Talk:Trumpism

Bias on the page.

The page says “significant illiberal, authoritarian and autocratic beliefs”. The page also calls him “far right” and relates him to fascism. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

All of these things are perfectly well sourced. — Czello ^(music) 15:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

So to you CNN is an accurate non-biased source when it is the complete opposite. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPCNN, CNN is reliable. Besides, that is not the only source. The sources for "authoritarian", for example, are academic in nature. — Czello ^(music) 15:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

CNN is not reliable, it calls Trump a far right extremist who hates blacks and woman. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think CNN insn't reliable, that's a conversation for WP:RSN. Currently, however, the consensus is that it is. And, as I said, it is not the only source on this article. — Czello ^(music) 15:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Most mainstream news outlets are liberal. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If you say so. — Czello ^(music) 15:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Not really. Fox News is pretty conservative and it too is considered a mainstream news outlet. Same for the Wall Street Journal, at least in the opinion section. ~2026-82459-6 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I said "Most mainstream news outlets are liberal.", I never said all were. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

That argument is circular, though? You're saying "no reliable sources describe Trump as far-right" and when a source is presented you're saying "well we can't use that source, it's unreliable because it calls Trump far-right." --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Should at least say "Trumpism contains significant beliefs described by experts as authoritarian, illiberal, and in some cases autocratic."

"It is heavily debated by many scholars on whether or not Trump's ideology is considered fascist." ~2026-82459-6 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Renamings and cult of personality

This is a notice that there is a draft for the federal program naming spree (relevant to § Cult of personality) at Draft:Eponymous naming of United States government facilities and programs during the second Trump administration until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Can we remove some of the nav boxes?

In addition to the needed infobox, there are four (4) nav boxes that push valuable graphics and pictures down to lower sections (a special problem in larger computer screens). I've always thought of nav boxes as borderline ~spam. Can we remove three of them? I propose keeping only "This article is part of a series about Donald Trump" —RCraig09 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

^ Reviving my question. ^ —RCraig09 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Original research

@DougheGojiraMan: It is orginal research to say that just because a party is verifiably right-wing a faction of it must be too. It is absolutely possible that a party is right-wing while a faction of it is exclusively far-right. The sources cited are not about Trumpism but about the GOP in general and therefore fail verification. Just because Trumpism is the GOP's largest faction does not mean that the two things are synonymous and that everything that applies to one has to apply to the other. You need a source explicitly describing the Trumpism faction as right-wing and not just the party. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"In this article, we first illustrate that the Republican Party, or at least the dominant wing, which supports or tolerates Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda have become a proto-typical populist radical right-wing party (PRRP)."

"It is absolutely possible that a party is right-wing while a faction of it is exclusively far-right." Explain that logic to me. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not OR to say that Trumpism is the GOP's dominant faction. That's well sourced and true. It is OR to conclude from that fact that just because the GOP is right-wing its current dominant faction has to be too.

That's like saying, "Apple is widely perceived and classified as a premium brand, so the iPhone SE must be a high-end flagship phone", or "Huawei is widely perceived and classified as a budget brand, so the Huawei Pura80 Ultra must be a low-end phone". These deductions are faulty. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• DougheGojiraMan, did you actually read Wouter van der before citing it? You left out a key word; it says that Historically, the Republican Party of the US is not a far-right party, but... (emphasis mine.) And in context this completely reverses the meaning of the quote, since it is in the context of the authors explaining why they are categorizing the recent Republican Party under Trump as far-right (hence the but.) There is absolutely no plausible reading where it supports what you were trying to cite it for here.

Here is the full context for reference. The bit you cited is from a footnote (footnote 3), which is for this bit of text:

Since the youngest generation is, on average, better educated and more secularised than generations before them, one might expect them to be also more supportive of liberal democracy and less likely to support far-right parties. Moreover, recent elections in the US and the UK have also shown that younger voter are more supportive of the liberal-progressive parties – the Democrats and the Labour Party – than the conservative parties: the Republican Party³ in the US and Conservative Party and the far-right Reform UK party in Britain (e.g., Deckman, 2024; Fisher, 2018; Jocker et al., 2024; Norris & Inglehart, 2019; Twenge, 2023). So, what are the theoretical reasons for expecting that younger voters might in some contexts be less supportive of liberal democracy and more supportive of the far right? This answer to this question lies, at least partially, in how different generations are politically socialised.

And the footnote itself reads:

Historically, the Republican Party of the US is not a far-right party, but since the rise of the Tea Party movement and especially under the presidency of Donald Trump, the party has embraced the main characteristics of a populist right party (such as authoritarianism, nativism, populism, conspiracy theories involving ethnic minorities, etc.).

