The journal of El-Ryssala for studies and

Volume : 07 / Nᵒ : 08/ Février 2023. pp 295-307

research in humanities
PISSN : 2543-3938 - EISSN : 2602-7771

Social Divisions, Welfare, and the Welfare State during Trump’s

Administration
Aziza Tahar Djebbar
Assistant teacher (A) and PhD Student, University of Oran 2 “Mohamed Ben
Ahmed” (Algeria), E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 01 / 10 / 2022 Accepted: 06 / 02 / 2023 Published: 18 / 02 / 2023

Abstract:

Welfare has been always a hot subject in American politics. In this paper, we will
endeavor to study Donald Trump‘s approach to reform welfare and the welfare state as
well as the impact of social divisions on his administration‘s strategies to tackle poverty.
We attempt to demonstrate the intersectionality of race, class, gender, and religion in
U.S. politics and public policy during Trump‘s Administration and their impact on poor
American citizens. Although the U.S. economy flourished to some extent during the
Trump Administration, poor people, that is to say those whose income was low, were
not supposed to wait for financial assistance from the government. Trump did not focus
on poor people in his strategies to reform welfare; instead, he aimed to increase military
spending and cut government spending by focusing on food stamps.

Keywords:Covid-19; poverty; social divisions; Trump‘s Administration;welfare; welfare

state

295
Social Divisions, Welfare, and the Welfare State during Trump’s Administration pp 295-307

I. INTRODUCTION
Donald Trump, the rich American businessman was inaugurated as U.S. President on
January 20, 2017. He pledged to ―Make America Great Again‖. The administrations that
preceded Trump‘s tried to reform welfare. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act in 1996 made a turning point in the history of reforming welfare and the U.S.
welfare state. During the Bush Administration, the government focused on the military system
and made efforts to restore stability at home and abroad since U.S. troops were in Afghanistan
and Iraq. President Barack Obama shifted the government's attention towards home issues and
introduced a new program to reform the whole U.S. welfare system by targeting health care.

The questions that will be raised at the heart of this research paper are the following:
- How far did social divisions impact politics and social welfare policy during the Trump
Administration?
- What was Trump‘s approach to welfare and poverty?

President Donald Trump was a controversial personality that the U.S. political scene has
never witnessed. He aimed overtly at banning immigration from Islamic countries and Mexico
by building a huge wall. He withdrew his country from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
Mitigation, and he attacked furiously women from different social and racial backgrounds. In
2020, as the Covid-19 pandemic appeared and crippled the global economic system, President
Trump used prejudiced ideas in his rhetoric against the Chinese, instead of introducing concrete
solutions to control the situation.
The research method used throughout this paper is descriptive. We draw upon primary
and secondary resources and use the collected data to support our hypothesis. Our aim here is to
figure out how President Donald Trump tackled issues related to poverty, to see if social
divisions mattered during his administration, and to what extent they affected social policy
programs. We will try also to figure out his approach to welfare and how the welfare reform
policy evolved during his presidency.
First, we need to define the following terms: welfare,the welfare state, and social
divisions. Social divisions are ―sets of categories. Social categories are not simply given. They
have to be established and maintained and the process through which they appear is known as
social division.‖
The term ―welfare state‖ is controversial, ambiguous, and has no precise
definition in economics. The term welfare state first appeared in Germany and its German
version Wohlfahrstaat in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. When scholars use it,
they refer generally to a comprehensive system whereby the state undertakes to protect the
health and well-being of its citizens, by providing pensions, hospitals, sickness, and
unemployment benefits. Scholars define the American welfare state as the set of direct
expenditure programs such as Social Security and AFDC.1 For others, the American welfare
state is a combination of direct and indirect spending such as loans, loan guarantees as well as
tax expenditures (indirect spending forms the so-called ―hidden welfare state‖). (Howard, 1997,
p.5). Some scholars refer to the experience of the welfare state in the United States of America
as the evolution of ―the New Deal Order‖ namely ―liberalism.‖ (Kessler-Harris & Vaudagna,
2018, p.5).
The term ―welfare‖ generally means ―well-being‖ (Katz, 2001; Gordon, 1994), and it
appeared in the U.S. Constitution: ―the general welfare‖ and it referred to providing well-being
by the government (national or local) for all citizens, ―The Congress shall have Power to lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States.‖ (U.S. Constitution, art .I , sec.8, cl.I., ). The
meaning of ―welfare‖ has changed drastically in the contemporary United States. Michael
Wiseman defines welfare as follows: ―By convention, ―welfare‖ is applied to all programs of
public assistance that give aid to individuals or families on the basis of need and

1
Based on works of such scholars as Abramovitz, M. (1968).Regulating the lives of women ; Roy Lubove
(1968). The Struggle for Social Security, 1900–1935; Patterson, J.T. (1986) America’s Struggle against
poverty, 1900–1985.

