The Guardian’s Sunday coverage of President Donald Trump’s ambitious slate of executive orders for his first day back in the White House emphasizes its sweeping, controversial scope. The left-leaning publication frames the agenda as a significant escalation of Trump’s America First ideology, casting his plans as “authoritarian” and “a blueprint for reshaping American governance through sheer executive will.” This framing reflects the publication’s skepticism and concern about Trump’s approach to power and his plans’ implications for immigration, trade, civil rights, and education.
Do left-leaning critics of Trump’s ambitious executive order agenda truly see his actions as authoritarian, or are their concerns rooted more in protecting funding and influence for their ideological priorities?
From the Guardian’s coverage, it’s clear that critics frame Trump’s agenda as an authoritarian threat. For example, his plans to declare a border emergency, expand deportations, and eliminate birthright citizenship are described as “draconian measures,” while his Schedule F initiative to reshape the federal workforce is cast as a “power grab” to centralize control. These terms suggest a deep anxiety about his agenda’s implications for American governance.
However, a closer examination raises questions about whether the outrage stems more from a loss of funding and influence. Consider the proposed funding cuts to schools that promote critical race theory or mandate masks. These policies directly threaten the budgets of institutions that align with left-leaning ideals. Similarly, plans to overhaul diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which receive significant federal support, would dismantle a financial ecosystem many progressives champion.
The Guardian’s narrative also highlights Trump’s proposed energy policies, including expedited drilling and a rollback of environmental restrictions, as a betrayal of climate change initiatives. While these criticisms invoke ecological preservation, they also reflect fears of defunding renewable energy projects in which progressives have invested heavily.
Another area of tension is Trump’s promise to impose tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports. Critics frame this as economic recklessness, yet such tariffs would likely disrupt established trade agreements and funding streams that benefit multinational corporations and progressive policies tied to globalism.
The fervent opposition to Trump’s pardons of January 6 participants also reveals deeper motivations. While critics label the pardons as a subversion of justice, they simultaneously work to preserve a narrative of the Capitol riot as an existential threat to democracy—a narrative that underpins their calls for increased domestic surveillance and counter-extremism funding.
Ultimately, the opposition may genuinely believe Trump’s actions are authoritarian, but that belief often coincides with concerns about losing influence, funding, and the ability to shape policy. Recognizing this dual motivation is crucial for understanding the stakes. For Trump’s America First agenda to succeed, his allies must address these critiques head-on, exposing instances where claims of “authoritarianism” may serve as a smokescreen for protecting entrenched interests. At the same time, they must navigate how to ensure such sweeping changes don’t alienate broader constituencies, allowing critics to capitalize on fears of overreach.
Immigration and Deportations: A Focus of Resistance
The Guardian sharply criticizes Trump’s plan to launch what he calls “the largest deportation program in American history.” This policy includes dismantling legal protections for asylum seekers and prioritizing the deportation of undocumented migrants regardless of criminal records. The publication argues that such measures would target vulnerable populations and exacerbate humanitarian crises, calling the scope “staggering” and “inhumane.” Highlighting Trump’s proposed national emergency at the border, the article points out the legal hurdles, noting, “Only the CDC, not the president, can declare such emergencies,” casting doubt on the plan’s feasibility.
Tariffs and Economic Turmoil
Trump’s proposed 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports also draws heavy scrutiny. The Guardian warns of potential economic fallout, comparing it to the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff, widely blamed for deepening the Great Depression. Critics cited by the publication argue that these tariffs could destabilize North American trade and provoke retaliation, with Canadian and Mexican leaders vowing to respond in kind.
Culture Wars and Civil Rights
The Guardian pays particular attention to Trump’s promises to rollback transgender rights and overhaul school funding policies. The publication describes these moves as part of a broader “culture war,” accusing Trump of weaponizing budget authority to enforce ideological conformity. His proposed restrictions on transgender individuals in sports and the military are labeled as “the most sweeping rollback of transgender rights in modern American history,” a description that underscores the left’s resistance to what it sees as discriminatory policies.
Pardons and the Rule of Law
One of Trump’s most contentious promises, mass pardons for January 6 defendants, is portrayed as a direct affront to accountability and justice. The Guardian notes that while some pardons may be symbolic, they signal Trump’s alignment with the most extreme elements of his base, a move critics see as normalizing political violence.