The Presidential Election

Trump barely won the presidential election in November. Although he claims that his victory gave him a mandate to implement an extreme right-wing agenda, the numbers say otherwise. His margin of victory was the smallest of any presidential election since 1900. And we should bear in mind that Trump’s vote is unfairly buttressed by widespread right-wing gerrymanding in “red” states. James M. Lindsay cites the following “official” numbers in an article for the Council for Foreign Relations (https://cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers). 

“Early election coverage described Trump’s victory as a landslide. But whether you go by the Electoral College vote or the popular vote, it was anything but. The 312 Electoral College votes that Trump won are just six more than Joe Biden won in 2020, twenty less than Barack Obama won in 2012, and fifty-three less than Obama won in 2008. Trump’s Electoral College performance pales in comparison to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s landslide victory in 1936 (523 electoral votes), Lyndon Johnson’s in 1964 (486), Richard Nixon’s in 1972 (520), or Ronald Reagan’s in 1984 (525). In terms of the popular vote, more people voted for someone not named Trump for president than voted for Trump in 2024, and his margin of victory over Harris was 1.5 percentage points. That is the fifth smallest margin of victory in the thirty-two presidential races held since 1900.”

Despite such a narrow victory, Trump’s claims he won a massive victory and continues to promise to implement an extreme right-wing agenda once he is in office.

-----------

Trump’s top agenda items

They include the following: (1) tariffs, (2) the deportation or detention of all undocumented residents, (3) tax cuts for the wealthy, (4) pardons for many (if not all) who participated in the insurrection, and (5) revenge on his political and media “enemies.” Under the influence of Elon Musk, Trump appears now to be open to allowing some high-skilled foreign workers to enter the country under the H-1B program. The present article will consider #s 1 and 2. But note, first, that he has the support of Republicans, large swaths of the rich and powerful, and his unquestioning base of tens of millions of Americans. But the billionaires play a disproportionate role.

Trump’s inner support team

Trump is being influenced by wealthy advisers and by those who support his right-wing extremism. One of his chief advisers in the presidential transition, ending on January 20, is multi-billionaire Elon Musk. Musk supported Trump’s presidential campaign with contributions of 200-250 million dollars. He is not the only billionaire in Trump’s entourage. New York Time’s journalists, Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, identify “the Silicon Valley Billionaires Steering Trump’s Transition (https://nytimes.com/2024/12/06/us/politics/trump-elon-musk-silicon-vallley.html). The journalists tell us that the “article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people with insight into the transition, including people who have participated in the process. Most spoke on condition of anonymity to preserve their relationships with Mr. Trump.”

Here’s some of what they report. 

“The week after the November election, President-elect Donald J. Trump gathered his top advisers in the tearoom at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, to plan the transition to his second-term government.

“Mr. Trump had brought two of his most valued houseguests to the meeting: the billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk and the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison.” 

The journalists continue. 

“Mr. Trump has delighted in a critical addition to his transition team: the Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires who have been all over the transition, shaping hiring decisions and even conducting interviews for senior-level jobs. Many of those who are not formally involved, like Mr. Ellison, have been happy to sit in on the meetings.”

“Their involvement, to a degree far deeper than previously reported, has made this one of the most potentially conflict-ridden presidential transitions in modern history. It also carries what could be vast implications for the Trump administration’s policies on issues including taxes and the regulation of artificial intelligence, not to mention clashing mightily with the notion that Mr. Trump’s brand of populism is all about helping the working man.”

“The tech leaders in Mr. Trump’s orbit are pushing for deregulation of their industries and more innovative use of private sector technologies in the federal government, especially the defense industry. About a dozen Musk allies took breaks from their businesses to serve as unofficial advisers to the Trump transition effort.

“Broadly, the group is pushing for less onerous regulation of industries like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, a weaker Federal Trade Commission to allow for more deal-making and the privatization of some government services to make government more efficient. Mr. Musk himself has called some executives at major public companies and asked how the government is thwarting their business — and what he can do to help.”

“These tech leaders have played a far broader role than simply contributing to the nascent Department of Government Efficiency — the Musk-led effort, abbreviated as DOGE, that is intended to effectively audit the entire government and cut $2 trillion out of federal spending. Mr. Musk’s friends are also influencing hiring decisions at some of the most important government agencies.”

“Inside the Trump transition team’s headquarters in West Palm Beach, Fla., the billionaire Marc Andreessen, a tech investor who decades ago founded one of the first popular internet browsers, has interviewed candidates for senior roles at the State Department, the Pentagon and the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Jared Birchall, the head of Mr. Musk’s family office with no experience in foreign affairs, has interviewed a few candidates for jobs at the State Department. Mr. Birchall has been involved in advising the Trump transition team on space policy and artificial intelligence, helping to put together councils for A.I. development and crypto policy.”

