Why MAGA Must Reject Socialist Populism

Original article here

President Donald Trump once again proved himself a disruptor of the status quo at Davos last week.

From pressing for the ability to gain Greenland to threatening tariffs on countries that are embracing China, the president shows he will take on any interest to make America stronger, safer, and more affordable. But as Trump’s second term reshapes the Republican Party’s approach to corporate power, a more insidious threat has emerged: progressive activists posing as populist allies. They may seem like allies in their criticism of corporate misdeeds and bloated power, yet they pursue goals fundamentally opposed to conservatism.

Would a conservative legislator proudly tout an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America? Of course not. Yet that is effectively what is happening when policymakers echo the talking points of progressive activist groups whose economic worldview is openly hostile to markets, investment, and growth.

The American Economic Liberties Project, an advocacy outfit dedicated to implementing the economic agenda of the Biden administration, is seen by some on the Right as a populist ally. It’s far from that.

President Donald Trump has rightly criticized corporate failures, as Americans are rightly frustrated by high utility costs, housing unaffordability, and market concentration in major industries. But there is a vast difference between wanting competitive markets and embracing a philosophy that treats private enterprise as the enemy and government as the savior.

Progressives love to accuse conservatives of trying to “turn back the clock,” which, ironically, is the seeming purpose of AELP. They want to upset a bipartisan, generational consensus on economic policy and the law to return to the faulty thinking of the 1920s. The group is a vehicle of progressive economics and anti-capitalist ideology, pushing policies that are responsible for the high cost of living millions of Americans are suffering from.

AELP doesn’t merely advocate “economic liberty” in the traditional sense of free markets; it advocates for heavy-handed government intervention cloaked in the language of antitrust and corporate accountability.

Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) was one of the most radical members of Congress, so much so that she was voted out of office in a Democratic primary in 2024. That didn’t stop the group from giving her the keynote address at a panel that included advocates for a government takeover of our healthcare system.

AELP proudly pushes socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) attacks on our healthcare system. Unlike Republicans who criticize health insurance companies for stifling competition, pushing crony capitalism, and raising prices on seniors and consumers, Ocasio-Cortez’s attacks are designed to eliminate private health care in the country.

Any conservative, even populists skeptical of corporate power, should be able to see that this isn’t about protecting consumers or workers; it’s about destroying the free market that creates jobs, innovation, and prosperity in the first place. AELP is not “populism” in the rugged, conservative tradition of defending the individual against the state; it is statism dressed up in anti-business rhetoric.

Sarah Miller, the founder of the organization who sat on Biden’s transition team and now sits on the AELP Board of Directors, promotes X posts accusing Trump’s Department of Homeland Security of “killing Americans with impunity.”

Why should all of this matter to conservatives? Because Republican leaders have too often cited AELP as an endorsement of their legislative efforts.

In mid-2025, Senator Marsha Blackburn’s press release on the Open App Markets Act included AELP among the endorsing groups. A conservative member of the House did the same for healthcare actors.

What do conservatives gain by obtaining the endorsement of a group that doesn’t believe in conservative principles?

They should see AELP’s support as not a crutch, but an anvil around their necks.

The leadership and funding behind AELP tell their own story. The organization is led by Sarah Miller, a former Treasury official with ties to the broader left-wing antitrust coalition, and has connections to networks and figures who have championed aggressive government oversight rather than conservative deregulation. That’s not accidental. It’s the ideological DNA of the institution.

Conservatives have every right—and obligation—to push back against concentrated corporate power when it threatens competition or harms consumers. But partnering with groups like AELP blurs important lines. It gives progressive activists cover and co-opts conservative energy on issues that should be framed on a clear philosophical foundation: empower the individual, not the state.

Real conservative populism is rooted in preserving freedom of speech, of enterprise, and of association—while ensuring that government does not become the master instead of the servant. AELP’s approach, by contrast, sees government as the arbiter of fair markets and often elevates regulatory fixes over entrepreneurial resilience or individual choice.

The question for Republican leaders and commentators is simple: why elevate a group whose ultimate goals run counter to the values of limited government and free markets? The answer to that question matters—not just for political optics, but for the future of the conservative economic agenda itself.