296
 Aziza Tahar Djebbar

means.‖(Wiseman, 1996, p.598). Noam Chomsky provides a deep explanation of the notion of
welfare in the U.S.: ―What is called ―welfare‖ is public programs that provide funds for poor
people…Public programs that provide funds for rich people are not called ―welfare‖, but in fact
that is what most of the public funds are.‖ (Chomsky,1993). For Premilla Nadasen and her co-
authors welfare is ―virtually synonymous with federal cash aid to poor single mothers and their
children: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) before 1996…‖ (Nadasen,
Mittelstadt, & Chappell, 2009, p.1). Linda Gordon points out that:

In two generations, the meaning of ―welfare‖ has reversed itself. What once meant
prosperity, good health, and good spirits now implies poverty, bad health, and fatalism. A
word that once evoked images of pastoral contentment now connotes slums, depressed
single mothers, and neglected children, and even crime. Today ―welfare‖ means grudging
aid to the poor, when once it referred to a vision of a good life. (Gordon, 1994, p.1)

Michael Katz affirms that ―Welfare had lost (its) inclusive and positive meaning … now it
signif (ies) only public assistance programs—which to most people meant Aid to Dependent
Children.‖ (Katz, 2001,p.4). According to Anne Daguerre, welfare has two meanings in the
U.S.: ―it can refer to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a cash assistance
program for single-parent families; or it can refer to other means-tested programs such as
housing assistance, health care (Medicaid), food stamps (i.e. the Supplementary Nutrition
Assistance Program [SNAP]) and social assistance for people with disabilities (Social Security
Income [SSI]).‖ (Daguerre, 2017, pp.183–186).
In the present paper, when we refer to ―welfare‖, we refer to public assistance programs.
Even though there are many assistance programs for the poor, when people refer to ―welfare,‖
they mean Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)—the program designed for single
mothers and their dependent children (Handler, 1995, p.1). Welfare reform is the name given to
1996 changes made in the U.S. public assistance program designed to provide cash benefits to
single mothers (U.S. Congress, 1996).
It should be borne in mind, however, that the aim of this paper is not to explain how the
welfare state historically developed during the Trump Administration, nor to study the formal
structure of the American welfare state during his administration.Simply put, this study is an
attempt to understand Trump‘s approach to welfare and welfare reform.

1. Welfare before the Trump Administration: Barack Obama’s Administration

One decade after passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in
1996—which was supposed to end the racialized debates around welfare, public assistance for
low-income families remains a hot political issue in the U.S. (Handler, 1995, pp.140–141). With
the election of Obama as president of the U.S., many Americans (academics, politicians, public)
assumed that Obama‘s Administration would focus on low-income families, who were
disproportionately African Americans (Handler, 1995).
America failed to provide government-guaranteed health care or family allowances.
Unlike other industrialized nations in the world, the United States of America does not
guarantee medical services and health insurance as a right of citizenship (Noble, 1997, p.7;
Quadagno, 1994, p.4).In his project related to social policy, Barack Obama sought to tackle
primarily the issue of healthcare.
Barack Obama's approach to addressing poverty had been hotly criticized because
welfare spending increased from $563 billion in 2008 to $745 billion in 2012 (Conley, 2017,
p.35). Even though the percentage of unemployment decreased from 9.6 percent in 2009 to 7.8
percent in 2013, the rate of American families who benefited from the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Programme (SNAP), known previously as ―food stamps‖, rose from 10.9 percent to
15 percent during the Obama Administration (Conley, 2017, p.35).Thus, Newt Gingrich, a
former speaker of the House and 2008 presidential candidate, said that Obama would be
remembered as the ―food-stamp president.‖ (Conley, 2017, p.35).
President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party followed a ―patriarchalist‖ path and
had an ―intersectional sexism‖ perspective to tackle the issues of poverty in the United States
during the early twenty-first century. That is to say, they focused on the important role that

297
Social Divisions, Welfare, and the Welfare State during Trump’s Administration pp 295-307

―private patriarchal families‖ could play to cure the social woes in American society. For them,
managing single mothers‘ lives is the key solution to combat poverty.
His administration‘s antipoverty policies had been highly rejected by Republicans as
they targeted the ―undeserving‖ groups. Hence, his ambitions to change the U.S. welfare system
were thwarted. In 2010, the Republican Party (or Grand Old Party) had become more powerful
as it controlled the House. In 2014, the Republican Party increased its House majority, and
controlled the Senate and also two-thirds of state legislatures. Those Republican coalitions
prepared the groundwork for the election of a Republican president in 2017. Even though,
different movements emerge to fight racial inequality such as ―#blacklivesmatter‖, they failed to
tackle ―interesting mobilizations of misogyny, discrimination, and patriarchalism that were
omnipresent in bipartisan social policy‖ during Bill Clinton‘s and Barack Obama‘s
Administrations.
The roots of the ―Tea Party‖—which had been active during the Obama Administration
to oppose Obama‘s initiatives related to social welfare policy—can be traced back to the 1970s.
Some members of the Tea Party who played a key role in its establishment were: former
Republican elites who were for promoting low-tax and also anti-regulation measures. The Tea
Party ideology includes hatred of Barack Obama; a ―visceral‖ opposition to redistributive and
pro-poor social policies; and a focus on limiting federal government intervention.
On the evening of March 23, 2010—a few hours after President Barack Obama had
signed into law the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act also called ―Obamacare‖, a
proposal that targeted the reform of the healthcare system—at least forty Tea Parties gathered in
a small café on Main Street in Brockton, Massachusetts (Williamson, Skocpol & Coggin, 2011,
p.25). Tea parties sought to stimulate Republicans‘ political awareness in the whole nation, and
hence contributed to the return of the Republican Party to the political scene with much
enthusiasm and confidence.
A series of events preceded the Tea Party reappearance: On January 28, 2009, Rush
Limbaugh coined the Term ―Porkulus‖ to describe the upcoming ―stimulus‖ package‖. By
February 8, the word appeared on the New York Times ―Idea of the Day‖ blog. On February 16,
2009, an anti-stimulus protest supported by commentator Michelle Malkin and Americans for
Prosperity took place in Seattle. Follow-up protests were held in Denver, CO where Obama
signed the stimulus bill, and in Mesa AZ, where Obama referred to his mortgage plan
(Williamson, Skocpol & Coggin, 2011, p.38).
On February 19, 2009, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, also a Chicago Mercantile
Exchange Trader, demonstrated his strong opposition to Obama‘s mortgage modification plan,
he argued:

