Roma, Italia
INTRODUCTION
One major shift from Trump’s first term to his second term is in his inner circle; in 2017-2020, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, John Bolton, and James Mattis were all “neocons” aligned figures, pressing for an interventionist posture and preaching for American exceptionalism despite Trump’s America First agenda. He then fired and marginalized many of them, and he moved closer to nationalist or anti-globalist advisors such as Stephen Miller and Robert O’Brien. In the first term Trump appointed his cabinet in a traditional way, it was based on expertise and diversity. In his second term he tried not to repeat the same error, he required absolute loyalty and hierarchical respect.
Despite figures like Mike Waltz (marginalized after “Signalgate”) or Marco Rubio (who supports a hawkish foreign policy), the remaining inner circle is ideological and strictly aligned with the “America First” agenda. Trump’s second term inner court appears drastically insular, radicalized, ideological, and militarized. The scope of this article is to examine those prominent figures known for their ideology, those with strong personal beliefs that drive real influence in policy making and shape the current landscape.
THE PRINCE-IN-WAITING – J.D. Vance
In contrast to the impulsive, vulgar, chaotic, and combative Donald Trump stands his complementary vice, J.D. Vance, who is ideological, educated, strategic, and measured. In United States history, 49 vice presidents have attempted a run for the presidency, and only six succeeded; given J.D. Vance’s activism and influence in the Republican Party, he has much odds of being the seventh in 2028.
J.D. Vance, born in Ohio in 1984, embodies the “Rust Belt” soul, its contradictions, and his malaise. He is a product of his childhood, which he vividly describes in “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis”, a memoir about the Appalachian values of his family and the socioeconomic problems of his hometown of Middletown. Yet in the title, appear the cultural and familial disintegration highlighted by Emmanuel Todd; Vance’s childhood was traumatic—he directly experienced the structural issues affecting the United States. His parents divorced when he was young; he grew up in poverty, suffered abuse, his mother was addicted to drugs, his grandmother was violent, his grandfather was an alcoholic, and finally, Vance experienced war as a military journalist in Iraq in 2005.
“It is Greater Appalachia, where the fortunes of working class whites seem dimmest. From low mobility to poverty to divorce and drug addiction, my home is a hub of misery.” (Vance, 2016, p. 4.)
In Vance’s life, three key turning points stand out. The first is the war in Iraq, which enabled him to attend Ohio State University using the G.I. Bill (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act). After the war, he studied at Ohio State University before transferring to Yale to study law, where he met Peter Thiel in 2011 during Thiel’s speech on “Silicon Valley’s incapacity to provide revolutionary technologies and political elites’ stagnation”. It is a second turning point as Vance remains captivated by Thiel’s speech, and in 2016, he moves to San Francisco to work for two years at Thiel’s VC firm Mithril Capital. The relationship with Thiel dramatically changes Vance and leads him to adopt Thiel’s brand of ultraconservative Catholicism.
In 2016, Vance was a fierce opponent of Trump, describing Trump as a kind of “heroin” for the declining white working class and a “would-be Hitler.” Trump was a billionaire celebrity from New York seeking to exploit the misery of the American heartland for his own personal glory: “I think that he is a total fraud that is exploiting these people” and “Trump makes people I care about afraid; immigrants, Muslims… Because of this, I find him reprehensible. God wants better of us.” By 2020, Vance had changed his mind, moving from being a socially conservative centrist to an admirer and follower of Trump with radical right ideas, giving the Trump administration credit for genuinely addressing the challenges faced by “forgotten Americans”. And in 2021, thanks to Thiel’s connections to Steve Bannon and Trump, Vance had a first approach to Trump’s inner circle. The third turning point.
Thiel and Vance have similar political positions but different reasoning; it can be seen by the divergence of their critiques on the “diversity myth”, pillar of the anti-woke crusade. For Thiel, the “diversity myth” distracts from important issues (Chinese Communist Party rise), and blocks innovation and creativity. For Vance, it is a cultural block; those who fail to adhere to it risk being excluded from the establishment.
