The platform has been criticized for its approach to climate change[4] and public health;[5] its legality and feasibility;[6] and the risk that it will increase inflation. Some columnists have described it as fascist[7][8] or authoritarian.[9][10] In September 2024, Trump's campaign launched a tour called "Team Trump Agenda 47 Policy Tour" to promote Agenda 47.[11][12]
Overview
Agenda 47 is Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign formal policy plans.[1] According to the Trump campaign, it is "the only official comprehensive and detailed look at what President Trump will do if he returns to the White House".[13] It is presented on the campaign's website in a series of videos with Trump outlining each proposal.[14] According to Philip Bump, some Agenda 47 videos appeared scattershot and responsive to current events around early 2023.[15][16] The proposals appeared to be aimed towards Republican primary voters and slowed down once his primary lead grew in April 2023,[15] to the point where Philip Bump wrote in the Washington Post in June 2024 that neither Trump nor his campaign regularly brings up the plan,[15] although, according to Phil Mattingly from CNN, it is "regularly featured in the scripted portions of his remarks at rallies".[17]
In 2023, Trump campaign officials acknowledged the Project 2025 aligned well with Agenda 47;[18] however, Trump repeatedly disclaimed it in 2024.[19] As of June 2024, Project 2025 had reportedly caused some annoyance in the Trump campaign which had historically preferred fewer and more vague policy proposals to limit opportunities for criticism and maintain flexibility.[15] Some commentators have argued that Project 2025 is the most detailed look at what a Trump administration would look like.[15] Agenda 47 and Project 2025 share many themes and policies, including expanding presidential power such as through reissuing Schedule F,[20]: min.00:14[21] cuts to the Department of Education, mass deportations of illegal immigrants,[22] the death penalty for drug dealers, and using the US National Guard in liberal cities with high crime rates or those that are "disorderly".[23][24][25]
As of September 2024, the policies are detailed in 46 videos, the first one uploaded on December 15, 2022, and the last one on December 22, 2023.[30][15][c][d] The videos are usually accompanied by a transcription and often by complementary material regarding the policy in question, as exemplified by the proposition Agenda47: Rescuing America's Auto Industry from Joe Biden's Disastrous Job-Killing Policies,[33] which contains links to reports and articles from entities such as the America First Policy Institute,[34]The Heritage Foundation,[35] and The Harris Poll,[36] news articles from entities like Reuters,[37][38]The American Oil & Gas Reporter,[39] and Fox Business,[40] and related propositions in the campaign website.[original research?]
Economy
Propositions relating to the economy include:
Restrictions on Chinese ownership of infrastructure in the United States, including energy, technology, telecommunications, farmland, natural resources, medical supplies, and other strategic national assets, preventing all future Chinese purchases, and forcing the Chinese to sell any current holdings.[41][42]
Ending "Joe Biden's war on American energy" and recovering energy independence by eliminating "every unnecessary regulation in the federal registry that hampers domestic production", getting out of the Paris Agreement, and issuing fast approvals to every oil infrastructure project presented to his administration.[43][44]
Universal baseline tariffs on most foreign products, which will increase incrementally if other countries manipulate their currency or otherwise engage in unfair trading practices, and lowering taxes for American workers, families, and businesses. Reclaiming economic independence from China by revoking its Most Favored Nation trade status, gradually stopping all Chinese imports of essential goods, stopping American companies from investing in China, and banning federal contracts for any company that outsources to China.[45][46]
Not bailing out failing banks, but "unleash[ing] energy production, slash[ing] regulations", and repealing "Biden's tax hikes", to reduce inflation.[49][50]
Returning jobs and wealth to the United States, launching an economic boom and eliminating dependence on China and other countries, by passing the "Trump Reciprocal Trade Act". If any country applies a certain percent tariff on American-made goods, the same tariff will be applied on theirs; the other countries "will have two choices – they'll get rid of their tariffs on us, or they will pay us hundreds of billions of dollars, and the United States will make an absolute FORTUNE." This is meant to help agricultural states and manufacturers.[51][52]
To "save America's auto industry from Joe Biden's radical Green New Deal policies", by terminating all of Biden's policies regarding emission regulations, fossil fuels, and electric vehicles, specifically the "mandates designed to force Americans into expensive electric cars", subsidies for "electric cars for rich people", and "DOUBLED CAFÉ standards". Also, asking Canada and Mexico for full compliance with the terms of USMCA regarding the amount of regional auto parts content in North American cars which reduction benefitted China and other countries, ending delays in federal drilling permits and leases, and restoring the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.[33][53]
"When I am your president, I will deliver higher wages for auto workers. I will protect your jobs. I will end Joe Biden's catastrophic electric vehicle mandate."[54][55]
Tariffs were a policy in Trump's first term, centered on China, and later extended to the European Union, Canada, and Mexico.[56] They led to retaliatory tariffs imposed by the affected countries, and to a trade war with China, which "raised the price for items such as baseball hats, luggage, bicycles, TVs, sneakers, and a variety of materials used by American manufacturers." They also caused loss of jobs and hurt manufacturers and farmers.[57][58][59] Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that "those tariffs on Chinese goods have “imposed more harm on consumers and businesses” than on China."[60]
Cutting federal funding for any school or program teaching critical race theory or "gender ideology", directing the Departments of Justice and Education to open civil rights investigations into any school district that has engaged in race-based discrimination; also, "remov[ing] the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education" and "Keep[ing] men out of women's sports."
Creating a new way to certify teachers based on their patriotism, giving preferential funding and treatment to states and school districts that abolish teacher tenure for grades K through 12 and adopt merit pay, cutting the number of school administrators (specifically the ones in charge of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)), and adopting direct election of school principals by the parents.[70][71]
"Reclaim[ing] our once great educational institutions from the radical Left" by using the college accreditation system; firing the "radical Left accreditors" and substituting them with new ones "who will impose real standards on colleges". The standards will include "defending the American tradition and Western civilization"; protecting free speech; eliminating "wasteful" administrative positions, specifically all the ones dealing with DEI; offering accelerated and low-cost degrees; providing job placement and career services; and implementing college entrance and exit exams to prove learning quality. Also, directing the Department of Justice to pursue federal civil rights cases against schools that "engage in racial discrimination"; the ones that persist in "discrimination under the guise of equity" will have their endowment taxed, and through budget reconciliation, "I will advance a measure to have them fined up to the entire amount of their endowment." Part of the seized funds will be used as restitution "for victims of these illegal and unjust policies".[31][32][72] According to The Nation, "Many experts in higher education have begun to sound the alarm that such actions may infringe on academic freedom and institutional autonomy – two cornerstones of American higher education", whereas Trump’s National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, "By increasing access to school choice, empowering parents to have a voice in their child's education, and supporting good teachers, President Trump will improve academic excellence for all students."[73]
"Ten principles for achieving great schools that lead to great jobs", by ensuring that instead of "indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material", schools must refocus on preparing "children to succeed in the world of work". The principles are:
"Restoring Parental Rights", specifically to control the education of their children. This includes being made aware of academic standards, updating on acts of violence, inspecting "professional development materials", being notified about guest speakers, reviewing the school's budget, knowing about bullying, health and mental health concerns, "to have the right to opt out of school healthcare services", and be immediately notified if any school employee "has worked to change their children’s name, pronouns, or understanding of his or her gender".
"Great Principals and Great Teachers", i.e. empowering parents and local school boards to hire and fire principals and teachers.
"Knowledge and Skills, Not CRT and Gender Indoctrination", i.e. teaching "reading, writing, math, science, arithmetic, and other truly useful subjects". This includes getting "the left's 'equity' agenda out of our classrooms."
"Love of Country". This includes reinstating the 1776 Commission.
"Freedom to Pray", i.e. "we will support bringing back prayer to our schools".
"Safe, Secure, and Drug-Free", by "immediate expulsion for any student who harms a teacher or another student". This includes sending the "out-of-control troublemakers OUT of the classroom and INTO reform schools and corrections facilities", supporting "school districts that allow highly trained teachers to carry concealed weapons at school", and supporting federal funding to hire trained gun-owners as armed guards. Also, directing the "U.S. Food and Drug Administration to convene an independent outside panel to investigate whether transgender hormone treatments and ideology increase the risk of extreme depression, aggression, and violence. He will also look at whether common psychiatric drugs, as well as genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics, are causing psychotic breaks". Additionally, immediate suspension or expulsion for illegal drug use or possession in school.
"Universal School Choice". This includes "that parents can send their children to the public, private, or religious school that best suits" them.
"Project-Based Learning", "to help train [the students] for meaningful work outside the classroom".
"Internships and Work Experiences" for all students. This includes implementing "funding preferences for schools that actively work to help students secure internships, part-time work, and summer jobs".
