The MAGA Theory: a Big Bang ?

The start of the second Trump presidency is not only a change of administration, it is a regime change. We are witnessing a palace revolution and an outright attack on the values-based worldview and its expression in democracy. Even though many voters were arguably motivated by economic hardship and inflation, none of what we witnessed over the past weeks is really about the soaring egg prices of the campaigns as The New Yorker’s editor notes.

These foundations showcase that MAGA is not just a clownery but a project resting on articulated and robust ideological material developed over the past years for a new ‘postliberal’ era. The consequence of such an open defiance of democracy and a values-based worldview - including human dignity, rule of law, checks & balances, pluralism and multilateralism - is that Europe may become a bigger hurdle than Russia or China for MAGA’s agenda and may ultimately become a political target. To respond, European leaders must remain committed to their values while keeping an open and non-confrontational posture with the US. At the same time, internal political divisions in the US may halt the project of the new American leadership.

Despise of the Values-Based Worldview and the Cult of Force

While the MAGA movement claims to put America first and to serve the American interests, one will fail to understand their strategy and endgame if he believes that Trump approaches politics as a businessman that negotiates and brokers deals to gain economic or security interests.

As Europeans, we must realize that the Trump I and Trump II presidencies are of a radically different nature. The first mandate of President Trump seems to have been dictated by a transactional and sometimes unorganized or impulsive approach to politics. Sometimes we refer to this attitude of staged unpredictability as the "Mad Man theory". But in a recent blog post, Francis Fukuyama underscores how the second term of Trump is no longer characterized by ‘chaotic’ or ‘transactional’ approaches: "we are seeing a deliberate rollout of an effort to destroy the ‘deep state.’ This is not chaos, though it may be perceived as such by those on the receiving end." The second mandate however is the rollout of a thoroughly prepared revenge towards any kind of values-based worldview. For years, the Heritage Foundation has been working on Trump’s programme known as ‘Project 2025’. This project draws on the work of postliberal thinkers who have emerged over the past decade.

After Vance’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference, the appalling and cruel public humiliation of Zelensky and his people in the Oval Office was a textbook illustration of bullying and psychological torture. Trump, Vance, Musk and consorts are determined to wage a values war against anything resembling care, empathy and justice. It may be time to re-read Tom Holland’s brilliant Dominion to understand that the Hobbesian law of the jungle promoted by strongman Trump resembles more to Roman imperialism than to a human-centred democracy. Failing to understand this ideological dimension leads to being blind about the pursued objectives of the new US administration (although the word administration may not be appropriate anymore….)

At the Basis, Rejection and Anger Towards Liberalism and Democracy

The MAGA movement which took over the Grand Old Party broadly consists of two main streams of advocates. On the one hand, the postliberal intellectuals led by Vance. On the other hand, the libertarian tech bros with Musk as the most prominent figure. These two streams share a common rejection and anger towards liberalism and democracy. They vowed to wage a culture war against individual freedom, division of power, checks and balances, pluralism and tolerance deemed responsible for all social problems.

Postliberal Intellectuals: Vance, Rubio and De Santis

Vance recounts his upbringing in a broken family in rural Ohio in his 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy.. The book that made him a public figure is enlightening on the hardships of daily life that many American citizens endure. Four years later, Vance continued to share his life story in a blogpost explaining his spiritual journey to become a Catholic convert. In these reflections, we start to see his rejection of liberalism as the cause of the moral decay he witnesses in society. From there on, various Catholic intellectuals, often defending positions condemned by the Church itself, have continued to shape Vance’s political views along his intellectual journey.

Amongst them, Patrick Deneen, a political scientist at the University of Notre-Dame. His initial diagnosis is that the realisation of the liberal worldview leads to the destruction of society from within. His idea that liberalism destroys all social structures through its own success of creating ever-more isolated individuals has been widely praised in all circles of society and by Obama himself. In his newest book Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future, Deneen goes one step further and advocates for a new type of so-called ‘aristopopulism’, inspired from Machiavelli’s methods of seizing power and aiming at installing a civic-virtue based regime.

In recent weeks, the executive order "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" signed on February 18th provides presidential supervision over traditionally independent American federal agencies. This March 17, it was one of Trump's closest advisors, Stephen Miller, who declared outright on CNN that judges had no power over presidential action on the "Alien Enemies Act."It is a direct translation of Vermeule’s approach to institutional setting. When Trump praises himself in social media posting "long live the King", "he who saves his Country does not violate any law" or when Vance describes him as "the new sheriff in town", the President is portrayed as a strong ruler above other power branches.