In 2022, Thiel supported Vance’s run for Senator in Ohio with $15 million – the largest amount ever given to a single candidate at the time. As a matter of fact, the selection of J.D. Vance as Trump’s vice president might represent the growing influence of the Silicon Valley radical “New Right”.
Vance’s worldview is apocalyptic; the United States is experiencing an existential crisis that threatens its existence. The family, which is Vance’s greatest concern in Hillbilly Elegy, is the rock upon which all civilization is built. Connected to it are patriotism, belonging, and loyalty to a place, to a country, and its people. This resembles the “blood and soil” of “Volkisch nationalism” of German national socialism. Connected to the sense of family and nationalism, the immigration flows the United States is experiencing, for Vance, risks changing the cultural roots of America.
“You can’t have so many people coming into the country at a time when our own families aren’t replicating themselves” talking to Charlie Kirk.
THE VIZIER ARCHITECT – Stephen Miller
Apprehensions regarding immigration, shared by Vance and the broader MAGA movement, are predominantly entrusted to Stephen Miller. Born in 1985, in Santa Monica, California, known for being liberal, diverse, and cosmopolitan, he has instead repeatedly shown pride in becoming radically opposite from his hometown. He was raised in a Jewish family, emigrated to the United States, escaping the 1903 anti-Jewish pogrom in Belarus. But from a young age, he embraced right-wing positions as a form of rebellion. In high school rallied against multiculturalism, stating that:
“Osama bin Laden would feel very welcome at Santa Monica High School”
In January 2016, Bannon convinced Miller to join Trump’s presidential campaign as senior policy adviser. In March started speaking as a warm-up act in Trump’s campaigns, and in August was named head of Trump’s economic policy team. From 2017 became Trump’s key adviser and author on hawkish immigration policies. After Trump’s 2020 defeat, he immersed himself in studying how to overcome the hurdles that hampered Trump’s agenda during his first presidency.
Since January 2025, Miller is serving as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the White House bureaucracy. When Trump was questioned whether he would appoint Miller as national security adviser (generally considered more important than the WH Deputy Chief of Staff), now occupied by Marco Rubio, he replied:
“Stephen is much higher on the totem pole than that”
Miller’s presence is detectable in all policy areas, according to The Wall Street Journal: “(Miller) has written or edited every executive order that Trump has signed”. He was the one behind the blizzard of executive orders during the president’s first month back in the White House, as he sought to “flood the zone” to overwhelm the capacity of the courts, or the media, to respond. He is the architect not behind immigration policies but “almost every issue Trump is interested in”, according to The Journal, directly relating to administration officials of cabinet agencies bypassing cabinet secretaries.
Miller also represents the origin of the protests in Los Angeles. His hawkish view on immigration led him to pressure Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) agents to intensify efforts to arrest migrants as deportation figures fell far below pre-election promises. During a meeting at ICE’s Washington headquarters, Miller ordered them to bypass the usual practice of compiling lists of suspects and instead focus on targeting places like Home Depot or 7-Eleven stores where day laborers gather for short-term jobs. This raises the risk of mistakes and wrongful arrests.
“If it was up to Miller, there would only be 100 million people living in the US”
Trump said during a campaign meeting in 2024.
THE DECONSTRUCTIVIST – Russell Vought
If Miller is organizing mass deportation, Russell Vought is leading the dismantling of liberal bureaucracy and replacing it with loyalist governance, another of the pillars of Trump’s agenda. Vought is one of the minds behind Project 2025, a 920-page conservative and right-wing policy proposal to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power.
Project 2025, which initially Trump pretended to dodge, has been financed with over $122 million from just six billionaire families (Koch, Bradley, Seid, Uihlein, Scaife, Coors), and all of them would largely benefit from the dismantling of environmental regulations. The core of the blueprint is to dismantle the “deep state”, replace civil servants with political loyalists aligned with nationalist-conservative priorities, and, in conclusion, expand executive power and abolish progressive regulations. Project 2025 has been led by the Heritage Foundation, but hundreds of individual policy experts contributed (including Stephen Miller), along with affiliated think tanks like the Claremont Institute and the Center for Renewing America (an organization founded by Vought, focused on combating Critical Race Theory).
