Last week, Vice President JD Vance was asked at a press conference to define socialism, a fitting question given the Trump administration’s obsession with the word. Vance answered that socialism “is a hard term to define these days,” that “classically, you would think, socialism is about prioritizing workers,” and that “what it actually means in the American context is that you want to replace American workers with foreign workers, and you want boys to play in girls’ sports.”
At that same press conference, Vance announced that the administration was barring Microsoft and other companies from sponsoring foreign workers for green cards, alleging fraud. Vance said the move was about “prioritizing American workers over foreign workers.”
The vice president’s “definition” of socialism drew criticism. Some critics have pointed out that Vance’s own policies often overlap with socialism, suggesting that he defines the term by what he personally finds objectionable. The overlap between Vance’s nationalism and socialism is real. They are rival versions of the same core premise: that the group supersedes the individual. Vance can’t define socialism because he can’t name its core premise without condemning his own.
Many have noted that the Trump administration is pursuing socialistic policies. One example is the federal government acquiring stakes in private companies, a practice that predates Trump but is now expanding. When the federal government moved to acquire a stake in Intel, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, asked, “If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, a self-described democratic socialist, approved of Trump’s move — it was his idea in the first place.
A recent Cato Institute report documents the federal government’s entanglement with private companies, noting that “the left and the right increasingly agree that the government should embrace stronger economic intervention and industrial policy.”
The proposed “Trump dividend” is another example: the President has promised every American adult a $5,000 check if Republicans win the midterms. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, said the proposal amounts to “flirting with socialism.” Former Rep. Bob Good, R-Virginia, called the move a “socialist vote-buying scheme.” Both were likely referring to two familiar socialist policies: wealth redistribution and money-printing.
These criticisms are valid, and identify obvious overlaps. But they stop at the level of policy, as if the administration had simply borrowed a few bad ideas from the left. The convergence is deeper: it’s the very premise behind the policies.
Consider Vance’s own announcement, and this administration’s position on immigration more broadly. He is barring some tech companies from sponsoring foreign workers for alleged fraud. Elsewhere, he pushes policies to reduce the number of foreign workers altogether. Reason’s Billy Binion asks: “Which is closer to the concept of ‘socialism’: when the free market decides whom companies can employ? Or when the government does?”
These restrictions override individual employers’ judgment and choices in the name of protecting “American workers” as a group. But nobody, not even native-born Americans, has a right to be hired by any particular company. Government should protect individual rights, including Americans’ freedom to hire and trade, rather than override those rights to shield “American workers” from competition. Fraud allegations do not establish by themselves that the underlying restrictions were legitimate.
Whether socialist or nationalist, collectivism subordinates individual judgment and choice to whatever nebulous collective the government chooses to favor, in this case, “American workers” — regardless of the deleterious consequences it has on individual freedoms.
Trump’s tariffs, which Vance has defended, also put this premise into practice. In 2024, Vance argued that “anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages.” The consumer’s loss is written off as the price of an alleged gain for the “American worker.” But tariffs raise prices and often force American businesses to act against their own interests. The thesis was transparent last year when Trump, admitting that his tariffs raise prices for consumers, said that American kids might “have two dolls instead of 30 dolls.”
If Vance identified the essence of socialism, he would have to condemn both his own policies and the worldview that subjugates individuals to his nationalist agenda.
You can’t defeat socialism with an alternative form of collectivism, only with its opposite: the principle that the individual is not a means to any group’s end. That means protecting each person’s right to trade, hire, and associate with whomever they choose, and to live by their own judgment so long as they respect others’ rights. This is America’s founding premise, and we should embrace it instead of Vance’s or anyone else’s rehashed versions of the very premise it stands against.
Agustina Vergara Cid is a columnist for the Southern California News Group