Following the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a second administration under Donald Trump has already sparked conversation over the path forward for democracy and how to safeguard many of the rights that remain essential to our way of life. We spoke with Carr Center affiliates about the future of human rights in the United States under the upcoming presidential administration to learn what this may mean for democracy and civics, immigration and refugee rights, racial justice, women’s rights, climate justice, and other aspects of our society that intersect with our human rights.
The views expressed below are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy or Harvard Kennedy School. These perspectives have been presented to encourage debate on important public policy challenges.
Read our expert commentary on:
- Democracy and civics
- Immigration and refugee rights
- Racial justice
- International relations and foreign policy
- Activism and social movements
- Women’s rights and gender equity
- LGBTQI+ rights
- Indigenous rights
- Climate change and environmental justice
- Surveillance and disinformation
Democracy and Civics
Gloria Ayee
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election is a strong indicator of shifting democratic values and societal priorities in the United States. Trump’s enduring appeal suggests that a significant portion of the electorate resonates with his promises of economic rejuvenation and reveals rising skepticism about established institutions. Exit polls showed increased support across diverse demographics that is evidence of a complex tapestry of civic engagement, identity politics, and political tribalism in the United States. In some ways, the election results also signify an evolving national identity that requires more intentionality and awareness when attempting to balance traditional values with modern perspectives as the American electorate grapples with foundational questions of national identity and democratic legitimacy.
The American sociopolitical landscape is marked by deep-seated cultural and ideological divisions that significantly influenced the election. Key issues such as the economy, immigration, national identity, and social change were central to voter decision-making, and highlighted a preference for political rhetoric that promised immediate, transformative change. Moreover, the willingness to support a leader who some perceived to be a political outsider reflected a strong desire among many Americans for change, even if this change challenged established constitutional law and democratic norms.
“Key issues such as the economy, immigration, national identity, and social change were central to voter decision-making, and highlighted a preference for political rhetoric that promised immediate, transformative change.”
- Gloria Ayee
Trump’s second term will prompt critical considerations about the future of democracy and human rights in the United States. The prospect of increased executive power and authoritarian tendencies could potentially erode civil liberties, and safeguarding robust legal frameworks will be critical for ensuring that constitutional rights are protected. Trump’s win also mirrors broader transformations across the globe and reflects developments in the international political arena as different nations wrestle with identity, governance, and human rights. Thus, understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the complicated democratic landscape both domestically and internationally. As with any critical historical juncture, the choices that will be made by the next Trump administration will profoundly shape the trajectory of democracy in the United States.
Dr. Gloria Yayra A. Ayee is an Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, and a Lecturer in Government and International Relations at the Harvard Extension School.
_
Hajar Yazdiha
In 1956, W.E.B. Du Bois condemned U.S. politics and its empty handwringing over presidential elections made by and for elites. “Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have,” Du Bois wrote, “Democracy is dead in the United States.” Sixty-eight years later, pundits conduct exhaustive post-mortems on the 2024 election, 24-hour news cycles ominously predicting the end of democracy under Trump. Yet Du Bois’ words continue to hang in the air. Did U.S. democracy die long ago? Did it ever truly exist? How might recognizing its long deficiencies emancipate our political imaginations towards truly democratic futures?
“I see the forces of civic creation in the burgeoning forces of the grassroots, everyday people awakened to the limits of U.S. democracy as we know it and committed to creating something new.”
-Hajar Yazdiha
As a scholar of racial politics and social movements, I see in this moment the simultaneity of social forces of destruction and creation: destruction through the intersecting manifestations of deeply forged social divides, fraudulent systems of campaign finance and corporate influence, the corrupt and fragmented media landscape, and a successful right-wing long game. Yet more importantly, and more hopefully, I see the forces of civic creation in the burgeoning forces of the grassroots, everyday people awakened to the limits of U.S. democracy as we know it and committed to creating something new. I have studied a range of groups—immigrant rights activists, racial justice activists, Muslim rights activists, LGBTQ+ activists—across generations, from seasoned civil rights organizers to Gen Z student activists. Shared among these groups is the understanding that the march towards collective freedom is not linear, nor has it ever been. True democracy has always emerged in the slow, deep work of relationship-building among everyday people united in their commitment to a collective future they may well never see. These communities are uniting in shared struggle, strengthening coalitions, sharing political education, pooling resources and expertise, and developing systems of mutual aid. As we prepare for the months and years ahead, we must not let the elite political theater in Washington, D.C., distract us from the call of a people’s democracy summoning us right outside our doors.
Hajar Yazdiha is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Southern California and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Immigration and Refugee Rights
Jacqueline Bhabha
President-elect Trump has moved fast to appoint a strongly anti-immigrant leadership team for his administration. Given the prominence of promises to radically curb immigration in the Republican campaign, this is not surprising. There are two aspects to this anti-immigrant policy promise. One is to “fix” the border by increasing the militarization of immigrant and asylum seeker exclusion, whether that complies with the US's international obligations or not. Excluding asylum seekers peremptorily, without ascertaining that this would not expose them to persecution, would violate US obligations, but that is clearly what is intended. The other is to “send back” millions of immigrants, even if they have lived and worked here for decades. Accordingly, the recent Trump appointees include Stephen Miller, an extreme anti-migrant ideologue who supported the separation of children from their asylum seeking parents at the border as a deterrent measure in the first Trump administration; they also include Thomas Homan as “border czar,” a career immigration official who has called for a reinstatement of workplace raids to round up and deport workers with irregular status. This inhumane policy, last implemented comprehensively under President W.H. Bush, led to arrests of single parents whose young children found themselves in daycare or at the school bus stop with no-one to pick them up.
The only silver linings in this bleak, racist and nativist scenario are the following: that implementation of policies that wreak irreversible harm on cherished relatives, employees or community members will provoke outrage and protest, just as the family separation policy did in the the first Trump administration; that the weaponization of immigration as a tool for whipping up resentment, legitimizing scapegoating and realizing the false promise of reverting to a past golden era will quickly be discredited as effective solutions to the grave economic challenges facing de-industrialized communities and other left-behind constituencies. Tragically, we seem to be in a situation where it has to get much worse before it gets better. Alas the price will be paid by hundreds of thousands of adults who happen to have the “wrong” nationality and equal numbers of children who happen to have the “wrong” parents, through absolutely no fault of their own. A cowardly new world awaits us all.
Jacqueline Bhabha is the Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at Harvard School of Public Health and the Jeremiah Smith Jr. Lecturer in Law at Harvard Law School.
_
Willie Mack
The dehumanizing, nativist, and xenophobic ideology from the Republican Party, and specifically Donald Trump, is dangerous. His violent nativism is dangerous not just for immigrants of color, but for all people of color in and outside the United States. Trump has a long history of spewing this dangerous rhetoric against Black people. He has attacked and criminalized not only Black immigrants and countries, but also Black Americans. Trump’s racism exposes the carceral partnership between punitive anti-Black-and-Brown immigration policies, the criminalization and over-policing of communities of color in the U.S., and the U.S. empire.
“There is a direct connection between punitive immigration enforcement, the criminalization of Black and Brown American citizens in the U.S., and the neocolonialism in the Global South.”
-Willie Mack
There is a direct connection between punitive immigration enforcement, the criminalization of Black and Brown American citizens in the U.S., and the neocolonialism in the Global South. Abuses by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents against migrants at the southern border are well documented. However, this violence is not relegated only to migrants and the southern border. Indeed, when Black and Brown immigrants are disparaged, that racist rhetoric puts Black and Brown Americans in danger as well. For example, during the 2020 George Floyd protests, CBP agents terrorized and kidnapped protestors on the streets of Portland and positioned snipers around George Floyd’s funeral. Also, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) works with local police departments to target and apprehend immigrants deep within the U.S.’ own borders. Furthermore, punitive anti-immigration policies against immigrants of color works to reinforce the U.S.’ exploitation and neocolonial relationship with countries like Haiti. These carceral partnerships between border enforcement, local policing forces, and U.S. empire places an additional layer of punitive punishment that immigrants of color and communities of color must navigate. In this way, the consequences of Trump’s punitive and violent nativist anti-immigration platform are dangerous for all Americans of color, because it extends into communities that are already over-policed, surveilled, and criminalized, while further strengthening the U.S.’ racialized carceral empire.
Willie Mack is an Assistant Professor in the Black Studies Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Racial Justice
Michael McEachrane
There is a growing disconnect today between liberal democracy and basic principles of human rights and justice. The U.S. is a glaring example of this. But it is also now a trend across Europe and in the world’s largest democracy, India. Liberal democracy is increasingly being reduced to procedural matters, such as free periodical elections and majority rule. In today’s United States, even this watered-down version of democracy may be in danger.
From a racial justice perspective, this trend reveals a crisis of the meaning and purpose of liberal democracy. What should the relationship be between liberal democracy and providing robust forms of human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination? Historically and into this present moment, liberal democracy has, with seeming ease, been married with racial, ethnic, religious, and national exceptionalism; with enslavement, colonialism, Jim Crow and segregation; deep-seated and racially correlated socio-economic inequalities and lack of equal opportunities; ruthless exploitation of natural and human resources in the Global South; as well as ecological destruction at a planetary scale with devastating impacts, especially on Global South countries and people of color around the world.
“There is a growing disconnect today between liberal democracy and basic principles of human rights and justice.”
-Michael McEachrane
In this sense, the next four years of more racism, bigotry, U.S. imperialism, and putting America first at almost any cost should positively motivate us. What we need today is a liberal democracy 2.0 that holds itself to higher account. A democracy whose purpose it is to achieve societies that are robustly based on the equal moral worth of the human person; on racial equity and the elimination of all forms of group-based discrimination; on maximizing human potential and flourishing for everyone (including across national boundaries and in future generations); and on honoring the web of life, the integrity of the natural world, and our symbiotic relationship to it.
Michael McEachrane is a 2024 Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Law School Human Rights Program and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Lotem Bassan-Nygate
During his first presidency, President-elect Donald Trump strongly opposed multilateralism, championing an “America First” agenda and withdrawing from institutions such as the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, the WHO, and the UN Human Rights Council. Prior to the recent election, some diplomats voiced concerns about whether a second Trump presidency would deepen this disengagement from multilateral institutions, particularly the UN.
In my research, I find that governments’ efforts to uphold shared norms and standards of the international community often yield reputational benefits abroad. For example, governments that are vocal about other countries’ human rights violations during the UN Universal Periodic Review tend to be viewed more favorably by other international actors. Using survey experiments, I demonstrate that such policy behaviors can increase public support for international cooperation among third-party observers and enhance perceptions of a country’s global status.
“If President-elect Trump's policies persist in the coming term, they could undermine the United States’ global image, potentially diminishing its diplomatic leverage and ability to shape political outcomes in ongoing conflicts.”
-Lotem Bassan-Nygate
If President-elect Trump's policies persist in the coming term, they could undermine the United States’ global image, potentially diminishing its diplomatic leverage and ability to shape political outcomes in ongoing conflicts. However, the international political context in which Trump 2.0 is entering—marked by the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East—is vastly different from his first presidency. These crises may compel greater U.S. engagement in foreign policy and multilateral efforts, presenting an opportunity to rebuild its reputation and reassert leadership.
Lotem Bassan-Nygate is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.
_
Anna Romandash
As a Ukrainian, Trump’s presidency is going to have a direct impact on me—and, at the moment, it is not so easy to guess what that impact is going to be like. Trump and his team had a rhetoric that is hard to consider Ukraine-friendly—but then, speech before an election and actual actions once in office are two different things. For now, I am not certain what to expect.
In my opinion, Joe Biden’s presidency was not too good for human rights around the world, because there was little to sustain the Democrats’ rhetoric against human rights violators. Trump is entering his second presidency with a narrative that is very different—and democracy and human rights around the world are not a major concern for his party, as long as they do not interfere with his other objectives.
Unpredictability is still better than knowing exactly what to expect—at least, that’s my take on Trump’s new presidency. After all, this gives space for some potential new developments which may be better for human rights and democracy around the globe than initially declared during Trump’s campaign. For instance, having control over all three branches of power, Trump and the Republican Party may want to show that America is a strong international force to be reckoned with, and challenge some of the autocracies around the world. But again, this may not be the case at all, and we may ultimately see policies that are more isolationist than before.
Anna Romandash is an award-winning journalist from Ukraine and an author of Women of Ukraine: Reportages from the War and Beyond (2023).
_
Activism and Social Movements
Susan H. Farbstein
Donald Trump’s return to the White House threatens human rights in the United States and around the world. From the rights of women and immigrants, to impacts on the environment, health, and inequality, to attacks on treaties and multilateral institutions, the potential consequences can feel unbearable. But we are not powerless in this moment.
First, we need to focus on the voices of marginalized, vulnerable, and directly affected communities. Which human rights issues do they prioritize? How can we link those issues to the broader imperative to protect democracy and uphold the rule of law? We must listen deeply and find better ways to explain how the new administration’s policies and actions will have tangible consequences in our everyday lives.
Second, we must collaborate with human rights practitioners across the globe. We can draw on the wisdom of colleagues who have been engaged, for years, in battles against dictatorship and authoritarianism in their home countries. We desperately need to understand what strategies and frameworks have been most effective, and which have failed to break through. Equally important, when we lose hope or our motivation flags, our peers can inspire us and strengthen our resolve. Solidarity is essential.
“Democracy requires open public debate and a robust civil society, capable of defending human rights and holding leaders accountable. We must uphold rights to speech and assembly, and ensure dissenting voices are heard and protected.”
-Susan H. Farbstein
Third, we need to defend the space in which social movements and advocates operate. Autocrats build power by targeting and silencing journalists, politicians, judges, academics, and activists. If Congress, the courts, and the media fail to check the new administration’s authority, we must fill the void. Democracy requires open public debate and a robust civil society, capable of defending human rights and holding leaders accountable. We must uphold rights to speech and assembly, and ensure dissenting voices are heard and protected.
Finally, we must prevent and mitigate immediate harms caused by the incoming administration—but we also have to play the long game. Daily crises that demand our attention will make it challenging to strike the right balance. While we must respond with urgency, we also have to be strategic and allocate our collective resources wisely. Equally critical issues, like climate change and growing inequality, cannot be forgotten. And we must care for ourselves and our colleagues, nurturing the resilience necessary to sustain our efforts for years to come.
Susan H. Farbstein is a Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the Director of the International Human Rights Clinic.
_
Debora Kayembe
Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct, or intervene in social, political, economic, or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived common good. Activism has played a major role in ending slavery, challenging dictatorships, protecting workers from exploitation, protecting the environment, promoting equality for women, opposing racism, and other important issues. It can also be used for aims such as attacking minorities or promoting war.
Social movements are part of activism and have been described as organizational structures and strategies that may empower oppressed populations to mount effective challenges and resist the powerful and advantaged elites. For instance, through rallies and protests in the United States, social movements have openly shown disagreement with the Democratic Party’s support of nations that have been accused of committing genocides around the world. The world faces numerous challenges, from climate change to the rise of far-right ideologies, and no efforts have been offered by democratic leaders to reduce poverty or end the suffering of oppressed peoples.
After this election, the Democratic Party must update its policies on the politics of genocides around the world; it must listen to grassroots movements on human rights; and it must support social movements around the world. The American presidential election does not only concern the United States: it determines how the world will be led through the interactions of the White House’s occupant with the rest of the world. The lesson to learn is to take appropriate actions that can make a difference in people’s lives by maintaining peace in the world.
Debora Kayembe is a human rights lawyer and political activist and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Women’s Rights and Gender Equity
Sarah E. Wald
For the millions of women who were energized and motivated by Kamala Harris’ focus on reproductive rights and women’s healthcare, the morning of November 6 left a huge collective pit in the stomach. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, reproductive rights advocates have tried to channel their energy into multiple ways to continue abortion access and healthcare for women who need it. They have deepened efforts to push for state legislative and constitutional measures; in the passage of “shield laws” and other ways to ensure continued access in states that have not limited abortion rights; through fighting restrictions on abortion medications; and through relentless drawing of attention to the increased risk of injury and even death for women denied necessary healthcare around reproductive emergencies. The results of the election signaled that this is not enough.
“For the millions of women who were energized and motivated by Kamala Harris’ focus on reproductive rights and women’s healthcare, the morning of November 6 left a huge collective pit in the stomach.”
-Sarah E. Wald
Listening to Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric leaves no doubt that his view of gender dynamics, the role of women, and their ability to make their own decisions is cemented in the past. In addition to his own history, several of his early choices for cabinet appointments are reported sexual harassers. Throughout American history, women have fought to be seen and to participate as full citizens across many obstacles. In our country’s past, women could not sign contracts, they could not own property, they could not be on juries, they could not hold many types of jobs—and even in some of the roles that were allowed, such as teachers and flight attendants, they were terminated when they got married or became pregnant. The fight for reproductive rights and safe and legal abortions is part of this history. When women cannot control their bodies and family decisions, their opportunities in life are constrained.
There are many storm clouds on this immediate horizon—threats to ban mifepristone; to use the Comstock Act to limit mailing of medication and medical equipment; to enact a national abortion ban which would preempt even state constitutional protections. And it is not only women’s rights that are at risk; the reasoning that the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe vs. Wade could easily be used to roll back rights for the LGBTQ community, for all people in terms of contraception and IVF, and other “privacy” rights. We should all be worried, and we should all be vigilant.
Sarah E. Wald is an Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School.
_
LGBTQI+ Rights
Diego Garcia Blum
A second Trump presidency would likely erode many LGBTQI+ rights gained over the past decade. Executive orders protecting against discrimination in federally funded programs, government employment, and services could be rescinded. Policies like the transgender military ban could return, and redefining “sex” as assigned at birth under federal law could undermine protections for transgender individuals, limiting access to healthcare, housing, and other rights. Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts addressing LGBTQI+ discrimination may also be banned.
With federal protections at risk, states must take the lead in protecting LGBTQI+ rights. In states committed to equality, lawmakers should move swiftly to enact or strengthen comprehensive anti-discrimination laws covering employment, housing, education, healthcare, and public accommodations. These states must also develop policies that provide explicit protections for transgender and nonbinary individuals, including access to gender-affirming care, inclusive education policies, and safe environments for LGBTQI+ students. Governors and attorneys general in these states can play critical roles in defending against federal rollbacks and ensuring that state laws remain robustly enforced.
For states moving to curtail LGBTQI+ rights, coordinated advocacy to prevent this is crucial at the grassroots level. Grassroots organizations must work to challenge discriminatory laws and policies while building public awareness and support for LGBTQI+ rights. This requires combating misinformation and fear-mongering through education campaigns that highlight LGBTQI+ individuals as integral members of society. Storytelling—grounded in lived experiences—can be a powerful tool to foster empathy and counter the harmful myths used to stigmatize LGBTQI+ people.
Across all states, local communities must mobilize to provide support and resources for those directly impacted by discriminatory policies. This includes creating networks to help families seeking gender-affirming care, providing safe spaces for LGBTQI+ youth, and ensuring access to accurate information about rights and services. Community-based efforts can mitigate some of the harm caused by hostile policies while fostering resilience and solidarity.
While the challenges are immense, history demonstrates that progress is possible, even in the most difficult circumstances. LGBTQI+ movements have long drawn strength from grassroots resilience and community solidarity. By focusing on state-level protections, grassroots advocacy, and global collaboration, we can continue to advance the cause of equality and ensure that the rights of LGBTQI+ people endure and expand, regardless of the obstacles ahead.
Diego Garcia Blum is the Director of the Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Indigenous Rights
Liza Black
Trump’s recent reelection could impact Indigenous rights by refusing to recognize Indigenous sovereignty and tribal nations. Tribal sovereignty and tribal nations can only be understood historically, and Trump relies on the version of history that lies behind the “make America great again” slogan, not the history understood by tribal nations, which includes removals, exterminations, wars, and incarcerations, as well as legally binding treaties.
He has disavowed the treaties between tribal nations and the United States and the sovereignty on which they rest. He and those who support his presidency insist that Native people are part of a racial group, and they mock anyone who does not meet their physical expectations of what they believe a Native person must look like. They mock blood quantum, a calculation forced on tribes by the United States. Trump does this to ramp up anti-Native speech and thought amongst his followers in hopes of rejecting tribal sovereignty and Indigenous rights.
Treaties could and should protect tribes, but Trump has other avenues to harm Indigenous rights, as Congress voted to cease future treaty-making in 1871. Since then, tribes have had to navigate American-made laws in addition to the treaties signed between tribes and the United States. He will stop at nothing to harvest oil from the earth’s underbelly, especially when it lies under Indigenous lands. He and his administration see Indigenous resistance as a nuisance that must be stopped. In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump was sure to ignore tribes’ needs and requests. When tribes were finally allocated funds in April 2020, he delayed the release of their funds for another month and reduced it by half.
Indigenous rights come by way of tribal sovereignty, not braids and buckskin. Native peoples and tribal sovereignty existed before the United States, and the United States cannot grant tribes their sovereignty nor revoke said sovereignty.
Liza Black is an Associate Professor of History and Native American and Indigenous Studies at Indiana University and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Jael Brothers
Under Trump’s presidency, as more decision-making power will likely be shifted from the federal government to the state level, it will be important that there is also ongoing recognition of the sovereignty of Tribal Nations through meaningful state-to-state relationships. Just as states are required by the U.S. Constitution to give full faith and credit to the public acts and judicial proceedings of other states, they must also extend this good faith towards their dealings with surrounding Tribal Nations.
“Just as states are required by the U.S. Constitution to give full faith and credit to the public acts and judicial proceedings of other states, they must also extend this good faith towards their dealings with surrounding Tribal Nations.”
-Jael Brothers
This could include conducting additional consultations with Indigenous communities, as well as interstate compacts or other collaborative initiatives. At the grassroots level, it is also important to support capacity building for Native American political candidates who can help ensure that these relationships are being developed at the municipal and state governmental levels in ways that are responsive to the needs of local Indigenous communities.
is the Assistant Director for the Honoring Nations program at the Project on Indigenous Governance and Development at the Ash Center.
_
Climate Change and Environmental Justice
Tao Leigh Goffe
“We have more liquid gold than anyone else in the world. We are going to pay off our debt,” said Donald Trump in his Florida victory speech, as he prepares to reenter office as the 47th President of the United States. My research on climate crisis addresses the uneven consequences of such rhetoric for communities of color, and how these words are part of an American tradition. Tying America’s sovereign debt to energy, commodities, and currency, these words could have been spoken by a James Bond villain like Blofed or Dr. No. Referring to oil as “liquid gold” makes Trump’s intentions for the mining future of this country clear—and part of the “make America great again” promise. He is correct in the supposition that extractive economies, which have stripped the earth, are the very basis of this nation—so his campaign slogan is not far off. Trump conjures a nostalgia for U.S. economic and energy self-reliance. It reflects jingoism, but also hearkens back to the age of oil and America’s robber barons, who were also the nation’s great philanthropists.
“Drilling is just the beginning of the extractivist future order under Trump. With it, we should expect an increase in oil spills and the endangerment of the biodiversity of poisoned lands and seas.”
-Tao Leigh Goffe
All of what Trump says is premised by his position to be resumed as Climate Crisis Denier in Chief. In my book Dark Laboratory: On Columbus, the Caribbean, and the Origins of the Climate Crisis (Doubleday, 2025), I connect the dots between transcendentalist figures like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Donald Trump’s immigration policy. I look to the history of the nineteenth century guano trade and the dynamic of racial capitalism. In doing so, I show how eugenicist rhetoric has been at the core of American environmentalism. Emerson believed that some races were more “expensive” than others. He argued for white Anglo-Saxon dominance fueled by the decaying bodies of African Americans, Germans, and Irish as fertilizer. To mine liquid gold, the new administration will stop at nothing, which puts protected lands in peril. Often inhabited by Black and/or Indigenous peoples, these communities will be even more endangered. People of color already live in high disproportionate numbers in proximity to Superfund sites. Drilling is just the beginning of the extractivist future order under Trump. With it, we should expect an increase in oil spills and the endangerment of the biodiversity of poisoned lands and seas. Extraction continues to be an alibi to steal the land, further dispossessing Native nations who have been the protectors for millennia.
Tao Leigh Goffe is Associate Professor of Literary Theory and Cultural History at Hunter College, City University of New York and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Surveillance and Disinformation
Albert Fox Cahn
In the lead-up to the 2024 election—the first presidential contest of the ChatGPT age—lawmakers, regulators, and civil society raised the alarm about the role that generative AI could play in distorting democracy and undermining faith in the outcome of the election. While the concerns were well intentioned, they proved overblown, overshadowed by a far more fundamental concern: Americans have lost touch with reality.
