlement programs and the termination of parole initiatives for individuals fleeing conflict and persecution effectively close legal pathways for those in desperate need. These actions dismantle decades of infrastructure that facilitated refugee resettlement and humanitarian protection, signaling a retreat from US leadership in global responsibility-sharing. The consequences of these policies are predictable and dangerous. The absence of safe, lawful migration pathways will lead to increased chaos, lawlessness, and human suffering. Desperate individuals will continue to risk their lives attempting to cross borders, facing brutal treatment from enforcers on both sides of the divide.
Conclusion:
The Trump era, marked by policies such as the 2025 executive orders on gender identity and immigration, serves not merely as a political anomaly but as a critical juncture in American history, compelling a re-evaluation of the nation’s democratic resilience. This period underscores a dangerous trend toward exclusionary ideologies, potentially mirroring historical fascist tendencies through the targeting of marginalized communities and the erosion of established legal protections. The administration’s actions have exposed vulnerabilities within the democratic framework, challenging its capacity to uphold principles of human rights, civil liberties, and inclusive governance. Moving forward, the resolution lies not only in reversing specific policies but in addressing the underlying conditions that allowed such trends to take root.
This requires a multifaceted approach: first, a reaffirmation of constitutional principles, and international human rights obligations, ensuring the protections of vulnerable populations against discriminatory practices. Second, a commitment to fostering inclusive dialogue and bridging the deep-seated cultural divisions that have been exacerbated by populist rhetoric. Third, strengthening democratic institutions to safeguard against the abuse of power and the erosion of checks and balances. Ultimately, the challenge is to reconcile the forces of populism with the imperative of democratic governance, addressing legitimate grievances without sacrificing fundamental rights. This demands a renewed commitment to pluralism, institutional integrity, and the rule of law, ensuring that the pursuit of national identity does not come at the expense of inclusivity and justice. The future of American democracy hinges on the ability to learn from this critical period, fortify its foundations, and emerge as a more resilient, equitable, and just society for all.
By Ines Billeaud
