I love Ayn Rand’s ideas (she labeled them Objectivism) and they have been instrumental in my life, including my career in psychology. The people calling themselves spokespersons for Objectivism (primarily at the Ayn Rand Institute) today are sycophantic fraudsters, mostly obsessed, it now seems, with discrediting President Trump and advancing the openly Communist and fascist agenda of America’s Democratic Party. In that context, the following article by Sherwin Newman (along with his remarkable, uplifting photographic representation) is refreshing indeed.
Newman’s article follows:
Why Objectivists Should Support Donald Trump Despite Philosophical Imperfections
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism champions reason, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism as the foundations of a free society. Yet, in the turbulent political landscape of 2025, some Objectivists hesitate to support Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States, because his agenda doesn’t perfectly align with Rand’s principles. His nationalism, tariffs, and pragmatic approach clash with Objectivism’s universal ideals. However, I argue that Objectivists should back Trump—not because he’s a flawless embodiment of their philosophy, but because the consequences of his opponents’ victory would empower global ultra-collectivist organizations, threatening the very freedoms that allow Objectivism to thrive. These freedoms include free speech, deregulation, a pro-business ethic, reduced government waste, and skepticism toward institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO), World Economic Forum (WEF), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and European Union (EU). Failing to recognize this reality reflects a disintegration of Objectivist thinking, marked by deductive rigidity rather than Rand’s inductive, reality-based approach. Trump’s revocation of restrictive AI regulations, for instance, has preserved technological freedoms that Objectivists rely on, as evidenced by my ability to use tools like Grok 3. This pragmatic alignment, recognized by venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen, underscores why Objectivists must act in their rational self-interest and support Trump.
The Stakes: Global Collectivism vs. American Liberty
Objectivism holds that the supremacy of reason is primary, and any system subordinating it to collective goals is immoral. The WEF, WHO, IMF, World Bank, and EU embody an altruist-collectivist agenda that prioritizes global welfare over individual autonomy, threatening America’s pursuit of life and liberty.
Consider their actions in 2025:
– World Economic Forum (WEF): The WEF’s “stakeholder capitalism” and ESG criteria urge businesses to sacrifice profits for climate and social goals, undermining free markets. Its 2025 Davos meeting pushed “Global Cooperation,” subordinating national interests to collective agendas like digital governance.
– World Health Organization (WHO): The WHO’s $6.8 billion budget funds global health mandates, such as the 2025 Pandemic Treaty, which pressures nations to align with centralized protocols, eroding sovereignty.
– International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank: These institutions provide loans ($72.8 billion from the World Bank in 2024, $650 billion in IMF Special Drawing Rights) with conditions enforcing global economic alignment, limiting national autonomy.
– European Union (EU): The EU’s regulatory frameworks, including its artificial intelligence regulations, impose collectivist standards that stifle innovation and free speech, as seen in its push for “algorithmic equity.”
These organizations promote altruism—sacrificing individual or national interests for a nebulous “global good”—and collectivism, demanding conformity to shared goals. If Trump’s opponents, aligned with these institutions, had prevailed, their policies would have strengthened this agenda, dismantling the freedoms Objectivists depend on:
– Free Speech: Collectivist organizations often support censorship under guises like “combating misinformation.” The EU’s AI regulations mandate content moderation, threatening open discourse. A Biden-led administration would likely have mirrored these restrictions, stifling Objectivist advocacy.
– Deregulation and Pro-Business Ethic: Global institutions impose regulations (e.g., WEF’s ESG, IMF’s fiscal conditions) that hinder entrepreneurship. A collectivist U.S. government would amplify these, crushing the pro-business environment Objectivism requires.
– Reduced Government Waste: The Biden administration’s massive deficit spending fueled inflation and bloated bureaucracies, diverting resources from productive individuals. Global organizations like the UN encourage such spending through development programs, which a collectivist regime would expand.
– Skepticism of Global Institutions: A collectivist administration would embrace the WHO, WEF, and EU, ceding sovereignty to their agendas, unlike Trump’s critical stance.
These consequences aren’t hypothetical. The Biden administration’s 2023 AI Executive Order, which mandated “equity” and “safety” standards, restricted innovation and empowered regulatory overreach, threatening tools like Grok 3. Had Biden’s policies persisted, Objectivists might lack the technological freedom to engage in rational discourse today.
