Translated by Federico T.
“Let’s be clear: The United States is not becoming imperialist under Trump; rather, this imperialism is changing in nature. It no longer leaves room for the illusion of sovereignty; it does not bother with quid pro quos [one thing in exchange for another]. What the new administration seeks is complete vassalage, where U.S. economic interests are fully accommodated. It is an imperialism of predation (…) But if the United States is even considering deploying its military to conquer an overseas territory of the European Union or reclaim a territory like the Panama Canal, which was subject to a restitution agreement, how then would they blame a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan or the seizure of power by any other nation to conquer a territory it deems useful?”.
(Romaric Godin, “Trump 2025: de imperialismo hegemónico a imperio colonial”, izquierda web)
Last Monday, January 20, Trump assumed his second term. With the exceptional circumstance of being re-elected for a second time after losing his first re-election bid, Trump takes office in a world in flux, constantly changing. What follows is an attempt to outline some initial impressions of the new administration and the circumstances in which it will have to (and is already beginning to) operate.
This second Trump administration seems to outline a reconfiguration of both U.S. and global imperialism. While during his first term we identified this shift as a “national-imperialist” turn, in this second instance—aligned with the world’s evolution over the past decade—it appears to take on a deeper and more definitive character.
A significant shift is taking place in global imperialism, understood as an economic-political totality—a construct that unifies the economy with competing states. The traditional imperialism we once knew, marked by U.S. hegemony, appears to be doomed to disappear. In reality, this traditional imperialism was a novelty of the 20th century: the establishment of a hegemonic imperialism that did not rely on direct territorial control—that is, a form of domination-submission not only economic but also political, without the need for territorial occupation.
But this reality has changed: in today’s world, we have the “space” of the G7—comprising the United States, Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, Canada, and Italy—historical centers of traditional neoliberal capitalism now undergoing transformation. Alongside them stands China’s emerging imperialism (already the world’s second-largest economy and possibly soon the first, though not in military terms) and Putin’s territorial Russian imperialism. Additionally, there are highly significant sub-imperialist nations such as India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, among others—illustrating both the extent and the speed at which the traditional imperialist structure is being reshaped.
It is important to remember that the old imperialisms—the old empires—were built on territorial domination. The British Empire, the most successful of the 19th century, was a structure of overseas colonial control. Through this direct domination, it became the hegemonic empire of the 19th century. However, other competing empires (or imperialisms) also had colonies: this was the case with France, Turkey, Tsarist Russia, the Netherlands, and even the emerging United States. Lenin’s classic definition in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism argued that the rising imperial powers, Germany and Japan, had arrived too late to the partitioning of the world. This lateness, in turn, was one of the key factors that led to the outbreak of the First and Second World Wars—global conflagrations that Lenin himself had anticipated as an inevitable consequence of the material dynamics at play. [1]
However, at the end of the Second World War, Germany and Japan were defeated, and Britain and France quickly lost what remained of their empires. An immense process of decolonization unfolded, encompassing China (through an anti-capitalist revolution), India, Vietnam, Algeria, Egypt and the Suez Canal, as well as the creation of the State of Israel, which subjugated the Palestinians, among other significant geopolitical shifts.
In a way, the USSR retained aspects of non-capitalist «colonial» domination in Eastern European countries under the Warsaw Pact. However, the absolutely dominant and hegemonic power—the United States, which accounted for half of the world’s GDP at the end of World War II—did not need to follow that path. By combining the soft power of «democratic» legitimization with the hard power of being the world’s leading economic and military force, the U.S. imposed its modern form of imperialism. This took the shape of economic domination rather than direct political control—shifting from traditional colonial rule to a system of semi-colonies and dependent nations.[2]
Going through various stages—details aside—the key point is that this hegemony reached its neoliberal peak in the 1990s with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former USSR.
