Trump: The Face of a New ‘Deep State’?

The American political scene has thrown up a supposed anti-establishment result in the 2024 presidential elections, with Donald Trump poised to return as the 47th President of the United States.

Political Polarisation: A Divisive Election —
The U.S. political landscape has never been so polarised as it has been over the past decade, with the 2024 contest culminating in a fierce battle between what Trump and his MAGA supporters have labelled as the corrupt Deep State, the Radical Left, and pro-establishment forces, versus MAGA Patriots or America First truth-seekers. The conclusion of the 2024 elections does not mark the end of this division, but rather its escalation to a new level, where the “Radical Left” establishment will sit in opposition and prepare to challenge the newly dominant ruling elite, or the “MAGA Patriots.”

The Intersection of Identity and Class Politics —
Since the election results began to emerge, Democrat-leaning supporters expressed disillusionment with American voters for not allowing a woman—especially a woman of colour—to win the presidency for a second time (after Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat). This reflects the clash between identity politics and class politics. Identity politics, championed by the Democrats, focuses on issues affecting specific social or cultural groups based on identities such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. In contrast, class politics, represented by the Republicans, deals with economic issues affecting individuals based on their social class, such as income inequality, labour rights, and wealth distribution. Kamala Harris’s historic position as the first Black, South Asian, and female Vice President is an example of identity politics, breaking barriers for multiple identity groups. Meanwhile, Trump’s appeal to the “forgotten” working class and middle-income Americans, especially those in manufacturing and rural areas, aligns with class-based concerns. Clearly, Harris’s identity politics was seen as prioritising identity representation over broader economic issues, while Trump—despite criticisms of his populist rhetoric, which overlooked systemic inequalities—managed to resonate with ordinary Americans. But how did that happen?

The Role of Family Values and Cultural Issues —
The Harris campaign took a decidedly “woke” approach that many ordinary Americans saw as threatening to disrupt the cultural fabric and family values that they held dear. While core Democrat voters supported LGBTQ+ rights, racial profiling reforms, and issues such as the abortion ban (Roe v. Wade’s 2022 overturning), Trump’s campaign remained firmly focused on economic populism, job creation, and protecting American industries from the effects of globalisation—issues that also resonated with moderate Democrats and independent voters. Throughout this, Trump skilfully held onto his MAGA base by remaining steadfast on family values, gender identity issues, and promises to ban “woke” policies in schools, including Critical Race Theory. He also escalated his rhetoric on illegal immigration, offering concrete solutions such as reinstating travel bans and building more sections of the border wall. Among all of Trump’s promises, the issue of illegal immigration resonated most with a wide range of voters, including fence-sitters, who were grappling with economic downturns, job losses, and high inflation—issues that Trump blamed on Biden-Harris policies, particularly the costly wars in Ukraine. In the battle between family values conservatism and hidden liberal agendas, the former triumphed by broadening its scope beyond its core ideology, even addressing the socialist divide created by the Biden administration’s economic mismanagement.

Political Promises: Practical Solutions vs. Vague Agendas —
When comparing the campaign promises of Harris and Trump, the latter presented clear solutions to the pressing issues facing American society, while the Harris campaign remained vague in its approach. Take the housing crisis, a key issue in the 2024 elections. Harris promised investment in affordable housing, particularly for low-income and families of colour, alongside a $100 billion grant programme to reduce out-of-pocket costs. Trump, on the other hand, proposed lowering regulations to make home-building faster and cheaper, thereby boosting supply and, ideally, affordability. Harris’s team advocated for greater government control, while Trump focused on deregulation and reducing state involvement. Trump’s policies placed more emphasis on homeownership and supply-side solutions, rather than direct aid to renters. On the economy, Harris proposed raising corporate tax rates to 28%, while Trump called for reducing them from 21% to 15% for domestic manufacturers, alongside a 60% tariff on Chinese imports and a four-year plan to reduce Chinese imports, aiming to benefit domestic manufacturing. This clear, practical approach, regardless of its feasibility, found strong support among ordinary voters struggling with job losses, inflation, and the housing crisis in the post-Covid world.

The Deep State and the Rise of Outsider Politics —
As the average American grappled with economic hardships, reclaiming their identity through political participation became a powerful means to voice their discontent and something they could take pride in. Moreover, it was not just MAGA supporters, but also many ordinary Americans, who were eager to free themselves from what they saw as a puppet candidate backed by the establishment and deep state. In the run up to 2024 elections journey, this anti-establishment sentiment was fuelled by another Republican candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, who presented himself as a crusader against the deep state and an advocate for returning American democracy to its roots, where power resides in the people. Trump’s campaign, alongside its core supporters, convinced many voters that the Democrats were mere figureheads for a larger, more powerful deep-state cabal, operating independently of the White House. The election thus became a battle for the reclaiming of American democracy, one that was meant to serve the people, not the interests of powerful elites.

Elites: Replacing One with Another —
But is it really reclamation of power by ordinary people from the elite? If we look at the financial backers of the Harris and Trump campaigns, it reflects different power structures: Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Wall Street largely supported Harris, while the Military-Industrial Complex backed Trump. However, one figure stood out in this spectacle—Elon Musk. Trump himself acknowledged that Musk supported his campaign through a super PAC, the America PAC, which pledged nearly $45 million a month. Other backers included Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, venture capitalist Doug Leone, and the Winklevoss twins. Musk’s role, however, was especially significant. It is apparent that Musk and his empire stand to gain significantly under a Trump presidency. Former Texas Representative Ron Paul, known for his advocacy of limited government and free-market principles, hinted at a potential role in a future Trump administration, particularly in a so called ‘Department of Government Efficiency’. Musk himself has expressed his willingness to serve in such a role if offered. The replacement of one elite by another, as suggested by C. Wright Mills’ theory of the “power elite,” may be playing out yet again in American politics. This shift implies that while one set of elites may be displaced, they are merely replaced by another interconnected group controlling major societal institutions.

Many ordinary Americans believe they have freed their country from the control of corrupt elites, but they may be unaware that they have simply replaced one elite with another. With the backing of the Military-Industrial Complex, Trump may find himself working in their interest. This could lead to the rise of a new “Deep State”—a dynamic, amorphous concept where competing interests vie for dominance. Each candidate in the race holds a different set of cards representing policies and promises, and as the election unfolds, they shuffle these cards in an attempt to outmanoeuvre their opponents. Did the Deep State play its “Trump Card” by influencing Trump to adjust his governance approach? Is Trump the “Dark Knight” of this new deep state? Only time will tell.