Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs Independently of who you supported in the 2024 elections—or even if you voted at all—you may not be paying a lot of attention to what’s taking place in Washington these days.This is normal. All democracies rely on a mix of alert and inert citizens. Too many of either and the government is paralyzed by contestation or left unaccountable, respectively.And so, you might be ignoring headlines about the Trump administration’s dismantling of entire federal agencies, its draconian approach to immigration, and its imperialist saber-rattling with America’s most enduring allies. The obligations of daily life—family, work, health—can feel all-consuming. And anyway, you might reassure yourself, President Donald Trump and MAGA’s chaos are not targeting people like you.
Members of the National Guard patrol the border wall in Juarez Valley, Chihuahua state, Mexico on Feb. 5.
Members of the National Guard patrol the border wall in Juarez Valley, Chihuahua state, Mexico on Feb. 5.
VICTOR GAHBLER/AFP via Getty Images
This conclusion is wrong, but it is critical to populism’s endurance today.Most of us are not extreme populists—those motivated by the ideology that we must rebel against a cabal of self-serving cosmopolitan elites that promote the interests of ethnically different newcomers and foreigners over the families of patriots who have long sacrificed blood and treasure for the nation. You may not think of yourself as the most authentic “son of the soil,” you may not have attended a Trump rally. But you are surely not in his crosshairs, you tell yourself.And at first glance, you aren’t. In his initial weeks in office, Trump has tested the boundaries of executive power by halting the distribution of congressionally approved funding to grantees and loan recipients, closing the U.S. foreign aid program, pressuring hundreds of thousands of federal workers to resign, imposing tariffs on America’s largest trading partners, and severely limiting immigration into the United States. You may not personally receive any government funding; quite the opposite, you pay taxes. And like about 85 percent of Americans, you’re neither a federal worker nor a foreigner.
In Trump’s crusade of “us” against “them,” you’re closer to “us.”But as explained in great detail by the libertarian philosopher Chandran Kukathas in his book Immigration and Freedom, governments cannot control immigrants without controlling citizens. Every law that requires immigrants to prove their eligibility for work or public services, the authenticity of their marriage or their lawful presence in the country, also requires that everyone else does the same. So, to restrict immigrants, the state must monitor and restrict its citizens, too.It’s a story similar to Trump’s unprovoked trade war with Mexico, Canada, and China—America’s three largest trading partners. For the U.S. government to extract more money from foreign economies that are profiting off U.S. buying power, American consumers will pay more for a wide variety of imports. And if Americans produce goods that are exported, their industries may be targeted with counter-tariffs that reduce their sales. In fact, the Canadian government has explicitly stated its intention to focus its retaliatory measures on Republican-held regions and states.Further, if Trump administration officials are permitted to overrule congressional authority and constitutional standards on one issue—however distant from your day-to-day life—it sets a precedent for their approach to issues that may affect you more directly next time.In targeting “them,” the Trump administration also implicates “us.”The necessary widening of the crosshair’s scope is made worse by unintended spillover effects. By limiting immigration into the United States, the Trump administration will inevitably create labor shortages in the agriculture, food production, construction, and restaurant sectors. Much as it did when Trump halted immigration during the 2020 pandemic, this will inflate the cost of food and housing for all consumers. Indiscriminate enforcement measures have been shown to reduce white people’s employment prospects, reduce entrepreneurship by white people, housing supply, reduce the availability of caregiving services, and have no effect on overall crime rates.And ironically, in cutting off foreign aid, the Trump administration is depriving the United States of one of its most effective strategies to constrain immigration. Humanitarian agencies like USAID and the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM) improve the quality of life in dozens of key countries of origin in Latin America and Africa by providing disaster relief, shelter, food, and health care. And as a result, people are less likely to seek refuge in the United States. The IOM also facilitates migrants’ return.Trump’s attack on the federal bureaucracy and its funding is the most obvious example of these spillover effects. The federal workers pressured to retire include law enforcement officers, Veterans Affairs health care workers who provide medicine to millions, commercial and financial overseers that ensure fair play, and bureaucrats who approve applications for students’ financial aid, small business loans, passports, and patents. These are also the individuals who distribute emergency funds, social security and welfare benefits, and money for highways, energy, broadband, and other infrastructure. This is one of the reasons the White House walked its federal funding cutoff back so quickly. It was so clearly going to affect “us.”Our challenge is to recognize that the effects on “us” may not always be so blatant. This was the message of Thomas Jefferson and America’s earliest pluralists.In the 17th and 18th centuries, there was a lot of “us” versus “them” logic—between Protestants and Catholics, yes, but among a variety of other faiths and sects, too. Before the American Revolution, the Church of England was established as the official church of Virginia, where Presbyterians and Baptists dissenters were discriminated against, persecuted, and charged higher taxes. Jefferson advocated fiercely for religious freedom and a separation of church and state, because he understood that “us” versus “them” logic would divide and ultimately weaken all parties. Later in his life, he referred to this debate as among “the severest contests in which I have ever been engaged.”Born an Anglican, Jefferson was condemned for taking the side of “them” over “us.” He was accused of being an atheist and a devil for his pluralist views.Similarly today, opposing “us” versus “them” logic should not be misconstrued as unpatriotically supporting “them.” It should be understood as a recognition that such lines are never so simple, and always perforable. When Trump policies target minority groups, foreigners, immigrants, and federal employees, none of “us” will be better off.Justin Gest (@_JustinGest) is a Newsweek columnist. He is a professor and director of the Public Policy program at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government. He is the author of six books on the politics of immigration and demographic change, including his newest, Majority Minority.The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own