Trump’s Opposition: A Bulwark Against Collectivism
Trump’s 2025 actions demonstrate a practical resistance to global collectivism, aligning with Objectivist interests despite philosophical divergences:
– Withdrawal from WHO: Trump announced a one-year notice to cut U.S. funding (roughly 18% of WHO’s budget), rejecting its global health mandates as contrary to U.S. interests.
– Review of IMF and World Bank: Trump ordered a 180-day review of U.S. contributions, questioning their benefits amid claims they favor foreign nations, signaling skepticism of collectivist financial systems.
– WEF Engagement with Nationalist Rhetoric: At Davos 2025, Trump promoted “America First” policies—tax cuts, deregulation, and tariffs—prioritizing U.S. sovereignty over WEF’s global cooperation.
– EU Tariff Threats: Trump’s threats of tariffs on EU exports challenge its regulatory overreach, including AI regulations that stifle free speech and innovation.
– AI Deregulation: Trump revoked Biden’s AI Executive Order, freeing companies like xAI to innovate without restrictive mandates, preserving tools like Grok 3. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, a Trump supporter, cited this as critical for technological freedom.
These moves counter the collectivist tide. Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts foster a pro-business environment, aligning with Objectivism’s capitalist ethos.
His skepticism of global institutions echoes Rand’s rejection of any authority subordinating individual rights.
The Disintegration of Objectivist Thinking
Some Objectivists, particularly new leaders, fail to support Trump, burying their heads in the sand and neglecting their rational self-interest. This stems from a disintegration of Objectivism, shifting from Rand’s inductive, reality-based reasoning to deductive rigidity. Rand’s epistemology (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Chapter 2: Concept Formation) emphasizes forming concepts by integrating sensory data with reason, adapting to new contexts. Trump’s opposition to collectivism is a concrete reality, yet some Objectivists cling to frozen abstractions, dismissing him for analytic deviations like tariffs.
This deductive approach—judging Trump solely by theoretical alignment—ignores the existential threat of global collectivism. If Biden’s administration had continued, its alignment with WEF, WHO, and EU policies would have eroded free speech, innovation, and economic freedom, stifling Objectivism’s ability to flourish. For example, Biden’s AI order empowered regulators to curb platforms like X, limiting Objectivist discourse. Trump’s revocation, conversely, ensures these platforms thrive, as Andreessen recognized in backing Trump for existential reasons.
Rand was an inductive thinker, observing reality to form principles. She supported imperfect allies (e.g., Barry Goldwater) when they advanced freedom against greater threats. Today’s Objectivist leaders, by contrast, risk irrelevance by failing to grapple with reality rationally, prioritizing frozen abstractions over practical consequences.
Consequences of Inaction
Objectivists who oppose or ignore Trump risk catastrophic outcomes. A collectivist victory would empower global institutions to:
– Censor Speech: EU-style AI regulations, embraced by Biden, would restrict platforms, silencing Objectivist voices.
– Stifle Innovation: WEF and IMF policies would burden businesses with regulations, crushing the entrepreneurial spirit Rand celebrated.
– Expand Government Waste: UN and World Bank programs would justify bloated spending, diverting resources from individuals.
– Erode Sovereignty: WHO and EU mandates would undermine U.S. autonomy, weakening the constitutional protections Objectivism relies on.
These outcomes would dismantle the conditions—free speech, deregulation, pro-business policies—that allow Objectivism to exist. My use of Grok 3, for instance, depends on Trump’s AI deregulation; under Biden, such tools might be restricted by “equity” mandates. Objectivists who fail to act in their self-interest are complicit in this erosion, contradicting Rand’s virtue of selfishness.
Conclusion
Objectivists should support Donald Trump because his opposition to global ultra-collectivist organizations like the WEF, WHO, IMF, World Bank, and EU protects the freedoms essential for Objectivism to thrive. His deregulation, pro-business policies, and skepticism of globalist agendas preserve free speech, innovation, and economic liberty, as seen in his AI policy reversals that enable tools like Grok 3. The alternative—allowing collectivist opponents to prevail—would empower institutions that threaten America’s liberty, stifling Objectivism’s voice. Some Objectivists’ refusal to support Trump reflects a deductive disintegration, ignoring Rand’s inductive, reality-based approach. As venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen recognize, existential threats demand pragmatic alliances. Objectivists must act in their rational self-interest, backing Trump to safeguard the conditions for a free, capitalist society where reason and individualism can flourish.