Republican Party Archives - Politics Today https://politicstoday.org/tag/republican-party/ Tue, 17 Feb 2026 07:19:18 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 Will Trump’s Private Army Break the Status Quo? https://politicstoday.org/will-trumps-private-army-break-the-status-quo/ Tue, 17 Feb 2026 07:19:18 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/?p=29990

If the Democrats take a more rational approach to ICE violence and build their opposition around parameters such as the rule of law, law enforcement accountability and constitutional barriers to mistreatment, this could result in a political blow to the Trump administration.

The post Will Trump’s Private Army Break the Status Quo? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

I‘don’t want them in our country. Their country is awful, and we don’t want them here. It’s like Somalia — you can’t even call it a country. They have nothing. They’re just running around killing each other. There’s no order. Their country is awful, and we don’t want them here.”

These statements were not made by a right-wing radical politician or an ultra-nationalist podcast host. In this manner, U.S. President Donald Trump explicitly outlined his intention to deport Somalis residing in the United States by December 2025. While these statements drew international criticism, they did not affect the leading figure of the new order.

In the US public sphere, immigration policy and the agendas of political parties that take positions on it have been among the most frequently discussed topics for years. Immigration policy is a central pillar of Trump’s election promises and has sometimes been discussed in more abstract terms, focusing on figures such as the number of border crossings, border violation graphs and sovereignty slogans.

However, recent events have brought the issue to the forefront. The increased visibility of images in US cities has brought the issue to the heart of domestic politics. Videos of masked federal agents conducting home raids and engaging in street brawls in Democrat-controlled cities have gone viral and resonated more widely. The actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) teams have created, and continue to create, a discursive and symbolic shift in US politics.

Read: Capitol Hill Attack Is the Logical Endgame of Trumpism

Minnesota, at the heart of recent events, has a more liberal demographic due to its large population of American citizens of Scandinavian origin, as well as people from countries such as Somalia. In Minneapolis, the state capital which has been won by Democrats in every presidential race since 1976, the killing of two people (Renée Good and Alex Pretti) by ICE agents with no outstanding deportation warrants has once again drawn attention to the country’s increasingly tense political climate.

Trump initially defended ICE agents, claiming that Good had run over an agent. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey then stated, “We don’t want ICE in our city”, to which Trump responded by calling Good a wonderful person and claiming that there are many different versions of the video footage. These events illustrate the tension between the president and local governments in the country. While these debates continue, on 11 January the U.S. Department of Labor posted on X: “One nation. One people. One heritage. Don’t forget who you are, Americans,” further highlights the ongoing tension. The post, ‘(One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American)’, fanned the flames.

On 24 January, the killing of Alex Pretti sparked public protests. On 27 January, allegations surfaced that Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino had been removed from his post. White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt responded by saying that Bovino would continue in his nationwide role. This U-turn by the Trump administration suggests that further softening and concessions will be made in the subsequent process.

Read: “Trumpism was an aberrational swing of the political pendulum to the extreme right”: Interview with Poka Laenui

Will ICE violence create a new political divide?

In the United States, where delicate balances are often struck, the approach to immigration is one of the main polarizing factors. One of the political paradoxes currently facing the Republican Party concerns the methods used to implement restrictive policies towards immigrants, and whether there is a red line on the issue. The methods employed erode confidence in the state’s ability to intervene effectively. Until now, Republican voters would have envisioned criminals being removed from the country after a proper legal process when hearing phrases like ‘secure the border’ or ‘mass deportation’. However, the operation of the ICE mechanism in areas such as Minneapolis forces Republican voters to confront the reality that the perceived threat could also affect their own living spaces.

In America’s periodic cycles of protest, incidents of police violence resulting in death and debates surrounding disproportionate force have flared up since the case of George Floyd (who also died in Minnesota in 2020). The targeting and methods employed can cause unease even among moderate Republicans. When officials make maximalist claims, questioning takes precedence over acceptance. Labelling the victim of violence as ‘armed and aggressive’ and presenting narratives inconsistent with footage of incidents involving people who have died at the hands of ICE can lead to a significant loss of trust.