“Rather than seeing public opinion morphed by convincing high-tech forgeries, we saw simplistic lies about immigration, the economy, and policing gain public acceptance, driven not by algorithmic systems, but analog propogandists. When unemployment is down, people think it is up. When crime is falling, Americans think it’s rising. Up is down, right is wrong, and truth has lost all meaning.”
-Albert Fox Cahn
With more Americans turning to less credible news sources, we face an ontological schism. Why take the time and energy to manufacture elaborate facsimiles, creating the meticulous deep fakes so many feared, when many audiences will accept the crudest ideologues at their word? Deep fakes could pose a pressing concern one day, but it would take a world where people were far more invested in ferreting out high-quality information than they are today. Instead, these shallow fakes (unsubstantiated, self-serving claims) are enough to reinforce a willing audience’s prior beliefs, giving them license to reaffirm their loyalty to their socio-political tribe.
Rather than simply focusing on the cutting edge of disinformation, civil society has to face the more monumental and low-tech task of rebuilding evidence-based journalism and the foundational institutions of public education and civic discourse. Without a massive investment in these building blocks, no amount of deep fake regulation will be able to reassert reality in a political discourse increasingly unmoored from the facts.
Albert Fox Cahn is the Founder and Executive Director of Surveillance Technology Oversight Project’s ( S.T.O.P.).
_
Emre Kizilkaya
Elon Musk exemplifies the dangers of surveillance capitalism, driven by unrestrained data and power accumulation. Although largely an American creation, its consequences extend globally, threatening democracies. After Trump's election victory, Musk’s influence may become more alarming. His proximity to global leaders raises concerns about how his power intersects with authoritarian regimes. with Turkey’s President Erdogan and Ukraine’s President Zelensky. during Ukraine’s resistance to Russia's invasion highlighted the risks of privatizing critical technologies.
This surveillance capitalist's empire of collusion, supported by billions in U.S. subsidies amid reports of secret talks with , spans global communications (X), artificial intelligence (xAI), brain-computer interfaces (Neuralink), satellite networks (Starlink), and multimodal transportation (Tesla and SpaceX)—corporations that Erdogan Musk to introduce to Turkey’s vast market, in exchange for terms that remain unclear to the public.
“After Trump’s election victory, Musk’s influence may become more alarming. His proximity to global leaders raises concerns about how his power intersects with authoritarian regimes.”
-Emre Kizilkaya
Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu recently warned—ironically, on X—that "if not regulated properly, AI will not just wreak havoc in many industries; it will also lead to pervasive manipulation of consumers and citizens (witness social media)," which he highlighted as one of the "bigger risks" of Trump’s agenda. In this context, Musk embodies an "extractive institution" by himself, accumulating wealth at society’s expense—harvesting personal data, extracting natural resources, and exploiting laborers by violating human rights directly or through proxies.
A Trump-Musk vision of an even more deregulated Big Tech threatens to further bolster autocrats like Erdogan and Hungary’s Orbán, amplifying their propaganda, disinformation, and surveillance while weakening civil society in fragile democracies already grappling with political polarization and economic instability. Left unchecked, the extractive structures of surveillance capitalism—embodied by figures like Musk—could define our era, undermining democracy and empowering regimes eager to see it decline. For those who value the public good, the time to act is now.
Emre Kizilkaya is an Istanbul-based editor and media researcher and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Patrick Lin
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to prosecute his political opponents, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and allow states to monitor pregnant women and prosecute those who seek abortions. Trump has also repeatedly stated his desire to militarize certain domestic law enforcement activities, including sending the military to stomp out protest movements. Surveillance would be a valuable tool for accomplishing Trump’s goals.
“Trump’s policies would be accompanied by increased investment and deployment of surveillance tools, most of which are developed by private companies not beholden to the public or the Constitution.”
-Patrick Lin
Former U.S. president Richard Nixon and former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover notoriously monitored political opponents and disrupted the civil rights movement through COINTELPRO, a nationwide operation of illegal surveillance and harassment. Emboldened by a Republican-controlled Senate and House, as well as a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, very little stands in the way of Trump creating his own version of the program. The key difference now is that Trump and his team are equipped with significantly more advanced technology and a trove of data points on every American. These data are readily available in large part due to surveillance capitalists’ widespread collection and commodification of personal information.
