.png)
On Nov. 5 and in the weeks beforehand, over 150 million Americans cast ballots at their local polling stations and mail-in dropboxes. Overnight, many woke up at 2 or 3 a.m., citing anxiety and a bad, knowing feeling that Donald Trump won a second term. With ballots still rolling in, AP called the election around 5 a.m. after Trump was predicted to win Wisconsin.
For many — not just those that woke overnight — the 2024 presidential election was one ridden with dread, fear and frustration. The two main candidates were Donald Trump, a felon who tried to distance himself from his party’s radical overhaul plan for the U.S. government, and Kamala Harris, a woman of color who leaned on the right for support and failed to appeal to key groups of progressive voters.
In the wake of Trump’s win, the U.S. has moved and will continue to move toward fascism. His cabinet appointments consist of a barrage of far-right “loyalists” who have extensive ties to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Think Tank that spearheaded Project 2025. Our reflections and comprehensive analysis of the election results reflect the American shift towards conservatism, even among Democratic and independent voters.
Some key topics discussed include Project 2025, which poses threats to minority groups; the genocide in Gaza, which contributed to Harris's election loss and may escalate under Trump; the erosion of abortion rights, despite protective measures passed in many states on November 5; and the uncertain future of the Russia-Ukraine war.
Since the election, emotions have been high, and the future of the U.S. is bleak. But the world doesn’t start or end with Trump’s second term, nor does it revolve around policies within the U.S. To combat fascism, we must organize and work from the ground up to reform the local, national and international political systems.
Over the last year, the conservative movement’s plans for the next Republican presidency have gained traction. They outline their endeavors in Project 2025, a 922-page document proposed and drafted by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. On the campaign trail, Trump feigned ignorance about the document and repeatedly distanced himself from the far-right agenda in a strategic move to win the election. However, a CNN review in July found that 140 people who worked for him during his first term also worked on the document, and his recent posts have cemented that Project 2025 is his goal for his second. Many Democrats and left-leaning individuals have visualized a presidency driven by Project 2025 and continue to warn their fellow Americans of its grave implications.
So, what is Project 2025? The “Conservative Promise” lays out a comprehensive plan for radical federal reformation under a Republican presidency and calls for executive overhauls, reinstating countless conservative principles and policies, and “effective” Republican governance. It targets minorities, such as women, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ and transgender individuals; federal agencies and employees, including the Agency for International Development staff and the Department of Education; free speech; and many other democratic ideals.
With AP’s recent call that Republicans won the House majority, Trump is left in the same place as he was during his first term: with a Republican Congress. The difference is that this time, he has a methodical plan he intends to follow and a conservative Supreme Court. With unilateral control of all three branches of government and a determined commitment to establish highly concentrated presidential power, we can reasonably predict a severe lack of checks and balances in the coming four years.
The document explores an exhaustive list of conservative policies, but it drives home a few major goals:
They plan to target immigrant populations through mass deportations, raids, family separation, tightened border security, the promise to finish the wall and ending birthright citizenship (p. 135 of Project 2025).
They want to expand the federal response to protesters and journalists exhibiting free speech. This includes weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppose political dissidents and civil employees and restricting free speech.
A main conservative ambition is to gut national abortion rights by restricting access to FDA-approved medication abortion pill mifepristone and reviving the Comstock Act of 1873 to criminalize the distribution of contraceptives, information about contraceptives, and abortion tools through the U.S. Postal Service. They also plan to enhance data collection on in-state and inter-state abortions (p. 450-490 of Project 2025).
Project 2025 seeks to criminalize the voting process by transferring election-related offenses from the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division. They propose limiting the purview of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in order to combat election misinformation and disinformation.
They will launch an attack on public education systems through federal education funding cuts, funneling taxpayer dollars to private education systems, rolling back LGBTQ+ in-school protections and increasing nationwide censorship. Project 2025 also seeks to drastically limit student loan options to make higher education less accessible.
Project 2025 aims to roll back LGBTQ+ and transgender rights across the U.S. by bending federal law to require discrimination against trans people in schools, hospitals, and workplaces. They plan to severely attack transgender healthcare and restrict access to gender-affirming care, and they plan to reverse the Title IX rule that protects LGBTQ+ students, women and girls from discriminatory practices.