In context it is clearly justifying the author's decision to group the modern (not historical) Republican Party with far-right parties for the purpose of their argument, by way of arguing that what we could reasonably parse as Trumpism, specifically, is far-right. I don't know if I'd rely on it as the sole source to call it far right (the other one I added is better) but there is no plausible reading that could be used to present it as arguing against that position. I assume you just copy-pasted the quote from another article without verifying it, but unless there's something I missed (eg. it was changed between volumes or something), whoever originally added it has some explaining to do, because at a glance it seems like it was intentionally edited to reverse its meaning. --Aquillion (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I suppose so; I originally got the source from the GOP article itself, since it did mention Trumpism in the context of the GOP not being a far-right party. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Anti-Neoliberalism

The ideology section of the main infobox has a link Socialism of the 21st century under the alias Anti-Neoliberalism. While hilarious, I would personally change it to link to the criticisms section of the article on Neoliberalism, but I'll defer to the experts on this one. Dfcowman (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Can we clean up the ideology page to be less informal?

So many informal ideologies and so many ideologies in the first place can we just simplify it to 2-3 ideologies and 2-4 factions? People are going to take this page not very seriously ~2026-16349-0 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Interventionism/Jingoism as an ideology under "Factions"

Right now Trump currently is at war with Iran, has kidnapped Maduro from Venezuela, and previously he has threatened to invade Canada and Greenland. Obviously there's an isolationist faction of the Trumpists like Tucker; but its clear that a significant portion of Trump's base and cabinet rejects isolationist doctrine in favor of aggressive foreign policy. Shouldn't this be reflected in the ideology box?

Here's some cursory sources that discuss Trumpist jingoism/interventionism:

https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/09/us-political-interventionism-under-trump

https://www.epc.eu/publication/trumps-interventionist-isolationism-venezuela-as-a-symptom-of-a-new-world-disorder/ (uses an oxymoron of having both interventionist and isolationism to display this disparity in trump's beliefs)

https://www.stlpr.org/show/st-louis-on-the-air/2026-03-09/trump-dropped-anti-interventionist-stand-and-missouri-senators-followed

https://quincyinst.org/events/interventionism-on-steroids-the-trump-takeover-of-venezuela/

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/political-risks-trump-iran-war-public-opinion-polling-midterms.html

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/21/harris-column-trump-great-president-00199564 HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I added "Interventionism" to the factions list. The terms "imperialism" or "jingoism" might be more accurate, but a source analysis might be necessary to see which is the most commonly used. There is a lot of overlap with the three terms, but I do suppose they are not entirely the same.

I also added "Expansionism" as its meaning is definitely not the same to the previous terms. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Jingoism? By Theodore Roosevelt's definition of the term?: "If by 'jingoism' they mean a policy in pursuance of which Americans will with resolution and common sense insist upon our rights being respected by foreign powers, then we are 'jingoes'."" I fail to see much of an ideological difference with the other war hawks. They still advocate for use of both threats and actual war in pursuit of their goals. Dimadick (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose Jingoism doesn't fit at all, then. Expansionism and interventionism should suffice unless if there's an argument for something else. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I removed "Paleoconservatism"; Trumpism is a far-right ideology, but diplomatically it is not the same as paleoconservatism, so if "Neoconservatism" is not in the ideology box, there should be no "Paleoconservatism". ProgramT (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Trumpism is basically just Neo-Conservatism, anybody who denies this is a liar and a fraud

"There is a significant divide within the Republican Party and the MAGA movement on whether the United States should get involved in such a war overseas" No, there is not. The vast majority of Trump's supporters support his foreign policy. Trump is and always has been a Neo-Conservative. His problem with interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were that he believed that the US actually was doing "Nation-building", and is opposed to that. There is nothing "Anti-Interventionist" about Trump or his ideology, he just doesn't like pretending that US imperialism is "Nation-building". This was obvious when he started his campaign, it was obvious when he was elected in 2016, it was obvious during his first term, it was obvious during Biden's term, it was obvious while he was campaigning in 2024, and anybody who still denies it is quite frankly (I will avoid extreme profanity here) so immensely unqualified to speak on politics that they should probably have their mouth stitched shut and locked in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. Simply put, I and many others were right about Trumpism the entire time and this continued facade of Trumpism being some unique concept completely separate from Neo-Conservatism is the kind of thing people should be blacklisted from politics for. If any of you want to maintain any legitemacy as individuals who speak the truth to the public, add "Zionism" to the infobox and remove all implications that Trump or his supporters at large are isolationists. TrenchWanderer (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I added "Neoconservatism" to the infobox ProgramT (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)