A further element of common good constitutionalism is the view that traditional churches should be tasked with the definition of what the ‘common good’ effectively is and the values that the state ought to promote. In 2022, Politico journalist Ian Ward wrote an in-depth investigation on common good constitutionalism and its authoritarian and theocratic tendencies. In that piece, he argues that this school of thoughts has conquered the most influential US law circles such as the Federalist Society. Besides Vance, other major MAGA followers adhered to postliberal thinking such as Marco Rubio and Ron De Santis. The rejection of pluralism and separation of church and state is sometimes called ‘integralism’ and stands at odds with many principles of the Catholic Social Teaching itself. 

Finally, the postliberal movement can count on European thinkers, also popular amongst the political parties that form the emerging Make Europe Great Again movement. Most famously we can cite John Milbank and Adrian Pabst, but also the more discrete Cambridge professor James Orr, and the writer Rod Dreher, both of them mentors of Victor Orban and JD Vance.

Libertarian Techno-Capitalism: Musk, Banon and the Like

The second significant group of MAGA supporters are the libertarian tech guys such as Musk, Zuckerberg or Bezos. Musk himself is angered by anything coined as liberal or progressive which he associates with the ‘woke virus’ and reminds him the gender change process of his daughter that he rejected. He despises softness and vulnerability in a culture and values strength and performance. On February 28th, Joe Rogan -the famous podcaster that hosted Trump, Vance, Musk and many other Republicans ahead of the presidential elections- released his latest episode in which we hear Elon claiming that empathy exploit is "the fundamental weakness of Western civilization" and that his own project is to "become a multiplanet civilization".

This futuristic ideology, originating in the Silicon Valley and championed by thinkers such Marc Andreessen views state power as obsolete in the face of exponential technological progress, framing government oversight as a hindrance. Profoundly elitist, they reject traditional political structures in favour of decentralized technocratic rule by visionary entrepreneurs.

The most sombre influencer behind the MAGA tech regime worldview is Curtis Yarvin. This blogger known as the founder of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ movement advocates for an authoritarian regime, where power lies in the hands of a sort of techno-monarchy. His movement is described as anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic and neo-reactionary. Curtis Yarvin’s presence at Trump’s inauguration ball in January 2025 showcases the important status he has acquired with the Republicans. JD Vance and political strategist Steve Banon are amongst the MAGA supporters most inspired by his ideas. And so is Peter Thiel which maintains close ties with Vance and with whom he shares a fascination for anthropologist René Girard whose thought he readily instrumentalizes.. The founder of Palantir, a huge AI data analytics company, regularly advocates for an increasingly techno-authoritarian government. 

To sum up, none of these techno-capitalist libertarians really believe in democracy according to British political commentator Rory Stewart. They rather think that the "US government needs to be governed in the way they run their tech companies".The prompt measures to dismantle governmental institutions we have seen over recent weeks, not least from the infamous DOGE, are visible signs of the change of institutional setting. Anne Applebaum from The Atlantic. describes these actions as a total regime change: freezing development aid, threatening military and judicial officials, pressuring civil servants to justify their roles, etc.

Weaponization of Economic Policy

The Trump and Vance approach to economic policy also appears to be prepared and thought-through, although its economic rationale is debated amongst economists. The reference figure here is Stephen Miran, nominated for chairing the Council of Economic Advisers of President Trump. He outlined an economics agenda for the Trump administration in a memo he published in November 2024 that was described by FT columnist Gillian Tett as "the most thoughtful explanation of Trumpian financial economics." In this extensive document, Miran backs the Trumpian view that the long-term trade and budget deficit of the US due to the overevaluation of the dollar as an international reserve currency is unfair. This complex situation results from an unalignment between short term US and long-term global interests from a strong dollar and had already been foreseen by Belgian economist Robert Triffin in the 1960s. To rewind this situation and reestablish a balance between US exports and imports, Miran’s suggested approach is to act in two phases. First, a phase of heavy tariffs lifting, to boost domestic production and shift more tax burden towards trade partners. This is referred to as ‘optimal tariff theory’ by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The trade war started against historical commercial partners such as Mexico, Canada and the EU follows this playbook. Secondly, a phase of devaluation of the US dollar through abrupt monetary policy, potentially unilaterally. The philosophy behind is that the burden of the US deficits ought to be transferred to other countries that would see their exports to the US heavily taxed and their US dollar assets lose their value. Huge risks in terms of domestic inflation and international financial stability arise from such an approach and are acknowledged by Miran in his memo. But, as it suggests, the underlying objectives of such economic policies go beyond the economy. They aim at showcasing the US strength and influence. Indeed, the strategy piece suggests that the provision of a defence umbrella to its traditional allies may be used by the US as a bargaining tool for pressuring these countries to accept the levying of tariffs and the threat of dollar asset devaluations. In effect, with MAGA, economic policy is weaponized to create a clear line of demarcation between vassals and foes. The despise for any type of multilateral approach to trade or the international financial system in favour of the rule of force cannot be clearer.