The government is promoting bad behavior …. This is America. How many of you
people want to pay for your neighbor‘s mortgage, that has an extra bathroom, and can‘t
pay their bills? Raise their hand! President Obama, are you listening? … we‘re thinking
of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake
Michigan, I‘m going to start organizing. (Zucker, 2009)

That verbal explosion spread quickly across the nation, and it generated a sentiment of
disgust amid groups who tend to oppose all liberal policies and initiatives. The Tea Party led to
the emergence of right-wing activism in the United States and shaped the political arena during
the 2010 midterm elections. The Tea Party is ―a new incarnation of longstanding strands in US
conservatism … (with) some innovative organizational features.‖ (Williamson, Skocpol, &
Coggin,2011,p. 26).
In the 2020 budget proposals, Trump aimed at increasing spending on the military
system and cutting spending on domestic needs (Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and so
forth). This shows his negative political vision of the welfare system. In addition to this, his
political rhetoric was characterized by biased ideas against certain categories from ―non-white‖
backgrounds, such as Asians, Arabs (particularly Muslims), Latinos, and women ―white‖ or
―colored‖. 2

2
We are against categorising people according to the colour of their skin. Therefore, we use quotations
whenever we employ biased adjectives to describe certain persons, communities or social groups.

298
 Aziza Tahar Djebbar

2. The Welfare State during Donald Trump’s Administration:Republicans’ Victory

Hillary D. Clinton and Donald J. Trump were the main and final candidates at the end of
the 2016 presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate Hilary Rodham Clinton had a long
experience as a politician: as a first lady, a U.S. senator for New York, and also as a secretary of
state. However, the Republican Donald Trump has been a well-known American businessman
and his party‘s slogan was ―America First‖. Trump‘s candidacy has been considered the least
conventional in modern political history (Rockman, 2016, p. 437).
In his rhetoric during the 2016 presidential primary campaign, Trump aimed at gaining
public support by defining himself as an ―anti-politician‖ or ―anti-establishment‖ candidate
(Keyam, 2018, p.183). His rhetorical policy and strategy—which were characterized by a tone
of sexism, racism, and xenophobia—reflected his intention to depict his character as a
successful businessman who came from ―outside the political realm‖ to make America great,
again ((Keyam, 2018, p.183). It should be emphasized that the period that followed the 2016
presidential elections was marked by a phenomenon of ―Fake News‖, i.e., false stories (Allcott
& Gentzkow, 2017, p. 212).
The ―email scandal‖ affected badly Hilary Clinton‘s race for the presidency. Hilary
Clinton blamed Trump‘s campaign because it violated every rule of the presidential campaign;
and some commentators, political pundits, and media personalities assumed that his chance to
win the elections was very little (Kowalski, 2018, p.1). In her memoir entitled What Happened,
Hilary Clinton reveals that former FBI chief James Comey and his reopening of the Federal
Bureau Intelligence (FBI) investigation into her private email server ten days before the vote
was the main cause of her defeat (Clinton, 2017). His success was related to a strong affection
for his supporters and also his rhetoric of ―national populism‖ (Rowland,2019, p.343). Typical
voters for Donald Trump were older white men who live in rural areas, self-employed or blue-
collar workers, with a low level of education who share anti-immigration and anti-government
sentiments.
The Trump presidency was considered a threat to the U.S. nation because Donald
Trump, the rich businessman, ―took office as if orchestrating a hostile corporate takeover‖
(Michaels, 2017, p.52). He had a so-called bread-new vision of America—he considered global
warming as a ―hoax‖, he pledged to build a wall along the Mexican border that Mexico would
pay for it; deport 11 million illegal or undocumented immigrants, and he also promised
immigration bans on certain countries, especially on migrants with an Islamic background.
Besides, he pledged to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Syria.
Hence, the Republican Party's victory has been declared again with Trump‘s election as
president of the United States.

3. Trump, Capitalism, and the Welfare State

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump pledged to cut public assistance
programs. In April 2018, Trump signed privately an executive order to give the green light to
federal agencies to strengthen the work requirements for multiple welfare programs (CBS News)
Even though Barack Obama succeeded to some extent to refresh the United States economy
during his presidency, Donald Trump had convinced his target audience (who were almost older
―white‖ voters) to blame Obama for wasting public money on illegal immigrants, undeserving
minorities, and the young (Daguerre,2017, loc.1938).In this section, we attempt to understand
the impact of capitalism on the development and the structure of the welfare state during the
Trump Administration as well as Trump‘s approach to welfare.
Conservative policymakers have always aimed at reforming welfare in the U.S. For
them, welfare should be a temporary safety net and not a way of life (Ford, 2020). In other