Since February 2025, Vought has served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in continuity with Trump’s first term. The initial idea was to “team up” with Musk’s group (DOGE) and “figure out how to make these things permanent using OMB institutional expertise”. As OMB director, he published a memo directing OMB to cancel any contracts that included training on “anti-American propaganda”. Instead, as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he acted more subtly, systemically dismantling it for months by dropping the agency’s court actions against financial firms.
In conclusion, Vought appears to be the symbol of Trump’s administration adversity to democracy. He considers the federal bureaucracy as “woke and weaponized” and advocates to replace it with “radical constitutionalist”, he aim to “gut the FBI” and to politicize the U.S. Department of Justice. The aim, as stated in Project 2025, is to “bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will”.
THE STRATEGIST – Elbridge Colby
Beyond the ideologism of Vought and Miller, there is the brilliant rationale of Colby. He stands out because he fills a strategic vacuum in Trump’s establishment: he is not a “culture warrior” but a strategist, perfectly embodying the realism of “America First”. Colby is a military planner, giving Trump’s inner circle a greater strategic layer, and looking forward to Vance and the post-Trump right–wing inner circle. Colby is not laud; he is intellectually influential and well represents the MAGA 2.0 foreign policy, offering a middle path between isolationist doves and neocon hawks.
Colby served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development from 2017 to 2018, playing a key role in the development of the 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy, shifting the U.S. Defense Department’s focus to China. In 2021 published his book “The Strategy of Denial” laying out a realist strategy for the United States facing the challenges of the 21st century.
Colby is a pragmatic realist who believes that China represents the principal threat to the United States and suggests shifting the military focus to Asia to prevent a Chinese takeover of Taiwan. Indeed, he suggests that Taiwan’s capture would make China a regional hegemon and loosen the United States’ control over Asia. After Taiwan, China could break the United States-led anti-hegemonic coalition, seizing key allies like the Philippines or Vietnam. Therefore, the best way to avoid war with China is to be manifestly prepared such that Beijing recognizes that an attack on Taiwan is likely to fail.
In the ruthless prioritization of U.S. military preparedness, Colby supported the reduction of military aid to Ukraine, calling on Taiwan to increase its defense budget from 2.5% of GDP to 10%. He is also pressing Australia and Japan for pre-commitment to support the United States in a future war for Taiwan. However, such a ham-fisted approach risks having the opposite effect of what it is intended to achieve.
Colby also raised criticism when, shortly before October 7 attack by Hamas, called for a “reset” in America’s relationship with Israel, defering more to Israel’s judgement about how to best manage its security challenge: “(Washington) cannot afford to be enmeshed in another Middle Eastern war, will take a supporting role”.
Colby’s logic of strategic prioritization rankles and unsettles allies long accustomed to American “indulgence”. Nevertheless, it seems to be the dominant line in Trumpian foreign policy, which, however, clashes drastically with the dominant foreign policy dictated by federal agencies. Hence, another reason for the great confrontation with the apparatus.
Anyway, not only experts but also the United State’s Department of War itself, question American readiness and willingness to fight wars for “others”. United States no longer guarantee, at least in the narrative, which is, however, the most important aspect, neither the protection of Europe from Russia, but also the famous Pivot-to-Asia is now questioned with a country lacking of synchronicity.
All these prominent figures mentioned so far highlight the problem of heterogeneity, cultural fragmentation and synchronicity deficit that weakens national power. Indeed, the example of the prioritization of “national cohesion” might be seen in the deployment of national guard in liberal cities during the last months. It well suits Bannon, Miller, Vought framework of hierarchical order and centralization of power, however such strategy of law and order through strength destroys national cohesion in democracies, fueling resentment and anger. Instead of preparing the United States for facing wars this strategy risks to deplete of resources, poison civil-military relations (if military serves a party instead of the nation, it loose the trust from the other side), weaken trust in institution. Using force for nation-building is a dangerous strategy in democracies and low-synchronicity countries like the United States.
