POLITIQ

In this interview, Arsenii Glazunov sat down with Dr. Richard Johnson, senior lecturer in U.S. politics and policy at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Johnson shared his insights into the recent U.S. presidential election and its broader implications. A noted expert on American democracy and elections, his research spans topics such as race, political polarization, and party transformation in the U.S. With a deep understanding of political trends and policy shifts, Dr. Johnson discusses Donald Trump’s influence on the Republican Party, the challenges facing Democrats, and the legacies of both Trump and Joe Biden.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Reflecting on the recent election, many experts didn’t predict the extent of Trump’s win in the Electoral College. What do you think they missed?

I think, fundamentally, there was an issue with commentators not understanding what the polls were telling them. The polls showed no clear favourite in the swing states, which, statistically, meant one candidate could win all seven, they could split evenly, or something in between. In 2016, Trump won six out of the seven swing states. In 2020, Biden won six out of seven. And now in 2024, Trump has won all seven.

But if you look at the states that actually decided the election—Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan—Trump only won those by 1 to 2 percentage points. If Harris had done, on average, one and a half points better across those states, she would have won the election. So, although Trump’s victory compared to other Republicans since the 1990s was strong in terms of the popular vote and Electoral College, the swing it would have taken to flip the election was small. In that sense, Trump’s Electoral College majority was built on thin foundations—just as Biden’s was in 2020.

Given that Trump’s win in swing states wasn’t by a huge margin, do you think Democrats will adjust their ideological approach after this loss? What lessons might they take?

After a defeat, parties usually conduct an autopsy to analyse what went wrong and what to learn. After 2012, Republicans famously released a report blaming their losses on being seen as too hostile on issues like abortion and immigration, recommending a more moderate direction. And, of course, four years later, they nominated Trump, who did the opposite of that report’s recommendations—and won. So sometimes, these immediate post-election lessons don’t provide as much clarity as parties hope.

This time, Democrats seem to recognize they failed to provide a clear economic message, which sunk the Harris campaign. They’d hoped that focusing on democracy and abortion rights could tip them over, but Americans ultimately prioritize their pocketbooks. And so I would guess that in an in an immediate sense, the Democrats will be thinking about a candidate who can put forward perhaps some kind of message of economic populism in the near future.

Moving to Biden’s legacy, Trump heavily criticized Biden’s presidency during his campaign. Are there policies from Biden’s tenure that you think Trump will retain?

In legislative terms, I doubt Trump will try to overturn much through Congress. Biden achieved several landmark legislative victories, like a gun control bill—the first in 30 years—and repealing the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act. Even though Republicans opposed these bills, I don’t see Trump trying to repeal them.

Biden’s industrial policy also stands out. His big bills, such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act, focused on onshoring domestic production and boosting manufacturing. These align with Trump’s stated priorities, so he’s likely to maintain them, at least publicly.

However, Trump will use executive actions to roll back many of Biden’s initiatives, especially in areas like environmental regulation.

On a more recent note, Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter, has sparked significant debate. What impact do you think this could have on public perception of the judiciary and Trump’s own use of pardons?

The pardon power is one of the few presidential powers without legal constraints—it’s completely at the president’s discretion. Unlike signing treaties, appointing judges, or naming cabinet members, which all require Senate approval, pardons are unchecked. Politically, though, there’s supposed to be a restraint—the president must consider the potential backlash. And what I mean by that is that the president needs to be very mindful of not abusing that power because it creates a permission structure for the next president to keep expanding that power more and more.

Biden’s blanket pardon for his son definitely weakens the political check on Trump’s use of this power. Trump has pledged that he's going to pardon the conspirators in the January 6th, attack on the Capitol, And Democrats, of course, will criticize him for that. But Republicans will push back and say, look, you know, the President pardoned his own son. And it wasn't even a specific pardon. It was a blanket pardon.

You know, there were different ways that Biden could have approached that. He could have perhaps had a more narrow pardon like Bill Clinton did of his brother. But, I think that it just makes the political strength of the criticism against Trump's potential misuse of the pardon in his presidency weaker and ultimately leads to an ‘arms race’ in the overuse of the pardon power.

Looking at the broader picture, how do you think history will remember Biden’s presidency—especially given his proximity to Trump’s terms? So, think, 20 years from now. Are we going to remember Biden at all?

The paradox of the Biden presidency is that in policy terms, he's been one of the most successful presidents of recent times, but in political terms, he's clearly been a failure.

He passed more public spending and investment measures than any president since Lyndon Johnson—possibly since Franklin Roosevelt. His infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act all promote manufacturing jobs and research. However, these achievements’ benefits aren’t always immediately obvious, and voters often don’t credit the president for economic gains.

For example, there are areas in upstate New York where new chip factories have created thousands of jobs, yet these communities voted for Trump. Biden’s problem is political. If the economy struggles, the president gets the blame. But when individuals do well, they attribute it to their own efforts, not federal policies. When people look back with clearer eyes, though, they may recognize Biden’s skill in achieving these legislative victories despite narrow majorities in Congress.

Looking ahead to Trump’s second term, what do you think his main general priorities will be?

Taxes will be a major focus. His 2017 tax cuts are set to expire, and he’s made promises about additional tax cuts—like eliminating taxes on Social Security, tips, and overtime, and creating a car loan interest deduction. These will be costly and require navigating budget reconciliation to avoid adding to the national debt.

And, of course, he's mostly talked about tax cuts, but one of the areas that he's talked about tax increases is on universities. Some wealthy private universities in the US have endowments larger than the GDPs in many countries and Trump is very interested in taxing them. It's also a politically straightforward thing for him to do because this is not an electorate that's very favourable to him. So he'll look at things like that.