“Shaun Maguire, another Musk friend, is now advising Mr. Trump on picks for the intelligence community. Mr. Maguire, a brash Caltech Ph.D. in physics who is an investor at Sequoia Capital, has been a staple of the Trump transition over the last month, including interviewing potential candidates for senior Defense Department jobs.”

These examples represent just a small slice of Trump’s rich supporters. 

“The transition offices have been crawling with executives from defense tech firms with close ties to Mr. Trump’s orbit, such as Palantir, which was co-founded by Peter Thiel, and Anduril, the military technology startup led by Palmer Luckey. Several SpaceX executives have been asking questions about matters that go well beyond space policy, and interrogating federal spending across government agencies, people with direct knowledge of the talks say.”

#1 -Trump on tariffs

DeArbea Walker, assistant editor at Forbes, reports on Trump’s proposed tariffs and their effects on consumers (https://forbes.com/sites/dearbeawalker/2024/12/26/how-consumers-can-prepare-for-trumps-new-tariffs). 

Walker writes that “A tariff is a tax on imported goods that companies pay to the government when they import products to the U.S….” 

“‘That extra cost has to get covered one way or another, either by coming out of the importing company’s margins or by being passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices,’ Forbes contributor Joe Moglia says. ‘If the tariffs are too high, there may be no choice other than raising prices.’

Trump’s tariff proposals

Tariffs on China,, Canada, and Mexico

“Trump has proposed 25% tariffs on all goods coming from Mexico and Canada, to stop the flow of fentanyl and migrants across the U.S. borders.

“During the presidential campaign, Trump said he'd impose at least a 60% tariff on imports from China. After the 2024 election, he said he'd add 10% “above any additional tariffs” on all goods coming from China until they stop fentanyl production.”

“Trump's rationale for his proposed tariffs includes restoring manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and, some experts say, using tariffs as a trade negotiating tool. In addition to the economic motivations, Trump cites security: He has insisted that Mexico and Canada stem the flow of illegal drugs and migrants over the border.”

Tariffs on EU

“Trump recently threatened nonspecific tariffs against the European Union if the trade bloc didn’t step up U.S. oil and gas imports.”

Effects of tariffs on consumers

“Weekly grocery bills are likely to get more expensive if President-elect Donald Trump follows through in imposing tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China. Everything from avocados to garlic will go up.

“That new car you’re eyeing—or even your next grocery run—could cost more after President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20. Trump plans to sign an Executive Order on day one that would impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, and threatens additional tariffs on products from China and elsewhere.” He initially claimed that domestic consumer prices would not go up, but later acknowledged they could (https://truthout.org/articles/trump-reneges-on-promise-that-tariffs-wont-raise-costs-for-consumers). 

“Tariffs on raw materials like steel or aluminum could send the prices of cellphones and laptops through the roof, according to True Tamplin, a Forbes personal finance contributor. A 10 percent tariff on a $1,000 laptop would add $100 to its prices.”

Walker also refers to a list of goods compiled by Forbes contributor Frank Holmes, that could become more expensive as a result of Trump’s tariffs.

“Groceries, like avocados, tomatoes, garlic, and other produce from Mexico.

Electronics and appliances, including washing machines, laptops, phones and TVs, which are made from imported parts from Canada and China

Clothing, shoes and other everyday goods made abroad

Home improvement supplies like wood, steel and paint

Cars like the Nissan Sentra and Mercedes-Benz GLB are assembled in Mexico.”

In addition, Walker writes, “Industries with lots of exposure to imported goods—retail, electronics and even agriculture—could face significant headwinds.” 

Spillover effects

Walker notes, “There’s also the risk of the spillover effect. Retailers importing the goods will increase the price to absorb the cost of the tariff, however, domestic producers, who aren’t impacted by the tariffs, will feel emboldened and may raise their prices too.” This was the case during Trump’s first term when dryers, not subjected to tariffs, rose 12%.

On balance, tariffs are costly for domestic residents and businesses. Mark Williams summarizes this point (https://bu.ed/articles/2024/would-trumps-tariffs-send-prices-soaring).

 “Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, temporarily protecting domestic markets, and they can raise incentives for onshore manufacturing and sales. Short-term, there could be some production gains. However, as Trump proved during the 2018 tariffs on imported steel, they did little to materially increase the number of jobs in US steel plants. Moreover, once tariffs were slapped on China, they quickly retaliated by making many US products more expensive; this eventually led to a reduction in the number of US export jobs.”

Tariffs are not popular among Americans

In a Newsweek magazine article, Suzanne Blake reports that a majority of Americans do not like tariffs, specifically Trump’s proposal (https://newsweek.com/donald-trump-bad-news-tariff-plan-inflation-poll-2001523). Here’s the crux of what she writes.

“A majority of Americans are bracing themselves for President-elect Donald Trump's proposed tariffs, according to a poll that was published on Monday.

