In Times of Division, Unity's our Mission
In Times of Division, Unity's our Mission
Facing realities of another Trump presidency
I have so much I want to say that it nearly leaves me frozen, unable to write anything at all. Please keep in mind that this article doesn’t capture everything I’m thinking, nor does it mean these ideas won’t evolve as they surely will. I've struggled with how to respond to Donald Trump’s victory, knowing that people close to me, including family members, are being targeted by his agenda.
Many enthusiastic articles have been and will continue to be written by groups across the political spectrum—from socialists to progressive Democrats. These pieces will often have valid insights and valuable suggestions for moving forward, reflecting each group’s unique vision of what should be done. While this diversity of thought is positive, the distinct challenge of confronting Trump’s right-wing authoritarianism, a phenomenon that aligns with broader global trends, calls for a collaborative approach.
To effectively counter Trump’s agenda, we need a coalition that brings together people from diverse backgrounds and approaches. This includes those who were previously apolitical but are now motivated to join causes in opposition to Trump. This is where some articles fall short; they often overlook the practical realities of opposition, which require actions that extend beyond the scope of any single group. These efforts could include legal challenges, direct action, legislative maneuvers to block harmful bills, or mutual aid to directly support those affected.
This article isn’t for those more focused on highlighting the hypocrisies of others or willing to let Trump’s agenda unfold in the name of "deeper analysis." It’s also not for those who reject such unity by collaborating with MAGA, hoping to gain something positive from the situation in the name of equivalency. History has shown us the dangers of collaborating with far-right forces, as seen in the appeasement of fascist leaders who, despite their violent ideologies, gained popular support by exploiting fears—particularly economic anxieties—and deepening societal divisions. We’ve already witnessed the authoritarian outcomes of Trump’s leadership, from his brutal family separations at the border, where children were lost in the system, to the violent Capitol insurrection on January 6th. His involvement in attempting to pressure Georgia officials to "find" more votes for him underscores his willingness to undermine democratic processes. Trump’s rhetoric has only grown more alarming in 2023 and 2024, with calls for mass arrests of political opponents, threats to deploy the military against domestic “enemies,” and promises of retribution against those who oppose him. All of these are tactics reminiscent of authoritarian leaders, many of whom he openly admires, who gained power by exploiting both economic instability and social fractures.
Unfortunately, due to broader critiques and analyses, which are valid in themselves, some will reject the idea of collaborating with certain organizations or groups. This view can end up alienating newly inspired individuals who are motivated to prevent Trump’s agenda from advancing and limit overall effectiveness. We share enough in common to build tactical alliances against the MAGA movement. A well-defined scope, based in the realities of the modern political climate, ensure that the collaboration is purpose-driven and doesn’t signal endorsements. This approach differs from collaborating with MAGA, as the ideological gulf on core values like racial equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and women’s rights is far wider and impossible to reconcile. History is filled with instances of leftists who, in pursuit of certain goals, have considered or attempted alliances with the far-right from National Bolsheviks who ultimately landed in concentration camps, to modern anti-imperialists who defend authoritarian regimes instead of supporting the people resisting them. Understanding this concept will be crucial not only to stopping Trump’s agenda but also to shaping the future of the U.S. left in its broadest, most inclusive sense.
Discussions about party allegiance, the duopoly, various "isms," factions can be addressed outside of this effort. Trump wants us to believe he has a mandate. That’s why winning the popular vote was so important to him. He wants us to think we are fractured, powerless, and unpopular, and that we should simply step aside. Right-wing populism creates division among people who should be united in shared goals and efforts. This article aims to understand and reject that divisiveness, standing firm together regardless of broader differences. It’s an article that’s been written hundreds of times before in the past and needed yet again. We do this for each other, for our families, our communities, and in international solidarity.
I hope most can agree on this: it’s essential to have a clear-eyed understanding of what a Trump administration backed by a Republican Senate, potentially a Republican House, and a conservative Supreme Court truly entails. In times like this reality becomes inverted. The already corrupted rule of law further becomes law of force. Peace means dominance and squashing of resistance. Some might argue that this level of alarm should have always been the norm, but any critiques of the pre-Trump era will grow much sharper now, given what we witnessed during his last term in office. We can’t afford to waste time settling old scores or letting broader critiques stand in the way of this effort. Know that some of the bonds built now will exist in different political environments, because this will not last forever and Trump is immediately a lame duck.