"Jobs and Career Counseling", provided by all schools. Also, closing the Department of Education, and sending all education matters back to the states.[74][75]
Supporting homeschooling, by allowing homeschool parents to use 529 education savings accounts to spend up to $10,000 a year per child, tax-free. Also, ensuring that every homeschooling family is "entitled to full access to the benefits available to non-homeschooled students – including participating in athletic programs, clubs, after school activities, educational trips, and more".[76][77]
Endowing the American Academy "with the billions we will collect by taxing the large endowments of private universities plagued by antisemitism" (implicitly referring to the 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses). The American Academy's mission will be to make "a truly world-class education available to every American, free of charge, and do it without adding a single dime to the federal debt", covering all subjects and trades, online, for free, also "using study groups, mentors, industry partnerships, and the latest breakthrough in computing". The Academy will be strictly apolitical, it will compete directly with the university system by granting degree credentials recognized by the government and federal contractors, it will award the equivalent of a bachelor's degree, and it will allow people to complete an unfinished college education.[78][79] According to Politico, "[u]sing the federal government to create an entirely new educational institution aimed at competing with the thousands of existing schools would drastically reshape American higher education", adding that this policy would likely need U.S. Congress approval, and that it targets the over "40 million Americans who have some college but never completed their degree", similarly to some of the student debt relief efforts by the Biden administration, but differing in the source for its financing.[80]
Expansion of presidential powers
Trump's plan to expand presidential powers is based largely on a controversial and not widely-held interpretation of the constitution known as the unitary executive theory.[81][82][83][84] The plan includes:
"Dismantl[ing] the deep state and reclaim[ing] our democracy from Washington corruption", by firing government employees, reissuing Executive Order 13957 (Schedule F), "restoring the president's authority to fire rogue bureaucrats". Also, reforming FISA courts, declassifying and publishing "all documents on Deep State spying, censorship, and corruption", taking action against "government leakers", making every Inspector General's office independent and separated from the departments they oversee, establishing an independent auditing system to monitor the intelligence agencies, moving government positions out of Washington, banning federal employees from taking jobs at the companies they regulate, and "push" a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.[20][85][86]
According to the Associated Press, the proposal of moving some 10,000 federal employees from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia: “[i]t’s causing a lot of anxiety, a lot of discomfort within the workforce, as you are faced with these strong, negative, anti-federal worker stances and this uncertainty of what might happen to your job, your home and your livelihood.” Larry Hogan, former Governor of Maryland, stated that the relocations, “would be devastating to the region, the state of Maryland and bad for the federal government.” The measure is seen as retaliatory and damaging to the states' economy. Filipe Campante, a Bloomberg Distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins University, stated: “I think it is a positive factor for accountability that you have civil servants also operating as a check on political appointees, and this would be weakened by moving these people away from where the center of the government is, so I think from that perspective it would reduce accountability. Obviously, then, it depends on whether you think this accountability is good or not.”[87]
Cutting federal regulations by restoring Executive Order 13771 and asking Congress to make it permanent. Implementing a regulatory budget, aiming at reducing the federal government every year. Requiring all government regulations to be posted publicly in a central database, failing which they will be made null and void. Signing a law to "ban bureaucrats from taking any enforcement action based on informal guidance alone". Bringing the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, "back under Presidential authority". Creating "an ultra-streamlined federal regulatory framework specifically for Freedom Cities". Requiring federal employees to pass a new Civil Service test about "Constitutional limited government", including command of due process rights, equal protection, free speech, religious liberty, federalism, the Fourth Amendment, and other constitutional limits on federal power.[88][89]
Stopping unnecessary government expenditure by restoring impoundment, challenging the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in court, or getting Congress to overturn it. The consequent savings will be in the form of tax reductions, and this will stop inflation and reduce the deficit. Every federal agency will be ordered to identify the parts of their budgets that "can be saved through efficiencies and waste reduction using Impoundment". This will not include defense, Medicare, or Social Security; they will be strengthened with some of those funds. This "will also restore critical negotiating leverage with Congress to keep spending under control ... will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State, Drain the Swamp, and starve the Warmongers ... and [get] the Globalists out of our government."[90][91]
The Washington Post has said that this policy "could upend the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government", "could provoke a dramatic constitutional showdown, with vast consequences for how the government operates", and that "legal scholars" say it "could violate the Constitution and usurp congressional authority by consolidating more power in the executive branch".[92] It also stated that "unilaterally zero[ing] out any program he doesn't like, or whose recipient has angered him, regardless of Congress's instructions" would be illegal, even if Trump gets the Impoundment Control Act repealed.[93]The New Republic called it a "fascist plan".[94] On its part, The Hill stated that, on the contrary, impounding is "common sense", and "a key tool for the president to pursue U.S. foreign policy and protect national security".[95]
Proposition of preventing World War III and achieving peace by "clean[ing] house of all of the warmongers and America-Last globalists in the Deep State, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the national security industrial complex."[98][99]
"The defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services, and all the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted to fire the Deep Staters and put America First", and "reevaluating NATO's purpose and mission".[100]
Rebuilding military strength by providing "record funding", asking "Europe to reimburse us for the cost of rebuilding the stockpiles sent to Ukraine", and addressing the "military recruitment crisis" by restoring "the proud culture and honor traditions of America's armed forces".[101][102]
During his 2024 campaign, Trump has developed his propositions, adding: Asking Europe for reimbursements for munitions sent to Ukraine, sending troops to Mexico to attack cartel leadership and infrastructure, seeking to deport all "resident aliens" who are Hamas sympathizers, and pulling out of the Paris Agreement.[103]
Healthcare and social security
Keeping Medicare and Social Security intact, by cutting federal expenses, help to foreign countries, and eliminating "mass-releases of illegal aliens ..., left-wing gender programs from our military [and] climate extremism".[104]
An increase in chronic conditions in children and youth has been observed.[109][110] Regarding this policy, Yahoo! News observed that Trump does not mention vaccines in his video, but it is a dog-whistle to anti-vaccine voters, as he was facing Ron DeSantis during the primaries, and the possibility of having Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a challenger for the presidency.[111] On its part, Axios said that Trump's message could undermine public health, that its language was reminiscent of Robert Kennedy Jr., and that the mentions to Big Pharma appear in other policies related to education, gender-affirming care, and dismantling the deep state.[112]
Ever since, it has been repeatedly reported that Trump says he will cut federal funds from schools with masks and vaccine mandates, raising concerns about whether he refers to COVID-19 exclusively or to all vaccines, since all 50 states and Washington, D.C. have laws requiring specific vaccines for students, including measles, rubella, chickenpox, tetanus, pertussis, and polio. Trump's spokespeople have said it is only about COVID-19, for which no student vaccination mandates exist.[113][114]
In July 2024, an accidentally leaked call from Trump to Kennedy showed the former president questioning the safety of childhood vaccines.[115][116][117] It was also reported that Trump and Kennedy had been in conversations about Kennedy giving his endorsement to Trump in exchange for an appointment in his cabinet.[118][119] In an interview with Chris Cuomo, Kennedy talked about having conversations with Trump, but denied that he was seeking an appointment.[120][f]
On August 14, 2024, it was reported that Kennedy had unsuccessfully sought a meeting with Kamala Harris to discuss a cabinet post,[122][123] and on August 20, that Trump would consider Kennedy for a role in his administration.[124][125]
On August 23, Kennedy suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump.[126][127] In a rally in Arizona on the same day, Trump presented Kennedy, and repeated his "pledge to establish a panel of top experts working with Bobby to investigate what is causing the decades-long increase in chronic health problems and childhood diseases, including auto-immune disorders, autism, obesity, infertility, and many more."
[128]: min.05:53 Kennedy told how he got in contact with Trump via "safe food advocate" Calley Means,[128]: min.07:35 [129][130] and said, "Our children are now the unhealthiest, sickest children in the world. Don't you want healthy children?"[128]: min.09:23
Reducing drug costs, by signing an executive order telling "Big Pharma that we will only pay the best price they offer to foreign nations ... this will force Big Pharma to RAISE prices on foreign countries and REDUCE prices very substantially for American Patients", as Trump's "original Executive Order ... should have never ever [been] rescinded."[131]
JAMA Health Forum commented on the possible outcome of the 2024 election, saying that it "will have momentous consequences for the future of health care". After comparing the records of Trump and Biden regarding the high price of prescription drugs and health care services, it said, "[h]ow Trump would approach drug price negotiations if elected is unclear. Trump supported federal negotiation of drug prices during his 2016 campaign, however, as president, he did not pursue drug price negotiation and opposed a Democratic price negotiation plan. Recently, Trump said he 'will tell big pharma that we will only pay the best price they offer to foreign nations', claiming that he was the 'only president in modern times who ever took on big pharma'. Even though Trump has been inconsistent in his positions on drug prices, his public comments suggest the possibility of bipartisan cooperation."[132][133]
Ending "Joe Biden's pharmaceutical shortages", returning the manufacture of essential drugs to the United States, and obtaining independence from China, by phasing in tariffs and import restrictions, which will "create countless new American jobs".[134]
"A total ban on Biden using taxpayer dollars to free illegal aliens – and criminal penalties for administrative noncompliance."[135]
Signing an executive order "making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship." The order will also end "birth tourism" and consequent "chain migration". At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident for the child to qualify for citizenship. This is based on the "clear meaning of the 14th Amendment, that U.S. Citizenship extends only to those both born in AND 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States". Therefore, children of illegal aliens "should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits", nor have the right to vote. This follows the "historical slate of hundreds of executive actions, proclamations, and presidential memorandums on border security and immigration that President Trump implemented while in office."[136][137]
Ending "welfare for illegal immigrants and shut down Joe Biden’s abuse of parole authority". This includes reinstating the "action making illegals ineligible for public housing" and terminating "all work permits for illegal aliens". Also, demanding Congress to send a bill "blocking any future President from abusing his power to distribute welfare benefits in this manner".[138]
CNN commented, "[s]hould Congress refuse to fund the operation, Trump could turn to a tactic used in his first term to secure more funding for a border wall – redirecting funds from the Pentagon, the source confirmed."[16] After describing the record of Trump's immigration policies from the standpoint of healthcare, JAMA Health Forum said, "[they] had a chilling effect on access to care and benefits among immigrants, including those lawfully present ... Trump has continued these themes in his current campaign, saying that 'welfare is a gigantic magnet drawing people from all over the world.'"[132] He has also promised mass deportations,[139][140][141] especially in the context of the allegations against Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio.[142][143][144]
Infrastructure and urban planning
Holding a contest to charter up to 10 new cities ("Freedom Cities") in undeveloped federal lands. Revolutionizing transportation, by promoting the development of "vertical takeoff-and-landing vehicles". Turning "forgotten communities into hives of industry". Lowering the cost of living for families, specifically, the cost of building a home and buying a new car. Helping young parents, by asking Congress to provide "baby bonuses". Challenging the governors of all 50 states to modernize and beautify cities and public spaces, and "building towering monuments to our true American heroes".[145][146][147]
CNN criticized this policy for the lack of details of how would it be financed, "what 'baby bonuses' would amount to or who would qualify", and for how these plans differ from Democratic policies like the "enhanced child tax credit" whose extension beyond 2021 was blocked by Republicans.[60][148]
Celebrating the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence by convening a task force called "Salute to America 250", in charge of coordinating with state and local governments to produce an entire year of festivities across the nation, starting on Memorial Day 2025 and continuing through July 4, 2026. Working with all governors to create the "Great American State Fair", a one-year exhibition featuring pavilions from all states, to be built in the Iowa State Fairgrounds. Hosting "Patriot Games", major sporting contests for high school athletes. Signing an executive order to bring back the National Garden of American Heroes, commissioning artists for the first 100 statues. Inviting international leaders and citizens to visit the United States, favoring the tourism industry. Asking American religious communities to pray for the nation and the people. "As we chart a course toward the next 250 years, let us come together and rededicate ourselves as one nation under God."[150][151]
Journalism, information, and censorship
"Shatter[ing] the left-wing censorship regime", i.e. labeling information as misinformation or disinformation, in the media or social networks, about subjects like the 2020 elections, Covid, and the "Biden Family's criminality". This will be achieved by banning every federal agency from performing that action, firing federal officials who have done it (and depriving them of their vote), investigating and prosecuting all parties involved, and curtailing federal economic support to universities that have done it.[152][153]
On August 25, 2018, PJ Media published a story reporting that 96% of Google search results for Donald Trump prioritized "left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets". The methodology used to achieve that result was unreliable, but a Fox Business show picked up the story and soon after, Trump tweeted that Google results were "RIGGED" against him. Conservative entities and personalities also claimed that social media platforms discriminated against conservatives.[159][160][161]
On March 21, 2019, Trump signed an Executive Order "aimed at improving transparency and promoting free speech on college campuses:" "Every year the federal government provides educational institutions with more than $35 billion dollars in research funding, all of that money is now at stake. That's a lot of money. They're going to have to not like your views a lot, right?" Trump said. "If a college or university does not allow you to speak, we will not give them money." The order received praise from Charlie Kirk, Sarah Ruger, then director of the toleration and free expression division of the Charles Koch Institute, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Liberty University, and criticism from Janet Napolitano, then president of the University of California, the American Council on Education, and the American Civil Liberties Union, among others.[162] It was also reported that the Trump administration sought to censure scientific research related to climate change,[163] and that he downplayed the COVID-19 pandemic.[164]
On May 15, 2019, the White House announced the launch of a "Tech Bias Reporting tool" for people to report instances of perceived social media bias,[165] that was met with criticism.[166] After Trump stated on Twitter that mail-in voting would lead to massive fraud in the 2020 presidential election, moderators marked the message with a "potentially misleading" warning, linking the post to fact-checking websites. On May 28, 2020, Trump signed the "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship" (EO 13925), an executive order directing regulatory action at Section 230.[167] After considerable controversy, the order was later rescinded by President Biden.
In July 2021, after being deplatformed by social media companies, Trump sued them arguing they had violated his First Amendment rights to speak freely. These events elicited discussion about censorship in social media.[168][169][170]
Increasing investment in police personnel, increasing their liability protections, enforcing stop-and-frisk and existing gun laws, stopping the open use of illegal drugs, and cooperating with ICE to arrest and deport criminal aliens. Directing the DOJ to open civil rights investigations into "radical left prosecutor's offices" (Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco) to determine whether they have "engaged in race-based enforcement of the law", and giving "the victims of their Marxist policies the right to sue local officials for harm and suffering". Dismantling of all criminal organizations. The death penalty for drug dealers and human traffickers. Sending the National Guard to restore safety in cities "where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order". Ordering the Education and Justice Departments to "overhaul federal standards on disciplining minors". Protecting the right of self-defense, by legislating concealed carry reciprocity. Securing the border.[174]
Waging war on the cartels, using Title 42 to return the trafficked children to their home countries, urging Congress to "ensure that anyone caught trafficking children [and women] across our border receives the death penalty immediately", and a recommendation to watch Sound of Freedom.[175][176]
Appointing 100 U.S. Attorneys who "will be the polar opposite of the Soros District Attorneys" (referring to a baseless conspiracy theory involving Jewish-Hungarian businessman George Soros). Overhauling the Department of Justice and the FBI. Launching civil rights investigations into "Marxist local district attorneys" in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities, including "federal subpoenas of their staff, their emails, and their records to determine whether they have blatantly violated federal Civil Rights law". Launching a federal inquiry into the prosecutor of the Garret Foster case, and ordering the Department of Justice "to establish a task force on protecting the right to self-defense". Investigating the "use of police state tactics by federal authorities to arrest conservatives and Christians". Confronting the radicalization of law schools, reforming bar associations, and stopping "the purge of conservative lawyers from major law firms".[177]
Proposition of taking down the drug cartels "just as we took down ISIS and the ISIS caliphate". This includes deploying all necessary military assets to impose a full naval embargo on the cartels, ordering the "Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other overt and covert actions" against cartels, which will be designed as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and cutting their access to global financial systems. Forging a partnership with neighboring governments, or exposing their corruption. Asking "Congress to pass legislation ensuring that drug smugglers and human traffickers receive the Death Penalty".[178]
National security
Building a state-of-the-art, next-generation missile defense shield, similar to Israel's Iron Dome, as a deterrent of and protection from foreign missile attacks, in order to prevent World War Three.[179]
Trump has repeatedly mentioned the idea of building an Iron Dome in his rallies, assuring it will create many jobs.[180][181] Regarding this policy, Forbes commented that it would have "limited overall utility. At least 10 Iron Dome systems make up the lower tier of Israel's multilayered air defense, designed to intercept rockets, mortars, and artillery shells at a maximum distance of under 50 miles." An American Iron Dome would require hundreds of systems to cover the continental United States and its major population centers, and it would be inadequate to intercept large intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, it could be useful for the defense of military bases (specifically the overseas ones), and critical infrastructure.[182]Haaretz called it a "fantasy", and after mentioning similar technical issues as Forbes, concluded that "[b]eyond all this, the United States has already spent hundreds of billions in missile defense research-and-development, and any upgrades similar to the ones Trump is vowing would need congressional support – something he failed to obtain for his border wall."[183]
Reinstating the initiative at the Department of Justice to target Chinese espionage in the United States, terminated by the Biden administration at the request of faculty members from the University of Pennsylvania; requesting from Congress to investigate the University's finances, its Chinese donors, the Biden Center, and the Biden family.[184][185]
The China Initiative was launched in November 2018 to address Chinese economic espionage. Of the 28 prosecutions brought under it, four were against professors of Chinese descent, of whom none were convicted for espionage or theft.
On January 5, 2021, APA Justice, the Brennan Center for Justice, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice sent an open letter to then president-elect Joe Biden, stating that a "consequence of these mandates has been that the FBI and federal agencies have put pressure on grant makers, universities and research institutions to participate in racial, ethnic and national origin profiling, collectively leading to discriminatory and stigmatising investigations of people of Chinese descent."[186]
In September 2021, 177 Stanford University faculty members sent an open letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland calling for the termination of the initiative, stating that "these actions do not just affect the prosecuted faculty but affect the many more university researchers who are targeted, investigated and feel threatened by inquiries initiated without prior evidence of significant wrongdoing".[187]
Bloomberg stated that by December 2021, "[m]ore than 1,600 scholars and administrators from more than 200 universities have petitioned Garland to end the China Initiative, saying it disproportionately targets researchers of Chinese origin."[188]
In February 2022, more than 150 University of Pennsylvania faculty members addressed an open letter to Attorney General Garland, "urging the U.S. Department of Justice to overturn the 'China Initiative' which they allege disproportionately targets researchers of Chinese descent."[189]
On February 23, 2022, Matthew G. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced the initiative "was being cast aside largely because of perceptions that it unfairly painted Chinese Americans and U.S. residents of Chinese origin as disloyal", but he "insisted that the decision amounted to a reframing and recalibration – not an abandonment – of a muscular law enforcement response to the national security threat posed by the People’s Republic of China", and said that "department officials had concluded that the enforcement program singling out China was ill-advised and better reframed as part of a more wide-ranging effort to counter threats posed by Russia, Iran and other countries."[190]
Social issues
Revoking Biden's Executive Order 13985, to "eradicate any attempt to weaken America’s institutions through these harmful and discriminatory 'equity" programs". Instructing the DOJ to investigate the "unlawful domination and discrimination and civil right abuses carried out by the Biden administration". Terminating all staff, offices, and initiatives connected to the equity policies, reviewing and reversing its actions, and requesting Congress to establish a restitution fund for those "discriminated against" by that policy.[191]
Commenting on the possibility of a second Trump administration, Axios said, "close allies want to dramatically change the government's interpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on 'anti-white racism' rather than discrimination against people of color", and quoted Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung: "As President Trump has said, all staff, offices, and initiatives connected to Biden's un-American policy will be immediately terminated."[192]
Using "every tool, lever, and authority to get the homeless off our streets", by using the resources otherwise spent upon Ukraine, and "by ending mass unskilled migration". Banning urban camping wherever possible, arresting the violators, but giving them the option of rehabilitation treatment. Creating "tent cities" where the homeless can be relocated, have their problems identified, and receive either help to reintegrate into a normal life or medical treatment, including commitment to mental institutions, "with the goal of reintegrating them back into society once they are well enough to manage".[193][194]
Eradicating the drug addiction crisis, by imposing a "full naval embargo on the drug cartels and deploy military assets to inflict maximum damage on cartel operations", insisting on the cooperation of neighboring governments to dismantle the trafficking networks in the region, requiring Congress that drug dealers and human traffickers receive the death penalty. Directing federal law enforcement to take down the gangs and organized street crime that distribute drugs locally. Permanently designating Fentanyl as a federally controlled substance. Warning China that if they don't "clamp down" on the export of Fentanyl precursors "they will pay a steep price". Also, to combat local addiction, "strengthen the pillars that give life meaning and hope for those struggling with addiction, in particular work, faith and family". Making easier for addicts to seek treatment without losing their jobs. Forging public-private partnerships to provide job opportunities and skills training to former addicts. Expanding federal support for "faith-based counseling, treatment, and recovery programs". Ensuring that if someone needs to take time to care for a relative fighting to overcome addiction, they can use a family leave program.[195]
Signing an executive order to cut off Biden's funding for shelter and transport of immigrants ("nearly $1 billion to house illegal aliens and foreign migrants in expensive luxury hotels"), and redirect a large portion of the savings to provide shelter and treatment for homeless American veterans, totally eradicating veteran's homelessness by the end of next term.[196]
According to Snopes, the expenses for housing immigrants waiting to be expelled were $86.9 million during a period of six months in 2021. The places used were "family residential centers", "contracted shelters", and "hotels", like the "Quality Suites in San Diego; Hampton Inns in Phoenix and in McAllen and El Paso, Texas; a Comfort Suites Hotel in Miami; a Best Western in Los Angeles; and an Econo Lodge in Seattle". The funds were managed by the non-profit Endeavors, which also serves veterans. "Migrant families were similarly housed in U.S. hotels under the Obama and Trump administrations."[197] Trump made a similar claim during the debate on June 27, 2024, which was fact-checked as false.[198][199]
Terminating all types of gender affirming care for minors. Instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition "at any age", stopping federal funding for all gender-affirming procedures, and declaring that any hospital or healthcare provider participating in gender affirming care for minors will no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare, terminating them from the program. Creating ways to sue physicians who have performed those procedures, and directing the DOJ to investigate pharmaceutical companies and hospitals to determine whether they have covered "horrific long-term side-effects of 'sex transitions' to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients" and whether they have illegally marketed hormones and puberty blockers. The Department of Education will inform states and school districts that if anybody suggests to a child that they could be transgender, they will face potential civil rights violations cases for sex discrimination, and elimination from federal funding. Passing a bill establishing that the only genders recognized by the government are male and female, and they are assigned at birth.[200][201][202]
The Advocate called these policies "devastating for LGBTQ+ Americans and other marginalized communities", adding "that [they] threaten the LGBTQ+ community, spanning across education, health care, and the military".[203]LGBTQ Nation qualified Trump's agenda as "troubling", ending with "[w]hether that agenda encompasses Project 2025 or Agenda 47 or both, the results would be disastrous."[204]
Anthony Zurcher of BBC News said "some of [Trump's] pronouncements border on the fantastical" and "others are controversial."[26] Margaret Hartmann, writing in New York magazine, described some of the ideas as "unhinged".[205] Frankie Taggart, writing for Barron's, argued that Trump's plans lack coherence and that some could exacerbate existing divisions in American society. He questioned the feasibility and practicality of some ideas, such as the promise to improve cities with classical architecture and create tent cities for the homeless.[25]
Prominent economists and investors criticized the economic agenda of Trump as inflationary, especially noting his proposed 10% universal tariff.[206][207][208][209][210]
^Trump was previously the 45th president, but the precedent set by Grover Cleveland is that a nonconsecutive second term means a new presidential number.
^The first capture of the "Platform" section in Archive.org dates from July 14, 2024.[29]
^The number of videos is 46, but two of them, uploaded on different dates, are the same.[31][32]
^The layout of the website has changed.[2] As of September 2024, the access to the list of videos is in the main page's lower section titled "I AM YOUR VOICE. AMERICA FIRST!" via clicking on the red button "Watch more videos"
^Both sources establish that this proposition was announced in a series of videos. The campaign website offers only one, without a verbatim transcription, which appears to be embedded from Rumble. The Forbes channel offers three consecutive messages, the first and last of which are the same. The words of those two messages approximately match the campaign website's text.
^"Team Trump Launches Agenda 47 Tour". Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc. September 3, 2024. Archived from the original on September 12, 2024. Retrieved September 12, 2024. The "Team Trump Agenda 47 Policy Tour" will enlist some of the most prominent figures in politics, influential celebrities, and a diverse array of every day Americans across key battleground states to champion President Trump and his Agenda 47 initiative, which will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. (...) In addition to the Agenda 47 Tour, the Trump Campaign will be unveiling a series of supplementary surrogate events. More announcements are coming soon.
"Events". Donald J Trump for President 2024, Inc. 2024. Archived from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved September 12, 2024. [The list of events varies. As of edition date, there were: Team Trump to Hold an Agenda 47 Policy Tour in Morgantown, Pennsylvania Featuring Governor Doug Burgum and Governor Kristi Noem, September 12, 2024 / Team Trump to Hold an Agenda 47 Policy Tour in Bermuda Run, North Carolina Featuring Representative Byron Donalds, Representative Dan Bishop, and Kash Patel, Former Chief of Staff for the Department of Defense, September 12, 2024 / Team Trump's Agenda 47 Policy Tour featuring Governor Kristi Noem in Savannah, Georgia, September 14, 2024]
J.D. Wolf (September 2, 2024). "Trump Announces Project 2025 Contributor Will Join His "Agenda 47 Policy Tour" in Wisconsin". MSN. Retrieved September 12, 2024. The Trump campaign announced a Milwaukee, Wisconsin "Agenda 47 Policy Tour" event featuring Project 2025 contributor Monica Crowley. Trump's campaign has attempted to distance itself from the Project 2025's policy manual by emphasizing Trump's "Agenda 47" policies instead, yet his upcoming event using a Project 2025 contributor to promote his Agenda 47 policies continues to blur the line between Trump and Project 2025.
Alison Dirr, Mary Spicuzza (September 5, 2024). "Trump surrogates on 'Agenda 47' Milwaukee tour stop downplay talk of Project 2025". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Archived from the original on September 11, 2024. Retrieved September 12, 2024. The town hall is part of the "Team Trump Agenda 47 Policy Tour." The tour coincides with Trump's efforts to distance himself from Project 2025, a conservative blueprint created by the Heritage Foundation, even as Democrats continue to point out his connections to the plan.
^Mattingly, Phil (June 23, 2024). "5 ways a second Trump administration would be different from the first". CNN. Archived from the original on July 29, 2024. Retrieved July 31, 2024. Trump's agenda isn't a state secret. It's posted on his campaign website under 'Agenda 47' and regularly featured in the scripted portions of his remarks at rallies.
^Hirsh, Michael (September 19, 2023). "Inside the Next Republican Revolution". Politico. Archived from the original on November 6, 2023. Retrieved November 6, 2023. For Trump personally, of course, this is a live-or-die agenda, and Trump campaign officials acknowledge that it aligns well with their own 'Agenda 47' program.
^Ordoñez, Franco (July 11, 2024). "It seems like Project 2025 is everywhere. But what is it?". NPR. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024. While Trump has sought to deny a connection, there is plenty of overlap between Project 2025 and his agenda. It proposes mass deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants. So does Trump. Trump has called for cuts to the federal agencies like the Department of Education. Project 2025 calls for its elimination.
^Ulatowski, Rachel (June 3, 2024). "The Right-Wing Manifesto Project 2025 Is as Real as It Is Terrifying". The Mary Sue. Archived from the original on June 14, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024. However, Agenda 47 shares many themes with Project 2025, including elevating the president's power, enforcing the death penalty for drug dealers, utilizing the National Guard in liberal-led cities, and cracking down on undocumented immigrants.
^Crosstabs. Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll: February 2029(PDF). The Harris Poll (Report). February 2019. p. 470. Archived(PDF) from the original on September 10, 2024. Retrieved July 28, 2024. This survey was conducted online within the United States from February 19–20, 2029 among 1,792 registered voters by The Harris Poll.
^Uptin Saiidi (August 17, 2018). How do tariffs work? CNBC Explains (Internet video). CNBC. Retrieved October 18, 2024. [From video description:] The U.S. imports more than $500 billion worth of goods from China, of which some goods are subject to a customs duty. CNBC's Uptin Saiidi explains how increased tariffs can impact an economy.
^Katie Lobosco (January 14, 2020). "Breaking down the costs of Trump's trade war with China". CNN. Retrieved August 2, 2024. Trump used tariffs as a negotiating tactic, meant to hurt China's economy and pressure Beijing to agree to a new trade deal that addresses unfair trade practices, such as intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers. That's a goal that business leaders across the country, as well as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree on. But the tariffs have hurt Americans, too. They've cut into US businesses' bottom lines, forcing owners to make decisions about job cuts and raising prices on consumers. Plus, the uncertainty around how long the tariffs will be in place and whether Trump will escalate the rate – which he did last May with just days' notice – deter businesses from making long-term investments, potentially costing the US growth. (...) Trump is wrong when he claims that China is paying the tariffs. The cost of the tariff comes directly out of the bank account of an American importer when the good arrives at the port.
^Rachel Layne (September 12, 2019). "Trump trade war with China has cost 300,000 U.S. jobs, Moody's estimates". CBS News. Retrieved October 18, 2024. Tariffs on imported Chinese goods are paid for by U.S. companies, not China as President Donald Trump has erroneously claimed. In July alone, tariffs cost American businesses $6.8 billion, according to figures released Wednesday by Tariffs Hurt the Heartland, a coalition of companies and trade associations that oppose the taxes. Rising trade uncertainty can hurt companies' ability to plan and hold back spending, which in turn can slow economic growth.
^Harry G. Broadman (March 31, 2019). "Mr. Trump Failed 'Trade Tariffs 101' At Wharton". Forbes. Retrieved November 4, 2024. In a nutshell, no matter how high or expansive are tariffs, they will not create effective incentives for China to execute the fundamental market-oriented reforms Beijing legally obligated itself to undertake in its 2001 WTO Accession Agreement. That is the real endgame. Achieving that goal--necessitating a reduction in the fundamental role of the state in China's economy, which of course Chinese President Xi Jinping is loathe to do since that is the raison d'etre of the Communist Party--is a wholly different matter. That would require both using a different arsenal and employing a fundamentally different strategy, especially marshaling a multilateral coalition of the world's leading trading partners. Our President seems to be moving us further away from that path each passing day.
^Hans Nichols (June 25, 2024). "Scoop: 16 Nobel economists see a Trump inflation bomb". Axios. Retrieved June 18, 2024. "Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast. There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets," they write. The message was spearheaded by Joseph Stiglitz, who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001. He was joined by George A. Akerlof (2001), Sir Angus Deaton (2015), Claudia Goldin (2023), Sir Oliver Hart (2016), Eric S. Maskin (2007), Daniel L. McFadden (2000), Paul R. Milgrom (2020), Roger B. Myerson (2007), Edmund S. Phelps (2006), Paul M. Romer (2018), Alvin E. Roth (2012), William F. Sharpe (1990), Robert J. Shiller (2013), Christopher A. Sims (2011), and Robert B. Wilson (2020). (...) Zoom out: Biden has presided over a period of solid growth, a strong labor market, and stubbornly high inflation.
^Matt Egan (June 26, 2024). "Trump would make America's inflation crisis worse, 16 Nobel economists warn". CNN. Retrieved October 18, 2024. In particular, the economists point to Trump's "fiscally irresponsible budgets" and nonpartisan research from the likes of the Peterson Institute, Oxford Economics and Allianz that finds the Trump agenda — if successfully enacted — would increase inflation. Trump approved $8.4 trillion of new 10-year borrowing during his term — nearly twice as much as President Joe Biden has so far in office, according to fiscal watchdog group the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Not only does Trump want to extend his 2017 tax cuts — a move that the Congressional Budget Office warns would cost nearly $5 trillion — but the former president recently told CEOs during a closed-door meeting that he'd like to cut the corporate tax rate even further. However, cutting taxes would risk accelerating an economy at a time when the Federal Reserve is working hard to slow it down to fight inflation. (...) The Stiglitz-led letter did not directly mention Trump's trade and immigration policies, but some mainstream economists warn they would be inflationary, too. Trump has called for raising tariffs on China and all other trading partners — a move that Moody's Analytics predicted would kill jobs and worsen inflation. Trump argues the tariffs would save jobs and punish China for trade practices that both parties are fed up with.
^"Trump Campaign Slams 'Worthless' Nobel Prize Winning Economists". Newsweek. June 27, 2024. Retrieved October 18, 2024. Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Newsweek that the American people don't need "worthless out of touch" economists telling them which president "put more money in their pockets," after 16 Nobel Prize winners said in a letter that "Joe Biden's economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump's." (...) [Professor Stiglitz] said that in the short term inflation will be higher because of Trump's "protectionist tariff policies, marked reductions in immigration, likely large budget deficit, abandoning Biden's attacks against monopolies, and repeal of critical elements of the Inflation Reduction Act." Stiglitz also argued that, "in the long run, the undermining of the rule of the law, attacks on our universities, and cutbacks in the funding of science will undermine growth." Leavitt responded, "President Trump built the strongest economy in American history. In just three years, Joe Biden's out of control spending created the worst inflation crisis in generations. Americans know we cannot afford four more years of Bidenomics."
^Scott Bessent (June 27, 2024). "16 Nobel Prize-winning economists claim Trump will wreck our economy. This is the reason I don't trust them. One of the first signatures comes from George Akerlof, a 2001 Nobel laureate who is married to President Biden's Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen". Fox News. Retrieved October 18, 2024. There they go again. Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists recently penned an open letter arguing that "[President] Biden's economic agenda is vastly superior to [President] Trump [sic]." The principal argument, echoing recent Democratic talking points, is that a second Trump presidency could actually increase inflation. Never mind that inflation never materially exceeded 2% during the Trump administration, nor that President Biden has presided over the highest inflation in 40 years. The field of economics purports to be a science, priding itself on intellectual rigor and evidence-based assessments. Yet just as campus protests lifted the veil on the radical, fact-free academic culture that infects many American universities, academic economists' recent record of political advocacy is a potent reminder of why Americans have come to dismiss the dismal science. The contrast between President Trump and President Biden's economic records could not be more clear. President Trump's record of tax reform and deregulation powered the American economy to the fastest real wage increases in a generation. Real incomes increased by nearly 10% from 2017 to 2019, with real wages rising fastest among lower income workers.
