Donald Trump has been re-elected as president of the US. Now I can't speak on behalf of all Sikhs, as no other Sikh can speak on my behalf, but I can give my personal thoughts on this from an Azadist perspective — Azadism being a Sikhi-based political-economic philosophy that we can use a framework to interpret such things through.
This moment in history may bring forth both opportunities but also notable cautions. Trump’s return reflects the populace’s growing rejection of the traditional political elite, yet it also reinforces risks inherent in relying on populist figures, clinging to national identity, and ignoring economic realities in favour of political theatre. The following are some key reflections that I want to share with Sangat for their consideration. I'll try to give a balanced view on this, but if you disagree let me know! I would be interested in hearing some of your views on this as well!
1. The Cult-Like Appeal of Trump and the Dangers of Populist Leadership
I think it is undeniable that a sizeable portion of Trump’s following has a very cult-like veneer to it. He resonates with his base on emotional levels, championing ideas like anti-interventionism and challenging the Washington elite. Yet many of his followers overlook or downplay his positions that align closely with the establishment. For instance, his pro-central banking stance contradicts true economic sovereignty. And I am referring to his stance so far as what he has actually done, not necessarily what he says. With Trump, we already have past performance to take into account, and whilst on the surface, like every politician, many promises are made, its the actual actions and outcomes that should be assessed more seriously.
Blind loyalty is dangerous. Populist movements often devolve into movements of devotion, where critical thought is sacrificed to a belief in one “strong charismatic leader.” History has repeatedly shown that fascistic elements can arise under such conditions, especially when people grant leaders unchecked loyalty. Now I don't believe Trump to be another Hitler either, but I do caution against the cult-like ferver present amongst patriots.
For Sikhs, this loyalty is a reminder of our own challenges with “banda-puja”—the tendency to seek leaders to follow, like sheep seeking shepherds, often to the detriment of our own sovereignty and critical thinking. Sikhs today sometimes fall into the habit of elevating figures or institutions instead of assuming personal responsibility and self-governance, forgetting the Khalsa as a whole was gifted the status of Guru, not any one individual or group. This apotheosis of Sikhs into the Khalsa is such a critical and fundamental component of Sikhi that too many dismiss, ignore or simply do not know about. It is also what differentiates the Guru from cult-leaders, since a true spiritual leader empowers their followers to eventually lead themselves and be elevated to their status, whereas a cult-leader forms a structure of subservience.
Trump’s fervent following should serve as a caution: true Azadist thinking rejects any overreliance on charismatic leaders. Freedom, after all, comes not from external leaders but from our own empowerment, self-reliance and ability to treat each other as equals and recognise each others autonomy.
2. Nationalism and the Nation-State Illusion
Following on from the topic of cults, it is also worth recognising that Nationalism in general is one of the biggest cult-like structures around. “America First” resonates with Trump’s followers as a call to patriotism, yet this nationalism reflects a modern-day illusion. Nation-states are relatively newer, post-colonial constructs, and loyalty to them can and has competed with and undermined more fundamental values like family, faith, and moral principles. From an Azadist view, nationalism is a force that shackles people to artificial borders and can distract from pursuing true freedom and self-reliance. The “nation-state world order” is a system designed to keep people loyal to the state above all, limiting their sense of global identity and discouraging a flexible, independent approach to life and community. If institutions wish to remain within nationalist structures, they must be radically transformed to fit within them.
We can see this in our own traditions via things like the Singh Sabha reforms, which adapted Sikhi into Sikhism and defined strict boundaries so that the community gained recognition in a new system of representative politics imposed by the colonial powers in the then new nation-state world order.
Ideally, I think Sikhs, and especially the Khalsa, should aim to operate similar to those lifestyles espoused by advocates like "Nomad Capitalist", which I encourage Sangat to look into. Mobility, adaptability, and a fluid global presence are the core tenants of this mode of operating. Whilst it can be expensive (and hence infeasible for most just yet), it is about becoming not so attached to any one nationality, and instead securing multiple citizenships, bank accounts, investments and residences around the whole world. By maintaining flexibility and self-sufficiency, we can rise above nationalistic attachments and respond wisely to political and economic changes. For Sikhs, historically a diaspora with a robust identity not tied to specific borders, this flexible mindset combined with diversified resource bases is essential. Guru Gobind Singh themselves encouraged his Khalsa to settle in all sorts of regions outside of Punjab. So rather than rooting ourselves in our current nations, we should seek to build lifestyles and enough wealth that allows us to flourish anywhere — unattached and unshackled to any one state’s fate. If we can improve the societies we enter, even better, and we should. But if things seem to be heading south, I don't feel like Sikhs need to remain so committed to staying anywhere. Again, the Khalsa especially, if we really want to embody the virtue of being Chakarvarti.
3. Democracy’s Limitations and Populist Distractions
One major limitation in the current system, especially in democratic societies, is that meaningful change is often impeded by the pendulum swinging between political ideologies. Trump’s re-election might bring short-term reforms, but any real progress can potentially be undone by the next administration. This impermanence highlights a deeper issue—voters are often swayed by issues that dominate the media but fail to focus on systemic, economic problems that actually shape society’s trajectory in the long term.
Consider, for example, that Trump’s campaign largely sidestepped deeper economic critiques like those of central banking or the Federal Reserve. Whilst both parties harped on about inflation, neither seemed to adequately point out the root cause of it — the incessant expansion of the money supply. Meanwhile, social issues like gender identity, often divisive but less impactful economically, dominate headlines. This distraction is strategic—it diverts public attention from examining policies that perpetuate the expansion of government size, scope and power — which Azadism has argued against heavily in the Azadist Manifesto. Until the public is educated on how policies like inflationary monetary policy actually affect their lives, the cycle will continue. People need to hold their leaders accountable for policies that genuinely affect their economic well-being and sovereignty, not just on populist talking points.