It's the Economy, Stupid.
Economic concerns have again surfaced as the top priority for American voters, with recent exit polls showing that inflation, job security, and the rising cost of living are at the forefront of public concern. This scrutiny ties the current economic landscape directly to Vice President Harris, linking her closely to the economic policies and outcomes of the Biden administration. These economic pressures weigh heavily on a variety of people, who are finding economic stability increasingly elusive.
Bernie Sanders recently underscored this tension in a post stating that “It should come as no surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned the working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.” For many Americans, vehicle and home ownership, milestones that once signified financial stability, are out of reach. Soaring real estate prices, mounting student debt, and stagnant wages have placed home ownership further from reach. Increased rental prices have also contributed to homelessness in many areas of the country. The rise of car loan defaults is another indicator of how these financial barriers are impacting people. These concerns are real and valid.
The strain of these economic pressures doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it also introduces a psychological burden that can warp perspectives. Economic anxiety can foster a cycle of scapegoating, where people search for causes and culprits to blame for their plight. This often takes the form of blaming certain “bad actors” or external forces, which creates an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance for some people, particularly those who are struggling to recognize that they too might be members of such targeted groups. Instead of tackling complex structural issues that both major political parties have largely neglected, people may turn to conspiracy theories, idealized views of the past, or oversimplified explanations to make sense of their frustrations and anxieties. These narratives, along with concepts like nationalism or patriotism can serve as substitutes, offering clarity and a sense of control in place of more challenging, nuanced perspectives on systemic problems. Add inflation to the mix, and conditions are primed for authoritarian figures to gain support through populist messaging that promises quick fixes to widespread frustrations. Anyone who’s studied even a bit of history that covered the Weimar Republic will recognize this dynamic.
In times of heightened economic stress, frustrations can be misdirected, leading some to blame other workers, immigrants, or even those from their own socioeconomic background for systemic issues. People may search for identity in concepts like masculinity, religion, or the words of demagogues. As inequality widens, this misplaced anger only amplifies divisions, further undermining solidarity among the very people who might benefit from collective action.
But is it about the economy?
That is the view echoed by a mix of mainstream media pundits and left-wing sources. In many ways, it revives the internal debate of 2016, represented by figures like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein. Economic anxieties and the Democrats' strained relationship with the working class took center stage, while Stein criticized the two-party system's failure to address the issue from the outside. However, the reality is more complex than just economic reductionism.
Sanders is correct that there’s a longstanding perception, dating back to the 1990s, that Democrats have shifted away from prioritizing the working class. This perception aligns with critiques from many left-leaning economists and journalists who argue that the party has increasingly appealed to professional and managerial classes rather than addressing working-class struggles directly. Yet, this view requires nuance, especially when we consider the diversity within the working class itself and why some key demographics display contrasting voting behaviors.
For instance, the traditional image of the working class often centers around blue-collar labor and industrial work, but the working class today is far more varied, including service workers, tech employees, and gig economy participants. Massachusetts successfully passed a ballot measure in the general election that would grant ride-share workers the right to unionize.[1] Demographic shifts have introduced different cultural, regional, and social identities into this class. This raises questions about what we mean by “the working class” in U.S. political discourse. For some, it still signifies a largely white, industrial base, even though that base no longer represents a clear majority.
While Trump gained support across various racial and ethnic demographics, the only groups where he received over 50% backing were white men, white women, and Latino men. In contrast, Harris received overwhelming support from Black men, Black women, and Latina women, as well as Asian men and women, despite some shifts within these groups. All these demographics, including LGBTQ+ individuals who supported Harris, are part of the working class.