We have every reason to believe that Trump and his administration will champion Project 2025 goals and values in the upcoming term, and the consequences can not be overstated. Read through Project 2025 to further understand what is at stake and to educate those around you.
Trump's election could also mean an escalation of Israel’s violence in Gaza and Lebanon. Both Netanyahu and the Israeli government are ecstatic about Trump's victory, seeing it as a chance to increase military support and aid. Netanyhu is likely attempting to prolong his military campaign in Gaza, where Israel continues to ethnically cleanse and commit genocide against Palestinians, and Lebanon, where Israel has violated a recent ceasefire over 100 times.
There are concerns that Israel will have military freedom without any consequences from the U.S. government once Trump is in office. On Dec 2, Trump threatened Hamas on TruthSocial, saying that there will be “all hell to pay” if the remaining hostages aren’t released prior to his inauguration, a statement that Netanyahu welcomed. In late October, Trump said he spoke with Netanyahu — whom he calls Bibi — almost daily. Trump’s recent TruthSocial posts and his close relationship with Netanyahu is a signal that he may give Israel free reign to continue its military operations.
In 2017, Trump became the first U.S. president to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and visit its western wall. Many Israeli settlers view him as an unconditional ally who will support their illegal settlements in the West Bank and onward, referring to his presidential cabinet as a “dream team.” Others have a mixed reaction. Some, including a former director at the Israeli National Security Council, believe that Trump could pressure Netanyahu to end the conflict, while others worry that Trump’s unpredictability and fear the situation could worsen without a push for a ceasefire.
In the U.S. and globally, people have expressed similar concerns as to whether or not Trump’s second administration will be worse than the current Biden administration. Many people say that it won’t be, because of how much military support Biden has provided Israel with — over $17.9 billion since October 2023 — and because “the Biden administration continued the first Trump administration’s foreign policy in the region.” Many others say it will be, also citing the previous Trump administration and predicting he can turn the whole Middle East into a region of turmoil.
On Election Day, voters in seven states — Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and New York — pushed forward amendments protecting the right to abortion locally.
Throughout this presidential race, abortion has been a highly-debated and often confusing topic to follow. In his 2016 presidential bid, Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and he followed through by nominating Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. With the support of these nominees, Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022.
During the most recent presidential race, Trump’s stance was more difficult to pin down. In April 2024, he posted a video on Truth Social arguing that abortion legislation should remain a state-level issue. When clips surfaced of his running mate, JD Vance, expressing support for a nationwide abortion ban in 2022, he distanced himself from these views, telling moderators during the first and only presidential debate that he “didn’t discuss it with JD.” On Oct. 1, while Vance was pressed about a federal abortion ban — and whether the Trump administration would veto one — on the vice presidential debate stage, Trump posted the following on X, formerly known as Twitter, in all capital letters:
“Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters.”
During the Biden administration, Democrats and the U.S. Congress failed to pass a federal policy protecting abortion rights. Even in states where abortion amendments passed, politicians and lawmakers continue to enforce abortion bans, leading people to question how much influence they actually have in protecting abortion rights in their state. Given Project 2025’s radical plan for abortion, it is safe to say that the situation — which is already horrific — will only worsen under Trump.
In a recent stage of the Russia-Ukraine war, which began in 2022, the U.S. has begun providing Ukraine with new weapons for retaliating against Russia. On Dec. 2, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the U.S. would give Ukraine a $725 million security package that will include more of these long range missiles, as well as drones, landmines and other items.
In February 2014, Russia occupied and annexed Crimea, a peninsula in Eastern Europe, from Ukraine. Since then, Russia has maintained control over Crimea. Fighting between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government continued, and in 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Two years later, Ukraine has gained back over 50% of its occupied territories, and Russia still occupies 18% of the country.
In 2020, the Trump administration withheld congressionally approved military aid and arms exports to Ukraine for unspecified reasons, a contributing factor to his first impeachment trial. Russia began amassing troops along the country’s border with Ukraine in 2021. While Russian officials denied any intention of invading Ukraine, Western countries threatened economic sanctions were an invasion to occur. Despite this, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Russian military performed rather poorly in this invasion, which came as a surprise to many Western analysts, and Ukraine was able to defend itself with support from the United States and the European Union. Over the next two years, Russia continued to launch attacks against Ukraine. However, Ukraine has been able to recapture 54 percent of Russian-occupied territory, in part due to the approximately $75 billion dollars in aid from the United States since 2022. It is worth noting that Russia still occupies 18 percent of the country.
With the results of the November 5th election, international powers are unsure of how the conflict will proceed, given the unpredictability of the Trump administration. In 2020, the Trump administration withheld congressionally approved military aid and arms exports to Ukraine for unspecified reasons, a contributing factor of his first impeachment trial. Many people have also called into question — historically and more recently — his relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.
On Nov. 7, Putin congratulated Trump on his election victory, again raising questions regarding their relationship. Trump is well-known for speaking of Putin with admiration and friendliness throughout the 2016 presidential election, referring to him as “highly respected”. In “War,” a book released in October, journalist Bob Woodward alleged that Trump spoke to Putin several times since leaving office in 2021, and that he had sent Putin personal COVID-19 tests during the pandemic — a statement later confirmed by Russia.
While Trump has not shared any official plans for future negotiations with Russia and Ukraine, he has on several occasions suggested that Ukraine may need to cede territory to reach peace quickly, despite the fact that Russia has violated international law with its invasion. When asked on a recent podcast if he would pledge not to commit United States troops to Ukraine, he responded, “I would guarantee it…I wouldn’t do it, no”. It is unclear whether Trump will maintain the United States’ current military and financial support to Ukraine or to its current extent.
Following Trump’s win in the election, the European Union has pledged its resolute support to Ukraine. According to the views of French and British ambassadors, a peaceful solution can only be reached when Russia withdraws from Ukrainian soil. Given Trump’s past of inconsistent foreign policy in regard to Russia, it is unclear how he will handle the conflict moving forward.
The demographic breakdowns during this election cycle demonstrate a shift toward conservative ideology in the U.S. Based on national exit polls conducted in ten states, NBC News found that 45% of Hispanics and Latinos voted for Trump. This represents an increase in Hispanic and Latino support for Trump, which was 32% in 2020, and is key to understanding how Trump flipped Miami-Dade and other important counties in Florida.
For many groups, the conservative shift was smaller or consistent with the last presidential election, with 60% of white men, 53% of white women, and 21% of Black men voting for Trump in 2024, compared to 61%, 55%, and 19%, respectively, in 2020.
For Latino women, the shift was slightly larger, with 38% voting for Trump in 2024 compared to 30% in 2020. For Latino men, it was the largest, with 55% voting for Trump in 2024 and 38% voting for Trump in 2020.
The only group that was inconsistent with these findings is Black women, of whom 7% and 9% voted for Trump in 2024 and 2020, respectively.
In addition to racial demographics, the conservative shift is seen through factors including age and gender. In 2020, 36% of voters aged 18-29 voted for Trump; in 2024, 42% did. Only 54% of voters aged 18-29 voted for Harris in 2024 compared to 60% in 2020, demonstrating the shift and upsetting what was once “considered a reliable source of Democratic support in the 20th century.” The gender divide was consistent among white voters and widened slightly among Latino and Black voters, showing the trend toward both misogyny and social conservatism in the U.S. in recent years.
The shift to right-wing ideology within the U.S., which has already manifested itself in important areas including Miami-Dade County, is likely to continue during Trump’s second administration, compounding with policies in Project 2025 that are aimed at making conservatism widespread.
On Sept. 9, a Pew Research Center report found that 81% of registered voters said the economy was important to their vote in the 2024 presidential election. Similarly, a Gallup Poll concluded that the economy was the most important of 22 issues. In a survey conducted by Pew Research Center in late August, 55% of voters said they had more confidence in Trump’s economic policy. This is consistent with the Gallup Poll, which was conducted in late September, where 54% of voters said they had more confidence in Trump.
Despite this, experts have cited concern that Trump’s policies would worsen inflation — which spiked during the beginning of Biden’s “post-Covid” economy but has since fallen to the lowest point in three years — and cause it to jump to somewhere between 6% and 9.3%. And, throughout his entire campaign, Trump capitalized on his supporters’ lack of knowledge, stating that “we are a nation whose economy is collapsing into a cesspool of ruin,” while ignoring that U.S. GDP continues to grow, the unemployment rate reached the lowest point in 30+ years during Biden’s presidency, and that the Biden-Harris administration added over 16 million jobs, according to a BBC article and the Federal Reserve of St. Louis.
In the post-election transition period, Trump voters are beginning to realize that his proposed economic policies — a 10-20% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on imports from China, which could raise consumer prices by over 5% — will hurt them. Others are questioning if they are worth it and wondering how much power Trump will actually have while in office — and how much the Supreme Court can intervene on his policies.
Regardless of Trump’s campaign “promises,” or lies, one thing is true: his second administration will be detrimental to the economy, hurting both states and the average American household.
While Kamala Harris’s loss in this election was devastating, it was also unsurprising. She lost both the electoral college and the popular vote, something the Democrats haven’t done since 2004. The margin, however, was closer than many people think. And, although Harris faced many barriers as a woman of color, she also had many shortcomings and failed to recruit key groups of voters that could have won her the election.
Throughout her campaign, Harris tried to garner support from moderate conservatives, ostracizing herself from the more progressive Democratic vote by working with Republicans such as Liz Cheney — who has supported Trump in the past — and by saying she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet if she was elected. Despite her efforts, this strategy backfired: she won 5% of the Republican vote, compared to the 6% Biden won in 2020, and lost many independent voters in the process.
Some attribute her loss to her unyielding support of Israel and continued funding of the genocide in Gaza, where Israel has intentionally killed over 41,000 Palestinians. In August, an Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) poll found that 34% of Democratic and independent voters in Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania would be more likely to vote for Harris if she supported an arms embargo against Israel. An even greater margin of young voters, 60%, said they would be more likely to support Harris if she supported the ban. In 2020, voters aged 18-29 were essential to Biden’s win. 17% of voters were aged 18-29, with 60% supporting Biden and 36% supporting Trump. In 2024, young voter support was worse: only 14% of voters were aged 18-29, and 54% of voters supported Harris in comparison to 43% supporting Trump. Instead of gaining key voters that she needed to win, Harris ignored and subsequently lost both them and the election.
Harris’ loss represents the conservative shift in the U.S., not only from Republicans but also from Democrats. The Democratic party has moved right in recent years, going from ideals such as canceling debt and banning fracking to not giving proper aid to states after climate disasters. And, despite the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Biden’s plan to codify abortion rights, the Democrats have failed to deliver on protecting abortion rights, instead using them as empty campaign promises in every election cycle.
Despite Harris’ failures as a candidate, many believe her loss was also because of her race and gender. 92% of Black women voted for Harris, and some say that she “could not withstand ‘the wall of white nationalism and racism and classism and sexism and misogyny.’”
This statement is supported by the fact that more than 89% of counties shifted in favor of Trump this election. Harris is the second woman in eight years to run against Trump and lose, and voters are beginning to wonder what it will take to elect a woman president. A combination of factors went into her loss, including this racism and sexism. In addition to this, her staunch stance on Israel and Gaza, her campaigning with Republicans, and the overall right-wing shift within the Democratic and Republican parties undoubtedly cost her the election.
One of Harris’ biggest failures in the 2024 election was her complete rejection of Arab Americans and their support. Refusing to let a Palestinian speak at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) was her first demonstration of unwillingness to even consider the experience of Arab Americans. Allowing a multitude of Republicans to speak in their place further alienated this voter base, sending a message that Arab Americans didn’t belong in the “unified America” that Harris was campaigning for. At an invite-only rally for Harris, Dr. Ahmed Ghanim, an Arab American politician, was removed without an explanation. He was pulled from the event just ten minutes after entering and told by authorities that he had to leave or he would be arrested.
While the Harris campaign eventually sent him a statement of regret, they did not offer an explanation for targeting and removing Dr. Ghanim. This event only fueled the shifting sentiments in the Arab and Muslim communities regarding the election, and many began questioning how the Harris Administration would impact their lives.
At the Democratic National Convention in August, Harris made some similarly sharp statements regarding Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people. She addressed the civilian massacres and destruction Israel has brought upon Gaza, acknowledging the tragic loss of Palestinian lives. However, she then went on to say that “the first and most tragic story is October 7.”