A significant turning point in recent developments is not that Democrats are angry — Democrats are often angry about ICE — but that Republicans, including those who normally prefer a more conservative stance, are publicly expressing their unease. The fact that a small segment of persuadable voters have a ‘I wanted sanctions, but not like this’ mentality is creating a polarising political climate that undermines public trust.

Read: What is Trump’s Regional Strategy in the Israel-Iran Crisis?

Is there a legal framework?

ICE’s enforcement powers are based on federal immigration law and executive authority. This framework includes the arrest and detention of foreigners, the conduct of deportation operations and the investigation of immigration-related crimes, under certain conditions. However, authorisation does not imply unlimited power.

The debate over ‘entering homes without a warrant’ contradicts a fundamental principle of American law: that the home and its owner and land are the areas of greatest protection. In the US, especially, considering the Castle Doctrine, which is rooted in British tradition and posits that a person’s home is their castle, granting them the right to use deadly force to remove intruders if necessary, one can imagine the shock that such violations would cause. While immigration is, in many contexts, a matter of civil enforcement, the legitimacy of intrusion into private space depends on a warrant, consent, exigent circumstances and clear legal standards.

The friction between federal and local government also marks a new breaking point here. When the federal government appears to ‘sideline’ state authorities after deadly events, this exacerbates administrative problems and gives the impression of avoiding accountability. This represents a dead end for a country where institutional oversight is one of the cornerstones of legitimacy.

ICE’s current actions may be legally permissible, but they are still procedurally careless and legally questionable, and risk being perceived by citizens as an ‘expansion of state power’. The fact that this is happening in a country where the distinction between the state and the individual is particularly clear-cut points to another irony. The Trump administration was elected on the promise of restoring control. However, control is not solely measured by deportation numbers; it is also measured by public consent.

Read: The United States Has Redrawn the World Map

Will this have an impact on the November midterm-election?

On 3 November, voters in the US will head to the polls for the midterm elections. These elections will determine the outcome of all 435 seats in the US House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 seats in the US Senate. This is the most critical test for Trump: a defeat would cast a shadow over his presidency, and with the altered political arithmetic, it would limit his control over Congress.

If the Democrats take a more rational approach to ICE violence and build their opposition around parameters such as the rule of law, law enforcement accountability and constitutional barriers to mistreatment, this could result in a political blow to the Trump administration. This could enable them to form a coalition that encompasses not only their own supporters, but also some Republicans and independents who are uneasy with federal overreach. However, a more extreme stance could lead to a new vicious cycle. The clash between Republican arguments that ‘Democrats want open borders’ and Democratic arguments that ‘Republicans want a police state’ could result in an election where the main determining factor is the economy.

Given the mathematics of US politics, it can be concluded that midterm elections often work against the president’s party. This is not a moral judgement, but a structural rhythm. If the White House is losing ground economically too, immigration becomes an attractive ‘shelter’. For Republicans, the danger arising from the Minneapolis events is their potential to evolve into a symbolic counter-narrative. Even many supporters of deportation are affected by events resulting in the deaths of people not directly involved. Furthermore, the cost of a clearly wrong practice, as illustrated by the images of Alex Pretti’s death, will be reflected in public opinion.

Surveys on the subject show that different aspects of migration can take centre stage when gauging public opinion on the issue. The surveys indicate that voters may approve of border management while opposing the broader management of migration. Therefore, the issue must be addressed not with a superficial approach, but as a complex phenomenon whose consequences could have political repercussions.

A Democratic victory in the 3 November midterm elections could provide a framework for reshaping politics. Sessions, subpoenas and investigative committees dominated by the opposition bloc would establish important foundations for shaping the concept of legitimacy, a term frequently used in US politics. A Democratic-controlled House of Representatives could scrutinise the Trump administration constantly. The political atmosphere could also impact the legislature. Similarly, the ICE issue affects not only the elections, but also how ICE tactics are investigated, which will influence politics again.

Recommended

Will ICE have a place in the spirit of the times?

With its box office success and the buzz it generated in popular culture, “One Battle After Another” is among this year’s major Oscar contenders. Films that win awards at critical junctures in US history can clearly serve as guides to understanding the spirit of the times. Films released after the Watergate scandal reflected the climate of insecurity and corruption against a backdrop of societal fragility in the 1970s. The neo-conservative regime of the 2000s also emerged through the cultural formation woven by war-focused films.