^Yuval Rosenberg, Michael Rainey (August 27, 2024). "Trump Economic Plans Would Cost More Than $4 Trillion: Analysis". The Fiscal Times. Retrieved October 18, 2024. An array of tax and spending proposals put forth by former President Donald Trump would raise the federal budget deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The Trump proposals were scored on both a static and dynamic basis, with the latter approach incorporating feedback loops from policy to the economy to tax revenues. On a conventional static basis, the Penn Wharton analysts estimated the 10-year cost of Trump's proposals to be $5.8 trillion, while on a dynamic basis, the cost was estimated to be $4.1 trillion. Here's a breakdown, with costs provided on a static basis: (...) The analysts did, however, provide a sense of who would benefit from Trump's tax and spending proposals. While every income group would gain, some would do so more than others. The biggest winners would be very rich, with the top 1% taking home an additional $47,515 by 2034, and the top 0.1% gaining $214,935. Those in the bottom 20% of the income distribution, by comparison, would see an additional $465.
^Rebecca Picciotto (August 28, 2024). "Trump budget would spike deficits by nearly 5 times Harris proposal, says Penn Wharton". NBC 4. Retrieved October 18, 2024. Former President Donald Trump's economic proposals would increase federal deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next decade, almost five times more than those of Vice President Kamala Harris, which would add $1.2 trillion, according to a new pair of studies from the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model. The Trump report found that his plan to permanently extend the 2017 tax cuts would add more than $4 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years. His proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits comes with a $1.2 trillion price tag, while his pledge to further reduce corporate taxes would add nearly $6 billion. The Harris analysis showed that her plan to expand the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and other tax credits would raise deficits by $2.1 trillion in the coming 10 years. And her proposal to create a $25,000 subsidy for all qualifying first-time homebuyers would add $140 billion over a decade. But the Harris report found that raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from its current level of 21%, as the vice president has floated, could partially offset the costs of her spending by $1.1 trillion. Along with corporate tax hikes, Harris has said she supports the $5 trillion worth of revenue raisers contained in President Joe Biden's budget proposal for the 2025 fiscal year. (...)
^Nikki McCann Ramirez (September 4, 2024). "Goldman Sachs Says Trump Win Would Lead to Economic Downturn". Rolling Stone. Retrieved October 18, 2024. As financial institutions weigh the potential impact of November's election, Goldman Sachs is warning that a victory by former President Donald Trump would likely lead to an economic downturn. According to a Tuesday note from Goldman, economists at the firm "estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse." They project that GDP growth would peak at 0.5 percentage points in 2025, the positive effects of which would abate in 2026. By contrast, Goldman predicts that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins the White House and Democrats sweep, "new spending and expanded middle-income tax credits would slightly more than offset lower investment due to higher corporate tax rates, resulting in a very slight boost to GDP investment due to higher corporate tax rates, resulting in a very slight boost to GDP growth on average over 2025-2026."
^Christopher Anstey (September 4, 2024). "Goldman sees US GDP hit if Trump wins, boost if Democrats sweep". The Economic Times. Retrieved October 18, 2024. The Trump campaign said forecasters failed to anticipate the pickup in growth that followed his victory in 2016. "These Wall Street elites would be wise to review the record and acknowledge the shortcomings of their past work if they'd like their new forecasts to be seen as credible," said Brian Hughes, a senior advisor on the campaign. Harris campaign spokesperson Joe Costello said that "right, left, or center, experts agree that Trump is threatening an economic disaster" of skyrocketing unemployment, an inflation "bomb," exploding debt and a potential recession.
Taylor Giorno (June 20, 2024). "Trump win, GOP sweep would fuel inflation: Moody's Analytics". The Hill. Retrieved October 19, 2024. Inflation could reaccelerate if former President Trump wins the White House and Republicans win control of Congress, according to a recent report by Moody's Analytics. Under the so-called Republican Sweep scenario, which the forecasters place at a 35 percent probability, consumer price inflation accelerates from 3 percent in 2024 to 3.6 percent in 2025, according to the three economists who authored the report. Trump policies — including higher tariffs, tax cuts that stimulate the economy and an exodus of foreign immigrants that could tighten the labor market and increase labor costs — would fuel the uptick in inflation. "The Federal Reserve, which is focused on labor costs and inflation, may feel compelled to resume its rate hikes, or at the very least wait longer to cut rates. Recession becomes a serious threat once again," the economists wrote.
Aimee Picchi (July 19, 2024). "Trump says he'll end the "inflation nightmare." Economists say Trumponomics could drive up prices". CBS News. Retrieved October 19, 2024. Former President Donald Trump is campaigning on a pledge to end the "inflation nightmare," vowing that if he wins a second term, he'll bring down prices "very quickly." And if that scenario came to pass, it would be cheered by the millions of Americans who say higher costs remain a major problem. There's only one problem: Key policies that undergird so-called Trumponomics — a combination of tariffs, tax cuts and a crackdown on immigration — are likely to cause a flare-up in inflation, according to many Wall Street economists. That would be a painful outcome for consumers and businesses sapped by more than two years of surging prices. More broadly, renewed inflationary pressures would also come as inflation is finally inching closer to the Federal Reserve's goal of 2% per year. But experts warn that Trump's economic policies could cause such progress to stall, and even reverse. They note that tariffs effectively act as a consumption tax, increasing the cost of goods imported into the U.S. — costs that businesses typically pass on to consumers.
Matt Egan (September 26, 2024). "Trump's promises would spike inflation and wipe out jobs, study finds". CNN. Retrieved October 19, 2024. Former President Donald Trump has promised to attack the United States affordability crisis by imposing immense tariffs, carrying out unprecedented deportations and even influencing interest rate decisions. However, a new analysis finds that the Republican presidential nominee's plans for tariffs, deportations and the Federal Reserve would not only fail to solve inflation – they would make it much worse. The Trump agenda would cause weaker economic growth, higher inflation and lower employment, according to a working paper released Thursday by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In some cases, the damage could continue through 2040. "We find that ironically, despite his 'make the foreigners pay' rhetoric, this package of policies does more damage to the US economy than to any other in the world," the Peterson Institute working paper from researchers Warwick McKibbin, Megan Hogan and Marcus Noland concluded.
Derek Saul (October 14, 2024). "Two-Thirds Of Economists Think Inflation Would Be Worse Under Trump Than Harris, Poll Finds". Forbes. Retrieved October 19, 2024. Topline. A majority of economists believe former President Donald Trump's proposed economic policies would lead to higher inflation than those of Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a survey published Monday by the Wall Street Journal, findings which go against a far stronger inflation record under Trump than Joe Biden. Key facts. Some 68% of economists said inflation would be higher under Trump's economic proposals than Harris, according to the Journal's survey of 50 economists conducted Oct. 4-8. That compares to 12% who believed Harris inflation would be worse and 20% who didn't anticipate a noticeable gap. It's a wider gap than was found in a similar poll conducted July 5–9 before President Joe Biden exited the race, when 56% of economists said inflation would be worse under Trump than Biden compared to 16% for the opposite. Perhaps Trump's most notable potentially inflationary policy put forth on the campaign trail is a 60% tariff, or import tax, on Chinese goods and a 10% tariff on other imports.
^Dodds, Graham G.; Kelley, Christopher S. (2024). "Presidential Leadership and the Unitary Executive Theory: Temptations and Troubles". In Akande, Adebowale (ed.). Leadership and Politics. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. p. 547. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-56415-4_22. ISBN978-3-031-56414-7. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved July 18, 2024. "Constitutionally, the unitary executive theory is not some long-established doctrine that is widely accepted by courts and other political actors. Far from it, the constitutional status of the theory is rather controversial."
^Tori Otten (July 17, 2023). "Inside Trump's Fascist Plan to Control All Federal Agencies if He Wins". The New Republic. The New Republic. Archived from the original on August 2, 2024. Retrieved August 2, 2024. Trump also wants to be able to impound funds, meaning refuse to spend money appropriated for programs he doesn't like. The tactic was banned under Richard Nixon, but Trump insists on his campaign website that presidents have a constitutional right to impound funds.
^"President Trump Calls for Immediate De-escalation and Peace". Donald J Trump For President, Inc. February 1, 2023. Archived from the original on July 6, 2024. Retrieved July 6, 2024. President Donald J. Trump released a series of video statements on the Russia-Ukraine War, calling for immediate de-escalation and peace in Ukraine
^Gram Slattery (July 17, 2024). "Trump's foreign policy: rethink NATO, troops to Mexico, boost tariffs". Reuters. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved August 21, 2024. Here is a look at the foreign policy proposals Trump has pledged to advance should he win the 2024 presidential election, having secured the party's nomination this week in Milwaukee
^Perrin, James M.; Bloom, Sheila R.; Gortmaker, Steven L. (June 27, 2007). "The Increase of Childhood Chronic Conditions in the United States". JAMA. 297 (24): 2755–2759. doi:10.1001/jama.297.24.2755. PMID17595277. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved July 30, 2024. The number of children and youth in the United States with chronic health conditions (a health condition that lasts ≥12 months or at time of diagnosis is likely to have a duration of ≥12 months) has increased dramatically in the past 4 decades.
^"COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements for Childcare and School (K-12)". Immunize.org. 2024. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved August 12, 2024. [Map of the United States and List of the states] NOTE: As of May 2024, no state required COVID-19 vaccine for any grade level.
Phillips, Aleks (August 31, 2023). "Donald Trump Blasts New Mask Mandates: 'We Will Not Comply'". Newsweek. Archived from the original on August 13, 2024. Retrieved August 12, 2024. In a video address on X, formerly Twitter, posted on Wednesday, the Republican primary frontrunner pledged that, if re-elected, he would 'use every available authority to cut federal funding to any school, college, airline or public transportation system that imposes a mask mandate or a vaccine mandate.'
Hartmann, Margaret (March 5, 2024). "Did Trump Really Vow to Defund Schools With Vaccine Mandates?". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on August 13, 2024. Retrieved August 12, 2024. During a rally in Richmond, Virginia, last weekend, Donald Trump made a number of wild, headline-generating remarks ... 'I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate,' Trump declared.
Weixel, Nathaniel (March 9, 2024). "Trump's vaccine rhetoric sends chills through public health circles". The Hill. Archived from the original on August 13, 2024. Retrieved August 12, 2024. Public health advocates are watching in growing alarm as former President Trump increasingly embraces the anti-vaccine movement. ... Trump's campaign says his comments only apply to states that mandate COVID-19 vaccines – making it essentially an empty threat.
"Trump's vaccine remarks require rebuke". Star Tribune. May 29, 2024. Archived from the original on August 13, 2024. Retrieved August 12, 2024. Trump was in St. Paul for Minnesota Republicans' annual Lincoln Reagan dinner. 'The crowd erupted into the loudest applause of the night and a standing ovation when Trump said he would cut off funding to any school teaching critical race theory as well as any school with a vaccine mandate' ...
O'Connor, Lydia (June 19, 2024). "Trump Makes Bizarre Threat About Schools And Vaccine Mandates". HuffPost. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved August 12, 2024. 'I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate,' he declared at his rally in Racine, Wisconsin. ... Last month, he even attacked independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the most prominent voices in the anti-vaccine movement, as not being anti-vaccine enough.