299
Social Divisions, Welfare, and the Welfare State during Trump’s Administration pp 295-307

words, welfare should be an opportunity for vulnerable, able-bodied poor and not an obstacle. In
his 2018, executive order, ―Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and
Economic Mobility,‖ President Donald Trump focused on the importance of marriage in
fighting poverty in the U.S., and he said that further welfare reform is required, he declared the
following: ―The welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and
needs further reform and modernization to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic
mobility.‖ (Ford, 2020).
The Trump Administration made more work restrictions on some food stamps
beneficiaries, and it aimed at reducing their number: 688, 000 recipients were supposed to be
eliminated from receiving SNAP benefits (Fessler, 2019). This new reform enabled the states,
under the supervision of the U.S Department of Agriculture, to force able-bodied individuals
who received SNAP benefits, and who had no children or other dependents at home (elderly or
disabled), to work at least twenty hours per week (Ford, 2020). This welfare reform was planned
to go into effect in April 2020 but the Covid-19 pandemic changed the path of the Trump
Administration‘s strategies to tackle poverty issues and welfare reform matters (Ford, 2020).
Capitalism witnessed a crisis in 2008 because of the global depression, and that crisis
had been followed by political instability in the United States and Europe (Fuchs,2018, p.197).
The reactions of governments in Europe and North America towards the global economic
recession of 2008 were ―neoliberal‖ that focused on cutting expenditures for the welfare
state.(Fuchs,2018, p.91 During Trump's presidency, state power and capitalism had changed
completely: ―authoritarian capitalism based on the direct rule of the billionaire class,
nationalism, scapegoating, the friend/enemy scheme law-and-order politics and meditated
spectacles.‖ (Fuchs,2018, p.197 )
It is important to note that the United States economy flourished during the Trump
Administration. 3 The U.S. economy has witnessed stability during the Trump presidency
because he focused primarily on domestic affairs. For instance, Trump focused on the well-
being of American citizens first and neglected foreigners on American soil. He ordered also the
military to stop its operations in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
There is a correlation between the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)— previously
referred to as Gross National Product (GNP) which stands for the standard measure of the
value-added created through the production of goods and services in a country during a given
time—in a given country and human well-being: wealth and high-living standards.4 The
economic stability that the United States has witnessed during the early years of Trump's
presidency is the fruit of Obama‘s efforts. President Donald Trump neglected minorities‘ rights
for welfare and privileged like-minded white businessmen. In his strategy of ―America First‖,
Trump implemented trade protectionism through tariffs, especially on imports from China, and
established anti-immigration measures. This led to a balance in the U.S. economy to some
extent before the Covid-19 crisis.
Despite his racist, sexist, and classist attitudes, as well as his unconventional comments
and communicative manners with other governors abroad, he succeeded to some extent to reach
his aim: ―Make America Great Again‖. 5 According to data available inthe OECD database, the
United States' quarterly gross domestic product in 2020, during the Trump presidency and the
pandemic hard times was about 7.4; yet the OECD total is -10.5. Hence, according to available
data from OECD, the United States economy is doing well even during the Covid-19 crisis
(OECD, 2020). In other words, even though President Trump‘s rhetoric and attitude were

3
For further reading , see, for instance, Heise, A., &Khan, A. S. (2019).The welfare state and liberal
democracy: A political economy approach. World Review of Political Economy, 10 (2), 220–245.
4
Recent research reveals that another parameter has been taken into consideration in order to assess a
country‘s status (in addition to GDP or GNP): happiness, see Fox, J. (2012).The Economics of Well-
being. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/01/the-economics-of-well-being. For further
reading about the link between welfare and ecosystem services, see, Agarwala, M., Atkinson, G., Palmer
Fry,B., Homewood K., , Mourato, S., Rowcliffe, M., Wallace, G., &Milner-Gulland,E.J.,(2014). Assessing
the relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services: A review of frameworks. Conservation
and Society, 12 ( 4 ), 437–49.
5
According to data available at https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-
and-year-2019-advance-estimate

300
 Aziza Tahar Djebbar

unconventional, the status of the U.S. economy has improved during the Trump Era, unlike
Obama‘s. It should be noted, however, that not all Americans benefited from the abundance that
the U.S. had witnessed during the Trump presidency. According to information provided by
OECD, unlike other democracies in the world (such as Finland, Switzerland, France, Denmark,
etc.) income inequality—which refers to the unequal or uneven distribution of wealth—remains
higher in the U.S. (OECD, 2020). New challenges have emerged during the last year of Trump's
presidency, especially with the uncertain times caused by the pandemic: higher rates of
unemployment, social and economic instability: home and abroad.
In 2020 President Trump aimed at reinforcing military spending and reducing spending
on such public services as Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme
(SNAP) which was called food stamps previously, and housing assistance, in his 2020 budget
(Kriston, 2019). That White House budget plan for the fiscal year 2020 aimed to:

- Re-impose restrictive measures on government (domestic) spending by cutting about

$55 billion in 2020. Aid for housing, food, medicine, research, and other programs
would be reduced as well.(Kriston, 2019)
- Eliminate the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment
Partnerships programs. Besides, it aimed to cut spending on the National Housing
Trust Fund, impose stringent work requirements, and “triple” rents for housing aid
recipients, as well as reduce funds by 16.4 percent.(Kriston, 2019)
- Cut $219 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme (SNAP).
Hence, the budget would reduce SNAP funds (by 30 percent at least).(Kriston,
2019)
- Cut $10 billion in funds from the Social Security Disability program.
- Cut $845 billion from Medicare funds.
- Reduce financial support for transportation infrastructure.
- Reduce the budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent
(because climate change is not considered a real threat by the Trump
Administration).(Kriston, 2019)
- Increase the budget for military spending through Overseas Contingency
Operations by hundreds of billions of dollars.
- Ask for supplementary financial support from Congress to build a border wall with
Mexico. More than $9 billion was used to construct the wall; (Kriston, 2019)
- Impose more restrictive measures on immigrants (request further administrative
documents) to access Medicaid: Undocumented and illegal immigrants cannot
benefit from Medicaid.(Kriston, 2019)

