For years, former President Donald Trump attributed his legal and political challenges to “communists.” In his second term, his administration is using this historically charged label to portray his opponents, from judges to educators, as threats to the American identity, culture, and values.
Trump laid out this strategy clearly last year during his plan to defeat Democratic rival, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, in the White House election. “All we have to do is define our opponent as a communist or a socialist or somebody who is going to destroy our country,” he stated from his New Jersey golf club.
In keeping with this approach, Trump labeled Harris “Comrade Kamala” and ended up victorious in the November elections. With the backing of more than 77 million Americans who cast their votes—49.9% of the total—Trump continues this strategy into his second term.
While genuinely communist regimes wield influence in countries like China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba in 2025, the United States does not follow suit. “The essence of communism is the belief that governments can surpass markets in providing goods and services. There are very few who truly believe that in the West,” mentioned Raymond Robertson from the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government & Public Service. “Unless there’s a call for the government to take over U.S. Steel or Tesla, the term ‘communist’ is misused.”
Nevertheless, “communist” remains a powerful rhetorical tool and a potent negative label in the current atmosphere dominated by social media and misinformation. Historical fears like the Russian Revolution, the “Red Scare,” World War II, McCarthyism, and the Cold War have faded into history, but Trump, now 78 years old and known for his branding tactics, still recalls them.
“We can’t let a few communist radical-left judges block the enforcement of our laws,” Trump declared in Michigan, celebrating his first 100 days in office. Despite requests, the White House didn’t clarify what Trump implies when he dubs someone a “communist.”
The timing of the use of “communist” is telling. Trump’s Michigan speech coincided with challenging economic and political news. A recent poll had shown more Americans disapproved of Trump’s priorities than supported them, with even some Republicans questioning his focus. Following Trump’s speech, it was reported that the economy shrank in the first quarter of 2025 due to the disruption caused by Trump’s tariffs.
Later in the week, senior presidential aide Stephen Miller took the White House podium, using the c-word repeatedly while condemning past policies related to transgender rights, diversity, and immigration. “These are among the areas where President Trump has battled the malignant, communist woke culture threatening our nation,” Miller proclaimed.
Such language serves both as bait for social media and to appeal to older voters. Those over 45 years of age narrowly sided with Trump in previous elections. In Miller’s statements, the term “communist” is strategically placed.
Jacob Neiheisel, a political communications expert at the University at Buffalo, noted, “The term is particularly loaded with negative emotion, especially for older Americans who lived through the Cold War,” emphasizing that using emotionally charged labels minimizes the perceived legitimacy of political adversaries.
The fear of communism influencing or overtaking America had been a significant and aggressive sentiment throughout much of the 20th century. Post-World War I years, accompanying the 1917 Russian Revolution and a surge of immigration, led to the “Red Scare” in 1920, an intense paranoia about communist-led revolution in America.
“McCarthyism” after World War II, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy, exemplified a vigorous hunt for supposed communists. During his campaign against alleged communists, McCarthy employed public threats and innuendos, heightening anti-communist sentiment. This era’s legacy stained lives and careers, while McCarthy’s own influence waned by the time of his death in 1957.
Roy Cohn, the senator’s chief counsel during the hearings, later became Trump’s mentor and advisor, fostering this tradition of fierce opposition against perceived communist threats as Trump emerged in the real estate world of New York. At that time, the Cold War was firmly entrenched with the omnipresent threat of nuclear conflict.
Even after the collapse of communism in 1989 and the Soviet Union dissolving two years later, the rhetoric persists. Now, Russia is helmed by President Vladimir Putin.
The idea of communism survives in areas like China, with Trump embroiled in a trade war affecting American consumer goods and prices. By week’s end, Trump reluctantly admitted Americans might face increased costs or scarcity of products, while maintaining the belief that China would feel the tariffs’ pinch harder.
Robertson contends the contemporary debate is not communism versus capitalism but revolves around the extent and timing of government intervention. He argued that Trump’s rhetoric of calling proponents of slightly increased government control “communists” is typical of misleading political discourse that resonates with voters lacking the time to delve into technical definitions and economic paradigms.
“Such inflammatory rhetoric is useful for Trump,” Robertson added, “as it arouses anger, which can be captivating for many.”