Trump’s Corporate Coup d’état: Authoritarian Neoliberalism on Steroids

S A Hamed Hosseini

With Trump’s return to office, the U.S. enters a new phase of authoritarian neoliberalism, a system that merges privatization, deregulation, and market dominance with concentrated political control. This is not an anomaly but the natural progression of capitalism’s trajectory, where corporate and political power consolidate under the guise of restoring greatness. Drawing on the enduring legacies of racism, imperialism, and colonialism embedded in its foundations, (American) capitalism now reveals its inner logic more starkly than ever: an intensification of policies that erode public oversight while amplifying private wealth and influence.

Guided by a cadre of staunchly pro-market officials, Trump’s government is poised to realign both foreign and domestic policy to prioritize corporate profit and national power over societal welfare. The intended outcome is not merely economic growth but, in fact, a reorientation of American priorities, sacrificing public institutions and social equity to bolster private wealth and reinforce authoritarian control.

Key Cabinet Nominees

Trump’s administration is set to aggressively pursue privatization, deregulation, and pro-corporate policies, framing these initiatives as efforts to streamline government while deepening corporate-state entanglements. The cabinet nominees awaiting Senate confirmation signal a broader authoritarian neoliberal agenda that ties U.S. economic and geopolitical strategy to oligarchic corporate interests, eroding democratic accountability and exacerbating global inequities.

Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio champions a foreign policy designed to advance U.S. corporate expansion in Latin America and Africa, leveraging sanctions and trade policies to destabilize foreign competitors in resource-rich regions. Framed as market liberalization, Rubio’s approach subordinates the sovereignty and development needs of these nations to American corporate interests, positioning authoritarian neoliberalism as a global force that undermines democratic norms in favor of economic dominance.

Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth aligns national security with fossil fuel interests, advocating “energy dominance” as a geopolitical strategy while dismissing climate change as a security threat. His approach emphasizes the aggressive production and export of American oil and gas, which results in the dismantling of environmental protections and the entrenching of extractive industries at the heart of U.S. domestic and foreign policy. This strategy risks accelerating ecological degradation while prioritizing short-term profits for corporate allies.

CIA Director nominee John Ratcliffe proposes intensifying collaboration between intelligence agencies and Silicon Valley in order to position big tech as a counterweight to China’s growing influence. While marketed as a strategy to enhance national security, this deeper corporate-state integration raises serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties. Ratcliffe’s vision exemplifies the troubling convergence of surveillance technology for state purposes with corporate profit motives that would further blur the lines between public interest and private gain.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, while not requiring Senate confirmation, reflects the administration’s overarching commitment to aligning national security with economic interests. Although Waltz’s position does not directly control energy resources, his public advocacy for leveraging U.S. energy dominance as a strategic tool illustrates the administration’s broader alignment with fossil fuel industries. His role underscores the emphasis on using national security rhetoric to reinforce extractive industries while sidelining renewable energy innovation and global climate commitments.

Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi epitomizes the administration’s loyalty-first approach, often at the expense of competency and public trust. Bondi, a former Florida Attorney General and a staunch Trump ally, was nominated after Representative Matt Gaetz withdrew his candidacy on November 21, 2024, due to insufficient support for Senate confirmation. Bondi’s controversial record includes allegations of conflicts of interest and ethical concerns, reflecting the administration’s broader willingness to sideline institutional expertise and accountability to consolidate power and amplify corporate influence.

Labor Secretary nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer was announced on November 22, 2024. Chavez-DeRemer, a Congresswoman with a background in local governance and small business ownership, represents a continuation of Trump’s alignment with pro-corporate labor policies. Her nomination underscores the administration’s focus on deregulation and weakening labor protections under the guise of promoting economic growth. While framed as empowering workers, her leadership is expected to advance an agenda favoring employer flexibility over worker rights, further entrenching economic disparities.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary nominee Scott Turner was announced on November 22, 2024. Turner, a former Texas state representative and NFL player, previously served as the executive director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during Trump’s first term. His nomination reflects the administration’s focus on urban development policies that may prioritize private investment and deregulation. Turner’s background suggests a potential emphasis on public-private partnerships and market-driven solutions in housing policy.