^Dawsey, Josh; Scherer, Michael (July 22, 2024). "RFK Jr. floated a job in a Trump White House as he weighed endorsing Trump". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 10, 2024. Retrieved August 5, 2024. Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held talks this month with former president Donald Trump about endorsing his campaign and taking a job in a second Trump administration, overseeing a portfolio of health and medical issues, according to four people familiar with the matter. ... The conversations ended without any definitive conclusion, the people said.
^Michael Scherer, Josh Dawsey (August 14, 2024). "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried to meet with Kamala Harris to discuss Cabinet job". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 16, 2024. Retrieved August 23, 2024. Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sought a meeting last week with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to discuss the possibility of serving in her administration, perhaps as a Cabinet secretary, if he throws his support behind her campaign and she wins, according to Kennedy campaign officials. Harris and her advisers have not responded with an offer to meet or shown interest in the proposal, say people familiar with the conversations.
^Rebecca Davis O’Brien, Reid J. Epstein (August 14, 2024). "Kennedy Sought a Meeting With Harris to Discuss a Cabinet Post". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 22, 2024. Retrieved August 23, 2024. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was unsuccessful with his request to discuss endorsing the Democratic nominee in exchange for a top administration job, according to two people briefed on the outreach.
^Eric Bradner (August 20, 2024). "Trump says he'd consider appointing RFK Jr. to role in administration". CNN. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved August 23, 2024. Donald Trump said Tuesday he would "certainly" be open to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. playing a role in his administration if the independent candidate drops out of the 2024 race and endorses the former president.
^Kathryn Watson, Allison Novelo (August 23, 2024). "RFK Jr. endorses Trump and suspends presidential campaign". CBS News. Archived from the original on August 23, 2024. Retrieved August 23, 2024. Kennedy said three issues encouraged him to leave the Democratic Party and "to throw my support to President Trump": free speech, the war in Ukraine and the "war on our children."
^Brandy Zadrozny (August 23, 2024). "RFK Jr. as Trump's health secretary? Here's what he wants to do". NBC News. Archived from the original on August 22, 2024. Retrieved August 23, 2024. Kennedy's campaign has been supported and led by the anti-vaccine movement he helped build. In November, he credited activists at Children's Health Defense, which he chaired until he took leave to run for president, for boosting his campaign. Accepting an award at the group's annual conference, he said he would stop the National Institutes of Health from studying infectious diseases, like Covid and measles, and pivot it to studying chronic diseases, like diabetes and obesity. Kennedy believes environmental toxins, a category in which he places childhood vaccines, to be the major threat to public health, rather than infectious disease. "I'm going to say to NIH scientists, God bless you all," Kennedy said at the time. "Thank you for public service. We're going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years."
^"Calley Means". Calley Means. 2024. Retrieved August 24, 2024. My mission is to steer more healthcare dollars to incentivize metabolic habits at the root of disease (healthy food, exercise, sleep, stress management). (...) Right now, we have a sick-care system where 95% of healthcare dollars are spent to manage disease after people get sick. It is a big problem when the largest (and fastest growing) industry in the country is incentivized for us to be sick.
^Saleem H. Ali (August 24, 2024). "Environmental Health and the Kennedy-Trump Alliance". Forbes. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved August 24, 2024. In a lengthy speech, announcing a suspension of his presidential campaign, Robert Kennedy Jr., spent nearly 20 minutes talking about environmental health and chronic diseases in children. (...) He also noted his supportive interactions with bestselling authors Dr. Casey Means and her brother Calley Means on metabolic health, which has been quite impactful in health education through their bestselling book Good Energy.
^Jasmine Garsd (July 19, 2024). "Trump has promised deportations on an unprecedented scale". NPR. Retrieved September 14, 2024. The idea of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants gained traction during the RNC. Speakers talked about how a second Trump administration will carry out the "largest deportation in history."
^Bernd Debusmann Jr., Mike Wendling (August 16, 2024). "Could Trump really deport one million immigrants?". BBC. Retrieved September 14, 2024. If he's re-elected president, Donald Trump has promised the mass deportation of people who do not have legal permission to be in the United States. While his campaign has given various answers as to how many could be removed, his vice-presidential nominee JD Vance gave one figure during an interview to ABC News this week. "Let's start with one million," he said. "That's where Kamala Harris has failed. And then we can go from there." (...) If a US administration was able to legally move ahead with plans for mass deportations, authorities would still have to contend with enormous logistical challenges.
^Adeola Adeosun (September 7, 2024). "Donald Trump Warns Getting Migrants Out Will Be a 'Bloody Story'". Newsweek. Retrieved September 14, 2024. Former President Donald Trump intensified his rhetoric on immigration on Saturday, warning that removing migrants from the United States would be a "bloody story" if he's reelected in November. Trump's remarks were made during a campaign rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, and align with the Republican National Committee's newly released 2024 platform, which calls for aggressive immigration enforcement and mass deportations.
^Lalee Ibssa, Soo Rin Kim, Kelsey Walsh, Alexandra Hutzler (September 13, 2024). "Trump vows mass deportation of protected migrants in Springfield, dismisses threats to town". ABC News. Retrieved September 14, 2024. Former President Donald Trump on Friday said he would conduct a mass deportation of immigrants living in Springfield, Ohio, and dismissed a question from ABC News about the bomb threats the town is experiencing in the wake of unsubstantiated claims about Haitian migrants.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^Ariana Baio (September 13, 2024). "Trump says his mass deportation will begin in Ohio town where he falsely claimed Haitians were eating pets". The Independent. Retrieved September 14, 2024. Donald Trump said he would conduct the "largest deportation in the history" of the United States and begin by removing immigrants and migrants in Springfield, Ohio – the same town in which he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants were eating pets. On Friday, the former president repeated his anti-immigration policies and amplified familiar unsubstantiated claims of "migrant crime" during a press conference at his golf course in Racho Palos Verdes, California
^Dan Gooding (September 13, 2024). "Trump Promises Mass Deportations Will Begin in Springfield and Aurora". Newsweek. Retrieved September 14, 2024. Former president Donald Trump promised his mass deportation plan would begin in Springfield, Ohio, and Aurora, Colorado—two cities at the center of anti-immigration talk this week. Speaking at a press conference in Los Angeles, the Republican nominee in the 2024 election repeated claims of a Venezuelan gang takeover of Aurora, as well as unfounded accusations that Haitian migrants in Springfield have been eating residents' pets.
^Hartmann, Margaret (June 28, 2024). "Trump's Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on March 30, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with investing in urban areas or making it easier to buy a home. But as economist Richard McGahey explained in Forbes, 'Waving a magic wand isn't how cities develop.' Plans released by the Trump campaign offer no further detail on how this massive undertaking would work. It's almost like Trump is pitching the idea solely because the term 'Freedom Cities' sounds cool.
^Luhby, Tami (December 20, 2022). "Child tax credit enhancement fails to make it into federal spending bill". CNN. Archived from the original on August 2, 2024. Retrieved August 2, 2024. Though the child tax credit has long enjoyed bipartisan backing, GOP lawmakers have been wary of making it fully refundable because they claim it could discourage parents from working.
^PEN America (2017). "TRUMP THE TRUTH: A TIMELINE OF ASSAULTS ON FREE EXPRESSION". PEN America. Archived from the original on September 2, 2024. Retrieved August 21, 2024. The Trump the Truth timeline, maintained and updated by PEN America during the first year of the Trump Administration, was used to track important developments during the Trump Administration that posed a threat to undermine free expression and press freedoms. Events documented in this timeline include attacks on the institution of the press; attacks on free expression; attacks on those who disagree with the administration's agenda; issues regarding freedom of information and government transparency; and instances when the administration has distorted or undermined the truth. This timeline is intended to be comprehensive, but not exhaustive, of the first year of the administration.
^Duncan J. Watts, David M. Rothschild (December 5, 2017). "ANALYSIS. Don't blame the election on fake news. Blame it on the media". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on December 6, 2017. Retrieved August 21, 2024. Since the 2016 presidential election, an increasingly familiar narrative has emerged concerning the unexpected victory of Donald Trump. Fake news, much of it produced by Russian sources, was amplified on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, generating millions of views among a segment of the electorate eager to hear stories about Hillary Clinton's untrustworthiness, unlikeability, and possibly even criminality.
^Darrell M. West (December 18, 2017). "RESEARCH. How to combat fake news and disinformation". Brookings Institution. Archived from the original on August 21, 2024. Retrieved August 21, 2024. Journalism is in a state of considerable flux. New digital platforms have unleashed innovative journalistic practices that enable novel forms of communication and greater global reach than at any point in human history. But on the other hand, disinformation and hoaxes that are popularly referred to as "fake news" are accelerating and affecting the way individuals interpret daily developments. Driven by foreign actors, citizen journalism, and the proliferation of talk radio and cable news, many information systems have become more polarized and contentious, and there has been a precipitous decline in public trust in traditional journalism.
^Paula Bolyard (August 25, 2018). "96 Percent of My Google Search Results for 'Trump' News Were from Liberal Media Outlets". PJ Media. Archived from the original on August 12, 2024. Retrieved August 22, 2024. Is Google manipulating its algorithm to prioritize left-leaning news outlets in their coverage of President Trump? It sure looks that way based on recent search results for news on the president.
^Louis Jacobson (August 29, 2018). "No, 96% of Google news stories on Trump aren't from left-wing outlets". PolitiFact. Retrieved August 22, 2024. This figure is based on a non-scientific study from a conservative website that categorized any media outlet not expressly conservative as being part of the "left." These outlets include wire services, broadcast networks and most major newspapers and collectively account for a large percentage of original news reports produced in the United States. The methodology essentially preordains that a large percentage of coverage captured by Google will be what the study defines as "left," which is wrong.
Maegan Vazquez, Betsy Klein (March 21, 2019). "Trump signs executive order on campus free speech". CNN. Archived from the original on September 2, 2024. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Earlier in his presidency, Trump called for bumping up further restrictions on the press by "opening up" libel laws. However, Trump's new executive order is happening against the backdrop of conservative voices highlighting instances of alleged violence directed toward student activists in viral videos on social media. (...) Aside from certification, the official would not offer key details -- including how the order would be implemented or enforced, as well as how much grant money will be affected or what specific language higher education institutions are being told to agree to. It's largely unclear how the measure will affect college campuses in practice.
"Trump threatens to cut funding for colleges 'hostile to free speech'". The Guardian. Associated Press. March 21, 2019. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Under the order, colleges would need to agree to protect free speech in order to tap into more than $35bn a year in research and educational grants. For public universities, that means vowing to uphold the first amendment, which they're already required to do. Private universities, which have more flexibility in limiting speech, will be required to commit to their own institutional rules. "We will not stand idly by to allow public institutions to violate their students' constitutional rights," Trump said. "If a college or university doesn't allow you to speak, we will not give them money. It's very simple."
Andrew Kreighbaum (March 21, 2019). "Trump Signs Broad Executive Order". Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on July 19, 2024. Retrieved August 21, 2024. President delivers on promise to punish colleges that don't show they guarantee free speech on campus, and includes language on outcomes data and risk sharing. But it's unclear what force it will carry.