Imperialism as the New Doctrine

When it comes to international security, no trace of concepts such as multilateralism, defence of the free world and universal values or alliances are to be found in Trump’s policy. The new approach to international security is a profoundly imperialistic one: a sort of balance between isolation and expansion.

Other signs for this isolationism are Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth telling his European colleagues that European troops, if deployed in Ukraine, would not be protected by NATO article 5 or the announced reductions in defence spending.

On the other hand, Trump’s communication repeatedly takes on an expansionist tone. In the weeks prior to his inauguration, we heard the rhetorical intimidation towards Mexico by renaming its Gulf and to Canada by calling it the 51st US state. Since taking office, his actions are aggressive towards Panama and Greenland. He claims firmly that the US needs to increase control over these territories for national security reasons, which poses real threats to these countries’ territorial sovereignty. In Trumps’ inauguration speech, he literally calls for the US to "consider itself a growing nation", "one that expands its territory" and "carries its flag into new and beautiful horizons".And if that were not enough, there is still Musk’s obsession with colonizing Mars as another avenue of expansion.

But how can one reconcile seemingly contradictory isolationist and expansionist approaches? An imperialist vision makes this possible. By viewing the world as a place to be dominated by spheres of influence ruled through hard power, one can coherently argue for an American empire that exerts decisive influence over the Americas and the Great North, while also supporting a retreat from America's involvement in the spheres of influence of other hard powers.

From that point of view, the disinvestment from the conflict in Ukraine would match a recognition of a Russian empire influence zone. Leaving Europe aside of any peace negotiation talks confirms the idea that Europe’s soft power approach to geopolitical influence does not qualify to be relevant on the global scene. If so, interpretations of the Trump’s regime U-turn on the condemnation of Russia’s aggression on Ukraine would not only result from the usually heard explanations of "the US refocusing on the Indo-Pacific region" or the use of negotiation rhetoric for "trying out ideas and see how they land on other parties." The refusal to condemn Putin at the UN Security Council vote would indicate a vision of international security where the globe is divided into spheres of influence controlled by a handful of empires.

Any reflection about the responsibility that comes with strength and the status of world power disappears in such a world, and so does the existence of allies, as well as the notions of moral or universal values.

Europe and its Values Standing in the Way of the MAGA Project

The ideological underpinnings of the MAGA movement with regards to institutional setting, economic policy and international security stand at odds with European democratic values and principles such as checks and balances, plurality, multilateralism, long-term trust with allies and responsibility for the weak. By retracing this ideological genealogy of the MAGA project, we have keys to better understand the severity of current events. 

Indeed, chances are that MAGA libertarian and postliberal champions will not stand for a very long time the calm, respectful, intentional and values-based discourses of European leaders amongst which Zelensky becomes a role model. Psychologically, one needs a great deal of introspection, self-awareness and humility to listen to someone that holds a mirror in front of you and embodies the exact opposite of what you have become. In fact, the blatant difference in attitude between a bully and extortionary Trump and Vance and a stoic Zelensky during their broadcasted discussion in the White House is exemplative for this phenomenon. 