To many watching the speech, this implied that the 1,200 lives lost on October 7 were of higher value than the tens of thousands lost in Palestine. In the short duration of her campaign, the lack of space for Arab Americans in the Democratic party, and thus in Harris’ potential presidency, the lack of space became apparent. This year’s election demonstrated where many U.S. citizens drew the line. The blatant lack of support and care for an integral portion of the U.S. population did not go unnoticed, and it showed.
Dearborn, a county in Michigan that is home to the largest Arab population in the U.S., was instrumental in Biden’s 2020 election victory. Whereas Biden collected 74.2% of the votes in 2020, Harris garnered only 27.8% this year. In an effort to win the conservative vote, she chose to appear in the state with Liz Cheney, a Republican whose father engineered the deadly invasion of Iraq. Without saying the words, Harris made it clear that she had already abandoned the vote of Arab Americans.
Compared to Biden, who won the state and its 15 electoral votes by 155,000 votes in 2020 when 146,000 Arab voters turned out in his favor, Harris lost Michigan by a mere 82,000 votes. There are clear dynamics at play here, as Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian Democrat who has been outspoken against the genocide, was re-elected to her seat in the House of Representatives with a 70% majority.
Despite Harris’ loss of the popular vote to Trump by almost 3 million votes, many neoliberal critics have attributed her overall loss to third-party voters. After Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2026, they did the same thing, blaming Jill Stein — the leader of the Green Party — and other left-wing candidates that many progressive voters typically vote for.
The 2024 election results, however, have made it clear that progressive third-party voters are not the reason Harris lost. In many key swing states — Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada and Pennsylvania, the number of third-party voters is less than the margin Harris lost by. Even in the states Harris would have won if not for third party voters — Michigan and Wisconsin — the votes were spread across multiple candidates and political parties. The total number of votes for the progressive candidates in these states — Jill Stein, Cornel West, and Claudia de La Cruz — also fall short of the 6.8 million margin of votes that Harris lost by.
Now is not the time for the Democratic party to split or to blame progressive voters for Harris’ loss. Her loss is representative of two main issues in the U.S. that both need to be addressed in the upcoming years. First, the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted to the right, and both parties’ perceived willingness to shift this direction has contributed to a rise in conservatism and extremism. Second, progressive, Democratic and independent voters are increasingly unwilling to vote for the “lesser of two evils” in a two-party system, opting to vote third-party or to not vote at all.
This election is a turning point for fascism. Project 2025 aims to give conservatives what they want by destroying systems that protect basic human rights; with Trump’s Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, it will throw the U.S. into violence and turmoil. And, throughout all of this, the U.S. will continue aiding Israel’s genocide on Gaza and sending military aid to Israel and other countries to strengthen its grip on Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
The situation may seem dire, but now is not the time to give up or stop caring about international issues. To beat the growing conservatism and combat U.S. imperialism, we must unite for and support the socialist movement, get involved in politics at every level — starting with local and state politics — and focus on upcoming elections, all while educating, socializing and organizing with the people around us. Securing a democratic majority in 2026, when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House of Representative seats are up for reelection, will be key to reeling in Trump’s power during the latter half of his term. A leftist, socialist shift must begin now and continue through 2028, when Trump’s second term will end and 34 more Senate seats will be up for reelection.
As the U.S. proved, it will continue its imperialism at the cost of electing a felon as president. Change must happen from the ground up, not from inside Congress or the Electoral College. Voting wasn’t enough: it’s time to get organized. Join a socialist organization; vote in local school board elections; support third party candidates when they’re on the ballot — and when they’re not. Support them especially in states where democratic senators refuse to change their stance on Gaza despite overwhelming evidence of Israel’s crimes. If you’re from Pennsylvania, campaign with Leila Hazou, a Palestinian woman and Green Party member who ran against Bob Casey after he refused to call for a ceasefire. Dissent is growing, on college campuses and elsewhere, and sensible voters don’t want to support a candidate whose policies violate human rights.
Humans have the capacity to care about multiple things at once. We can simultaneously care about issues within the U.S. and outside of it, and we should care. Trump’s reelection isn’t an event that will be isolated to the U.S. While fascism and extremist thought grow stronger in the country, Trump and other world leaders will be influencing foreign policy and many more important areas within the international sphere. But, regardless of the overwhelmingly negative circumstances that we find ourselves in, we must continue to organize, vote, and fight for justice.