With its opening scene set in a refugee camp on the border and its subsequent backdrop reflecting the rivalry between immigrants and the authorities, “One Battle After Another” establishes a contextual connection with the ICE phenomenon. It is fair to say that the US political climate will be a driving factor in whether this film wins Best Picture.

The escalating ICE debate suggests no shift towards a more moderate political climate. The Trump administration anticipates that voters will reward toughness and ignore the methods used, making security and economic concerns the dominant factors. However, the midterm elections, in which American voters may approach the issue from a different perspective, could see this approach punished.

If the country feels that ICE’s current tactics are no longer democratic, Republicans could lose their advantage. Democrats, on the other hand, could exploit the situation if they adopt a rational and equitable strategy. In this sense, the ICE debate is not just about immigration. It will serve as a litmus test to show whether American politics can still distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate power.

The post Will Trump’s Private Army Break the Status Quo? appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> Merchants of the Right: Gun Sellers and the Crisis of American Democracy https://politicstoday.org/merchants-right-gun-sellers-crisis-american-democracy/ Fri, 28 Jul 2023 09:07:23 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/merchants-right-gun-sellers-crisis-american-democracy/

Here is a bottom-up story of gun sellers who are positioned on the front lines of conservative politics in the United States.

The post Merchants of the Right: Gun Sellers and the Crisis of American Democracy appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

T

he politics surrounding guns in the United States is a deeply contentious issue that has long held a prominent place in the nation’s public discourse. Rooted in historical, cultural, and constitutional factors, the debate over gun rights and regulations has become an enduring hallmark of American politics. The sheer ubiquity of firearms, coupled with deeply ingrained beliefs about individual rights, self-defense, and the role of government, has created a complex landscape where passionate arguments clash and ideological battle lines are drawn.

In Merchants of the Right Jennifer Carlson delves into the multifaceted world of gun sellers, uncovering how their trade extends beyond the mere exchange of firearms. The book sheds light on a remarkable surge in gun purchases, which occurred amidst a confluence of extraordinary events: a once-in-a-century pandemic, widespread racial unrest, and a presidential election that shook the very foundations of American democracy. Carlson’s exploration of this phenomenon reveals how conservative political culture experienced a newfound spur, providing readers with a unique vantage point into the front lines of the ongoing culture war surrounding gun rights and an understanding of how guns became politicized.

Through extensive interviews with gun sellers across the United States, Carlson paints a vivid picture of the struggles faced by these merchants in navigating the complex intersection of guns and politics. The book reveals a frame breaking trend: While it is commonly assumed that the majority of gun owners lean conservative, new gun buyers are more likely to identify as liberal. The significant dilemma that gun sellers faced in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election was should they embrace these new liberal customers, potentially ushering in a new era of bipartisan engagement in the realm of guns, or should they solidify their position on gun politics as a conservative stronghold?

Read: Mass Shootings in America Are Now Programmed into the System

Carlson goes on to illustrate how gun sellers grappled with this question, mobilizing key pillars of modern conservative culture as they confronted the uncertainty and chaos that surrounded them. She argues that merchants of guns, gun culture, and gun politics had helped build conservative culture from the ground up. Concepts such as armed individualism, conspiracism, and partisanship became instrumental in their approach as a civic toolkit, allowing them to assert gun politics as inherently conservative and, in some cases, even challenging or rejecting liberal democratic principles.

By analyzing these dynamics, Merchants of the Right offers invaluable insights, rather than examining macro-level actors in the gun sector such as the NRA, Carlson provides a bottom-up story of gun-sellers positioned on the frontlines of conservative politics that led up to the January 6 Capitol Attack. The book is a confrontation of the everyday politics that continue to divide the U.S. and comes as a page-turning read for those interested in understanding political sociology, sociology of culture, and American politics.

Jennifer Carlson, Merchants of the Right: Gun Sellers and the Crisis of American Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2023) ISBN: 9780691230399, 288 pages

Written by Dilara Özer

Recommended

The post Merchants of the Right: Gun Sellers and the Crisis of American Democracy appeared first on Politics Today.

