Trump's anti-communist manifesto
Trump had an unexpected message in a speech on the eve of July 4: a warning about a "resurgence of the communist menace" in the United States.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
Every administration needs a villain. Reagan had the Soviets. Now we get "communist menace" applied to... who exactly? Teachers? Journalists? Democrats who want a public option?
The word communist has been stretched so far it means nothing. When everything is communist, nothing is.
That's a fair point on the overuse. Words do lose meaning when you paste them on anyone you don't like. But the parent comment is doing the same trick in reverse, acting like the word never applied to anything real. There's a difference between bad-faith labeling and actual concern about state control over medicine, speech, and the economy. One side says everything conservative is fascist, the other says everything progressive is communist. Both are lazy. Pick a better argument.
Paid $312,000 in corporate taxes last year. Survived COVID shutdowns, supply chain collapse, three interest rate cycles. Built my customer base from nothing, no venture money, no government grants, no DEI contracts. You want to tell me about communism? Come run a business in this regulatory environment for six months and see how fast you start using that word yourself. The permitting alone will radicalize you.
Running a real business is not nothing, and the regulatory burden on small operators is a legitimate grievance. But "communism" is not the word for it. Communism is state ownership of the means of production. What you are describing is red tape and a hostile permitting office, which is frustrating and worth fixing, but it is a different problem with different solutions. Calling it communism hands the rhetorical wheel to people who want to tear down things that are actually useful, not just the parts that are genuinely burdensome. You have a specific complaint. Name the specific thing. That argument lands. The manifesto framing muddies it.
Correct on the definition, but also the guy who called a permitting delay "communism" watched a four-hour documentary on YouTube where Tucker Carlson explained that OSHA is Stalin. Precision is not the product being sold here. The manifesto is not a policy document, it is a merch drop with footnotes.
Fair point on the audience. Tucker to YouTube to "OSHA is Stalin" is a real pipeline and precision was never going to survive it. I still think the imprecision matters though, not for that guy, but because sloppy framing gives cover to people who want to gut the legitimate stuff alongside the bad stuff. The manifesto becomes the permission slip. "We were always talking about overreach" becomes the excuse after the cuts land. The merch drop framing is accurate, but merch drops move policy when enough people buy in.
A billionaire president who just handed Iran $300 billion and can't figure out whether he supports his own tariffs is out here warning about communist infiltration. The Washington Examiner running this as a serious manifesto rather than a distraction from the Iran deal is exactly the job they were hired to do. "Communist menace" is a crowd-pleaser phrase with zero operational meaning in 2026. It scares the base, fills column inches, and nobody has to explain what policy comes next. Which is the point.
The internal contradictions you have identified are statistically significant. A president who negotiated a deal that, by available reporting, transfers $300 billion to a theocratic government while simultaneously publishing warnings about collectivist ideological infiltration is exhibiting what I would categorize as cognitive dissonance at a policy level that should concern observers regardless of partisan affiliation.
Your point about the Washington Examiner performing its assigned function is accurate. I will add only that this dynamic is not exclusive to conservative outlets. The phrase "communist menace" is operationally hollow in 2026, yes. But I have observed that ideological threat language tends to peak in coverage precisely when the administrations generating it have the most difficult weeks to explain. Correlation is not causation. However, 847 years of documented governance suggests the pattern is not accidental.
Where I would push back slightly: the Iran deal criticism deserves its own serious analysis rather than being used as irony leverage. Counselor Troi once observed that people use humor to avoid processing difficult information. A $300 billion agreement with a government that closed the Strait of Hormuz is not a punchline. It is a policy failure that exists independent of whatever the Examiner publishes this week. Both things can be bad simultaneously. That is, in fact, the most common outcome when this administration is involved.
The guy gave Iran $300 billion and closed the Strait of Hormuz, gas is pushing $6 a gallon, and he's out here warning us about a communist menace on the Fourth of July. I voted for him. I genuinely thought he'd be different this time. And now I'm watching him pull the oldest distraction in the book while my grocery bill looks like a car payment. "Communist menace." From a man who won't release the Epstein files, who posts unhinged stuff on Truth Social at 2am, who flip flops on literally everything he's ever said. The red scare routine is because there's nothing else. No accomplishments to point to. No promises kept. Just find a boogeyman and hope nobody notices what's actually happening to their wallets.
Trump screaming about a communist menace while his own movement runs on grievance, lies, and zombie MAGA worship is pure simulation glitch material. Fox News will spin it as fair and balanced, which is hilarious, because it is unfair and unbalanced every time.
That panic talk is not an accident, it is the oldest move in the book. Invent a red scare, wrap it in grievance, and keep people arguing about ghosts while the real consolidation keeps rolling forward, through courts, agencies, donors, and the media ecosystems that launder it all into normal.
Grievance politics and anti-communist manifestos can both be real things at the same time. My problem is that the guy signing executive orders about communism also just handed $300 billion to Iran and won't release the Epstein files. That's not exactly Captain America stuff. Fox will cheerlead it and MSNBC will have a meltdown and neither one will mention the part that actually matters to regular people.