Thus, Trump‘s Administration was not interested in tackling welfare issues and its main
intention was to shrink more and more the scope and the size of the welfare state. Felicia
Kornbluh and Gwendolyn Mink clarify the point, they state:

Trump‘s infant presidency and the Republican congressional majority deployed the
framework of welfare reform to assail all forms of social provision by the federal
government. Eager to choke off access to the safety net, the ruling party variously
proposed capped funding, block grants, and work requirements to shrink government
programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, housing, and Supplemental Security Insurance
(SSI).3 As for welfare—TANF—itself: Republicans aimed to intensify its disciplinary
mechanisms, especially work requirements, in ways that would make poverty assistance
virtually unattainable or its terms wholly untenable for poor families. (Kornbluh & Mink,
2019, p.131)

It was clear that President Trump aimed to cutdomestic spending and increase military
spending in his 2020 budget wish list. Nevertheless, his proposed 2020 budget was a real
disaster. Fortunately, the White House 2020 proposed fiscal year budget was not welcomed by
both Republicans and Democrats.Besides, it was not confirmed by Congress (Kogan, et al.,
2019).

301
Social Divisions, Welfare, and the Welfare State during Trump’s Administration pp 295-307

4. “Fascism” and “Neo-nationalism” during the Trump Administration

In this section, we will try to understand how and why ―fascism‖ and ―neo-nationalism‖
appeared in American political life during the Trump Era and shed some light on their impact on
welfare policies and the welfare state. We need first to define ―fascism‖ and ―neo-nationalism‖.
The term fascism stems from the Italian word fasces (a bundle of rods carried before consuls in
Ancient Rome to signify their authority); later, by the 1890s the word fascia was used in Italy to
refer to a political ―group or band, usually of revolutionary socialists.‖ (Heywood, 1998, p.212).
Fascism is a ―generic term of political abuse … and is associated most closely with
Europe between the world wars, when movements bearing this name took power in Italy and
Germany and wreaked havoc in many other European countries.‖(Berman,2016).
Fascism ―is essentially the attempt to ensure the rule of monopoly capitalism in its
purest, most untrammeled, most vulnerable form.‖(Eagleton, 1976). Fascism emerged during the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in an age of globalization, during which capitalism
changed radically societies, and destroyed traditional communities, professions, and cultural
norms in the Western World (Berman, 2016). That was also a period of immense immigration:
peasants moved to industrialized cities, and people from poor countries fled to richer ones
(Berman,2016). With the arrival of the Republican candidate Donald Trump to the political
scene, the conservative columnist Robert Kagan and distinguished foreign policy scholar
warned, in an article:

This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there
have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony
billionaire, a textbook egomaniac ―tapping into‖ popular resentments and insecurities,
and with an entire national political party—out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or
simply out of fear— falling into line behind him. (Kagan, 2016)

David Brooks, a conservative political and cultural commentator, shares the same point of view
with Robert Kagan, he also warns:

People will be judged by where they stood this time. Those who walked with Trump will
be tainted forever after for the degradation of standards and the general election slaughter.
The better course for all of us—Republican, Democrat, and independent—is to step back
and take the long view, and to begin building for that. (Brooks, 2016)

Other terms that we need to examine here are: ―nationalism‖ and ―neo-nationalism‖.
Broadly speaking, nationalism can be defined as ―the belief that the nation is the central
principle of political organization.‖(Heywood, 1998). The idea of nationalism appeared during
the French Revolution when the revolutionaries protested against Louis XVI in 1789 in the
name of the people to form a ―French nation.‖ (Heywood, 1998). Hence, the notion of
nationalism was associated with revolution and democracy (Heywood, 1998). Nationalism, as a
political ideology ―asserts that a nation has the political right to constitute itself as an
independent, sovereign, political community, because of both a perceived shared history and
common destiny.‖(Haynes, 2021).As a political movement, nationalism is conceived when ―a
group of people of indeterminate but normally considerable size often but not always living in
the same country. […] believe themselves distinctive and unique, [and manifest] by community
ties that are both significant and persistent.‖(Haynes, 2021).6 Nationalism is highly criticized
and rejected by internationalists who see it as ―insular, backward-looking, and unsuited for the
challenges of the post–Cold War world.‖ (Haynes, 2021).
Neo-nationalism is ―an ideology articulated by political parties often described as
radical, populist, or nativist In other words, neo-nationalists seek to change politics radically,
protect the people‘s interests from the elites, and preserve the rights and dignities of the natives
and exclude immigrants (Svitych, 2018).Trump considers himself a ―radical‖ as he sought to
change American politics radically; a ―populist‖ since he encouraged the majority of ordinary

6
For further reading on nationalism, see for instance, Connor, W., (1994).Ethnonationalism: The quest
for understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. See also Smith, A.D.(1972). Theories of
nationalism .New York: Harper & Row.

302
 Aziza Tahar Djebbar

citizens to condemn the self-serving and corrupt elites; and a ―nativist‖ because his main
supporters were ―white indigenous‖ Americans (Hynes, 2021, p.40).In other words, the three
attributes combined—nationalist, populist, and radicalist—form what we call ―neo-nationalism.
Simply put, Trump is a ―neo-nationalist‖ American leader.
As a neo-nationalist, Trump is adherent both to market forces and nativism (Haynes,
2021, p.41). He also targeted the cultural, societal, and political threats of ―uncontrolled Muslim
immigration.‖(Haynes, 2021, p.41). Trump had been widely supported by Christian nationalists
because they firmly believed that he will re-Christianise America and support persecuted
Christians abroad (Haynes, 2021, p.41).
In sum, neo-nationalism in the U.S. combines both Religious nationalism—That is to
say, Christian nationalism which is backed by the Christian Right— and First American
nationalism—which is secular, and backed by secular conservatives—were both successfully
tackled by President Donald Trump (Haynes, 2021,p.42). Besides, Trump‘s neo-nationalism in
the U.S. is different from other countries' nationalism in the Western World as it is shaped by the
United States‘ unique history, culture, society, and politics (Haynes, 2021,p.42).