]]> The White House Intrigue https://politicstoday.org/the-white-house-intrigue/ Fri, 08 Sep 2017 07:19:24 +0000 https://politicstoday.org/the-white-house-intrigue/

Trump will continue to pull the brakes on any figure that might begin to overshadow him, just like he did in the Bannon case.

The post The White House Intrigue appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>

After recovering from the first shock caused by Donald Trump’s unexpected victory in the U.S. presidential elections, the U.S.-based analysts began speculating on what kind of an inner circle Trump was going to form. During his election campaign, Trump promised that he would wage a war on the Washington establishment, highlighting it as one of the backbones of his campaign with the assertion that he was an alternative to the political elites in Washington. For weeks, various rumors and speculations over who would serve in the Trump administration followed one another.

When Trump overtly waged a war on political elites and the establishment during his campaign, dozens of foreign policy and security experts close to the Republican Party announced that they would not accept any position in Trump’s team despite the fact that he was a Republican candidate. Among the ones releasing such statements were names who were formerly in key positions especially during the term of a Republican leader. As Trump’s staff in charge of appointments put a distance to the names who once issued negative remarks on Trump, the repository of available experts became inevitably restricted to a serious extent.

This subject matter was frequently discussed during the appointment procedures that ran quite slowly in the transition period following the elections. The first appointments of Trump hinted that he was keeping his promise with regard to fighting the political elites. For instance, Steve Bannon, who was among Trump’s strategists during the campaign period, is known to be a name confronting elites for years on the radio shows he hosted. As Bannon, who represents the far-right, and names like Stephen Gorka were appointed to the White House, President Trump sought to smoothen the reactions by assigning the Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus as White House Chief of Staff, which is one of the most critical positions in the White House. This choice was interpreted as Trump’s effort to build a dialogue with the political elite since the RNC’s chair was assigned to the position that would primarily be in charge of relations with Congress. Soon after these two names were announced, comments suggesting that the two might contend each other comprised one of the top topics on the agenda. Bannon’s greatest advantage was his personal affinity to the President while Priebus had an upper hand since his position has direct access to the President.

While successively making unexpected appointments to the White House, in considering the confirmation process, President Trump chose not to take risks in regards to Cabinet positions and assigned names that would appeal to a majority of the Senate. For example, while Retired General James Mattis, who is respected by both parties, was appointed as the Secretary of Defense, Exxon company’s CEO Rex Tillerson was appointed as the Secretary of State. These names were welcomed by the Washington bureaucracy, who were closely following the appointment process. During the appointments procedure, what would happen to the positions of general John Kelly, who was appointed as the Secretary of Homeland Security, and Mike Flynn, who was appointed as the National Security Advisor, was another matter of question in the overall picture. Although Flynn was formerly Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the comments made about him during and in the aftermath of his term in office stressed his unusual profile. Furthermore, Jared Kushner, who is arguably less popular compared to the other names, was appointed as senior advisor to the President. This prompted a series of questions as to what kind of balance policy Trump would adopt amongst these names.

Endeavoring to accomplish domestic and foreign political objectives with a team comprising of names with such different backgrounds was one of the most significant challenges Trump was to confront. He faced the first challenge in this respect while trying to form the National Security Council (NSC). Bannon was included in the NSC while the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA Director were removed, which led to the speculations that Bannon became the second man all of a sudden. Subsequently, it was highly discussed that Bannon was the name behind the travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries, being among the first campaign promises implemented by the Trump administration. Within this process, Bannon was present at the Oval Office during the telephone conversations Trump made with world leaders, which consolidated this assumption. The rising influence of Bannon spurred the hearsay that Priebus was particularly uncomfortable with this situation and it led to tension between the two.