So that's his big legislative bill, but there are lots of things he'll do through executive action on tariffs, on immigration, on regulation. He could probably be looking at firing federal prosecutors that he doesn't like. Some kind of civil service reform, administrative state reorganization could also happen.

He's got a few other kinds of signature things he's looking at. It'll be the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence in 2026, and he's already promised to have a great big celebration in Iowa for that. So, yeah, there's a lot on his plate.

Do you think Trump will face pushback from within the Republican Party on these plans? Given that he recently faced a strong backlash against Matt Gaetz appointment.

Well, the context for this is that when Trump was elected the first time, there was inadequate planning for who would staff his administration. He had put governor Chris Christie of New Jersey in charge of the transition process, who was then fired from that role, and there was really a lot of chaos as to who would fill these particular positions. Many in Trump's world did not expect him to win, and so there wasn't really any planning beyond the election.

Now, there has been much more planning this time. The view is to put in place people who are very closely aligned to the president's worldview, in a way in which I think many Republicans felt they had only done incompletely last time. So Gaetz is an example of Trump putting in place people who he views as loyal to him personally and loyal to his agenda, hence, willing to to pursue what he wants them to do, even if it's in some ways seen as norm breaking or unprecedented.

Most of these appointments have to go through the senate. Now it's clear that he's probably going to find enough Republican Senators for the majority of his appointments. But there are some - Gaetz is clearly one of them - where you can find a small number of Republicans who say this is a step too far, for us.

And, it's not a strong check, but it is a certain check, on the direction of the Trump presidency.

What about foreign policy? How do you see Trump approaching NATO, Ukraine, and the Middle East?

Well, Trump has been more willing than other presidents to question the U.S.'s physical presence and financial investment in the liberal international order. Trump hasn't gone so far as to say he wants to see that broken up—at least his actions as president didn’t indicate that—but he believes countries under the U.S. 's security umbrella in NATO should contribute more to their defense. For example, the prosperity of nations like Japan or Germany today differs significantly from their post-World War II state, and Trump has demanded greater financial contributions from them.

This isn’t entirely new—Barack Obama made similar points. The difference is Trump has been far less subtle and often starts with extreme positions that seem untenable, yet credible enough that others believe he might follow through. For instance, threats of NATO withdrawal in his first term pressured allies into additional commitments, and I expect similar tactics in his second term. While withdrawal wouldn’t be his first choice, he’ll aim for tangible commitments from NATO countries.

In the Middle East, Trump’s extreme rhetoric, like threatening “serious consequences” if hostages aren’t released by inauguration day, creates pressure. Behind the scenes, this may have opened negotiations involving Gaza, Lebanon, and Hamas, possibly pushing Netanyahu toward settlement talks. The Biden administration might even leverage this dynamic to finalise deals now.

In Ukraine, even regardless of what Trump's own personal view would be on this, a Republican Congress is unlikely to approve more substantial aid, limiting his options. I mean, in a sense, it was very remarkable that the Republican House was able to get anything through earlier this year on this.

So, Trump is going to, I think, be, again, someone who goes into those negotiations starting with potentially quite fearsome threats. And then the arrangement that's reached would presumably be more moderated than that.

I guess one of the main topics in this election was immigration and Trump’s approach in dealing with it. So what may this approach look like? And, also, how much political capital is there for Trump if he decides to use aggressive measures?

On immigration, Trump has put hardliners in charge of the policy, signaling his seriousness about making moves that recent presidents have avoided. During the campaign, he referenced the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798. This law gives the president authority to fast-track deportations with minimal judicial review if those being deported are deemed part of an "invading force." It’s up to the president’s judgment to define what constitutes such a force.

Historically, this authority was used in World War I to detain German and Italian citizens and infamously in World War II by Franklin Roosevelt to put Japanese Americans in camps. That period remains a painful and shameful memory in the U.S., actually prompting reparations under Ronald Reagan. Though this power hasn’t been seriously considered in decades—nor during Trump’s first term—he’s now discussing it. This demonstrates a shift in the boundaries of tools his administration is willing to consider.

Such aggressive policies would provoke negative headlines, much like the backlash over family separations at the border during Trump’s first term, which even led to the need for damage control by the First Lady. Yet Trump may welcome the criticism. It bolsters his image among supporters as someone fighting for them. Even if he can’t meet his ambitious deportation goals, the effort alone may insulate him from right-wing criticism while reinforcing his political base.

Lastly, do you think Trump’s brand of politics will permanently reshape the Republican Party? Or will his departure create an incentive for Republicans to return closer to the political center?

Trump’s most lasting achievement may be his transformation of the Republican Party. Eight years ago, the party’s elected officials looked very different. Since then, a dramatic shift has aligned Republican caucuses in the House and Senate more closely with Trump’s worldview. This change came through the replacement of anti-Trump Republicans in primaries and the self-preservation of those who adjusted their positions. However, Trump could only achieve this because the Republican grassroots had already moved to the right, embracing protectionism and rejecting the post-Cold War internationalism that was long championed by party leaders.

Today, both the grassroots and elected officials reflect a more right-populist stance, and this shift seems unlikely to reverse even after Trump. Generational changes in party composition occur, but for now, it’s Trump’s party—both in personality and policy. And in choosing someone like Vance, he's chosen someone who would be willing to take that policy agenda forward.

His influence also extends to the Supreme Court, where he appointed three justices who shifted it further right. With potential retirements among conservative and liberal justices, Trump’s judicial legacy could be solidified for decades.