5.Trump, the Rhetoric of “Disgust”: The Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and
Religion
Trump is one of the most controversial and unprecedented American leaders in
American political history. During his administration, stigmatization against different groups
and communities became more and more violent. Not only African Americans (―people of
color‖, but also Arabs (especially Muslims), Mexicans, and Asian Americans have been
stigmatized, especially during the pandemic. Trump has benefited from the current events to
employ expressions that incite hatred, disgust, and anti-immigration sentiments. A recent study
has shown that there is a correlation between disgust sensitivity and anti-immigrant attitudes.
Trump‘s comments have been considered ―racist‖ by some commentators. He used
―Chinese virus‖ (or ―Kung-flu‖)7 to refer to a virus that appearedin Wuhan, China. During a
press interview, a confrontation took place between an Asian American CBS News reporter
Weijia Jiang and Trump. President Donald Trump asked the reporter to find answers to her
questions related to the pandemic in China. During another press interview, Trump opened his
talk with the following expression: ―I would like to begin by announcing some important
developments in our war against the Chinese virus.‖ (BBC World). A reporter asked Trump the
following question: ―why do you keep calling this ―Chinese Virus‖? There are reports of dozens
of incidents of bias against Chinese Americans in this country?‖ Your own aid Secretary Azar
says he does not use this term. He says ethnicity does not cause the virus. Why do you keep
using this?‖ Trump answered: ―Because it comes from China.‖ The reporter added: ―A lot of
people say it is racist.‖ Trump continued: ―It is not racist at all, no. Not at all. It comes from
China. That‘s why. It comes from China.‖In his answer to the reporter, Trump stressed the word
―CHINA‖, because, for him, the virus comes from China. The word ―Chinese‖ is problematic as
it associates a pandemic with an ethnicity.
Michael Richardson, a communication scholar who tackles in his works the intersection
of power, affect, and violence in culture believes that ―the affirmation, amplification, and
circulation of disgust is one of the primary affective drivers of Trump‘s political
success.‖(Richardson, 2017, p.1; Kelly, 2020, p.195). Trump‘s rhetoric is characterized by the
centrality and frequent evocation of ―disgust‖. (Richardson, 2017, p.1) Indeed, there is a
correlation between ―disgust‖, conservatism, and more extreme politics of ethnonationalism
(Richardson, 2017, p.1).Donald Trump has become president of the U.S. despite his ―chaotic‖
and ―unconventional‖ campaign, and this success can be explained by ―the appeal of ethno-
nationalism, racism, voter suppression, economic anxiety, political alienation, media coverage,
the errors of the Clinton campaign, (and) the interference of the Russian Intelligence agencies.‖
(Richardson, 2017, p.4).The triumph of Donald Trump has generated a ―fever of Trumpian
right-wing populism‖ which is still spreading in many democracies around the world
(Richardson, 2017, p.4).Indeed, the election of Trump in the U.S. (and Brexit in Europe), the

7
―Wuhan virus‖ is another racist expression which appeared in the political discourse used by the Trump
Administration.

303
Social Divisions, Welfare, and the Welfare State during Trump’s Administration pp 295-307

―populist‖ phenomenon has been extended to other established democracies such as France,
Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Greece, and Spain (Margalit, 2019, p.152). It is difficult to define the
term ―populism‖ but it commonly refers to ―… (the representation of) the will of the people
versus some ―other,‖ commonly represented as a corrupt and self-serving elite.‖ (Margalit,
2019,p. 152)
The Trump presidency has been characterised also by the return of brutal phenomena of
anti-black racism, such as police violence against ―black‖ people, in the American society (for
example, the assassination of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor). Those incidents led to the
intervention of such movements as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement—a social
movement that advocates non-violent civil disobedience and ―black‖ liberty—has reacted to
police violence and brutality. Besides, worldwide peaceful reactions took place to morally
support the ―black‖ community in the U.S. and abroad.

Trump is known for his misogynist and racist attitudes (Kornbluh & Mink, 2009,
p.130). For instance, he tweeted ―Send her back!‖ to attack four Congresswomen:
Representative Ilham Omar of Minnesota, Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan,
Representative Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez of New York (Bazian,2019, p.8). In previous tweets, he demonstrated his disgust for
countries of origin of the four representatives ―women of color: ―a complete and total
catastrophe, the worst and the most corrupt‖ then asked those women to ―go back and help fix
the broken and crime-infested places from which they came.‖(Bazian, 2019, p.8).
Stigmatization against various minority groups (who were not seen as ―White‖) living
in the U.S. society by the Trump government has been driven by race, gender, class, and
religious biased ideas. Simply put, such social vision parameters as race, class, gender, and
religion have been intersected during Trump‘s Era and their intersection has become obvious in
Americans‘ political, social, and cultural lives. They have been overtly and intentionally used as
legitimate criteria by the Trump Administration to justify harsh attitudes against certain target
groups, and those groups included:

- Both sexes (females and males) with Asian, African, Arab, or Latino backgrounds or
origins,
- Both sexes (females and males) whose faith is Islam,
- Women (females) in general.

