Take them at Their Word

This post was authored by Junior Fellow Diana Wallens and makes the argument that we should take politicians at their word when they make promises - especially promises that impact people’s rights. Writing as an American who is living through what it means to have far-right firebrands and politicians do exactly what they said they would do, her words are significant as we vote in the coming days.

Last fall, in the weeks preceding the 2024 United States (U.S.) presidential election, I couldn’t sleep. I hoped Kamala Harris would win, not because I was particularly enthusiastic about her candidacy (or Joe Biden’s for that matter before he dropped out of the race), but because of recurring nightmares of what would happen if Trump was victorious.  The worst of these nightmares involved witnessing government officials snatching Americans off of the streets and whisking them away to an unknown gulag. When I tried to ask others of these kidnapped individuals’ whereabouts, they would, in return, ask, “what kidnapped people?”   

Over a decade ago, I attended high school in an area that could charitably be described as “right-wing.” My high school peers, teachers, and the majority of the surrounding community lauded the (popular at the time) Tea Party. They promoted conspiracy theories such as the Climate Change “hoax” and that the Sandy Hook massacre of young children in school was a “false flag” attack the government engineered to take away firearms. Perhaps most significantly, they delighted at the idea of liberals and minorities being on the receiving end of violence. 

When I went to university, I hoped that I would get a clean break from the violent, bigoted rhetoric that was commonplace in my community and others like it. 

I was wrong.

Rather, my high school home town and other communities like it seem to have been canaries in the coal mine of how right-wing extremist belief systems had become part of daily life in regions throughout the country. The Project 2025 Handbook, written in the interregnum between the Trump presidencies when I was completing my studies, along with several leading right-wing extremist figures, had already outlined plans to end Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion initiatives (i.e., legislation and policies that ban discrimination in the workplace, universities, and the military against LGBT people, women, and minorities), enacting mass deportations, and other policies that would harm some of the most vulnerable individuals in the U.S. and internationally. I warned friends, family, and my peers that, if elected, these policies were not empty threats. United States institutions and “progressive” politicians were paper tigers, relying more on established norms and a perceived agreement upon the rules of the Constitution instead of truly pushing back. On trying to find common ground instead of, when able to do so, imposing severe and lasting consequences on officials who broke laws and the norms of collegial governance.     

Some of my American peers, however, did not share my concerns or predictions of the breakdown of U.S. political order. They believed that, even if Trump won, they and the country would carry on as normal and that I was being alarmist. Since the 2025 Inauguration, a few have slightly changed their opinions. Many have not. This stems, I believe, from the types of elite privilege captured in some post secondary students. Many columnists have downplayed these threats as well. Other research colleagues focused on the far-right and extremism in the U.S. and abroad (especially here at CIFRS), have shared my concerns before and after the election. They, too, have been called “alarmist” or related pejoratives. Before and after the election, many columnists, scholars, and historians have issued warnings comparable to mine.

As of writing, it has been about three months since the Inauguration. During this time, the President’s Administration has deported more than 238 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador under allegations that they are members of Tren de Aragua (attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union have claimed that the identification criteria for this gang is flawed), without due process. In a meeting with El Salvador’s President, President Trump disclosed aspirations to do the same to “homegrowns (a reference to U.S. citizens).” This is something Trump said he would do during his campaign, and he is doing it. Immediately prior to the publishing of this blog, FBI officials arrested a Judge for not allowing ICE to execute a warrant in her courtroom - a radical overstep of authority and a deeply worrying calling card of dictatorship and fascism.

The administration, through its extra-governmental and judicial agency DOGE, has cut thousands of jobs across federal agencies, with devastating consequences that include a suspension to the Food and Drug Administration’s quality-control program for food testing, milk quality testing, and possible disruptions/delays in Social Security benefits. This move toward “efficiency” is something Trump promised during his campaign and has created a miniscule level of the foretold efficiency in its massive, life-changing cuts.

The Administration has repeatedly called for the annexation of Greenland, Canada as the 51st state, and the military seizure of the Panama Canal. All direct expressions of the imperialist nature of regressive American global political and economic policy. There is no reason to believe that he will not follow through on these threats with the same enthusiasm he had with my previous two examples. These are only three examples of what has already happened during Trump’s second term, band each (on their own) demonstrates that the “alarmists” have won the ultimate pyrrhic victory (I even admit to, at times, underestimating the threat).

Now, as we enter the fourth month of the Trump presidency, the nightmares are all too real.  

Up North, the Canadian election is upon you and voting day is just two days away. In interviews, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has promised to eradicate “woke” culture; an argument so similar to that pushed by American politicians and personalities on the right that it would almost be comical if he weren’t (a) making it just Canadian enough to appeal at home; and didn’t (b) mean every word. Woke, in this context is a co-opted version of a concept which has its roots in black culture and was meant to signify awareness of societal oppression, Poilievre and his ilk have weaponized this idea (as they have also done with concepts like intersectionality) into a false characterization of advocacy for social justice as dangerous and violent toward a ‘silent majority’. Poilievre has not elaborated on his plans of how to end “woke”, but given what is occurring in the U.S. it is likely that they involve curbing DEI initiatives. 

Poilievre has also promised to cut immigration rates, claiming that “we’re going to be grateful again” without naming who he believes are ungrateful. Although his rhetoric lacks the explicit calls for violence that were present in Trump’s campaign, his remarks do suggest overtures towards the same far-right that has endorsed or even designed some of the American President’s policies. Prominent individuals within the movement have taken notice, as Poilievre has received support from Ben Shaprio, Jordan Peterson, and Alex Jones, among others.

For those associated with the far-right, there is no “just kidding.” They intend to follow through on the ideas and policies they propose, no matter how absurd members of the public may find them (“Eradicate” woke, anyone?). President Trump is doing exactly what he discussed on the campaign trail. If elected, Poilievre is likely to commit to his proposals, further pandering  to members of the extreme right. Given these facts, I will conclude with this piece of advice:

Take them at their word. If you do not, the consequences are too great.