4. Tariffs, Protectionism, and Economic Self-Sufficiency
Trump’s emphasis on tariffs and trade protectionism appeals to many as a means of “saving American jobs,” but from an Azadist economics perspective, this approach is fundamentally flawed. Tariffs ultimately restrict the free flow of goods and services, creating artificial barriers that harm both consumers and businesses. While protectionism claims to protect domestic industry, it ends up increasing the cost of imported goods, which drives up prices for consumers and can harm local businesses that rely on global supply chains. If something is being produced domestically but it costs more to do so, then this also contributes to price inflation of those goods as well. Making things more expensive, doesn't really help.
Moreover, tariffs are often politically motivated, benefiting specific industries rather than the general economy. You have to remember "protection-ism" is not really a defence policy, it is an economic policy designed to protect domestic corporations from foreign competition who can make what they're making cheaper. Tariffs can increase risk of domestic monopolisation for this reason.
Azadist economics, advocates for free and fair markets, as well as economic competition, where goods and services can flow without much arbitrary state intervention. When governments impose tariffs, they limit economic freedom and reinforce the political class’s power. An open market encourages efficiency, innovation, and lower prices, which benefits everyone. Tariffs, by contrast, concentrate wealth within the political elite and oligarchs empowering them further. If China is able to produce certain goods and services cheaper than your host nation can produce them, let them! That should free up resources in your nation to develop other industries that another nation can't as easily replicate. Especially those things that your industries can export.
The argument for tariffs generally centres around employment of low skilled labour. But tariffs aren't the solution to unemployment amongst unskilled workers. Upskilling and alternative opportunity is. Initiatives like educational reform, business freedom and combatting corporate political activity such as lobbying which restricts entrepreneurship contribute to the solution more effectively from an Azadist point of view. The biggest thing you can do for your population is making them adaptable and learning how to learn. US education is ridiculed and critiqued world-wide from elementary to advanced education. Universities especially have become echo chambers and propaganda hubs for leftist ideologies, that push young people into debt to learn things that aren't that useful in the job market without experience for most careers. But this goes outside the scope of this piece, and I have written more about education in general in Section III of the Azadist Manifesto.
Now, I don't think Trumps 3 figure tariffs threats are going to become a reality, but the stance itself needs to be moderated and is one of the biggest policy issues he has. Tariffs, alongside price controls, are one of the few concepts where economists have a pretty universal consensus against them. And for good reason. It is simply not conducive for long-term development and global economic growth.
Sikhs should be wary of ideologies like protectionism. Understand that it restricts the ability to participate in a truly free economy and hinders our ability to innovate and advance the economy further.
5. Optimism Amid the Challenges
Despite these concerns, Trump’s re-election brings some hopeful prospects. There are things to be said about what it indicates for the current "culture war", but for me, the more intriguing aspects are some of his appointments. If he were to appoint figures like Ron Paul to a government efficiency committee like Elon Musk had posted about, it could be a real step toward the type of fiscal conservatism I really resonate with. Ron Paul’s background in libertarian economics and non-interventionist foreign policy aligns very well with Azadist ideals. His involvement could lend credibility to efforts to streamline government functions, reduce waste, and cut unnecessary spending — steps that are long overdue. Other appointments like Robert Kennedy as well seem interesting too, and after hearing JD Vance on the Joe Rogan and Theo Von podcasts, Trump seems to have selected a Vice President that is well aware of some of the systemic issues plaguing Washington and the danger of lobbyists. Will they be able to do anything meaningful about it though? That is yet to be seen. Furthermore, Trump’s renewed commitment to ending “forever wars” and reducing foreign military involvement reflects a rejection of the establishment’s interventionist stance, a positive move toward dismantling the military-industrial complex. But whilst Trump may claim to want to deescalate from hot-wars, this doesn't mean the modern cold wars and economic wars won't persist or be exacerbated. Especially if Trump plans to use tariffs as a weapon.
However, true optimism lies in our own commitment to self-sovereignty. We should not depend on leaders to bring about change but use this moment as inspiration to organize, educate, and take responsibility for our own freedoms. As Trump’s re-election demonstrates, political power can shift, but our principles and our autonomy remain in our hands.
Before we conclude, I'll briefly mention a discussion I was having recently with a Singh on this topic and what it means for the Khalsa in the US. One of the biggest advantages that the Sangat over there have is their gun laws. Under a Trump presidency, those laws and second amendment rights are likely to persist in a way that favours the pro-Gun side. The Khalsa should be utilizing this opportunity to train and do drills with modern techniques and equipment. I simply do not understand how a Singh can live in the US without exercising these freedoms. Initiatives like Khalsa shooting ranges, clubs and even hunting lodges should be seriously considered and expanded.
Conclusion
Trump’s return to office reveals both the public’s growing disillusionment with the establishment and the enduring dangers of political fervor and nationalistic attachments. While there is value in his challenge to the Washington elite, it’s crucial that we remain cautious and critical, wary of policies that contradict true freedom and economic independence. But also it is always good to be optimistic, but rationally so.
For those of us striving for Azadism, now is the time to double down on our pursuit of autonomy, understanding that real change begins with self-empowerment, not with charismatic leaders or nations. As we witness yet another turn in the political cycle, let’s remember that our freedom lies not in following leaders, but in rejecting unnecessary dependencies, building self-reliance, and upholding our principles of personal and economic sovereignty wherever we are.
Share this post