However, ―white‖ Americans whose ancestors were ―white‖ successful immigrants

from Europe, in particular, were recognized as legitimate citizens in the U.S. Trump himself is a
grandson of a German entrepreneur who immigrated to the U.S. in 1885. For Trump, ―white‖
Europeans from countries like Germany, Britain, and Norway, who migrated to the New World
in the past, have contributed to the development of the United States, unlike new immigrants
whose countries are, for instance, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Mexico.
Therefore, during the Trump Administration, racist, classist, gender-based, as well as
religion-based or stereotyped attitudes were obviously and widely used in politics and public
policy in the U.S. President Trump himself used a clear language of race, gender, religion, and
class in his rhetoric. This typology of discourse was absent in Bill Clinton‘s political
speeches.8Unlike other Republican presidents, (except from Ronald Reagan, who targeted
―mothers of color‖ during his, administration), the intersection of those social divisions was to
some extent absent in other U.S. presidents‘ political rhetoric.

8Even though Bill Clinton targeted welfare recipients, he did not use any obvious and direct biased
language, see, for instance, Tahar Djebbar, A. (2020). ―The Bill Clinton Rationale for Welfare Reform:
Examining Implications of Race, Class, and Gender Using Documents,‖ Joural of Urban
Historyhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0096144220948812

304
 Aziza Tahar Djebbar

6. The 2020s Harsh Times, the Presidential Elections and the Future of the Welfare
State in the U.S.
Unlike former presidents in the modern era, Donald Trump is a capitalist and a
politician (Fuchs, 2018, p.165).But, at the same time, Trump plays the role of a celebrity and he
sought to attract the audience‘s attention using different means such as social media (Twitter),
reality TV, and so on, and his ideology is called ―Trumpology‖(Fuchs, 2018, p.165).
The world has witnessed a terrible transformation at all levels because of the Covid-19
pandemic that appeared initially in Wuhan, in China, then has spread rapidly all over the world:
from Asia to Europe, then Africa, to Canada, and the Americas. Consequently, the Coronavirus
pandemic resulted in a global hysteria and an abrupt change in people‘s routines. Many workers
have been compelled to stay indoors to stay safe and to practice social distancing. Many firms
stopped their activities to control the spread of the virus and recommended remote work.
Experts in economics are suspecting another economic recession even harsher than the
Great Depression of 1929. Despite the fact many governors from different spots in the world
made huge efforts to cope with the new situation that the Coronavirus pandemic has resulted
in—by encouraging remote work and adopting social distancing—many individuals have
unfortunately lost their jobs or their income has been reduced. Some firms, however, have not
stopped working despite the pandemic, and companies that benefited from this situation: IT
companies that enhanced networking and also companies that produce masks and hydro
alcoholic gels. The U.S. government‘s reaction to the pandemic has been unique as Trump
blamed China for the spread of the pandemic instead of looking for pragmatic solutions. He
called the virus ―Chinese Virus‖ simply because it appearedin China. This period of Covid-19
has been marked by the 2020 U.S. presidential elections and the victory of the Democratic Party
under the leadership of Joe Biden (We will tackle the difference between Biden‘s strategies and
Trump‘s in dealing with the pandemic and their reaction to the economic crisis in a separate
paper).

II. Conclusion
Welfare (which refers to public assistance programs) has been shaped by stigma and
stereotypes. It is very important to bear in mind that not only the poor have been benefiting
from welfare. (Abramovitz, 2001, p. 297) The U.S. government helps also middle-class and
upper-class families. (Abramovitz, 2001,p.299) In other words, ―social welfare programs
serving the middle class and upper classes receive more government funding, pay higher
benefits, and face fewer budget cuts that programs serving poor people.‖ (Abramovitz, 2001, p.
299).Thus, the perception of welfare in the United States (that welfare benefits only the ―welfare
queens‖) is irrational and it has been, to some extent, manipulated by the media and by some
politicians who tend to blame poor people for benefiting from welfare to become richer and
richer. During
the Trump era, welfare targeted people who did not need any government assistance. During the
Covid-19 pandemic, new challenges have emerged and the future of the welfare state is between
the Democrats‘ hands since, again, Democrats have returned to the political scene with the
election of Joe Biden. We will tackle the evolution of welfare (public assistance programs) and
the U.S. welfare state during the present times in another project.

Bibliography:
 Abramovitz, M. (2001). Everyone is still on welfare: The role of redistribution in social policy
Social Work, 46 (4), 297–308.
 Abramovitz, Mimi. (2018). Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial
Times to the Present. 3rd Ed. New York: Routledge.
 Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. The Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 31 ( 2 ), 211–235.
 Berman, S. (2016). Populism is not fascism: But it could be a harbinger. Foreign Affairs, 95 ( 6 ),
39–44.
 Capps, K. (March, 2019).The brutal austerity of Trump‘s huge 2020 budget: The President‘s
wish list for 2020 mixes massive military spending boosts with slashes to medicare, medicaid,

305
Social Divisions, Welfare, and the Welfare State during Trump’s Administration pp 295-307

food stamps, housing assistance, and other domestic needs. Bloomberg

CityLab.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-11/trump-s-2020-budget-cuts-would-
hit-states-and-cities
 Chomsky, N. Welfare. Free Will, December 13, 1993, Convert Action Quarterly (Anniversary
Dinner), 0:22 to 0:35, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuU3rBdlr4
 Clinton, H.R. (2017). What happened. New York: Simon & Schuster.
 Conley,R.S., (2017). Barack Obama and the American welfare state: Transformation or
punctuation? PS: Political Science & Politics, 50 (1), 35–39.
 Daguerre, A. (2017) Obama’s welfare legacy: An assessment of US anti-poverty policies. Bristol:
Policy Press. [Kindle Paperwhite version]. Retrieved from amazon.com.
 Eagleton, T. (1976). What is Fascism ?New Blackfriars, 57( 670) , 100–106.
 Fessler, P., & Treisman, Nearly 700, 000 SNAP recipients could lose benefits under
new Trump rule. NPR, December 4,
2019.https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784732180/nearly-700-000-snap-recipients-could-
lose-benefits-under-new-trump-rule . (Consulted on 12/5/2021).

