"Trump is the most pro-social president in 100 years" – publicist Rafał Woś burned out any time ago. The evidence was that Trump had an argument with Musk on social media. With the same Musk who had previously donated $300 million to Trump for the run and who had received Trump's approval to release hundreds of thousands of state workers, dismantle state institutions and destruct global aid programs.
Let's hazard thesis that a fewer days of social media malicious exchanges are not the President's best indicator of socialism. Real political decisions are more important. erstwhile we look at the case this way, we draw the other conclusion to the 1 who set you up. Trump has been the most neoliberal and antisocial president in at least time. Ronald Reagan.
In the global arena, even timid attempts to make taxation standards for corporations are blocked. Inside the country, it offers generous taxation cuts for respective percent of the wealthiest combined with cuts in social programs for the poorest.
The race to the bottom will continue.
We have a global capital flow, but we do not have global taxation standards – this is the biggest problem of globalisation in the pill. Therefore, global corporations can blackmail individual states. Well, well, you want to taxation us? Thank you very much, from present we are a company based in Ireland. Later, suckers.
On an individual level, this works likewise – individual billionaires can flee to taxation havens.
This is an economical problem, due to the fact that money is diverted towards the richest, but besides political – due to the fact that abruptly there is simply a fistful of corporations that operate on different principles than the remainder of society.
For years it has been said that governments should do something about it, and it seemed that something had yet moved. OECD countries have proposed a minimum corporate taxation rate of 15%. The thought was that no country could go below that rate, so we're done with the race down. Under agreement 139 countries signed on in 2021. Including the United States – Janet Yellen, treasure secretary in Joe Biden's administration, explicitly supported the idea.
Trump doesn't think so. Right at the beginning of his second term, in January 2025, he signed Regulationwhich in practice withdrew the US from the minimum taxation agreement. In any case, a fewer days ago the U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the G7 countries agreed that American companies would not be subject to a 15% minimum tax. The remainder of the G7 countries (France, large Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan) capitulated" – summarized bitter Gary Clyde Hufbauer of the American think tank Peterson Institute for global Economics.
Needless to say, without the participation of the United States, from which the most powerful corporations come, the full thought of setting minimum taxation standards becomes a finger on the water.
President-Dream for large Tech
In particular, Trump tends to have American technology companies, defending them against taxation attempts, regulation or the breakdown of their monopolistic position. A good example is the past of the digital taxation in Canada.
The Canadian digital taxation of 3% has been in force since last year, but it was only now that the first payments were to be made – it was estimated that US technology companies would pay around $2.7 billion in total. Trump considered this taxation to be a “dangerous attack” and announced the suspension of trade talks with Canada. In response, the Government of Canada announced a taxation withdrawal to resume negotiations with the US.
Point for Trump, point for the digital giants.
The administration of the fresh president puts akin force on the European Union. Vice president J.D. Vance during his visit to Europe sharply criticized the Union as an effort to regulate large social platforms, recognising it as an attack on freedom of speech. He considered concepts specified as “disinformation” taken from the russian dictionary. He besides criticised the EU's attempts to regulate the improvement of artificial intelligence, claiming that specified regulations would undermine the innovation of the industry.
A akin approach is presented by Trump's administration in national politics – the budget law states a ten-year, complete ban on regulating the artificial intelligence sector by individual states. This caused any panic among state representatives and 2 days ago this evidence was deleted in the Senate.
Trump, Vance and the remainder of the administration can invoke the noble ideas of freedom of speech or innovation, but in fact they defend the interests of native technological giants. The "freedom of word" requested by Vice president Vance in Europe means, in practice, allowing even more bots and junk content generated by artificial intelligence, even more capability to manipulate algorithms and even more freedom to collect private user data. And it allows large Techs to manipulate our attention and sale it to advertisers.
Great, beautiful bill for the rich
The neoliberal course of Trump, however, is most powerfully revealed in national politics. This is peculiarly evident in the budget law – "big, beautiful bill” as the president himself calls it – which Republicans are pushing through Congress. The task undergoes insignificant changes as a consequence of negotiations conducted inside the Republican Party, but 2 elements stay intact.
First, the bill reduces taxes to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. It prolongs Trump's 2017 taxation cuts, which, among another things, reduced corporate taxation from 35 to 21% and reduced income taxes for people earning over $500,000 a year from 39.6 to 37%.
Secondly, the cost of this generosity is to be covered by cutting the financing of social programmes, especially wellness insurance. Republicans dare not attack straight Medicaid, a government insurance program for the poorest families, but have come up with a way to indirectly impoverish him. For example, they want to combine insurance rights with work requirements.
Experts inform that specified a solution is ineffective and will origin the benefits to be lost to people who work, but are lost in the thick of bureaucratic procedures. But that is the point of the Republicans – thanks to the fact that many people will not get into wellness insurance, the government will save spending on Medicaid.
How many people will lose their insurance? By calculations The Congressional Budget Office will be about 12 million Americans. The budget is expected to save around $1 trillion in 10 years, which will only partially cover Trump's taxation costs. Budget laboratory experts, Yale investigation center, estimatethat as a consequence of the budget bill, the poorest 10% of Americans will lose an average of 2.5 percent of income after taxation in a decade, while the richest 10% will gain akin value.
This is Trump's “socialism” in full semblance: the poorest will pay for taxation relief for the richest.
Elegy for the bidots?
When I compose these words, the legislature is voting on Trump's taxation cuts for the rich and cuts in wellness insurance for the poor. It is crucial how controversy surrounding the bill was commented by Vice president Vance (his vote allowed Republicans to win the vote from 51 to 50). He felt that the debate on wellness insurance is – and I quote – "no matter", due to the fact that the only thing that matters in this bill is that it importantly increases the expenditure on anti-immigration services.
I'll remind you: Vance was treated by any as the guarantor of Trump's social policy. Author Elegia for Bidots It was meant to be a symbol of a new, more socially delicate Republican Party. Today, after six months of Trump's rule, we see what it looks like in practice. Vance readily accepts taxation cuts for corporations and American billionaires, defends the technology manufacture against any regulation and waves his hand at the fact that millions of Americans may lose wellness insurance.
All its "social sensitivity" comes down to wanting to deport immigrants – frequently those legally resident – outside the United States and to lock any into concentration camps in El Salvador. Answer the question: what kind of "socialist" formation reminds you of an alliance with higher classes, while at the same time blaming all that is incorrect on "foreigners"?
I would not be amazed if the United States became a model for Poland. We already have the first signals: the increasing popularity of the Confederate and the win in the presidential election of Karol Nawrocki, who on the 1 hand praises Right-wing militias at the border, on the another hand, it proposes taxation solutions that benefit the wealthiest Poles and deepen social inequalities. 1 can anticipate specified a right to effort to express its "social sensitivity" in a akin way to Vance.
The good news is that most American voters don't fall for it. investigation shows that Americans have a negative opinion about Trump's budget bill, and even worse erstwhile they learn the details of it. For example, June poll 55 percent of the respondents were opposed to the bill and only 29 percent for; others had no opinion.
This should be a clue for the opponents of the fresh right hand: if you have the strength and determination to break through the informational sound generated by this right hand and its technological allies, as well as a program that actually responds to the economical problems of a large part of society, then you can convince people to another, indeed social policy.