You’d need to reach back to the 1930’s to find the last time most black men or women voted Republican in a presidential election. It is the first time in history that Latino men voted a majority for a Republican as president. There have been members from all these demographics included in the working class throughout that timeline. On the one hand, it provides some validity to Sanders by suggesting an ongoing shift which can be statistically supported, but it also provides context showing that it’s not just about economics. After all, if that were the case, 92% of African American women wouldn’t have voted for Harris, nor would similarly high numbers have voted for Biden before her or Hillary before that, unless we're suggesting they aren’t represented within the “working class.” Why is it that the only demographic of both men and women who voted for Trump in the majority are white?[2]
The only answer I have to these questions is that this isn’t just about economics but instead the intersection of class, race, gender, social identity, social status, perceived loss of status, concepts of whiteness and more. It doesn’t need to be one or the other. A variety of factors, including economics and other influences, played significant roles. This isn’t to say that Trump didn’t make inroads with the working class, he certainly did. In fact, he did with many demographics which all focused on economic concerns. Still, traditional methods of classifying working class are more complicated than one might think and need to be considered to react appropriately.
For instance, union membership is 20% more common among college-educated workers than those with only a high school diploma. Meanwhile college educated men and women voted a majority for Harris. Unionization is also 40% more prevalent in non-manufacturing sectors, with nearly half of union jobs in government roles like education and administration. While these are union jobs, they aren’t generally regarded as “blue-collar.” In manufacturing, 36% of workers now hold college degrees, signaling a shift toward more skilled positions.[3]
This is evident in the widely publicized decision of the Teamsters not to endorse a candidate in 2024, which many interpreted as a tacit signal of support for Trump, who also secured an endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police. Meanwhile, other unions, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), UNITE HERE, the National Education Association (NEA), and the AFL-CIO, threw their support behind Kamala Harris. In electoral politics, when we use terms like "the working class" or rely on identifiers such as industrial labor or union membership, it's important to recognize that these labels do not capture a single, uniform group.
This is important because in today's political landscape, there are critical challenges that arise when economic and intersectional analyses are sidelined in favor of divisive rhetoric. Some sources will isolate perspectives, oversimplifying these complex issues, which can undermine the effectiveness of the political discourse around them. This exclusion is particularly problematic when media outlets or personalities exploit these divisions for the sake of building a polarized audience. Instead of integrating important perspectives these discussions are often manipulated to create false dichotomies between them, with one concept coming to represent a group and that group being pitted against the other. That’s the exact opposite of what will need to occur to oppose the incoming Trump regime’s agenda. It doesn't mean we have to abandon our broader political beliefs, especially regarding revolutionary theories, but it does suggest that we may need to set aside those differences for this effort and remain skeptical of those who try to use them to undermine collective action.
One of the more concerning trends to watch is the manipulation of economic discussions, as seen in the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. elections. The left-wing populist rhetoric pushed by figures like Bernie Sanders—who raised crucial issues about economic inequality—was often co-opted by alternative media figures. Many of these bad actors used a materialist framing to appeal to right-wing populism. By focusing narrowly on economic materialism, such outlets suggested that the working-class voter base might align more with right-wing populism rather than broader left of center politics. This framing can dangerously blur the lines between valid critiques of neoliberalism and the racist, xenophobic rhetoric promoted by Trump.
While both economic and intersectional perspectives are needed to understanding working class issues, framing these discussions in a way that pits people against each other can lead to dangerous divisions. This can push people to align with demagogues like Trump rather than with each other. This brings me to the next point.
Gen Z
Younger voters, especially men, leaned more toward Trump. In the 2022 midterms, Democrats had a one-point lead over Republicans with young men. This is a drop from Biden's 15-point lead in 2020 and the 19-point margin Democrats held in 2018. Harris did carry young women by 18 points, a wide margin but narrower than previous results.[4]
Much will be written about Gen Z men, some of whom are increasingly influenced by the toxic "manosphere" content that dominates social media and podcasts. This media is rooted in misogyny, racism, and dehumanization and receives strategic funding from right-wing organizations. For many of these young men, Trump has come to represent a countercultural figure, pushing them toward far-right beliefs. Influencers like Joe Rogan, Tim Pool and Jordan Peterson amplify this rhetoric.
During the primary season, Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy made significant efforts to appeal to young voters, especially on platforms like TikTok. Although his campaign didn’t last, it revealed something critical: Republicans are increasingly resonating with younger generations. In Iowa Caucus exit polls, Ramaswamy performed particularly well among voters under 30, gaining over five times more support from younger Iowans than from those over 65.[5]
The radicalization of young men online through misogyny, racism, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories has long been a strategy of far-right movements. This trend began with early internet subcultures such as pickup artist communities in the 2000s, Gamergate, and “red pill” forums which exploited insecurities and frustrations, offering reactionary ideologies as solutions.