Zack Beauchamp (March 21, 2019). "Trump's free speech executive order isn't about free speech". VOX. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved September 2, 2024. (...) But the fact that Trump issued the executive order at all shows just how central universities are in the conservative cultural imagination, and how devoted the current right is to a political vision in which radical professors and left-wing students are responsible for America's problems. They are so concerned, in fact, that they are willing to endorse the federal government interfering to punish universities they deem insufficiently friendly to conservatives. That's because this isn't a battle about free speech. it's a fight over political power and cultural control.
Lee C. Bollinger (June 12, 2019). "Free Speech on Campus Is Doing Just Fine, Thank You". Columbia University. Office of the President. Retrieved September 9, 2024. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring colleges and universities that receive federal funds to do what they're already required by law to do: extend free-speech protections to men and women on campus. The executive order was a transparent exercise in politics. Its intent was to validate the collective antipathy that many Trump boosters feel toward institutions of higher learning. Its major impact, though, has been to shed light on how serious the purported censorship crisis on campus really is—or, rather, is not.
Columbia Law School (2024). "Silencing Science Tracker". Columbia University. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved September 9, 2024. The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It tracks government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information, since the November 2016 election. Read more about the tracker and related resources. [Ongoing; there are entries from the current (2024) states' legislature.]
Umair Irfan (January 11, 2018). ""Climate change" and "global warming" are disappearing from government websites". Vox. Archived from the original on July 26, 2024. Retrieved September 9, 2024. After a year of the Trump administration, one of the most distinctive changes we've seen across the government is the removal of language around climate change on government websites. It's happened not just at agencies that deal directly with the issue like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, but also at the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Hannah Waters (2018). "How the U.S. Government Is Aggressively Censoring Climate Science". Audubon. Archived from the original on February 28, 2024. Retrieved September 9, 2024. In its new strategic plan, published in March, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) describes 2017 as an "unprecedented year" of natural disasters. Photos of FEMA staff helping survivors of massive hurricanes in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico pepper the 38-page document, which notes that the average number of major disaster declarations per year has increased from 25 in the 1980s to nearly 90 per year since 2010. "Due to rising natural hazard risk," the plan says, "the need for forward leaning [sic] action is greater than ever before." To an observant reader, these are clear references to climate change. Yet the document fails to directly mention, even once, the root cause of natural disasters' growing intensity.
Jim Martin (June 7, 2019). "Guest Commentary: CU regents have let Trump's administration get away with censorship of academic research". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved September 9, 2024. You can't have it both ways with the First Amendment. But President Donald Trump is trying to do just that. On the one hand, he issued an executive order that mandates free speech on college campuses. On the other, Trump has created an atmosphere in which research scientists are subject to censorship of their results if they commit the grave sin of attributing any global warming to human activity.
Laura Tenenbaum (February 10, 2021). "NASA's Climate Communications Might Not Recover From the Damage of Trump's Systemic Suppression". Time. Retrieved September 9, 2024. Before former U.S. President Donald Trump incited a hostile insurrection against the Capitol, he'd already smashed wrecking balls through the ranks of government agencies. Among the many casualties was the truth about climate science, which NASA was routinely prevented from sharing with the public that supports it. I was the senior science editor for NASA's Global Climate Change website and witnessed the impact of science suppression firsthand.
Webb, Romany M.; Kurtz, Lauren (January 27, 2022). "Politics v. science: How President Trump's war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation". Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science. 188 (1): 65–80. doi:10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.11.006. PMC8793038. PMID35168747. During President Trump's time in office (including the transition period), there were 154 documented instances of federal government censorship of scientists, and 19 instances of scientists engaging in self-censorship. Approximately 72% involved the suppression of information about climate change. This began even before President Trump took office. In November 2016, staff at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deleted content discussing the relationship between climate change and human health from at least four webpages, reportedly to "avoid drawing the new president's ire." Similar changes were made to other federal agency websites after President Trump took office. In total, during the Trump administration, climate change and other scientific information was removed from the websites of twelve federal bodies, in most cases at the direction of administration officials.[5] This made it more difficult for Americans to educate themselves about climate change and other scientific issues, which may, in turn, have made it easier for the Trump administration to act on those issues by allowing them to "fly under the radar" or obscuring the consequences of administration action.
Altheide, David L. (July 25, 2020). "Pandemic in the Time of Trump: Digital Media Logic and Deadly Politics". Symbolic Interaction. 43 (3): 514–540. doi:10.1002/symb.501. Archived from the original on August 16, 2021. Retrieved September 9, 2024. This paper examines the power of a mediatized President to use reflexive propaganda—the rules and assumptions of digital media—to define a public health crisis. During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, President Trump engaged in attention-based politics, or the use of media to draw attention of the largest audience to himself, at the expense of an efficient response to a major public health crisis. (...)
Bolsen, Toby; Palm, Risa (November 10, 2021). "Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the U.S."Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science. 188 (1): 81–100. doi:10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.10.002. PMC8577882. PMID35168748. (...) President Donald Trump initially downplayed the threat posed by COVID-19 and compared it to the flu in public remarks.[9] The President also labeled it a "new hoax" [and said that] "the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus—they're politicizing it."[10] President Trump also promoted claims that the virus could be combatted by injecting or drinking disinfectant or bleach, and promoted hydroxychloroquine as a cure.[11, 12] He also appeared in public without a mask and criticized his rival for the presidency, Joe Biden, for wearing one: "Did you ever see a man that likes a mask as much as him?… If I were a psychiatrist, I'd say this guy has some big issues."[13]
Kellner, Douglas (March 1, 2021). "Trump, Authoritarian Populism, and COVID-19 from a US Perspective". Cultural Politics. 17 (1): 28–36. doi:10.1215/17432197-8797487. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved September 9, 2024. This article engages the contemporary crises of health, the economy, and democracy in the United States during the era of Trump and the COVID-19 pandemic. The author begins with a discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic and Trump's chaotic and inept responses. The author follows with a discussion of Trump and authoritarian populism, arguing that Trump's floundering fortunes in the context of a hotly contested 2020 presidential campaign triggered his chaotic and contradictory responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, producing a crisis of democracy.
Union of Concerned Scientists (March 17, 2022). "Trump administration interfered with CDC's public outreach on COVID-19". Union of Concerned Scientists. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved September 9, 2024. What happened: In 2020, President Trump and White House officials interfered with the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by blocking scientists and officials from speaking to the media about the dangers of COVID-19.
Parker, Charles F.; Stern, Erik K. (March 29, 2022). "The Trump Administration and the COVID-19 crisis: Exploring the warning-response problems and missed opportunities of a public health emergency". Public Administration. 100 (3): 616–632. doi:10.1111/padm.12843. PMC9115435. PMID35601345. This article examines the Trump Administration's inability to mount a timely and effective response to the COVID‐19 outbreak, despite ample warning. Through an empirical exploration guided by three explanatory perspectives—psychological, bureau‐organizational, and agenda‐political—developed from the strategic surprise, public administration, and crisis management literature, the authors seek to shed light on the mechanisms that contributed to the underestimation of the coronavirus threat by the Trump Administration and the slow and mismanaged federal response.
Makena Kelly (May 15, 2019). "White House launches tool to report censorship on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter". The Verge. Retrieved October 12, 2024. (...) Over the past few months, Republicans have taken aim at social media networks, citing claims that conservatives have been wrongly censored on these platforms. Some committees, like House Energy and Commerce and Senate Judiciary, have even held hearings on the issue where lawmakers questioned officials from companies like Facebook and Twitter over the alleged bias. The outrage started last April when the House Judiciary Committee invited pro-Trump online personalities Diamond and Silk to discuss being "censored" on social media. This spun off into the Senate where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) later made it a key policy issue by holding a hearing with Facebook and Twitter executives to discuss the alleged bias. (...) Just last month, President Trump met with Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey. Twitter representatives said that the meeting was supposed to focus on what the platform was doing to aid the opioid epidemic and discuss the health of the platform, but it was later reported that Trump spent a significant portion of their 30-minute discussion complaining that he was losing followers. Other members of the Trump family, like Don Jr., have also voiced concern of the deplatforming of right-wing activists. In a tweet last month, President Trump's eldest son wrote "The purposeful & calculated silencing of conservatives on Facebook & the rest of the Big Tech monopoly men should terrify everyone," after Facebook announced that it would banning [sic] conspiracy theorist Alex Jones along with other far-right pundits and activists.
Oliver Darcy (May 15, 2019). "White House creates tool for people to report alleged social media bias". CNN. Retrieved October 12, 2024. (...)The White House's tweet directed people to a form which first asked users for personal information, such as their name and whether they are an American citizen. After users entered the personal information, the form then asked them to describe the alleged bias that occurred, which platform it occurred on, and if they had screenshots of any messages they received from the company that took action. Toward the end, the form also requested permission to add the user to an email newsletter so it could provide updates "without relying on platforms like Facebook and Twitter." The move by the White House came on the same day it announced that the United States will not be joining the Christchurch Call for Action, an effort that encouraged technology companies to collaborate with governments to stymie the use of social media in acts of terrorism. It also came just weeks after Facebook banned several high-profile extremists, prompting the President to rage against social media companies in a weekend Twitter tirade.
Max Read (May 16, 2019). "The White House's 'Tech Bias' Reporting Form Is a Masterpiece of Trumpism". Intelligencer. Retrieved October 12, 2024. (...) A core aspect of Trumpism is its ability to articulate in starkly partisan terms the sense, felt by a wide swath of voters, of having been left behind, skipped in line, or otherwise cut out of the benefits of technological advancement and economic growth. But this often-legitimate sense of alienation is twisted by Trumpism into a personal politics of grievance and resentment, in which "liberals" and Democrats are conspiring to restrain, stifle, and censor Republicans — like, say, on social media. (...) At the howling heart of Trumpism, beneath the veneer of nationalist-workerist politics and policies, is the con. Trump may have been elected because he promised to address the alienation and resentment of the rural and suburban white voters who make up his base, but he's done very little in office to materially address their concerns. Instead, the presidency has mostly been used to directly enrich Trump and his family, and indirectly enrich the already wealthy through expensive tax cuts. (...) But the most important function of the tech-bias tool almost certainly isn't to gather evidence to address a genuine problem. "The thing about the Trump Facebook bias survey is it's just going to be used to assemble a voter file," the Times' Kevin Roose points out, "which Trump will then pay Facebook millions of dollars to target with ads about how biased Facebook is." That is, none of the people who submit grievances to the form will have their accounts restored or content promoted. They won't get explanations for why social media isn't working the way they think it should, and they almost certainly won't get satisfying regulation out of their complaints. Instead, they'll be advertised to about Trump — and whatever else the Trump campaign uses the list for — for the rest of their digital lives, on the very platforms they feel completely alienated from.