Moreover, Trump’s reliance on recess appointments to bypass Senate confirmation underscores his administration’s authoritarian tendencies and disregard for institutional checks. By threatening to exploit constitutional loopholes to force appointments, Trump not only undermines the Senate’s advisory role but also sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. This approach reflects his broader agenda of consolidating power while eroding democratic accountability.

Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent was announced on November 22, 2024. Bessent, founder of the investment firm Key Square Group and a former chief investment officer for George Soros’s family office, is a seasoned financial strategist. His nomination aligns with the administration’s pro-market economic principles, focusing on tax reductions, deregulation, and a business-first agenda. Bessent’s experience in global financial markets signals a continuation of Trump’s efforts to consolidate economic policymaking within the executive branch, prioritizing the demands of elite financial interests over broader economic equity.

Elon Musk has expressed support for Lutnick, emphasizing his potential to drive significant changes aligned with Trump’s economic principles, including tax reductions, deregulation, and a pro-business agenda. Regarding the Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell’s term ends in May 2026, but Powell has declined to confirm whether he would remain on the Fed board afterwards. Speculation suggests that Trump’s nominee for Federal Reserve Chair would likely favor policies promoting lower interest rates and priorities that bolster domestic manufacturing, aligning monetary policy with his broader economic objectives. As Trump’s cabinet nominees and potential appointees undergo Senate review, each selection reflects a commitment to concentrating power within private sectors and aligning state resources with corporate interests. Notable appointments, such as Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State, Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, highlight this direction.

Making Corporate Fascism More ‘Efficient’

Trump has announced the formation of a new “Department of Government Efficiency,” to be co-led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. This entity is tasked with providing external counsel on reforming government departments, cutting costs, and reducing waste, reflecting the administration’s broader focus on streamlining operations. Musk and Ramaswamy, both prominent figures in the private sector, embody the administration’s emphasis on integrating corporate strategies into public governance.

Framed as a drive for “efficiency,” a hallmark of neoliberal rhetoric, the prospective administration’s agenda promises to “streamline” government operations. Yet behind this veneer lies a project aimed at dismantling regulatory safeguards, undermining public accountability, and entrenching corporate interests closely tied to Trump’s inner circle. The bold restructuring of federal institutions under this administration risks deepening inequality, weakening democratic checks, and reversing long-standing civil protections.

Among Trump’s team, Elon Musk has emerged as a symbol of this so-called efficiency campaign. Musk’s financial success with electric vehicles (as superficial symbols of ecological efficiency hardly affordable by the working classes) has garnered him vast wealth and influence, with some heralding him as a visionary. However, Musk’s involvement in Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency exemplifies the dangerous fusion of private interests and public governance, as his companies, such as SpaceX, which have secured over $10 billion in federal contracts in the past decade and are currently under investigation by multiple federal agencies, now seek to dismantle the very oversight they are subject to. Musk and Ramaswamy’s leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency threatens to eliminate regulatory oversight, with Musk personally targeting agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) while ambitiously claiming they could slash $2 trillion from the federal budget, a figure that underscores the radical scope of their agenda. This move will threaten to undermine already underfunded institutions like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) and to jeopardize critical antitrust enforcement. This troubling alignment of private profit with public governance exemplifies the administration’s agenda to dismantle oversight mechanisms and will further consolidate corporate power at the expense of democratic accountability and public welfare.