Over time, this movement has evolved, with figures like Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist known for his history of antisemitic and misogynistic remarks, gaining increasing influence. Fuentes has mobilized young men with inflammatory rhetoric, such as his infamous post on X (formerly Twitter) during Trump’s victory: “Your body, my choice. Forever.”[6] The phrase has since gained popularity on TikTok, where many women reported being told their bodies no longer belong to them following the election result. Fuentes’s influence has extended even to some Republican figures, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have amplified far-right conspiracies and anti-democratic views.
Today, this trend has reached new heights on platforms like X, where under Elon Musk’s ownership, hate speech, harassment, and conspiracy theories have gained a foothold. Musk’s direct involvement in the Trump campaign effectively closed the loop, further merging the world of social media radicalization with right-wing political figures.
Inflation and Populism
As post COVID-19 inflation surged globally, populist parties capitalized on economic discontent along with grievances over immigration. In France, Marine Le Pen's National Rally made significant gains, using the economic instability to rally voters dissatisfied with the establishment. Similarly, in Germany, the AfD (Alternative for Germany) benefited from inflation's effects, pushing further into the political mainstream as voters grew disillusioned with the government’s economic management. Meanwhile, in India, the BJP under Narendra Modi capitalized on the economic struggles post-COVID, further entrenching Hindu nationalism while framing economic distress because of failed opposition policies.
For some, the critique extends beyond COVID-19 to the very core of neoliberalism. Both perspectives can be true: recognizing the results of post-COVID elections doesn't mean supporting the policies of those in power. However, this recognition offers valuable insight into broader patterns, which can help guide the next discussion point.
Trump will likely frame his victory as a rejection of what he characterizes as "Democratic policies," especially on social issues like abortion rights, trans rights, and other civil liberties. He is certainly not going to highlight broader trends that might help explain his victory in other contexts. He will position the election as a choice between his vision and what he absurdly describes as the Democrats' "radical left" agenda, even though many Americans support progressive policies, such as reproductive rights and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. His narrative will seek to cast these widely supported policies as extreme, while framing his own views as a return to traditional values.
There appears to be a collective hope that Trump’s extreme policies will either fail to materialize or won't have the impact many fear, a type of magical thinking. If Progressive Democrats can seize the moment and offer viable alternatives to Trump’s proposed economic policies, policies that support workers' rights, labor organizing, and broader economic solutions, they could undermine Trump’s perceived mandate. Whether Democrats will allow that to happen or not is up for debate.
The risk, however, is that current trends of economic recovery could be wrongly credited to Trump’s policies, which favor the wealthy and exacerbate wealth inequality, a key driver of economic hardship beyond inflation. If this happens, Trump’s narratives may gain traction, even if his policies ultimately worsen the conditions they claim to address long term. This could leave progressives with only secondary issues that are important, but secondary to the economy in the eyes of many voters.
It’s global.
Trump’s administration will most likely seek alliances with other authoritarian regimes and strongmen as it had during the last tenure. Trump has had ongoing contact with Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary. Orbán is known for his populist rhetoric, anti-immigration stance, and efforts to undermine democratic institutions. His approach has drawn praise from some right-wing figures and criticism from the European Union and human rights groups. Trump has shown a consistent positive view of Orbán, referring to him as a "fantastic leader" and a "president of peace" in past meetings. In a recent meeting in 2024, Orbán reiterated his support for Trump’s approach, particularly on ending the war in Ukraine, and even shared a photo from their discussion at Mar-a-Lago.[7]
Ukraine is watching with growing tension. This is a particularly difficult conversation for the Western left and progressives. Without diving into all the complexities, some on the Western left downplay Putin’s authoritarianism in Russia, his crackdown on protesters and LGBTQ+ people, and his imperialist ambitions in Ukraine for a range of reasons. Others view criticism of Russia as a convenient excuse used by establishment Democrats to distract from the party’s failures, particularly following the 2016 loss to Trump.
However, the purpose of this conversation is to offer a warning: no one knows how Ukraine will respond in the long run, but if Trump were to cut funds and weapons to Ukraine, it could create forced negotiations that ultimately favor Russia. For their part, Zelensky has already met with Trump, while Putin has attempted to flatter him by calling him "manly" at the most recent annual Valdai Club meeting.[8]
Trump has claimed that he could resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict within a single day. Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Integration of Ukraine to the EU, posted to her Facebook page “Of course, the promise to end the war in 24 hours is alarming, because is it possible on conditions that would guarantee lasting peace in Europe, not destroy Ukraine?” Zelensky acknowledged that Trump wants a quick resolution to the conflict but emphasized that any peace process must be just and not leave Ukraine vulnerable. He stressed that while the desire to end the war is shared, a hasty resolution would ultimately harm Ukraine. Decoding this, it means that Ukraine will not accept Russia's demands for "neutrality" without security guarantees, as doing so would clearly further Russia's long-term goal of controlling Ukraine.
This will be a crucial point of focus for both the people of Ukraine, who are fighting one chapter of a much longer struggle for independence, and for Russian propaganda, which many on the left continue to dismiss, possibly due to decades of Cold War influence or campist perspectives. Be wary of "doves" or other “leftists” who align with authoritarian regimes that frame imperialist conquest, whether achieved through military force or negotiations born out of a lack of options, as "peace." Over the past few decades, lessons have been learned about Western "anti-imperialists" who may have played a role in criticizing U.S. wars during the Bush years. However, it's become clear that their opposition was not rooted in genuine solidarity with the victims of these wars, but rather in political and geopolitical maneuvering.
Conquest is not peace. Fighting for freedom and defending your land isn't the same as waging war—rebellion and self-defense aren't acts of aggression.
The Biden administration's continued financial and military support for Israel could serve as a major dividing factor in opposition to Trump. A poll conducted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations showed Jill Stein leading American Muslim voters with 53 percent, followed by Trump at 21 percent and Harris at 20 percent. This marked a significant shift for a traditionally Democratic base. Stein ultimately secured between 0.4-0.9% of the total vote, a slight increase from the Green Party’s 0.2% in 2020, but a decrease from her 1.6% result in 2016. For her part, Democrat Rashid Talib has so far received 69.7% of the Michigan vote.
Trump has sent mixed messages regarding Israel’s actions. On one hand, his campaign focused on Arab-American communities in Michigan, seeking reconciliation over his controversial comments comparing Arabs to terrorists and the “Muslim ban.” On the other hand, Trump has openly supported Israel's current actions in Gaza and criticized Biden for urging restraint, praising Netanyahu for disregarding Biden’s calls for caution. During a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump targeted Biden, accusing him of attempting to restrain Netanyahu with directives like “Don’t do this, don’t do that” regarding Israel’s actions against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Trump said, “Bibi didn’t listen to him, [Biden] and look—they’re in a much stronger position now than they were three months ago,".[9]
Trump will also likely push for a quick ceasefire, as in Ukraine, though this process will need close attention. In his previous administration, Trump made significant pro-Israel moves, notably breaking decades of U.S. policy by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocating the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv in 2018. He also recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and introduced his "Peace to Prosperity" plan, which was widely criticized for favoring Israeli interests and lacking Palestinian involvement.
Much like Ukraine, it will be important to keep an eye on “doves” or “leftists” who seek to frame Trump as a “peace” candidate when negotiations happen. Given Trump is in office for four years, cessation of Israeli offensives will most likely occur. The question is how Trump’s administration will handle the aftermath. While Trump has fully endorsed Israel’s eradication of Palestinians, he has also told Netanyahu to finish the war before he’s in office. A post-election Al-Jazeera article interviewed Palestinians who were skeptical of another Trump presidency given his pro-Israel history and rhetoric. One Palestinian stated “I don’t know if the situation will improve under Trump. He might just [allow Israel] to deport us all [from Gaza] instead of killing us.” This is open to interpretation, especially since Trump has stated he will help Israel "finish the job" once he is in office.[10]
Some leftists critical of U.S. interventionism could find themselves aligning with Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric, particularly if he frames his approach to Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank as a form of non-intervention. His past positioning as an “outsider” aiming to “end endless wars” might appeal to anti-establishment leftists. However, it’s crucial to recognize how Trump’s strong, historically pro-Israel stances reveal a deeper inconsistency in his rhetoric.
