Another Plot Against America
“Untitled,” original collage by Maia Zasler, June 10, 2025.
“And how long will the American people stand for this treachery perpetrated by their elected president? How long will Americans remain asleep while their cherished Constitution is torn to shreds by the fascist fifth column of the Republican right marching under the sign of the cross and the flag?” Published in 2004, Philip Roth likely did not anticipate that his novel, The Plot Against America, would turn out to be so prophetic. Roth’s words now seem to cut to the core of the Trump administration’s persistent chaos.
As a student in the dual degree program with Columbia and Sciences Po, I have many friends still awaiting their visa for entry to the United States. Students have become reticent to publicly speak about the current political climate for fear of a negative consequence to their visa approval—and, as of May 28, several had their visa process put on hold due to Trump’s anti-internationals tirade. Although the moratorium has since been lifted, a more intensive social media vetting process takes place.
Fear and exclusion should not define the United States, the country I learned about with pride for the majority of my life. I was taught that education is key to self, community, and world improvement, that the U.S. is a front-runner in bringing together people from around the world, maximizing its excellence across fields such as medical research, technology, and industry. I am not the first to come to the conclusion that the American dream, so neatly packaged and spoon fed to me throughout elementary school, was somewhat rotten from the start, but Trump’s aspirational tyranny stands to poison it all completely.
Returning to Roth’s eerily predictive novel, he acutely describes the trajectory of the United States should the country have aligned with Germany during WWII under the presidency of isolationist Charles Lindbergh, a famous aviator. In this version of the U.S., Lindbergh runs on an “America First” platform; upon election, he expresses sympathy for Nazi Germany, legitimizing and embedding hatred within the American populace. In the midst of heightened tensions, it feels as though the zeitgeist of the era would culminate in war with Canada and the imposition of martial law. Once Lindbergh leaves office, the American people are left to pick up the pieces of values trampled on by ill-instituted policies. Sound familiar?
The political game led by Trump and his loyalists parallels Roth’s story in many ways, indicating an active contempt for American success. It is almost as if the decisions made by the Trump administration have been made by an adversary to this country.
The unfolding plot appears cataclysmic. Trump’s ideas of “American greatness” contain inherent contradictions. “Drill baby drill,” hazardous tariff and visa policies, and a disturbing new social media strategy (like a puzzling depiction of Trump as the pope) weaken the American position on the global stage. And why? How much can he continue to get away with as he perpetuates cruel governance? What can be done to shift this surreal reality, to change this dystopian plot?
These first few months of Trump’s second term demonstrate his predilection for the “megalomaniacal, phantasmagorical, and inhumane.” It would be too easy to dismiss his decisions as errors in judgement—his carefully chosen cabinet (figures who refuse to tell him “no”) may not be the most qualified, as experience and fit for a position were demoted as a value in the appointment process. But that dismissal clouds an understanding of a much more disconcerting reality: one where Trump lucidly manipulates for his own advantage and for the financial gains of those who pledge their allegiance to him. A close critique of key presidential motions reveals this perturbing pattern.
Economy & Oil
Trump’s commitment to boost U.S. shale oil production makes no economic sense. If we are somehow able to table the inevitable climate consequences of institutionalizing further reliance on fossil fuels, we can focus on the objective market powers that be. The U.S. is already energy independent, in every sense of the catchy phrase; it is the largest producer of oil in the world and has more recently become a net exporter as well.
But not all oil is created, or more precisely, encased equally. This renders a price/barrel profitability variant. U.S. shale oil is more difficult (and thus more costly) to extract than the oil reserves of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Although the last two decades have seen improvements in fracking techniques, the prices will not be able to keep up with a saturated oil market. OPEC contains almost 80 percent of the world’s oil reserves and is currently responsible for 40 percent of oil production. In line with Trump’s unfounded rhetoric, Saudi Arabia, home to the second-largest oil reserves in the world behind Venezuela, announced increasing oil production for this year. Subsequently, prices for oil have already dropped. This may be nice in the short-term for investor wallets, but unsustainable in the long-run. When global supply is high and prices fall, low-cost producers can still profit, but U.S. producers often cannot.
For countries like Saudi Arabia, a drop in net profits in 2024 from the previous year, resulting from weaker oil prices, lower refining margins, and higher financing costs, may be endured. The U.S. does not have that “luxury.” There is not the same centralized control over production, attenuating the discouraged long-term investment in U.S. oil infrastructure, which is thus capital-intensive and sensitive to market confidence. Further, as the International Energy Agency predicts a decrease in demand for fossil fuels by 2030, the picture appears more bleak. This signals Trump’s quest for contradictory aims: reducing energy prices in the U.S. market to meet the expectations of the middle and lower class while benefiting from a potential dividend in the employment market. He wants cheap energy, via domestic fossil fuel production, to satisfy American consumers; yet, the break-even pricing simply does not work out in his favor. In a saturated oil market, those same low prices hurt the very industry that provides those jobs, especially in the U.S., where production costs are high and price control is limited. Maybe there was some sense, then, in his proposal to annex Canada, the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world.
