Former President Donald Trump has revived rhetoric reminiscent of the McCarthy era by repeatedly labeling his political opponents—primarily Democrats—as communists in the lead-up to the upcoming midterm elections. This approach echoes tactics associated with Roy Cohn, a controversial lawyer from the 1950s who mentored Trump and was closely linked to Senator Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade.
In recent public appearances, including speeches on the Fourth of July and at Mount Rushmore, Trump intensified his use of the term “communist,” suggesting a resurgence of this threat within the United States. During his Independence Day address on the National Mall, he warned that American military efforts against communism abroad could be undermined by a domestic revival of the ideology. At Mount Rushmore, he further implicated immigrants, accusing some newcomers of embracing ideas contrary to traditional American values.
Critics highlight a perceived irony in Trump’s accusations, noting his own administration’s increased government intervention in the private sector. Over the past year, the federal government under Trump moved to acquire stakes in several major companies, including U.S. Steel, Intel, and Westinghouse, often citing national security concerns. These investments have raised concerns among businesses about potential government influence over pricing and production decisions.
Some political observers, including members of the Lincoln Project—an anti-Trump Republican group—have drawn parallels between these actions and practices associated with communist regimes, describing Trump as the closest U.S. figure to communism in recent memory. They argue that while Trump decries left-wing victories by democratic socialists within the Democratic Party, his own economic policies involve significant government ownership and control, which are hallmarks of communist systems.
Historically, federal government intervention in the economy has occurred primarily during emergencies or wartime. During the 2008 financial crisis, both Republican and Democratic administrations debated extensively over allowing government takeovers, emphasizing temporary measures and aiming to recoup taxpayer investments. In contrast, Trump’s acquisitions of corporate stakes have been framed as long-term arrangements, prompting questions about consistency in critiques of government involvement in business.
Beyond economic policy, Trump’s critics also point to his extensive self-promotion, including plans for monuments and repeated long-form speeches, as well as his efforts to influence education, culture, and the judiciary. At Mount Rushmore, he urged Congress to pass the so-called Save America Act, aimed at tightening voting regulations, asserting that such measures would secure Republican electoral success for the foreseeable future. Opponents argue that attempts to entrench political power through election law reforms evoke fears of authoritarian governance typically associated with one-party states.
Trump’s continued conflation of political adversaries with communism, alongside his administration’s expansion of government ownership in private enterprises, reflects a complex dynamic that has sparked debate across the political spectrum as the country approaches a critical election cycle.