While Trump may present himself as limiting U.S. involvement, his “support for peace through negotiation” could mean endorsing outcomes that disenfranchise Palestinians even further. For instance, his policies could implicitly support ceding parts of the West Bank to Israel, backing settlements, or allowing Israeli military actions in Gaza to go unchecked, all under the guise of achieving regional “security.”
Trump’s political strategy often involves manipulating narratives by inverting realities and creating “alternative facts,” which he presents as unvarnished truths. This rhetorical approach is especially evident in his foreign policy stances, where he’s appealed to anti-imperialist sentiments by framing himself as a disruptor of the global order. However, the reality often diverges significantly from his claims. For instance, while his administration's rhetoric might suggest a retreat from NATO or other international alliances, these moves are less about advancing human rights or establishing new frameworks for peace and more about rejecting multilateral oversight and limiting constraints on U.S. power.
Trump’s critiques of NATO and global institutions may sound anti-imperialist, appealing to leftists critical of these entities' roles in past conflicts. However, his "America First" slogan and approach focus on bypassing international checks to enable unilateral U.S. actions, rather than genuinely curbing imperialism. For anti-imperialist leftists, this poses a risk: inadvertently supporting policies that weaken already weak global institutions—not to challenge power structures but to expand U.S. influence unchecked, with no meaningful alternatives or safeguards in place. This would erode even the thin human rights protections these institutions offer, consolidating power rather than driving real reform. Trump’s strategy threatens to dismantle the already limited checks and balances provided by international institutions, leaving the U.S. free to act without accountability more than it already does. While these institutions currently offer only modest oversight, Trump’s approach would remove even that, empowering other authoritarian leaders like Putin and Orbán.
Critical conversations
It’s crucial to have honest conversations about the impact of Trump’s policies when engaging with people who supported him due to economic concerns. These discussions serve not only an educational purpose but also create opportunities to form new coalitions. However, it's essential to recognize that it is not the responsibility of those targeted by MAGA or its allies to accommodate or validate fascistic views in the process. Instead, it’s necessary to have open discussions about how Trump’s policies needlessly harm people, particularly marginalized groups, and how valid grievances can be addressed in constructive ways.
By acknowledging the full scope of these harms, such as separating migrant families at the border, withdrawing from global climate agreements, or attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, we can foster deeper understanding and empathy. It’s also important to recognize how Trump’s affinity for global authoritarians contributes to the dispossession of globally disenfranchised peoples under attack. These conversations can help bridge divides by building solidarity, challenging harmful narratives, and opening the door to trust and cooperation that address both material needs and social justice. Ultimately, this will shift the focus away from individual survival through a demagogue and back toward community and collective solidarity.
New Possibilities
Many people are upset albeit for different reasons. Discontent exists among those who voted for Trump, driven by severe economic constraints and a desire for “something different” to address their struggles. This sentiment is mirrored by many groups who are outraged by Trump’s agenda. It is fertile grounds for organizing both within electoralism and outside of it. Looking from within the realities of electoral politics, these grievances could potentially be harnessed by progressive members of the Democratic Party to begin building a new coalition aimed at the next cycle of mid-term elections. This message will fall flat with many who are fed up with the Democratic Party’s continued attempts to embrace “the center” but it’s an opportunity all the same. If the Democratic Party wants to build a new coalition, it needs to offer voters more than just being a lesser evil compared to Republicans. Using voter discontent to make inroads by acknowledging them and suggesting solutions is certainly a place to start.
For many, expanding grassroots action, community organizing, and mutual aid efforts offers a more compelling approach. By connecting with non-profits or adopting decentralized, anarchist-inspired methods, there’s a chance to engage people who might not traditionally participate in such initiatives. Disillusionment with electoral politics may drive some toward alternative paths, particularly when government aid is scaled back under a Trump administration. The situation creates an opening to build solidarity through direct support, skill-sharing, and self-organized networks, potentially broadening understanding and support for these methods amid growing discontent.
If the mass deportations, militarization of ICE, purging of "disloyal" workers, and other fascistic actions promised by Trump materialize, mutual aid programs could become critical lifelines for many. The response to these material realities, as seen during COVID-19, could further expand mutual aid networks, not just ideologically but as a practical necessity for survival and solidarity in an increasingly hostile political climate. It’s Going Down published an article discussing this in preparation for either a Harris or Trump victory here.
That said, the reality is that the effort cannot be limited to just these approaches. A broad coalition will be necessary, involving a wide range of groups working together to challenge the Trump administration's actions. This coalition includes lawyers from various specialties, progressive Democratic lawmakers at both the federal and state levels, grassroots organizations, and activist groups such as protest movements and community organizers, social justice advocates, reproductive rights organizations, immigration advocates, environmentalists, musicians, artists, nonprofits, labor unions, social media experts, investigative journalists, antifascists, and many others. There is ample space for people from all walks of life to contribute to this diverse, far-reaching movement against Trump’s fascism if we allow for it.
Don’t do it alone.
For those who are newly inspired to get involved, it’s great to see that passion, but it’s also important to recognize that meaningful participation doesn’t always mean jumping in headfirst without a plan. Taking some time to understand how you can realistically contribute in a way that aligns with your abilities, energy, and available time is key to sustaining your involvement and avoiding burnout.
One option is to join organizations that are already established. There are countless groups and movements with specific focuses, and you don’t need to reinvent the wheel by starting from scratch. A good first step might be exploring their resource pages to see how you can best pitch in. For those who have specialized skills, such as knowledge of immigration law, finding an organization that aligns with that specialty can make your contribution more impactful and sustainable. Others might find that participating in more time-flexible actions, like calling into local town hall meetings or attending school board meetings, fits better with their schedule and allows for meaningful involvement in their community.
For those interested in grassroots action, mutual aid groups offer an excellent starting point, especially if you're looking for local opportunities to get involved. These groups frequently post on social media platforms like Mastodon, Instagram, or Bluesky. Attend one of their events and connect with the people involved. A nearby Food Not Bombs chapter is a great place to begin.
If you're interested in political organizing, groups like the Working Families Party provide valuable resources and opportunities to get involved in political change without being directly involved with the Democratic Party. They focus on progressive policies and collective action and aren’t the only group. Party politics is always contentious, even with groups like the Working Families Party. I’m not endorsing any group. Instead, I’m suggesting leveraging their resources to find what works for you. Their websites could be a helpful starting point, offering information on how to contribute to various efforts and engage with local initiatives.
The most important thing is to remember that involvement can take many forms, and there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Whether you’re participating in a protest, helping at a community event, or providing your expertise in a specific area, the key is to find a way to get involved that feels sustainable and aligns with your strengths. By connecting with existing organizations, you can quickly find a group to join or draw inspiration to start your own similar initiative.
Getting information from people currently doing the work is important, especially when opposing far-right movements like MAGA. Even mundane actions can turn violent if the wrong groups get involved. This is particularly true when deciding to join a protest or march. While I’m intentionally not including many links, as that would require a separate effort, sites like Indivisible are good places to start for learning how to participate in actions safely. That said, depending on the type of action, nothing beats asking people with experience or the organizers for tips. It might sound like hyperbole, but some groups tied to Trump are extremists who actively seek violence, emboldened by perceived government support.
There are many other considerations beyond the threat of violence which is why it’s important to be informed ahead of time. Organizations like the ACLU are valuable resources for understanding your legal rights in protest situations. However, the realities of arrest extend beyond legal knowledge, touching on practical concerns such as access to bail and financial resources. Additionally, there are strategic considerations, like how to manage your cell phone in high-risk environments, to protect both personal privacy and safety. Experienced organizers and activists can offer guidance on these matters, helping to prepare for the full range of potential scenarios.
Trump has promised crackdowns.
For those new to political organizing or protest, understanding the specific dangers posed by Trump’s 2024 campaign proposals is important. His plans go beyond typical political rivalry and instead threaten to reshape how dissent is handled in America. This is especially important for new activists, who may not fully realize how measures targeting protests, surveillance, or political opposition could impact their ability to organize and speak freely. Trump’s rhetoric suggests he would wield executive power aggressively to stifle opposition voices, undermining fundamental democratic principles. Here’s what Trump has outlined and why it matters for anyone planning to oppose his agenda.
In his 2024 campaign, Trump has outlined plans to crack down on political opponents and protests, signaling a more authoritarian approach. He has proposed expanding federal powers to target opposition figures and protesters, potentially using agencies like the FBI and DHS to monitor and prosecute those he deems a threat to national security. Trump has also voiced support for a more militarized law enforcement response to large protests, as seen during the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations, and suggested he might deploy the National Guard or federal troops to suppress protests. Additionally, he has mentioned a "loyalty purge" to replace government officials viewed as disloyal with supporters, which could reduce internal resistance to his policies.
During his previous term, Trump took an aggressive stance against protesters, especially during the 2020 Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations. His administration deployed federal agents to cities like Portland, where agents, often unidentified and without local coordination, used tear gas, rubber bullets, and detained protesters in unmarked vehicles, actions widely criticized for being excessive and secretive. The Lafayette Square incident became another flashpoint, as federal forces forcibly cleared peaceful protesters using tear gas and rubber bullets to create a photo opportunity for Trump near a church. Trump also labeled protesters as “terrorists” and pushed for maximum sentences, creating a climate of fear by casting suspicion over peaceful demonstrations. Additionally, he threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against protestors, an extreme measure never seen in recent American history. Many now fear a second Trump term could bring even more drastic measures, further shrinking the space for protest and public criticism.
It’s important to understand that the coming regime isn’t just going to target protesters in the street or elected officials. A recent Intercept article discusses how Republicans in Congress are already attempting to give Trump broad reign over persecution of dissenters even including non-profits. Although the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act” (H.R. 9495) failed to pass, it still provides insight into the types of initiatives Trump aims to pursue. The bill would have granted the Treasury Secretary broad authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits labeled as “terrorist-supporting organizations.” Civil rights groups like the ACLU expressed strong opposition, arguing it could suppress dissent by intimidating organizations critical of government policies. Had it passed, nonprofits could have lost tax-exempt status with minimal due process, as the Treasury would not have been required to disclose evidence or reasons for the designation. Critics feared this unchecked power could target not only pro-Palestine or foreign policy groups but also liberal, environmental, or pro-choice organizations, creating a powerful tool for political retribution under future administrations.
This information isn’t meant to scare anyone but to show the urgent need for informed action.
Be smart, be safe, and stay motivated, but don’t feel the need to do it alone or without fully understanding what you're getting involved with.
In Conclusion
As we move forward, it’s important to understand that resistance is not just about opposing Trump or the MAGA agenda. It’s part of a much larger, global struggle against far-right populism. However, the focus of this coalition can be steered toward achievable objectives, such as limiting Trump’s ability to implement his agenda, without compromising our broader ideological principles. This approach can also be inclusive of newcomers from diverse backgrounds, differing in economic and sociopolitical backgrounds.
The real challenge before us is whether we can rise above division and resist the temptation to fall into infighting, which is exactly what Trump, and his supporters want. History has shown us the destructive power of fragmentation and inaction. Our strength lies in our ability to come together, even across differences. The work we do now, whether through organizing in the streets, challenging injustice in the courts, or building solidarity in our communities may even lay the groundwork for future movements that go beyond opposing any one person or administration. It will also connect you with incredible people and deepen your involvement in your communities.
Now is the time to unite, plan effectively, and remain strong against rising authoritarianism, doing our best in whatever ways we can.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/massachusetts-voters-allow-uber-lyft-drivers-unionize-2024-11-06/#:~:text=BOSTON%2C%20Nov%206%20(Reuters),new%20tab%20to%20do%20so.
[2] https://www.aol.com/exit-polls-show-majority-black-135515400.html
[3] https://thehill.com/opinion/4969356-class-voters-swing-states/
[4] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-young-men-bro-vote-1982213
[5] https://bad-faith-times.ghost.io/email/a5555216-287b-4ecb-8bda-ba050af1bf7d/
[6] https://thespectator.com/politics/zoomer-zynergy-brought-trump-back/
[7] https://apnews.com/article/hungarys-orban-visit-trump-mar-a-lago-ee6ba8edc4d4f4f92b06a9265945df8f
[8] https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-manly-donald-trump-us-election/
[9] https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-claims-netanyahu-disregarded-bidens-advice-on-war-was-right-to-do-so/
[10] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/7/trumps-return-to-white-house-worries-lebanese-palestinian-civilians