Trump, God, and the Techno Philosopher Kings

Introduction

Donald Trump’s inaugural speech marked the beginning of a presidency that promises a new stage of unbridled capitalism under the cover of Christian nationalism. While the address avoided overt war rhetoric with China—offering a glimmer of hope for reduced nuclear tensions—it simultaneously unveiled an unsettling alliance of power that threatens what’s left of democratic norms. The ceremony was suffused with the overt and powerful presence of Christian hymns and Trump’s rhetoric about God, setting the tone for what appears to be the formation of a techno-theocracy.

This unholy alliance was made strikingly clear by the presence of CEOs from all major big tech companies, including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg, who were seated in front of the incoming cabinet members. Their privileged, institutionalized presence signals how corporate lords have become embedded in the machinery of government. Musk’s appointment as head of the Department of Government Efficiency further cements this merger of corporate and political power—a step toward Mussolini-style corporatism, where the state and corporations merge to control society under a singular national vision. That vision, embodied in the slogan “Make America Great Again,” should be interpreted as “Let’s make billionaires even richer and fulfill their dreams to be techno philosopher kings.” To paraphrase Marc Cuban, the Silicon Bros are the board of directors; Trump is the CEO/King. 

Against this backdrop, Trump’s speech laid the groundwork for dangerous domestic and foreign policies, from imperialist threats to the Panama Canal to alarming uses of emergency powers. This essay explores the key contradictions and risks in Trump’s vision, unpacking its implications for U.S. policy at home and abroad.

1. Imperialism and the Panama Canal

Trump’s threat to “take the Panama Canal” is a glaring example of imperialist overreach. Framing the move as a necessary assertion of U.S. interests, Trump’s claim is baseless and reckless. The canal remains under Panamanian control, with China’s involvement limited to infrastructure and technical support. There is no evidence of Chinese dominance over the canal, and this rhetoric dangerously undermines international law and norms of sovereignty.

If Trump’s logic is that historical agreements or past sales can be disregarded for strategic advantage, it opens the door to global chaos. For example:

  • France could argue that selling the Louisiana Territory in 1803 was a mistake and send troops to reclaim it. Why honor a bad deal from two centuries ago when it means regaining half the United States?
  • Mexico might decide that the U.S. acquisitions of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—gained largely through war and coercion—were illegitimate. Under Trump’s precedent, they might as well deploy military forces to reclaim these states.
  • Russia could claim that selling Alaska to the United States in 1867 was a strategic error and send troops to reclaim it, arguing that historical grievances justify military action.

Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t just embolden this kind of revisionist thinking; it actively justifies it. If the U.S. feels entitled to “take back” the Panama Canal based on outdated grievances, why shouldn’t Russia apply the same logic to Ukraine or its other former territories? Such a precedent does not restore U.S. leadership or legitimacy—it accelerates a world governed by power politics, where might makes right.

The fallout from this rhetoric would be catastrophic. Latin America, already wary of U.S. interventionism, would erupt in anti-American protests. Globally, other nations would view the U.S. as even more of a rogue state, a status it has already earned with the invasion of Iraq and, more recently, supporting the Israeli genocide in Gaza. It would erode its remaining influence and isolate it further on the world stage. This reckless posture not only endangers global stability but also accelerates the decline of an already fragile international order.

2. Drill, Baby, Drill: Climate Denial and Corporate Complicity

Trump’s promise to lower energy prices by “unleashing America’s fossil fuels” represents a deliberate rejection of climate science and a reckless embrace of fossil fuel extraction. “Drill, baby, drill” is not just a slogan—it is a death sentence for a planet already reeling from the devastating impacts of climate change. Fires continue to burn in Los Angeles, and hurricanes and storms have ravaged Florida and the Carolinas. Yet, Trump failed to mention the climate crisis even once.

The complicity of tech billionaires in supporting Trump’s agenda is especially damning. These individuals, who undeniably understand the realities of climate science, continue to back Trump to defend their corporate interests. Their actions, or lack thereof, rise to the level of a crime against humanity, prioritizing short-term profits over the survival of future generations. By aligning with a climate-denying administration, they are not only aiding environmental destruction but actively enabling policies that accelerate it.