Emily Stewart (May 17, 2019). "The White House's social media bias tool is a ploy to get your email. It's a scheme to rile up conservatives — and get some voter data in the process". Vox. Retrieved October 12, 2024. This latest ploy illustrates the disingenuous nature of complaints from Trump and other Republicans that social media is biased against conservatives. For one thing, it's not clear that's the case — platforms such as Facebook and Twitter say that when they block or censor users, it's because they've violated their policies, not because of some secret liberal political agenda. What's more, platforms can block and censor content however they choose. It's within their legal rights. The federal government owes you free speech. Google doesn't. Beyond building out a contact list and, as the form states, gathering potential examples of social media bias, it's not clear what else the White House plans to do with the data it's asking people to hand over. The user agreement accompanying the form grants the government permission to "use, edit, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, post, or otherwise distribute" the content people submit, which is pretty broad. Marc Rotenberg, president of privacy watchdog the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told Politico the information the White House is requesting is "very sensitive" and warned that there is "no indication that the White House has given any thought to the privacy risks of providing this personal data to the federal government."
Todd Spangler (May 28, 2019). "Trump Wants to Roll Back Social Media Legal Protections; Facebook and Twitter CEOs Weigh In". Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 12, 2024. (...) Legal experts have said any proposed changes to Section 230 would likely get struck down by courts. Indeed, on Wednesday, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple in a lawsuit filed by right-wing activists alleging the tech giants suppressed "politically conservative voices." The court thew out the suit, ruling that the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment applies only to government entities and not private companies. (...) In 2019, Trump floated the notion of targeting social-media companies with an order intended to restrict the ability of platforms to remove content — but the FCC and FTC reportedly pushed back on the idea over concerns that it was unconstitutional. After Twitter labeled Trump's tweets as misleading, the president's supporters and a top White House aide launched targeted attacks on an individual Twitter employee who has posted anti-conservative tweets in the past. Dorsey, in his comments Wednesday, said "there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that's me. Please leave our employees out of this." Separately, Twitter has taken no action against Trump's account after the president posted multiple tweets promoting a long-debunked conspiracy theory that MSNBC host Joe Scarborough may have killed a former congressional aide in 2001. The company apologized for the "pain" Trump's comments have caused to the family of the dead woman, Lori Klausutis, after her widowed husband appealed to Dorsey to remove Trump's noxious posts.
^Sébastien Monnet (May 10, 2021). "'Deplatforming' Donald Trump was a necessary quick fix. What now?". DiploFoundation. Retrieved October 14, 2024. In the twilight of a presidency characterised by 30,573 lies and constant misinformation, most social media platforms have permanently suspended Donald Trump's accounts – a move also known as 'the Great Deplatforming'. In doing so, platforms have taken away the megaphone Donald Trump had been using relentlessly and without accountability for years. Adopting a practice of preferentially lying over telling the truth to achieve his goals, Donald Trump promoted falsehoods on everything from the mundane to the 'big lie' of rigged elections for months to excuse, by anticipation and then justify, what would have been otherwise a humiliating defeat. Beyond their beneficial impact in the short term, I consider the measures taken by social platforms not only ineffective and lacking in consistency, but also counterproductive.
^Will Oremus (January 7, 2022). "Tech giants banned Trump. But did they censor him? A year later, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube's suspension of the president leaves lingering questions about their power to control speech". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 14, 2024. (...) Under U.S. law, social media companies generally have been understood to enjoy the same broad leeway as traditional media in deciding whose views to air — and whose they'd rather not. Initially more laissez-faire, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others have taken on increasing responsibility over the years for monitoring their networks for misinformation, harassment, hate speech and propaganda campaigns, a function they call "content moderation." They've done so largely in response to pressure from the public, the media and their own workers — not the U.S. government. (...) In fact, tech giants resisted wielding it against Trump for the majority of his presidency, fashioning murky new policies to justify exempting him and other public figures from the rules they applied to ordinary users. In the final months of his presidency, Twitter and Facebook began to take escalating actions against his accounts, fact-checking and removing specific posts before they both issued temporary suspensions in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. (...) Trump's efforts over the past year to build a social media presence that doesn't depend on the big platforms have only underscored their dominance. In May, he launched a blog called "From the Desk of Donald Trump." It failed to attract readers and he shut it down after just a month. In October, he announced to fanfare that he planned to launch his own social network, called Truth Social. A beta version of it was defaced by pranksters immediately, and its launch has been delayed amid questions from regulators.
^Nunziato, Dawn Carla (July 10, 2022). "Protecting Free Speech and Due Process Values on Dominant Social Media Platforms". UC Law Journal. 73 (5): 1255–1304. Dominant social media platforms have been increasingly perceived as engaging in discrimination against conservative and right-wing viewpoints. Trump's deplatforming, coupled with the platforms' recent removal of Covid- and election-related misinformation, led to cries of censorship by conservatives and increased calls for regulation of the platforms. Supreme Court Justice Thomas took up this charge, suggesting a regulatory path forward for lawmakers seeking to hold the platforms liable for alleged viewpoint discrimination and censorship. This Article examines the desirability and constitutionality of recent legislative initiatives that seek to provide remedies for these alleged ills and to rein in the dominant platforms' discretion exercised in content moderation decisions by prohibiting them from engaging in viewpoint discrimination, and by imposing notice, transparency, and other due process-type obligations. This Article analyzes the proposed legislation in light of the obligations that the U.S. government historically has historically imposed on common carriers and broadcasters. This Article then examines the procedural dimensions of our free speech commitments and values and our commitments to due process, including those enshrined in the Constitution and in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This Article concludes with a favorable assessment of the desirability and constitutionality of proposed legislation that would require platforms to comport with principles of nondiscrimination and due process. This Article contends that, while the platforms should continue to enjoy the discretion to regulate many categories of speech that are protected by the First Amendment and to restrict speakers in clear and blatant violation of their terms of service, the dominant platforms should generally be prohibited from engaging in blatant viewpoint or speaker-based discrimination and should be required to accord their users certain due process type protections.
^Kevin Breuninger, Dan Mangan (December 15, 2022). "Trump vows 'free speech' reform of government, universities, media, tech firms if elected in 2024". CNBC. Retrieved October 14, 2022. KEY POINTS Donald Trump on Thursday announced an aggressive and ambitious plan to undo what he characterized as the suppression of free speech in the U.S. if he is elected president in 2024. Trump promised to target government agencies and employees, universities and tech companies with executive orders and policies aimed at their purported censorship of speech and ideas. "The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed and it must happen immediately," said the Republican, who is prone to linguistic hyperbole and over-promising when announcing plans. (...) Trump and other right-wing figures have for years claimed they are the victims of efforts to limit their speech by purported "deep-state" actors, mainstream media outlets and social media companies. Those claims gained added fuel in recent weeks with the release earlier this month of what Twitter CEO Elon Musk called the "Twitter files" to support claims that the company's prior management handled content moderation in a way that was biased against conservatives. Twitter released the internal communications to a handful of conservative writers, who published a series of tweets detailing the social media company's decision before the 2020 election to temporarily suppress a New York Post story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden. Musk has even gone so far as to say that Twitter, which he bought in October, interfered with U.S. elections. Twitter didn't respond to requests for the records from CNBC and The New York Times. Some studies have found that, despite claims of a liberal-leaning Twitter censoring conservatives, the social media platform elevated conservative news and voices over liberal content.
^Emily Birnbaum (December 15, 2022). "Donald Trump Targets Social-Media 'Censorship' for 2024 Campaign". Bloomberg. Retrieved October 14, 2024. "In recent weeks, bombshell reports have confirmed that a sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American People," Trump said in a video posted on Thursday. "The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed — and it must happen immediately." Trump's platform calls for a series of reforms that would be likely to face constitutional challenges. He called for an executive order barring federal agencies from colluding with businesses or people to "censor" American citizens, a ban on "federal money from being used to label domestic speech as 'mis-' or 'disinformation," and "firing every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship." Republicans previously opposed the Biden administration's efforts to create a "Disinformation Governance Board," which would have advised the Department of Homeland Security on handling falsehoods around elections, the Covid-19 pandemic and other sensitive topics without running afoul of the First Amendment. That board was shut down in August amid public pressure, largely from Republicans.
^"Stopping Chinese Espionage". Donald J Trump For President, Inc. February 3, 2023. Archived from the original on July 6, 2024. Retrieved July 6, 2024.
^Jordan Liles (March 22, 2021). "Is Biden Spending $86 Million for Hotels To House Migrant Families?". Snopes. Archived from the original on August 3, 2024. Retrieved August 3, 2024. They confirmed that the news was true and provided a statement from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Tae D. Johnson: 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has signed a short-term contract with the non-profit division of Endeavors to provide temporary shelter and processing services for families who have not been expelled and are therefore placed in immigration proceedings for their removal from the United States. The $86.9 million contract provides 1,239 beds and other necessary services. The families will receive a comprehensive health assessment that includes COVID-19 testing. Our border is not open. The majority of individuals continue to be expelled under the Centers for Disease Control's public health authority.'
^Farley, Robert; Kiely, Eugene; Gore, D'Angelo; McDonald, Jessica; et al. (June 28, 2024). "FactChecking the Biden-Trump Debate". FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved August 3, 2024. Trump said immigrants crossing the border illegally were living in 'luxury hotels'. New York City has provided hotel and motel rooms to migrant families, but there is no evidence that they are being placed in 'luxury' hotels.
^Jordan, Miriam (June 27, 2024). "Debate Fact Check: Biden and Trump on the Economy, Immigration and Foreign Policy". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved August 3, 2024. 'Just take a look at where they are living. They are living in luxury hotels in New York City and other places.' ... False. Tens of thousands of migrants who crossed the border into the United States were offered free bus rides to Democratic cities under a program started by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas in an attempt to spread the burden of the large influx. Some cities, like New York and Denver, have housed migrants in hotels, especially during the winter months. The migrants were not in luxury hotels.
^Hartmann, Margaret (March 8, 2024). "Trump's Most Unhinged Plans for His Second Term". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on March 30, 2024. Retrieved March 30, 2024. Many of Trump's proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here's a running list of his most unhinged plans.
^Burns, Tobias (July 10, 2024). "Experts see potential for higher inflation under Trump". The Hill. But Trump's 10-percent tariff is still ringing inflation alarm bells for some investors, who expect it to increase costs to businesses that could then be passed onto consumers.
^Picchi, Aimee (June 25, 2024). "16 Nobel Prize-winning economists warn that Trump's economic plans could reignite inflation". CBS News. Archived from the original on July 9, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024. Trump's policies could prove to be inflationary, other economists also warned, such as his proposal to create a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports to deporting immigrants. The tariff plan would add $1,700 in annual costs for the typical U.S. household, essentially acting as an inflationary tax, according to experts at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
^Wiseman, Paul (May 21, 2024). "Trump or Biden? Either way, US seems poised to preserve heavy tariffs on imports". Associated Press. Archived from the original on May 21, 2024. Retrieved July 12, 2024. Trump has vowed more of the same in a second term. He's threatening to impose a 10% tariff on all imports – and a 60% tax on Chinese goods ... Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, warns that the consequences would be damaging. Trump's tariff plans, Zandi said, 'would spark higher inflation, reduce GDP and jobs and increase unemployment, all else equal.'