If democratic principles are seen as a corrupt product of liberalism and if the idea that power is just about strength and not about values is anchored deeply in the new US government, it may well be that the European democracies are seen as decadent countries and cultures. In such a worldview, letting down the Old Continent - and Ukraine in particular - becomes an honourable act for the good of humanity. Joining authoritarian voices like Orban and Putin and supporting the illiberal parties in European countries looks like a move to save the West from its own decay. Projecting further this troubling thought experiment, Europe and the European Union project may ultimately become a bigger hurdle for the libertarian and postliberal MAGA agenda than Russia or China. Europe as the alleged home to all evil ideologies may ultimately become a political target. Rory Stewart asks himself the question whether any European leader is prepared for a scenario where they become "strategic adversaries" of the US.

The extent to which the ideological battle becomes more prevalent than the West vs. non-Western divide in US policymaking is very well explained by Richard Youngs: "future policies are unlikely to be neatly divided along the lines of US versus European approaches, or indeed between Western and non-Western democracies. Today’s divide is between what might be termed the Liberal International and the Illiberal International-with all countries housing actors from both camps. The Illiberal International is now in power in the United States and is gaining ground in parts of Europe, while pro-democracy networks flourish far outside the West. This impending shift lies beyond the scope of immediate EU policy choices but invites a reframing of the whole way in which the international democracy agenda is structured and conceptualized."

Or European countries could decide that it is more important to defend the democratic values it has upheld so far. It is possible that, in this scenario, Europe would be labelled as a clear enemy by MAGA supporters. They might not mind Russia taking over parts of it. Division and war on the European continent could ultimately facilitate the export of more arms and oil and clear the way for a resistance-less annexation of Greenland, as it seems unlikely that Europe could sustain two fronts.

Standing Straight: a Delicate Balance to Escape the Trap

This false dilemma where none of the options are in the interest of Europe needs to be avoided by all means. To escape this trap, we believe that standing firm in the commitment to uphold democratic values without ostracizing the US must be the guiding principle for European leaders.

To stand firm in our commitment to uphold democratic values, we must continuously engage with the philosophical foundations of democracy. To navigate these challenging times, we must reflect on why we ascend to these values and reaffirm our desire to live by them. As the MAGA offensive wages on an ideological level, it is our understanding of political philosophy that we must strengthen. Many call for the rearmament of Europe and the increase in defence spending. Yet, we need no less a philosophy rearmament to defend our democracies and to argue why human rights, human dignity, the rule of law, checks and balances, pluralism, and multilateral diplomacy are the best paths to a peaceful, just, and prosperous future for our societies. These principles are shared across political ideologies - whether liberal, social, Christian, conservative or ecological traditions. We urgently need to discern which principles of liberal thought form the foundation of democracy and which excesses need correction. If we fail to do so, the illiberal view will take root, and the ‘Occident’-literally the place where the sun dies - will become the place where the principles of the Enlightenment are buried.

In recent days, however, European leaders have started to rise to the occasion and appear ready to meet the challenge. "Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take on this challenge," said Kaja Kallas, the High Representative of the EU, in a short and powerful message that sparks hope delivered after the Oval Office meeting. 

Regarding our posture with the US, we must avoid being naive and take our fate into our own hands. This is Europe’s moment, and our course of action must be developed independently of the Trump administration’s behaviour. Nevertheless, it is crucial to leave the door open for the US to reassess its defiant posture. We must not ostracize them but be ready to welcome them back into the fold to prevent unnecessary and dangerous confrontations. This seems to be the approach taken by Keir Starmer in his well-balanced and sound declarations after the London Summit of European allies, Canada, Turkey, the EU, and NATO on March 2nd, 2025.

US Internal Struggles to Reverse the Situation?

And what if internal US political divisions ultimately thwart the MAGA leadership’s agenda? The dramatic unfolding of Zelensky’s visit to the White House seems to have sparked increased internal resistance. The public, along with Democrats and some Republicans, feel it went too far and are beginning to organize protests. Can the courts, media, independent institutions, and civil society hold out a little longer before it’s too late? And when exactly is "too late"? Midterms two years away seems a distant horizon. Will internal fractures within the MAGA movement begin to show after first tension in cabinet meetings ? How long will the interests and worldviews of figures like Vance’s postliberals and Musk’s libertarians align? As of today, nothing is written in advance. It remains possible that internal struggles - whether between postliberal intellectuals and tech moguls, or resistance from the public and institutions - will prevent the full realization of Trump’s coup.

Copyright image : Andrew Harnik / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP
The views expressed in this piece are personal and reflect in no way the positions of institutions he is affiliated with.