“In a WalletHub Fed Rate survey of 200 Americans this month, 74 percent of Americans said Trump's possible tariffs would likely lead to more inflation down the line as it remains above the Federal Reserve's 2 percent target.”

---------------

#2 - The deportation or detention of all undocumented residents

Trump’s plans for his first day in the White House includes the mass deportation or detention (and eventual deportation) of virtually all eleven plus million undocumented residents. Here are some facts from Pew Research (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us). 

“Unauthorized immigrants live in 6.3 million households that include more than 22 million people. These households represent 4.8% of the 130 million U.S. households.

“…some facts about these households in 2022 [the latest available]:

• In 86% of these households, either the householder or their spouse is an unauthorized immigrant.
• Almost 70% of these households are considered “mixed status,” meaning that they also contain lawful immigrants or U.S.-born residents.
• In only about 5% of these households, the unauthorized immigrants are not related to the householder or spouse. In these cases, they are probably employees or roommates.”

“Of the 22 million people in households with an unauthorized immigrant, 11 million are U.S. born or lawful immigrants. They include:

• 1.3 million U.S.-born adults who are children of unauthorized immigrants. (We cannot estimate the total number of U.S.-born adult children of unauthorized immigrants because available data sources only identify those who still live with their unauthorized immigrant parents.)
• 1.4 million other U.S.-born adults and 3.0 million lawful immigrant adults.”

Clarissa-Jan Lim considers Trump’s plans for day one of his presidency in an article for MSNBC, Dec 27, 2024 (https://msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-day-one-deportations-jan-6-pardons-tariffs-rena185019). Here’s some of what she reports on Trump’s “immigration” plans. 

One of Trump’s most extreme campaign promises was to carry out “the largest mass deportation program” in the country’s history beginning on Day 1 of his presidency. It’s unclear how such a such a large-scale operation could be executed, but immigration officials have said it would be a huge logistical and financial effort. Economists have also warned that such a program would cause an “economic disaster” for the U.S., which relies heavily on migrant labor.

“Trump told NBC News in November, Lim notes, that there would be ‘no price tag’ for his mass deportation plans.” That is, Trump insists he will have the government spend as much as it takes to effectuate his mass deportation plans.

Trump wants to end “birthright citizenship”

Lim continues. “In a move that could face a prolonged legal fight, the president-elect has also said that he wants to end birthright citizenship through executive action on his first day to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Birthright citizenship is a protection enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but Trump has said that he would consider changing the Constitution to rescind the rule.” It will take more than Trump’s assumption that he, as president, can change the constitution. Why? Amending the Constitution is a power that lies with Congress, not the president. Trump’s plan would result in children being separated from their parents or, in some cases, ending up in the foster care system, in the care of other family members, or even incarcerated. 

Using the military to assist in mass deportation

Nonetheless, Trump seems determined to push ahead on mass deportation, even to use the military in such a massive effort. 

Charlie Savage and Michael Gold report on Trump’s plan to use the military to assist in the deportation (https://nytimes.com/2024/12/16/us/politics/trump-military-mass-deportations.html). They report as follows.

“President-elect Donald J. Trump confirmed on Monday that he intended to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military in some form to assist in his plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

“On his social media platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump responded overnight to a post made earlier this month by Tom Fitton, who runs the conservative group Judicial Watch, and who wrote that Mr. Trump’s administration would ‘declare a national emergency and will use military assets’ to address illegal immigration ‘through a mass deportation program.’”

According to Savage and Gold, “In interviews with The New York Times during the Republican primary campaign, described in an article published in November 2023, Mr. Trump’s top immigration policy adviser, Stephen Miller, said that military funds would be used to build ‘vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers’ for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries.

“The Homeland Security Department would run the facilities, he [Miller] said.

One major impediment to the vast deportation operation that the Trump team has promised in his second term is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, lacks the space to hold a significantly larger number of detainees than it currently does.”

The Trump team believes that such camps could be built expeditiously and thus enable the government to accelerate deportation process of undocumented people who fight their expulsion from the country. The assumption is that more people would voluntarily accept removal instead of pursuing a long-shot effort to remain in the country if they had to stay locked up in the interim.

“Hard-right members of Congress and staunch supporters of Mr. Trump have expressed broad support for his proposal for mass deportations. Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, chimed in on social media on Monday to back using the military for such an effort, saying Mr. Trump was ‘100% correct.’

Mr. Miller has also talked about invoking a public health emergency power to curtail hearing asylum claims, as the Trump administration did during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Deportation without Congressional action

“Mr. Trump’s team said it had developed a multifaceted plan to significantly increase the number of deportations, which it thought could be accomplished without new legislation from Congress, although it anticipated legal challenges.