In the same vein, Trump’s proposed administration is proposing to consolidate power over national finance within the executive branch, which will risk putting Wall Street’s interests above public priorities. The Federal Reserve has long maintained a degree of independence to balance the economy’s stability with public welfare. As explained by Michael Hudson and Richard Wolff, by subsuming it under the Treasury, the administration could prioritize the demands of hedge funds and financial markets over wage security, debt relief, and accessible credit for ordinary Americans. In practical terms, this would leave the everyday citizen further behind by channeling public resources toward elite financial interests.

Re-gearing U.S. Global Involvement: Consolidating Power Abroad and at Home

Trump’s foreign policy exemplifies his administration’s authoritarian neoliberal agenda, not a retreat from global involvement but a re-gearing toward selective economic and geopolitical dominance. The administration’s efforts to contain China and reduce commitments to Europe, particularly within NATO, reflect a deliberate strategy to prioritize U.S. corporate and state power. This shift is not only aimed at reshaping global alliances but also serves as a mechanism for reinforcing authoritarian market fundamentalism domestically.

By focusing on China as the principal economic threat, Trump’s administration aims to consolidate economic power within U.S. borders, favoring domestic production and fossil-fuel industries. This economic neo-mercantilism, while couched in populist rhetoric, primarily serves corporate interests tied to extractive capitalism. However, neo-mercantilism, by its very nature, necessitates coercive imperialism to secure and control critical resources and markets. This dynamic drives trade and economic rivalries with rising powers like China into increasingly confrontational and potentially violent terrain, especially over access to resources and strategic influence in the Middle East and Africa.

The administration’s emphasis on “energy dominance” and curtailing global reliance on China aligns with an agenda of aggressively protecting U.S. economic interests, often through military posturing and economic sanctions. These strategies, however, come at the cost of deepening global isolation for the U.S. and creating opportunities for China and the BRICS bloc to expand their influence in key regions. As European economies buckle under energy challenges and NATO struggles with confrontations against Russia, the vacuum left by reduced U.S. engagement in cooperative diplomacy risks accelerating de-dollarization and undermining American leverage.

This escalating competition for dominance over resources and markets in the Global South heightens the likelihood of violent clashes and exacerbates instability. Ironically, the very strategies intended to reassert U.S. global power risk entrenching a cycle of imperialist violence that further destabilizes international relations while eroding U.S. influence both abroad and at home.

At home, this re-gearing of foreign policy reinforces the administration’s corporate authoritarian logic. The narrative of protecting “national interests” provides a pretext for consolidating power, sidelining democratic accountability, and amplifying inequality. By promoting policies that benefit corporate elites in fossil fuels and military-industrial sectors, the administration deepens domestic divides while marginalizing environmental and social welfare considerations.

This interconnection of foreign and domestic strategies reveals the broader logic of authoritarian neoliberalism: a system that uses populist rhetoric and economic nationalism to justify policies that erode public oversight, concentrate power, and intensify corporate control. Trump’s global pivot is not merely a foreign policy decision; it is an extension of the same forces that undermine democracy and equity at home, offering a stark reminder of capitalism’s trajectory when left unchecked.

Privatization and the Hollowing Out of Public Services

Domestically, Trump’s team will set its sights on privatizing vast swathes of the public sector, from education to the postal service. These moves are marketed as methods to improve efficiency, yet the history of privatization suggests otherwise. Privatized services, once stripped of their public purpose, often translate to higher costs, reduced access, and diminished quality, available only to those who can afford them. When what once functioned as democratic assets becomes exclusive commodities, the inequalities will continue to widen further. Trump-Musk’s austerity strategy – cutting taxes for the wealthy and then cutting public spending – does not merely reduce the budget; it shifts the financial burden to ordinary citizens while providing little in return. Over time, this approach creates a society where public goods are sacrificed to protect the wealth and power of the few.

To understand the consequences of such shifts, one need only look at Argentina, where President Javier Milei’s implementation of extreme privatization measures (mirroring strategies like Project 2025) has resulted in staggering cuts in state spending and the defunding of critical sectors like education, healthcare, and public welfare. In Argentina, this has deepened inequality, fostered social resentment, destabilized cohesion, and created conditions ripe for potential social implosions as poverty has risen sharply.