However, globalization—which represented the deterritorialization of domination at the peak of capitalist exploitation—ultimately turned against its main beneficiary: the United States itself. Trump’s bluster about wanting to buy and/or invade Greenland, annex nothing less than Canada, reclaim control of the Panama Canal, or even rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of the Americas,” reflects a shift in how U.S. imperialism perceives itself. This shift, however, does not eliminate internal differences within the American bourgeoisie[3]: “The consequences of such a doctrine are considerable [referring to Trump’s doctrine of direct domination]. First, because it reestablishes war of conquest as a viable course of action. Since the last world war, this type of war has been considered impossible and has been accompanied by a refusal to challenge borders (…) This is precisely what was deemed unacceptable in Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and in the current war in Ukraine, particularly by the United States and its allies” (Godin, ibid.).
The staging of MAGA (Make America Great Again) implies two things: a) An implicit acknowledgment that the U.S. “is not so great”—that is, it is no longer as dominant as it once was. b) A shift in course where hegemonic elements of soft power seem to be sidelined. Trump lacks any hegemonic appeal beyond his far-right nationalist and internationalist base; he is incapable of upholding the traditional U.S. imperialist values of “democracy” and everything that comes with it. Instead, what resurfaces is once again the Big Stick—the politics of brute force.[4]
The resurgence of the Big Stick might appear to be a display of strength, but from the perspective of more stable imperial domination, it is actually a sign of weakness. In Trump’s second administration, the decision to attempt to reclaim hegemony through a more territorialized approach seems less like a deliberate U.S. strategy and more like a dynamic imposed from the outside—one that Trump has embraced as his own. China is asserting its claims over Taiwan and has ultimately subdued Hong Kong. Russia is claiming the part of Ukraine it controls—and perhaps more in the future. Israel, in reality, seeks to expel the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. And so the pattern continues.
At this point, our interest is not in analyzing the feasibility of these developments but rather in highlighting a broader dynamic: the territorialization of imperialist relations and the reemergence of new forms of colonization. This was largely off the agenda during the long decades following World War II.
If we add to this the elements of protectionism, etc., what we observe is the return of the states asserting their power once again, alongside a whole series of relations that characterized old imperialism: namely, the reality of territorial relations and subjugation that defined the old empires.
This seems to be the first element emerging from Trump’s statements and bluster: no one can know at this moment to what extent these words might translate into action (it is said that Trump is pragmatic and transactional—he strikes to negotiate). However, it is a fact that this logic of a shift in imperialism, which is actually a regression toward older forms of imperialism, is what his words and declarations of intent appear to express.
The historian Enzo Traverso, referencing Hannah Arendt (in The Origins of Totalitarianism), recalls in some of his works on Nazism that it, in fact, expressed an old form of imperialism with its «living space» (Lebensraum) policy.
In reality, the Japanese Empire during World War II followed the same logic: both of these old imperialisms sought territorial expansion to secure their hegemony and domination, as well as their supply of natural resources, and both ultimately lost in the inter-imperialist war.
In summary: The regression of traditional U.S. imperialism, based on hegemonic elements, to an empire with territorial ambitions marks a shift that can only exacerbate the contradictions of the new global stage we have entered—characterized by crisis, wars, barbarism, reaction, colonialism, and revolutions.
Nevertheless, this more defined character of Trump’s second administration must be viewed in contrast with the gap between words and actions. More broadly, what is on the table for discussion is its possible dynamic—specifically, to what extent the U.S. has shifted to the right (how far this shift has actually gone) and how the elements of class struggle polarization, both within the United States and beyond, will play out.
That is to say, and given that this text is a first attempt to address what is specific to the new Trump administration (we do not aim to conduct an analysis of the global situation here, which, moreover, we have tackled in other writings—such as «On Lenin, Hegel, and the Dialectics of the 21st Century»—nor to delve into other well-known reactionary characteristics of the new Trump government), our main interest is to focus on the issue of immigration and its internal consequences within the United States.
Trump announced and signed a series of executive orders regarding immigration in the early hours of his second term. Let’s look at some of them. The first, the border closure, is already in full effect: the borders with Mexico have been shut, and about 300,000 migrant people who were awaiting an application process—under which, during the Biden administration, approximately 900,000 people entered the country legally—have had their hopes deactivated. There are heartbreaking stories of migrants who left everything behind to attempt to enter the United States through this process, and now they won’t be able to do so. The consequence here is that, although Trump labels the Mexican drug cartels as “terrorists”—cartels that also deal with the illegal passage of people across the border—this will only end up encouraging more illegal immigration into the northern country.