Successive Dismissals in the White House

The rise of Steve Bannon in the White House, which had previously been viewed as unavoidable, has been stopped personally by the President. The mention of Bannon as the chief strategist of the White House prompted Trump to declare abruptly on TV that he was the actual chief strategist of the administration and Bannon was ultimately an official under his command. Shortly after this, details surrounding the inner conflicts within the White House administration began to leak to the press. First, it was leaked that Trump was not sufficiently informed on the decision to include Bannon in the NSC. Shortly after the news surfaced, Bannon lost his place on the Council. Next, Bannon was portrayed as the mastermind behind the much-disputed travel ban concerning visitors from six Muslim-majority countries. The situation got complicated further by the allegations that Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner also opposed Bannon’s influence within the White House. These moves undoubtedly significantly damaged the public profile of Bannon.

Recommended

While it was wondered when Bannon would be dismissed from the White House, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was unexpectedly forced out of his position. This decision made Priebus the shortest-serving Chief of Staff in White House history. The explicit reasons for the dismissal are unknown. Informed guesses include reasons such as Priebus not being effective enough in defending Trump, Trump holding Priebus responsible for the failure of his healthcare bill in the Senate and Trump never fully trusting Priebus. But the words of Anthony Scaramucci, the White House communications director at the time who was appointed days before Priebus’ dismissal, are thought to have been influential in this process. Scaramucci had previously signaled in an interview with a journalist that the dismissal would occur by using scathing remarks towards Priebus.

Shortly after the dismissal of Priebus, the Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly was appointed as Chief of Staff. With this decision, the two most important positions within the White House administration, Secretary of Homeland Security and Chief of Staff, were both occupied by officials with a military background. The decision thus highlighted Trump’s preference in favour of individuals with military backgrounds in his appointments. The first move by Kelly, who was viewed as having the seniority and experience required to calm the storm within the administration, was to sack Scaramucci, making Scaramucci the shortest serving communications director in White House history. Following Priebus’ dismissal, groups close to Bannon began a campaign against the National Security Advisor McMaster. The information leaked to the press had been portraying McMaster as opposing Flynn and Bannon’s influence within the NSC by removing officials thought to be close to them. This process again ended with an announcement from Trump.

The previous week, in the aftermath of this process and as the waters of the White House administration seemed to calm, Bannon was ousted from his position. As with Priebus’, Bannon’s dismissal has many underlying reasons.  The events that occurred in Charlottesville and the rise of far-right extremism, plus the newly published book named “Devil’s Bargain” detailing the relationship between Bannon and Trump are thought to have been important factors in Trump’s decision. The emphasis Trump places in portraying his election victory as solely his own has been a source of tension in the relationship between him and Bannon from the very beginning. But the atmosphere that triggered Bannon’s dismissal was created by Kelly and his decision to take an initiative regarding Bannon. Thus, Bannon, the biggest link between far-right extremism and the White House, was dismissed from the administration. It seems that retired military officials such as Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and former businesspeople such as Kushner and Tillerson will play the most effective role in the administration.

Has the storm in the Trump administration calmed?

At this point, it seems that the turmoil within the Trump administration, or at least within the White House, has calmed down and even if another power struggle occurs it will not be as loud and obvious. Of course, Trump can influence this process with unexpected moves. It is unknown how two important figures such as Kelly and McMaster will influence Trump’s policies and how much they will be able to shield Trump from crises. How Kelly will influence the relationship between Trump and Congress is an especially curious point since Kelly does not have a background neither with Congress nor with the Republican party. McMaster, who was appointed after Flynn’s dismissal, will likely remain target of the far-right due to his removal of certain individuals from the NSC. However, his influence in matters of foreign policy and security is unlikely to wane due to his relationships with Mattis and Tillerson. Jared Kushner will continue to be one of the biggest game changers in any fractions and power struggles that might occur in the future. So far Kushner has preferred to work with more conventional figures.

All these names within the administration will also be tested by the problems that come with Trump’s unpredictable Twitter announcements. Trump will continue to pull the brakes on any figure that might begin to overshadow him, just like he did in the Bannon case. The situation within the White House is seemingly calm now, but the power struggles based on other concerns and topics will likely continue in the foreseeable future.

The administration’s problems outside the White House might possibly continue. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have not been seeing eye-to-eye recently. Trump has been criticizing Sessions due to his decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. elections. The investigation that influenced the dismissals of Comey and Flynn might also negatively impact Trump’s relations with his close associates.

The post The White House Intrigue appeared first on Politics Today.

]]>