Project 2025 and the Authoritarian Restructuring of Public Institutions

Trump’s administration will be advancing an aggressive agenda to reshape the federal government. At the core of this agenda is Project 2025, a comprehensive plan orchestrated by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations. This initiative advocates for a radical streamlining of government operations through extensive privatization and deregulation, aiming to create a leaner state. While framed as efficiency-driven, Project 2025’s public policies raise serious concerns about its broader implications for democracy and civil rights.

Although Trump publicly distanced himself from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 during his campaign, his cabinet selections and policy moves reveal significant alignment with the project’s objectives. Several key appointees associated with Project 2025 now hold prominent positions in the administration. This signals a shared vision that focuses on extensive cuts to public institutions, deregulation of essential services, and privatization on an unprecedented scale.

Notable appointments include Russell Vought, a co-author of Project 2025, nominated as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought’s leadership is expected to drive the project’s agenda of restructuring federal agencies, reducing regulatory oversight, and embedding pro-market policies that may further erode public accountability. Similarly, Brendan Carr, a contributor to the FCC chapter of Project 2025, has been appointed to lead the Federal Communications Commission, where his tenure is likely to prioritize deregulation within the communications sector, elevating corporate interests over consumer protections such as net neutrality.

Additionally, Tom Homan, a contributor to Project 2025, has been appointed as the administration’s “border czar.” Known for his stringent immigration enforcement policies during his tenure as acting director of ICE, Homan’s new role aligns with the administration’s hardline immigration agenda, potentially intensifying the militarization of border policies and surveillance.

These appointments underscore the influence of Project 2025 on Trump’s governance strategy, despite earlier attempts to disassociate from the initiative. The integration of the project’s architects into critical positions reflects a broader commitment to consolidating executive power, diminishing the autonomy of federal agencies, and advancing market-driven solutions across governmental functions.

The administration’s adoption of Project 2025 principles exemplifies its ideological commitment to neoliberal authoritarianism, where efficiency and deregulation are prioritized at the expense of democratic accountability and public welfare. By embedding these principles into governance, Trump’s administration accelerates the hollowing out of public institutions, paving the way for deeper corporate control and marginalization of collective interests.

Project 2025’s proposals include reducing the influence of federal agencies by dismantling departments such as Education and Justice and replacing career civil servants with political appointees loyal to the administration. These moves are framed by proponents as a means to foster a more responsive government. However, it is not too difficult to predict that the replacement of non-partisan civil servants with politically driven appointees risks severely undermining institutional checks and balances. By curbing agency independence, Project 2025 aligns with authoritarian neoliberalism’s preference for top-down control, where public oversight is supplanted by market-driven directives that prioritize corporate interests over collective welfare.

Project 2025’s agenda to dismantle federal agencies, replace civil servants with political appointees, and prioritize corporate interests over public welfare epitomizes the authoritarian neoliberal project. This plan transforms public institutions into tools for private profit while eroding democratic accountability, an unmistakable reflection of capitalism’s historical trajectory toward oligarchic control. The economic policies outlined in Project 2025 further emphasize tax cuts for corporations, deregulation across industries, and a revival of fossil fuel production as a means of reducing energy costs. Policies such as renewing corporate tax cuts from Trump’s previous term and imposing tariffs on imports, particularly from China, suggest a nationalist, pro-corporate agenda that could accelerate economic inequalities. Additionally, the administration’s intent to expand fossil fuel production, while touted as an economic benefit, may have lasting adverse effects on environmental sustainability. Such a focus on fossil fuel reliance reinforces an authoritarian model of governance, where environmental protections and the public good are subordinated to corporate gains.