Nonetheless, it is evident that this reactionary measure is already in effect and represents a step backward, even though the immigration policies of all U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have been marked by cynicism (we seem to recall that Obama’s administration was one of the ones that deported the most immigrants during his two terms!).[5]
However, Trump has also stated that there would be nationwide raids on immigrants this very weekend and even signed an executive order through which migrants could be removed from schools and churches. There is talk of a major raid taking place next weekend in Chicago, and officials have added that it won’t just be in Chicago but in many cities across the country… Well, this remains to be seen. Because, as another article in this same edition points out, it is false that there is no civil society in the United States: it exists, and it is very vibrant!
The country is filled with groups, unions, all kinds of student associations, etc., that advocate for causes such as Palestine, the unionization of the new working class, solidarity with people of color, with immigrants, and more. These groups will inevitably react if large-scale, open-air raids take place.
Furthermore, Trump also promised to eliminate ius soli, the right to nationality by birth for the children of immigrants. However, since this right is enshrined in the Constitution, there have already been numerous legal appeals, especially considering that the United States is a highly federalized country where states and even cities hold significant power. Many of these cities have declared themselves “sanctuary cities” for immigrants. It’s important to understand that there are many mediating factors: the states with their own legislations and state governments, various instances of the “justice” system, the slim Republican majorities in both chambers, the “palace” (the federal government) but also the “plaza” (local power), and so on.[6]
For these reasons, it’s not so simple for Trump’s bully tactics to prevail easily, despite the demoralization and shame of the Democratic Party, which, as imperialist as it is, continues to dominate many of the coalitions and progressive groups in the United States, only to betray and abandon them time and again (this is similar to the actions of the PT and Lula in Brazil or Kirchnerism and the union bureaucracy in Argentina, for instance).
Those who buy into Musk’s Hitlerian endorsement as the entire reality are falling for a «package» that overlooks the full complexity of the economic, social, geopolitical, and political relationships—both global and national—that the Trump administration will have to navigate. This could very well blow what’s left of global stability and the United States to pieces: «No one knows what Donald Trump will really do. But these announcements confirm that the intellectual, economic, and political framework of the new administration is entirely different from that of 2017. The evolution of global capitalism has profoundly altered the nature of U.S. imperialism. Now, it will be like Trumpism: a dangerous step back toward chaos, war, and colonialism» (Godin, ibid), and we add: eventually, towards an increased class struggle and revolution.
[1] The same dynamic that is driving international rearmament in this third decade of the 21st century and the potential for a third world war in the medium term, something that was unimaginable just a few decades ago (a circumstance and dynamic that reaffirms the competitive, exploitative, and plundering nature of imperialism, and its failure to create a “world state”).
[2] All of this demonstrates the immense relevance of the debate on imperialism: how it has returned with full force and must be addressed and developed, just as the genocide in Gaza has once again brought the issue of anti-colonial struggle to the forefront. The mediations are ending, and a new era of extremes is emerging on the horizon!
[3] It’s not clear that the Democratic bourgeoisie supports the «Trumpist international model.» Nevertheless, globalism is seen as being completely on the defensive, and it is a fact that we cannot fully develop here that the tech giants, as well as those in the oil and automotive industries, have aligned themselves with Trump. What comes after this at the level of the imperialist bourgeoisie is not clear at the moment (but what is clear is that it will remain divided!).
1909.
[4] The doctrine of the «Big Stick» was outlined by the first Roosevelt, Theodore, who governed the United States from 1901 to 1909.
[5] The «anti-immigration game» is «just» that: a cynical and populist game of imperialism that, in any case, needs immigrants to cheapen labor or to perform jobs that native workers are unwilling to do.
[6] One should not believe that the United States is a homogeneous country where nothing happens, because it is quite the opposite. The polarization is brutal: so brutal that it led to an event like the attempted storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021!