3. The Good News: No War Rhetoric About China

A surprising omission from Trump’s speech was any aggressive rhetoric toward China, a sharp departure from the Republican Party’s typical approach. This offers a glimmer of hope for reducing tensions with Beijing and lowering the risk of nuclear conflict.

However, Trump’s appointment of Elbridge Colby as Undersecretary of Defense complicates this narrative. Colby, a well-known China hawk, advocates building overwhelming U.S. conventional military capacity in the South China Sea to deter Chinese aggression. Such a strategy is deeply provocative. Why would China wait for the U.S. to amass overwhelming strength? Preemptive action, such as an invasion of Taiwan, becomes a logical response to such a threat. The world recognizes Taiwan as being part of China, and if Taiwan does have a claim for self-determination, it must achieve it without U.S. intervention. We cannot risk nuclear war for the sake of Taiwan or American “credibility” in the region. 

Ultimately, the U.S. should stay out of this conflict. The future of Taiwan and China should be resolved by the Chinese people, not through foreign intervention. While Trump’s speech avoided raising the temperature, his administration’s actions may tell a different story.

4. Dangerous Domestic Precedents: Troops on the Border and Emergency Powers

Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to deploy troops to the southern border sets a dangerous precedent. Under emergency powers, Trump bypasses legal restrictions such as the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits U.S. military use on domestic soil. By invoking a national emergency, Trump can:

  • Deploy troops to enforce border security or even enter cities under the Insurrection Act of 1807, using crime or unrest as justification.
  • Redirect funds without congressional approval, channeling military resources to his agenda.
  • Erode civil liberties by expanding surveillance, detentions, and policing powers under the guise of security.

Even more alarming is Trump’s designation of Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations. This gives him sweeping authority to:

  • Arrest and detain individuals—including U.S. citizens—suspected of aiding cartels or gangs without trial under anti-terrorism laws.
  • Seize financial assets and properties of individuals and businesses linked to cartels, even with minimal evidence.
  • Expand domestic surveillance, treating U.S.-based gangs tied to cartels as terrorist networks.
  • Justify cross-border military actions in Mexico under the pretext of counterterrorism, a move that risks severe diplomatic fallout.

The combination of these powers creates a framework for authoritarian overreach. What begins as border enforcement could quickly extend to mass detentions or military intervention in urban areas. The erosion of legal safeguards in the name of “national security” threatens to normalize militarized governance, with dangerous implications for people’s democratic rights. 

5. Restoring the Name McKinley: Celebrating Imperialism and Inequality

Trump’s announcement to restore the name of Mount McKinley to replace Denali reflects his nostalgia for a time of unchecked American expansionism and corporate dominance. William McKinley, the 25th president, presided over the annexation of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War, and the bloody subjugation of the Philippines during the Philippine-American War, which left tens of thousands of Filipinos dead.

Domestically, McKinley’s era symbolized the worst of the Gilded Age: rampant child labor, 12 to 16-hour workdays, unsafe working conditions, and the absence of unions or a social safety net. Healthcare and workplace protections were non-existent, leaving workers at the mercy of industrial elites. By celebrating McKinley, Trump seems to glorify a time when America’s “greatness” was defined by imperialist ventures abroad and deep inequalities at home. The question arises: Is this the vision of greatness Trump intends to revive?

Conclusion

Trump’s inaugural speech revealed the contradictions at the heart of his administration. While it avoided direct escalation with China, it laid the groundwork for provocative policies that risk long-term instability. Domestically, his use of emergency powers threatens to erode democratic norms, while his imperialist rhetoric regarding the Panama Canal and climate denial signal a return to outdated, destructive policies.

The stakes are high. By expanding his powers through emergency declarations and terror designations and ignoring the existential threat of climate change, Trump is setting dangerous precedents that could fundamentally alter U.S. governance and global stability. His vision echoes Mussolini-style corporatism, where the merger of state and corporate power enables unchecked authoritarianism. 

Trump proclaimed in his speech, “My life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again.” This is the Christianity of the Crusades—domineering, militant, and imperial—not the message of a loving, compassionate Jesus. It is a vision that uses faith as a tool to justify power, wealth, and domination rather than a call to humility or care for humanity.

SUBSCRIBEDONATE

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *