Trump is compromising the GOP’s anti-socialism message with his own socialistic policies

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

The Republican-controlled House last week adopted a resolution denouncing socialism “in all its forms.”

But now the Trump administration is attempting something that even many on the right say sounds a lot like one of those forms of socialism.

And it’s merely the latest example.

Indeed, Trump wants to make socialism the GOP’s big boogeyman in the 2026 midterm elections. But he and his administration have repeatedly compromised that message by doing things that are getting more difficult for their allies to play off as anything other than, well, pretty socialist.

The initiative, championed by Vice President JD Vance, would allow stay-at-home parents to collect childcare subsidies by taking the money from a program that assists working parents, according to The New York Times . So basically, the government would pay parents about $9,000 per child per year to stay home and raise their children. CNN has reached out to the White House and Department of Health and Human Services about the draft rule, which would still need to be finalized.

The proposal got a decidedly mixed reception Monday morning on Fox News’ morning show, “Fox and Friends.”

Co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy (who is married to Trump’s transportation secretary) called it her “favorite policy, like ever, that President Trump has brought.” But fellow co-host Lawrence Jones strongly disagreed.

“I see what the president is doing, but I think it’s a terrible idea. It’s socialism,” Jones said. He added on X that “if we are going to defeat socialism, we need to nip it entirely in the bud.”

And he’s not the only one.

“ Agree with LJ !” conservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen posted on X.

“If only we offered a contrast to Democratic Socialists rather than an echo,” Marc Short, an adviser to Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence, added .

“I am old enough to remember a time when Republicans were against government entitlement programs,” said Meghan McCain.

“This is welfare,” conservative commentator Dana Loesch said . “We tried this socialist program many times, and it failed. It utterly and completely failed when Viktor Orban tried something similar in Hungary, too.”

(Orbán, the former Hungarian prime minister, attempted similar policies to raise his country’s flagging birth rates, but the project ultimately failed and he lost reelection this year.)

Former GOP Rep. Bob Good of Virginia called Vance a socialist . Rep. Chip Roy of Texas warned the administration to “ Stay out ” of the issue. And the GOP’s nominee for Texas Railroad Commissioner, Bo French, agreed .

The proposal does have its defenders.

But tellingly, rather than argue that it’s good small-government conservative policy, they’ve largely argued that it’s a better way to administer an existing welfare program.

“The principle here is simple: Government should not put its thumb on the scale against parents raising their own children,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles said the choice was between reforming the program and leaving it alone, because abolishing the welfare state is a goal “ no one even pretends to think is possible .”

And in perhaps the most telling response, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts — whose organization once carried the torch for Reagan-style, small-government conservatism — said Republicans should do what they can to use the money for what he cast as conservative purposes.

“The welfare state already exists. The subsidies already exist. And conservatives do not have the votes to dismantle either,” Roberts said . “Until that changes, taxpayer dollars should reward family formation, not subsidize its decline. That is the conservative option.”

Defenses like this are so telling because they betray a conservative movement that has largely set aside its ideals in favor of using big government to further its purposes.

Over and over again, Trump has pursued ideas and policies that a recent former version of the party — i.e. the tea party version — would surely reject. But because Trump has so dominated his base, the internal criticism has been muted.

Some of the more prominent examples:

The Trump administration has had the federal government take ownership stakes in 30 private companies like Intel, Nvidia and Nippon Steel, according to a compilation from the libertarian Cato Institute .

Trump has sought to create a federal sovereign wealth fund .

He considered bailing out and nationalizing Spirit Airlines .

He bailed out farmers in his first term and gave them bridge payments in his second.

He has sought what critics have labeled as “price controls” for prescription drugs.

He has offered “Trump Accounts” savings accounts for children seeded with $1,000 .

He has moved to cap credit card interest rates , which earned praise from democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders.

He has regularly sought to use the government to crack down on disfavored speech and media coverage he doesn’t like.

He has recently sought to compel oil companies to lower prices by saying they have made too much money during the Iran war and urging them to produce more diesel.

There was an instructive scene about all this last week at a House Rules Committee hearing.

While debating the House GOP’s anti-socialism resolution, Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado asked House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil whether it would be socialism for the government to take equity stakes in grocery stores.

“That’d be a form of socialism, yeah,” the Wisconsin Republican said.

But then Neguse asked whether it would be socialism if Trump took a 20% equity stake in the grocer Kroger, and Steil was less firm.

“I’d want to see the details,” he said.

This was a hypothetical example, but explaining away things Trump does — or outright ignoring them — has become a survival mechanism in a GOP where Trump has proven so successful at targeting his critics.

The problem is that with each provocation that his small-government-conservative allies give him a pass on, he moves the ball. They repeatedly give him a few inches, and then he takes a mile.

That’s the position the GOP finds itself in. The fact that even the Heritage Foundation is defending a policy like this says it all.

And as the gloss has fallen off of Trump — and his excesses have jeopardized the GOP’s midterm hopes — it seems some conservatives are coming to the belated realization that Trump isn’t exactly the great conqueror of socialism, but arguably a participant in it.

