Today, Americans are red, white and blind — with policy decisions being made not based on what’s best for all, but on what serves the country’s elites.
In the Trump administration, corporate favoritism has been strategically hidden by performative appeals to patriotism and the protection of the national interest — and it’s working pretty well. But when politicians wrap themselves in the American flag, we should all be wary.
In talking about the U.S. beating China on AI development, President Donald Trump is using patriotic rhetoric to justify providing the tech giants who control our digital lives with political favors. His policies on monopolies clearly highlight this: Trump continues to tear down barriers to AI consolidation, arguing that it can “clear a path for the United States” to “retain global leadership in artificial intelligence.” This framing strategically diverts attention from monopolistic practices, suggesting that corporate consolidation is necessary for America to gain a competitive edge against China.
With Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg meeting with Trump thrice since he took office — including attending his inauguration and even hosting a ball in his honor — we must ask ourselves: Are Trump’s policies actually being made with our best interest in mind?
The negative effects of Trump’s policies reveal the answer to this question. In December 2020, the Federal Trade Commission – an independent, bipartisan agency– filed a lawsuit alleging that monopolistic practices haven’t made America stronger; rather, they’ve made our social media landscape less innovative, less responsive to user concerns and more exploitative of our personal data.
The administration has also utilized “America First” rhetoric to justify unfair trade policies, ones that protect American businesses while leaving consumers behind. Patriotic rhetoric, such as saying, “For years we have been ripped off by virtually every country in the world, both friend and foe. But those days are over — America First!” frames protectionist trade strategies as a necessary sacrifice for national security. This positions corporations like Meta as noble defenders of American technological sovereignty, rather than the profit-seeking entities they are.
Trump’s recent tariff policies offer a perfect case study into how the president uses patriotism to mask corporate favoritism. While trumpeting “America First” sentiment as he announced a sweeping 145% tariff on Chinese imports, the administration quietly exempted major products, including smartphones, computers and semiconductor chips.
How did Trump arrive at the decision to exempt these specific products? He tells us himself, “I speak to Tim Cook. I helped Tim Cook, recently, and that whole business.”
When a president champions “America First” trade policies but carves out exemptions for those who give him special attention, it reveals the hollow nature of his patriotic appeals. It’s not news: Tech giants with special access to the White House gain favors at the expense of the consumer.
Why does patriotic rhetoric resonate so deeply with us all? Our national mythology has always centered on exceptionalism — the belief that America stands apart from and above other nations. When leaders invoke competition with China, they’re not just discussing economic policy; they’re tapping into a powerful cultural narrative about our American identity.
With rapid technological advancement, the fear of being surpassed by China evokes deeper anxieties about national decline. By capitalizing on this fear, politicians are able to evade the need to rationally justify their policies to voters, making it the perfect cover for actions that benefit corporate interests. Trump adds an extra layer of genius to this patriotic approach, infusing his populist persona to create the illusion that special treatment for billionaires somehow serves the average American.
But real patriotism means wanting what’s best for your country and its people, not using the flag as a cover for making the rich richer. Trump’s patriotic rhetoric may sound noble, but his selective application of it exposes its true purpose. This isn’t patriotism — it’s access capitalism.
Next time you hear a policy defended with broad appeals to patriotism, look for who is being exempted: They tell the real story of who benefits. In this era of flag-draped corporate favoritism, we must ask: Does this policy serve the nation or just those with the president’s ear?
Phil Warren is a second-year mechanical engineering and physics combined major. He can be reached at [email protected].
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email [email protected] with your idea.