Job Creation Rhetoric vs. Worker Exploitation

The administration’s rhetoric around job creation continues to suggest an economy positioned to uplift all workers, yet the underlying reality reflects an increasingly stark divide. Promises of new jobs are continually recycled, but wages for working Americans have largely stagnated as the cost of living rises. Particularly vulnerable are undocumented workers, who face demonization alongside exploitation. Despite their essential roles in many industries, the administration’s anti-immigrant stance threatens to remove these workers from the economy, even though industries rely on their labor to keep costs low.

These labor dynamics underscore a broader shift in public resources and responsibilities from the state to the market. With Trump’s administration pushing privatization across essential public services, citizens increasingly bear the costs of programs that once served the public interest. From education to the postal service, aggressive deregulation and privatization are marketed as a means of efficiency, yet it frequently translates into higher costs, reduced access, and lower quality for those who cannot afford private alternatives. This transformation weakens public infrastructure and fosters inequality, creating a landscape where only the privileged few benefit from once-universal services.

How to Counter the Coup: Mobilizing Radical Responses

Trump’s second administration is emblematic of a broader transformation away from the post-Cold War era, where the convergence of neoliberal norms under the unipolar American hegemony and a liberal democratic framework dominated politics and governance. As traditional political categories fragment and institutional trust erodes, Trump’s agenda, while radical in its consolidation of power, is reflective of a global (dis)order where competing economic blocs and domestic populism increasingly challenge democratic accountability and international liberal norms.

As the United States enters a second Trump term, it faces not an aberration but a stark revelation of capitalism’s inherent trajectory toward authoritarianism. The administration’s policies, embodied in Project 2025’s sweeping overhaul of public institutions, signal an intensified authoritarian neoliberalism. This is not an exception and not limited to the United States; it is capitalism’s historical logic unfolding openly, a system that, from its origins, has carried forward the racist, imperialist, and colonialist residues of its making.

This moment calls for an equally radical response. Progressive movements, both within and beyond parliamentary politics, must acknowledge the systemic roots of this authoritarian turn and join forces to dismantle the structures that uphold it. The true path forward lies not in superficial reforms but in a fundamental reimagining of societal values: moving from a profit-driven economy to one that prioritizes inclusivity, ecological stewardship, and collective well-living.

To counteract the authoritarian trajectory of neoliberal capitalism, it is essential to reimagine societal values and institutions at their core. As Capital Redefined: A Commonist Value Theory for Liberating Life argues, this requires a paradigm shift toward a commonist approach that prioritizes ‘true value’, a value rooted in collective well-being, ecological stewardship, and the intrinsic worth of shared resources. By replacing capitalism’s ‘fetish value,’ which commodifies life and nature for profit, with a system that centers the flourishing of people and the planet, we can dismantle the structures that uphold inequality and ecological degradation.

In a context of growing authoritarianism and global instability, the strategies traditionally employed by emancipatory movements – isolating themselves to experiment with utopian ideals, engaging in party politics to reform liberal democratic institutions, or relying on civil disobedience – are proving increasingly insufficient on their own. Isolation risks irrelevance, party politics have failed to counteract the entrenchment of neoliberal hegemony, and civil disobedience, while vital, is becoming dangerously costly and fragile under intensifying state repression. While these approaches remain necessary, their effectiveness depends on being practised in closer association with one another and underpinned by a broader, systemic vision.

The time to merely resist is over; the moment demands the creation of a compelling and actionable alternative to the dominant political and economic systems. The persistence of neoliberalism, whether in its moderate or aggressive forms, lies largely in the absence of a comprehensive vision that can replace it in its entirety. Emancipatory forces must urgently develop new constitutions, frameworks, and systems that prioritize collective well-being, ecological balance, and economic justice – transformative ideals that can inspire public demand and unify disparate movements. Pushing these alternatives into the public consciousness and political agenda through every available means, from grassroots mobilization to cultural production, is not merely a strategy but a historical imperative. The failure to do so risks leaving humanity locked in the cycle of deepening inequality, ecological collapse, and authoritarian regression.