Trump’s policies would be accompanied by increased investment and deployment of surveillance tools, most of which are developed by private companies not beholden to the public or the Constitution. For example, the Trump administration can freely purchase Americans’ personal data from private brokers, because doing so does not require a warrant. Big Tech, data brokers, and data analytics companies alike will benefit from the targeting of political opponents, immigrants, pregnant people, and activists, because Trump’s administration will likely rely on a variety of tools provided by surveillance capitalists to carry out his plans.
Patrick Lin is an attorney and a Technology & Human Rights Fellow at Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
_
Nicole Ozer
I do not consider the results of the 2024 presidential election to be a “win” for surveillance capitalists, but I do have no doubt that the incoming administration and its actions (and inactions) will create a far more difficult political climate to defend and promote access, equity, and justice in the digital age.
Trump will make changes in leadership and work at the White House and federal agencies which have been actively engaged in important initiatives on artificial intelligence, consumer privacy, and antitrust. These changes will profoundly affect efforts to make technology work for the people and address how decades of surveillance capitalism have externalized the costs of “free” business models to rights, safety, and democracy.
Further, there is the real threat that Big Tech will use this political climate to further entrench surveillance capitalism and their power by pushing a federal “privacy” bill with preemption. It is the holy grail of Big Tech to have a law with preemption that overrides critical state law and action, including the in California that hold the greatest promise to rein in surveillance capitalism. Federal preemption is the same tried in the 1990s. Big Tobacco didn’t get away with it, and stopping Big Tech from getting a federal law with preemption must be a top priority for anyone who wants to support people and democracy in the AI age.
We can also realistically anticipate that Trump will do everything in his power to take advantage of the post 9/11 surveillance infrastructure in our communities and the vast information collected by companies for surveillance capitalism in order to identify, target, and attack immigrant communities, further undermine LGBTQ and reproductive rights, and threaten activists. We will need a Firewall for Freedom of local and state laws to protect people.
Nicole Ozer is the Technology and Civil Liberties Director for the ACLU of Northern California and a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
–
Julia-Silvana Hofstetter
Technology-facilitated disinformation reached unprecedented levels ahead of the 2024 U.S. elections, relying heavily on widely available deepfake technology. This is particularly concerning from a gendered perspective, as women politicians are more often and more severely affected by online hate and disinformation.
For example, during the 2024 election, disinformation targeting Vice President Kamala Harris far exceeded that targeted at Donald Trump and included deepfake content falsely linking her to prostitution and manipulated images suggesting associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Gendered disinformation campaigns undermine female politicians' reputations and credibility, effectively silencing them by pressuring them to withdraw from the political sphere altogether. The use of deepfake technology amplifies these already significant gendered impacts.
While it is difficult to prove the direct impact of gendered disinformation on voter decisions during the 2024 elections, the information chaos and uncertainty fueled by such disinformation have significantly increased public distrust in mainstream media. This has given rise to an alternative media ecosystem dominated by conservative and reactionary movements. Such platforms have mainstreamed a generally misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ information environment. Combined with the rise in gender-based online violence, this trend threatens to hinder broader progress toward gender equality and raises concerns about online violence escalating into physical harm.
The rise in gender-based disinformation and cyberviolence spurred by the election is likely to persist and intensify during the Trump administration, and to be targeted at women and other marginalized groups on a broader scale. In particular, data weaponization strategies, long employed in the context of reproductive healthcare, provide troubling examples of how these harms may escalate.
Anti-abortion groups have previously exploited commercially available data to identify and target visitors to abortion clinics with disinformation campaigns. Beyond disinformation, other forms of data weaponization also pose significant gendered harms. For instance, commercially available data has been used to dox, stalk, and physically assault abortion patients, caregivers, activists, and survivors of domestic violence. Additionally, law enforcement agencies can use Google search information and geolocation information to surveil abortion patients and caregivers.
The gendered harms of disinformation, hate speech, and data weaponization will likely intensify in the coming years if the regulation of online platforms and the data broker industry is deprioritized by the new administration.
Julia-Silvana Hofstetter is a Technology & Human Rights Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and Senior Advisor at the ICT4Peace Foundation.