PART LUCIFER, PART PROMETHEUS – Elon Musk
Vance, Miller, Vought, and Colby, have all totally adhered, and in part contributed in shaping MAGA 2.0 agenda; many of their values are pillars of Trump’s second term program, and their vision for the future make them almost perfectly complementary. By contrast, Musk is the clearest example of someone who doesn’t fit such values, who has different interests, and who openly rebelled against the hierarchical order. Indeed, Musk has long supported democrats, but during the Biden administration, frictions emerged, including exclusion from EV events at the White House, or the support of trade unions that Musk strongly hates are just examples. Consequently, Musk went all-in on Trump. Musk face nearly 40 investigations (plus two dozen without cost estimation) already underway for approximately $2.37 billion in potential legal liabilities, furthermore such legal actions not only cost money but also slow down Musk’s firms’ innovation and development. This implicit declaration of war by federal agencies against Musk’s companies, likely gives rise to the urgency of supporting Russell Vought’s mission: dismantle the bureaucracy before it bog down his companies.
The answer from Musk has been a donation of over $277 million supporting Trump’s campaign, plus non-quantifiable support on X (ex Twitter) through algorithm modification. The aim was a reward through the possibility of cutting the branches of the “deep state”, which was limiting his expansion and power. The result might have been a “Trojan Horse” for Musk. Indeed, Trump benefited in the first months of his administration from a shift in public attention to Elon Musk; press agencies around the world focused on the billionaire, his excessive power, and influence on international politics. Consequently, an “anti-Musk” movement called “Tesla Takedown” arose. It manifested worldwide and campaigned to reduce the sales of Tesla vehicles. Additionally, in many states where Musk interfered with their politics, citizens boycotted Tesla vehicles. In Germany, after Musk declared support for the right-wing extremist party AFD, the sales of Tesla dropped by 50%.
Anyhow, Musk received a kind of reward for his support, explicitly in the creation of the DOGE that Musk used arbitrarily to cut down those agencies interfering with his companies. But his energetic agency purges drew criticism and internal friction even in the MAGA movement: despite drastic cuts, DOGE fell short on promises of official savings; it lacked coordination, accuracy, and integrity. Musk was chaotic; he had no internal consultation, ending often in undermining officials’ authority, derailing internal trust.
From the emerging scenario, it seems that Musk has burnt his bridges. Ending up: ousted from the government, demonized by left-wing supporters, chased by federal agencies, and isolated. However, he remains the richest man in the world with a unique vision of the future that made him one of the most important entrepreneurs in humankind history. As Peter Thiel famously said: “Never bet against Elon Musk”.
Musk will always be a genius with a special risk-taking attitude, his approach to politics can be seen as functional to his narrative, he sought to receive fundings or tax cuts for his companies and so to continue boosting his investments in R&D. Politics was an instrument for receiving finance to be invested in his mission of making “humanity multi-planetary”, his dream of becoming eternal by making human conquer the space. However, his parabola, for the moment, lies as a warning for whoever flies close to the sun, in the attempt to dominate politics and its “deep state” without any respect for the hierarchical order the administration was trying to settle, risks getting burnt. Half Prometheus, a visionary that dared too much and got burned, half Lucifer, the best and most shining ally that did not respect the hierarchy and got ousted.
CONCLUSION
From Trump’s administration emerges a uniform and compact establishment, with a long-term vision of what America should look like. However, there is a tendency and appeal for a hierarchical order, centralization of power, and politicization of institutions. The attempt of dismantle the federal bureaucracy, reverse immigration flows, punish protesters, may project the United States toward a new epoch. Joe Biden last speech could become symbolical of a wounded democracy, as he claims, citing Eisenhower’s farewell address “an oligarchy has been taking hold in the United States” criticizing the “tech-industrial complex”. In Biden’s farewell address, there is significant emphasis on the turning point America is facing. Despite checks and balances of the United States Constitution, there is a risk of pollution in the institution that could undermine democratic principles if it is not reversed. Biden, a symbol of the establishment, in his last address to the nation, launched a call to action, aiming to spark a revival reminiscent of the 1930s.