Other elements of the team’s plan include bolstering the ranks of ICE officers with law enforcement officials who would be temporarily reassigned from other agencies, and with state National Guardsmen and federal troops activated to enforce the law on domestic soil under the Insurrection Act.

“The team also plans to expand a form of due-process-free expulsions known as expedited removal, which is currently used near the border for recent arrivals, to people living across the interior of the country who cannot prove they have been in the United States for more than two years.

“And the team plans to stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents in a bid to end birthright citizenship.

“Mr. Trump has already signaled his intent to follow through on his promises with personnel announcements. He named Mr. Miller as a deputy chief of staff in his administration with influence over domestic policy. And Mr. Trump said he would make Thomas Homan, who ran ICE for the first year and a half of the Trump administration and was an early proponent of separating families to deter migrants, his administration’s ‘border czar.’”

“Mr. Homan told The New York Times in 2023 that he had met with Mr. Trump shortly after the now president-elect announced that he would seek office again. During that meeting, Mr. Homan said, he ‘agreed to come back’ in a second term and would ‘help to organize and run the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.’ In response to a question on the problem of separating children from their parents, Homan said parents who lose their immigration cases "are going to have to make a decision what you want to do: You can either take your child with you or leave the child here in the United States with a relative."

That is, if there is a relative available and one who can afford the responsibility of caring for an additional child or children. 

Questions about Trump’s deportation plan

“Asked about the proposal, Sabrina Singh, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, declined to comment, calling it ‘a hypothetical.’ In general, she added, such a plan would typically undergo ‘a rigorous process’ before being enacted, but she declined to elaborate.”

Critics

Savage and Gold cite immigrant advocates who have assailed Trump’s deportation plan, raising alarms about the potential fallout.

“‘President-elect Trump’s dystopian fantasies should send a chill down everyone’s spine, whether immigrant or native-born,’ said Karen Tumlin, the director of the Justice Action Center, an immigrant advocacy organization. ‘Not only is what he is describing in all likelihood illegal, this move would be the exact opposite of the legacy of service in which my family members were proud to participate.’”

“Robyn Barnard, the senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, asserted that the consequences would be far-ranging. ‘Families will be torn apart, businesses left without vital employees, and our country will be left to pick up the pieces for years to come,’ she added. 

“Congressional Democrats responded with a similar level of incredulity, asserting that such a move was all but certain to violate federal laws preventing the use of the military on American soil.

“‘We’re pursuing whatever we can do to make clear that the Insurrection Act should not permit that use of the military,’ said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, referring to the 1807 law that grants presidents emergency power to use troops on domestic soil to restore order when they decide a situation warrants it. Under that law, ‘if there is no threat to public order of a fundamental, far-reaching kind, it would be illegal,’ he added.”

Separations

Jacob Soboroff, who visited detention sites during Trump’s first presidential term, published his finding in a book titled Separated: Inside an American Tragedy. Here is part of an article reviewing the book on July 7,2020, by Kirkus Reviews (https://kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jacob-soboroff/separated-tragedy). 

“Separating migrant minors from their families has been a hallmark of the current administration—and, writes the author, ‘an unparalleled abuse of the human rights of children.’ His narrative begins in June 2018 in Brownsville, Texas, where he toured a former Walmart that had been converted into a ‘shelter’ to house some 1,500 migrant boys, many of them caught with their families trying to enter the U.S. By virtue of the administration’s vaunted ‘zero tolerance’ policy, these children represent what Soboroff calls ‘an avoidable catastrophe.’ His sketches of the detention centers are consistently affecting and haunting. As he noted at the time, ‘this place is called a shelter, but effectively these kids are incarcerated.’ The policy of separation was foreshadowed in Trump’s blustery rhetoric during the 2016 campaign—but more by his lieutenant Stephen Miller, who loudly voiced ‘vitriol for undocumented immigrants.’ It was up to Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen to enact it, even after she was warned that family separations would constitute a violation of the constitutional principle of fair treatment. Miller’s faction won the day, and family separation became policy. Startlingly, when a federal judge ruled against the policy and ordered the government to reunite detained families, Customs and Border Patrol admitted that it had planned to separate ‘more than 26,000 children between May and September 2018’ alone. Naturally, the administration has denied the policy even as, Soboroff notes, the principals involved who remain in the administration are now the very people who are coordinating the government’s bungled response to COVID-19. And even though the policy has theoretically been terminated by executive order, thousands of migrant children are still detained in tent cities and other facilities across the border, in some cases without their families for years.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump wants to transform the US in ways that will give him incomparable presidential power. However, his plans, flawed and undemocratic as they are, will generate opposition as well as support. Who knows which side will prevail. But his ambitions are inherently flawed and, if implemented, likely to cause economic chaos and suffering among large segments of the population. The big question is whether such effects will lead to the buildup of opposition forces strong enough politically to prevent Trump from succeeding in pushing his extreme economic and immigration plans.