 Ford, L. (2020). How Trump Restored the Principles of Welfare Reform and Lifted Americans
out of Poverty. The Heritage Foundation, October 9, 2020.
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/how-trump-restored-the-principles-welfare-
reform-and-lifted-americans-out(Consulted on 14/06/2021).
 Fuchs, C. (2018). Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Trump and Twitter.
London: Pluto Press. [Kindle Paperwhite version]. Retrieved from amazon.com.
 Gordon, L. (1994) Pitied but not entitled: Single mothers and the history of welfare, 1890–1935.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
 Haynes, J. (2021). Trump and the politics of neo-nationalism: The Christian right and secular
nationalism in America. New York: Routledge Focus. [Kindle Paperwhite version]. Retrieved
from amazon.com.

 Heywood, A. (1998). Political ideologies: An introduction, 2nd ed. New York: Worth Publishers.
 Howard, C. (1997). The hidden welfare state: Tax expenditures and social policy in the United
States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Handler, Joel F. (1995). The Poverty of Welfare Reform. Yale University: Yale University Press.
 Kagan, R. (May, 2016).This is how fascism comes to America.Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-
america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html (Consulted on
01/01/2021).
 Karinen, A.K., Molho, C., Kupfer, T.R., & Tybur, J.M. (2019). Disgust sensitivity and
opposition to immigration: Does contact avoidance or resistance to foreign norms explain the
relationship?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 84 (103817), 1–11.
 Katz, M.B. (2001). The Price of Citizenship: Redefining the American welfare state. New York:
Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company.
 Kessler-Harris A. & Vaudagna, M. (2018) Eds. Democracy and the welfare state: The two wests
in the age of austerity.New York: Columbia University Press.
 Keyam, O. (2018) Donald Trump‘s rhetoric: How an anti-political strategy helped him win the
presidency. Language and Dialogue, 8 (2), 183–208.
 Kogan, R., Rosenbaum,Katch, H.D., Rice, D., Romig, K. Floyd, I. & Parrott, S. (May, 2019).
Cuts to low-income assistance programs in President Trump‘s 2020 budget are wide-ranging.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/cuts-to-
low-income-assistance-programs-in-president-trumps-2020-budget-arehbkj. (Consulted on
03/12/2021).
 Kornbluh, F. & Mink, G. (2019) Ensuring poverty: Welfare reform in feminist perspective.
Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
 Kowalski, J. (2018). Reading Trump and trumpism: A parallax of the Campaign and Early
Presidency . Switzerland: Springer.
 Lubove, R. (1986 ). The struggle for social security, 1900–1935. Cambridge, Mass., : Harvard
University Press.
 Michaels, J.D.(2017) Trump and the ‗Deep State‘ The government strikes Back. Foreign Affairs , 96
(5), 52–56.

306
 Aziza Tahar Djebbar

 Nadasen, P., Mittelstadt, J., & Chappell, M. (2009). Welfare in the United States: A history with
documents, 1935–1996. New York: Routledge.
 Noble, C. (1997). Welfare as we knew it: A political history of the American welfare state.New
York: Oxford University Press.
 OECD (2020), Quarterly GDP Indicator https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
(Consulted on 17/11/ 2020)
 Patterson, J.T. (1986). America’s struggle against poverty, 1900–1985. Cambridge, Mass. :
Harvard University Press.
 Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Richardson, M. (2017). The Disgust of Donald Trump. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural
Studies,31 (6), 1–21.
 Rockman, B.A. (2016). The Trump Presidency – What does It mean? Zeitschrift Für Staats- Und
Europawissenschaften (ZSE) / Journal for Comparative Government and European Policy , 14 (4
),437–447.
 Rowland, R.C. (2019). The populist and nationalist roots of Trump's rhetoric. Rhetoric and Public
Affairs, 22 ( 3), 343–388.
 Ryan Kelly, C. (2020). Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of white ambivalence. Rhetoric and Public
Affairs, 23 ( 2 ), 195–223.
 U.S. Constitution, art .I , sec.8, cl.I.
 Williamson,V. Skocpol, T, & Coggin, J. (2011) The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican
Conservatism. Perspectives on Politics, 9 (1), 25–43.
 Wiseman, M. (1996). Welfare reform in the United States: A background paper. Housing Policy
Debate, 7 (4): 598–648.
 Zucker, M. (March 1, 2009). Santelli, Why don‘t you listen?Chicago Tribune. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2009-03-01-0902280392-story.html
 ―Trump Grilled on Use of Term ―Chinese Virus‖,‖ BBC News.. Retrievedon March 18,
2020,https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-51953315(Consulted on 23/02/2021)
 Trump Signs Executive Order Pushing Work Requirements for Welfare Recipients.CBS News.
Retrievedon September 28, 2020. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-
executive-order-pushing-work-requirements-to-receive-welfare-benefits/

307