“And in a democracy, there is another danger — that the concentration of power and wealth. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and division. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning, and people don’t feel like they have a fair shot.” Biden’s farewell address, January 2025
For the United States, this trajectory represents a direct threat to democratic institutions, the separation of powers, and the autonomy of federal agencies. For the international community, the crisis of a global hegemon opens to a period of uncertainty: when the guarantor of an international order faces internal destabilization it can no longer ensure global stability and it may even set a dangerous precedents for other countries. In Italy, for instance, the Meloni government, structured similarly to Trump’s one, has followed a comparable script: hierarchical order, loyalty, relatives and trusted in key positions, attacks to the media and to the judges’ decisions, or using political nominee for crucial roles in public entities. This suggests a broader risk of institutional degradation spreading across democracies, where polarization and centration of power undermine the rule of law.
REFERENCES
Robert Tait, June 15 2025, The rise of Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s hardline immigration policy, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/15/trump-immigration-stephen-miller-influence
Chris Megerian, May 29 2025, Elon Musk is leaving the Trump administration after leading effort to slash federal government, apnews https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-donald-trump-big-beautiful-bill-aa2bc70b0ebdb219b5dd3e9f8fae03af
Robert Bebber, March 8 2025, THE STRATEGY OF DENIAL: AMERICAN DEFENSE IN AN AGE OF GREAT POWER CONFLICT, Center for International Maritime Security https://cimsec.org/the-strategy-of-denial-american-defense-in-an-age-of-great-power-conflict/?utm
Sohrab Ahmari, July 2 2024, Elbridge Colby: “I am signalling to China that my policy is status quo”, THE NEW STATESMAN https://www.newstatesman.com/ns-interview/2024/07/elbridge-colby-i-am-signalling-to-china-that-my-policy-is-status-quo?utm
Joe Fassler, October 25 2024, Mapped: How 6 Billionaire Family Fortunes Fund Project 2025, DeSmog
April 28 2025, Blumenthal Exposes Billions in Legal Penalties & Fines Elon Musk Stands to Avoid Due to Government Power Grab https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-exposes-billions-in-legal-penalties-and-fines-elon-musk-stands-to-avoid-due-to-government-power-grab?utm
Mike Wendling, February 14 2025, Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for Trump’s second term, BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_Elegy
Sophia Cai, July 06 2025, “Like Elon Musk, Russ Vought wants to break Washington. Unlike the billionaire, the budget guru might just succeed.”, Politico https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/07/russ-vought-elon-musk-00392931
Li Zheng, July 04 2025, Elon Musk’s Break with MAGA, China US Focus https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/elon-musks-break-with-maga
Kenneth Rasmussen, JD Vance, Peter Thiel and the Silicon Valley Digital Radical Right, Psychohistory Forum Research Associate
Chris Lehmann, 100 Percent American, J.D. Vance’s MAGA makeover, Baffler Foundation
Johannes Spath, The Rise of Techno-Authoritarianism and its impact on US Foreign Policy, Zwischenräume
The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in an Age of Great Power Conflict, Elbridge A. Colby (2021)
***
Autore dell’articolo: Leonardo Di Piazza, Undergraduate Student in Economics at Tor Vergata University.
***
Nota della redazione del Think Tank Trinità dei Monti
Come sempre pubblichiamo i nostri lavori per stimolare altre riflessioni, che possano portare ad integrazioni e approfondimenti.
* I contenuti e le valutazioni dell’intervento sono di esclusiva responsabilità dell’autore.
Editor’s Note – Think Tank Trinità dei Monti
As always, we publish our articles to encourage debates, and to spread knowledge and original and alternative points of view.
* The contents and the opinions of this article belong to the author(s) of this article only.