The nonsensicalness is compounded by his protectionist trade policies, which raise consumer prices in general and undercut the very purchasing power he claims to protect. His palingenetic performance is thus not meant to be logically consistent, but emotionally resonant, appealing to a voter base preoccupied with the proclaimed greatness of so-called energy independence. Trump’s energy policies culminate as another component of his presidential narrative. He shows himself as bound to symbolic gestures that signal loyalty to the American people, a forgotten heartland when in practice he is taking already limited power away from the demos. And thus Roth’s alternative history offers further lessons in present-day proceedings. The seizing of a simple message, “America First,” seems to have quelled critical thinking, bringing out the worst of tribalism.
Education & Isolation
Maintaining his position of “dictator on day one” may be extended more easily by crippling the backbone of the country—limiting education. Trump’s attacks on Harvard and Columbia have been multi-pronged; public hostility led to cuts to research funding, financial aid eligibility, tax-exempt statutes, and foreign student enrollment. Under excuses of prolific antisemitism on campuses (among others), the punishments for resisting Trump’s accompanied vision have been harsh, instilling fear of retribution: banning foreign students from entering Harvard via executive order; threatening Columbia’s academic accreditation. This treatment would make one believe academic institutions were functioning as enemies of state, not as engines of progress. The reshaping of curricula in particular reflects a broader animosity toward critical thinking and expertise. The sordid policies targeting international students have made the U.S. a less attractive destination for global talent. Competitors have already capitalized on this. For example, many Hong Kong universities have offered acceptance and support to Harvard’s international students. Trump does not simply ignore facts—he seeks to delegitimize the institutions that produce them.
The demonization of the global serves Trump-era nationalism—targeting international students is one manner in which it may be accomplished. Yet again there is a contradiction, a form of self-sabotage via narrative sympathy. The U.S. thrives on immigration—universities, the tech industry, and an agricultural sector that all depend on a steady influx of talent and labor. Instead, Trump portrays immigrants as invaders and border crossings as existential threats, weaponizing nativism for continued political gain. In Roth’s imagined dystopia, the corrosion of trust among fellow humans is focused on Jewish Americans (in line with Nazi-imposed legislation). Yet Trump uses awfully similar tools of hatred and scapegoating across the board, punishing those who take a principled stance.
With attention on these crackdowns, we may be less inclined to focus on his administration’s ousting of all 17 vaccine experts of the Centers of Disease Control committee. This threatens not only the ability of a population to fight back, but puts the population at risk, in very real danger. We can look away from the systemic issues of the nation, like gun violence, the leading cause of death for American children. Overwhelmed by political madness, how quickly we forget his paralyzing cuts to USAID, resulting in roughly 100 deaths per hour; the demonization of DEI, replacing the term with the hucksterish qualifier: “fidelity;” the “anti-trans crusade” and its own death toll. The fabric of American society slowly deteriorates. Under the presidential strength and imperative, Trump pulls off the erosion of democratic ideals.
Foreign Policy
On peace with Ukraine, Trump shared: “I do believe we’re closer with one party and maybe not as close with the other.” He preferred not to share which side he was referring to. His handling of the case of Ukraine undermined the integrity of U.S. foreign policy. His flirtation with authoritarian leaders and disdain for long-standing NATO commitments send dangerous signals to allies and adversaries alike. The strength of the U.S. has never been rooted in isolation. It has come partially as a product of complex alliances grounded in shared values, or at least democratic posturing. By severing democratic ties he isolates himself and the country both diplomatically and strategically.
Trump has adamantly advocated for staying out of foreign wars. Well, how can we explain his decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan? This history is once again seen in Roth’s fiction—a bitterly isolationist U.S. that asserts itself in international affairs when ideologically convenient.
The U.S. is once again directly mired in a Middle East conflict, the virulence of which remains exacerbated by foreign manipulation. Trump’s show of power drowned out his own advocacy against the country’s “stupid wars” abroad. The sequence of events indicates that the so-called “party of the Constitution” could not care less that the document they so cherish necessitates Congressional approval before an Executive-ordered military assault. This is one element of how Trump’s approach to governance has spurred democratic backsliding—a gradual erosion of institutional norms and constitutional constraints that bolster a free society—and, contradictory to his intended isolationism, has helped globalize the phenomenon.
And Trump’s flailing production has been published for all to see—a crafted image no less, but plastered on social media, accessible to all. He has played up his political language, perverting his office and making a mockery of the presidential position. The tests of executive authority, childish “Twitter” wars (post-“war on Twitter”), and insistence on American nationalism all serve as distractions from the much more dangerous undercurrents and feel desperate.
Conclusion
Some can still bring themselves to argue that this is just political theater. But we may look to Roth to remind us how quickly theater can become a reality when institutions are gutted from within. The real danger is not Trump alone, but the normalization of his model of governance, replacing cooperation with unremitting conflict, pluralism with tribalism, and truth with unfettered ideology.
Reconstructing the American political system will require courage and imagination, an investment in a future beyond tyranny. Electoral mobilization is necessary; a bridge between urban-rural divides; a reclamation of cultural values of education, science, and civic engagement; a more nuanced electorate.
Trump has not plotted against America in secret. He has done so in the bright light of day, with a film camera on, and resounding applause. If there is a plot against America today, it is not foreign—it is domestic. We then must ask ourselves not what Trump will do next, but what it is we will allow.
Maia Zasler (GS ’27) is a staff writer at CPR pursuing degrees in government & politics and sustainable development. She is interested in climate policy, water conservation, and peace-building in the Middle East region. She can be reached at msz2127@columbia.edu.