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

由共和党控制的众议院上周通过了一项决议，谴责“一切形式的”社会主义。

但现在，特朗普政府正在尝试一些连许多右翼人士都认为很像社会主义某种形式的事情。

而这仅仅是最新的例子。

的确，特朗普想把社会主义塑造成共和党在2026年中期选举中的主要攻击目标。但他和他的政府却屡次做出一些事，导致他们的盟友越来越难以将这些事解释为其他任何东西，只能说，嗯，相当社会主义。

据《纽约时报》报道，这项由副总统JD Vance倡导的提案将允许全职在家照顾孩子的父母领取育儿补贴，补贴资金来自一项旨在帮助在职父母的项目。简而言之，政府将每年向每位在家照顾孩子的父母支付约9000美元。CNN已就该草案联系白宫和卫生与公众服务部，该草案仍需最终定稿。

周一早上，福克斯新闻的晨间节目“福克斯与朋友们”对这一提议的反应褒贬不一。

联合主持人瑞秋·坎波斯-达菲（她是特朗普交通部长的妻子）称这是她“一如既往最喜欢的特朗普总统推行的政策”。但另一位联合主持人劳伦斯·琼斯强烈反对。

琼斯说：“我明白总统的意图，但我认为这是个糟糕的主意。这是社会主义。” 他还补充道：“如果我们想要战胜社会主义，就必须将其扼杀在萌芽状态。”

而且他并非唯一一个。

“同意LJ的观点！”保守派《华盛顿邮报》专栏作家马克·蒂森在X上发帖说道。

“如果我们能与民主社会主义者形成对比，而不是附和他们，那就好了，”特朗普的前副总统迈克·彭斯的顾问马克·肖特补充道。

“我年纪足够大，还记得共和党人曾经反对政府福利计划，”梅根·麦凯恩说。

保守派评论员达娜·洛施表示：“这就是福利制度。我们多次尝试过这种社会主义方案，但都失败了。维克托·欧尔班在匈牙利尝试类似方案时也彻底失败了。”

（匈牙利前总理欧尔班曾尝试推行类似政策以提高该国不断下滑的出生率，但该计划最终失败，他今年也落选了。）

弗吉尼亚州前共和党众议员鲍勃·古德称万斯是社会主义者。德克萨斯州众议员奇普·罗伊警告政府“不要插手”此事。共和党提名的德克萨斯州铁路专员候选人博·弗伦奇也表示赞同。

该提议也有支持者。

但值得注意的是，他们并没有认为这是良好的小政府保守主义政策，而是主要认为这是管理现有福利计划的更好方式。

“这里的原则很简单：政府不应该干预父母抚养自己的孩子，”密苏里州参议员埃里克·施密特说。

Alex Wong/Getty Images

保守派评论员迈克尔·诺尔斯表示，摆在面前的选择是在改革该计划和维持现状之间做出抉择，因为废除福利国家是一个“没有人甚至假装认为可能实现的目标”。

或许最能说明问题的回应来自传统基金会主席凯文·罗伯茨——该组织曾是里根式小政府保守主义的捍卫者——他表示，共和党人应该尽其所能，将这笔钱用于他所说的保守主义目的。

罗伯茨说：“福利国家已经存在，补贴也已经存在，而保守派没有足够的票数来废除它们。在这种情况改变之前，纳税人的钱应该用来奖励家庭的组建，而不是补贴家庭的衰落。这才是保守派的选择。”

像这样的辩护之所以如此耐人寻味，是因为它背叛了一个保守主义运动，该运动已经很大程度上放弃了其理想，转而利用强大的政府来实现其目标。

特朗普一再推行一些理念和政策，而这些理念和政策，如果放在民主党的前身——也就是茶党时期——肯定会遭到反对。但由于特朗普牢牢掌控着他的支持者群体，党内的批评之声却被压制了。

以下是一些比较突出的例子：

根据自由主义智库卡托研究所的统计，特朗普政府已让联邦政府持有英特尔、英伟达和日本制铁等 30 家私营公司的股份。

特朗普一直致力于建立联邦主权财富基金。

他曾考虑过出手相救并将精神航空公司国有化。

他在第一任期内救助了农民，在第二任期内又向他们提供了过渡性补贴。

他一直寻求对处方药实行批评者所称的“价格管制”。

他推出了“特朗普账户”储蓄账户，为孩子们提供1000美元的初始资金。

他已着手限制信用卡利率，此举赢得了民主社会主义参议员伯尼·桑德斯的赞扬。

他经常试图利用政府来打压他不喜欢的言论和媒体报道。

他最近试图迫使石油公司降低油价，称他们在伊朗战争期间赚了太多钱，并敦促他们生产更多柴油。

上周在众议院规则委员会的听证会上，发生了一件很有启发性的事情。

在辩论众议院共和党的反社会主义决议时，科罗拉多州民主党众议员乔·内古斯问众议院行政委员会主席布莱恩·斯蒂尔，政府持有杂货店的股权是否属于社会主义。

“那确实是一种社会主义形式，”这位威斯康星州的共和党人说道。

但随后内古斯问，如果特朗普持有杂货商克罗格 20% 的股份，这算不算社会主义？斯蒂尔的回答则不太坚定。

“我想看看细节，”他说。

这是一个假设的例子，但在特朗普已经证明自己非常擅长攻击批评者的共和党内，为特朗普的所作所为开脱——或者干脆无视它们——已经成为一种生存机制。

问题在于，每当他的那些主张小政府的保守派盟友对他的挑衅行为睁一只眼闭一只眼时，他就会趁机扩大自己的影响力。他们一次又一次地给他几英寸的距离，然后他却能大步向前。

这就是共和党目前的处境。就连传统基金会都在为这样的政策辩护，这足以说明一切。

随着特朗普的光环褪去——他的种种过激行为危及了共和党的中期选举希望——一些保守派人士似乎才姗姗来迟地意识到，特朗普并非社会主义的伟大征服者，而可以说是社会主义的参与者。