From Grassroots to Iron Fist: How Trump’s Populism in America Reversed Its Course

Henry Kamens, New Eastern Outlook, June 24, 2025 —

American populism has evolved from the chaotic grassroots power of “squatter sovereignty” to centralized authoritarianism, where initiatives like “Project 2025” and the “Big Beautiful Bill” are used to expand presidential authority under the banner of the people’s will.

Drawing parallels between the antebellum crisis over slavery and today’s political polarization, the piece shows how the idea of sovereignty—who holds power and who decides the fate of a nation—has been manipulated across centuries. While settlers once invoked democracy to expand into new territories, modern populists invoke the “will of the people” to expand presidential control, override sanctuary laws, and restrict immigration through executive orders.

With echoes of past civil conflicts and growing geopolitical tensions abroad—from Russia to Iran—history is repeating itself. The U.S. may be entering a dangerous phase where executive populism masks authoritarian ambition. As America teeters between local democracy and centralized rule, the question remains: who really speaks for the people—and at what cost?

Power of the Deep State

One should never underestimate the power of the Deep State, its useful idiots, and people in high places. American populism has been flipped in its script and application. In the 19th century, populism meant grassroots power—settlers in new territories asserting “squatter sovereignty” to decide issues like slavery without federal oversight. It was messy, localized, and often violent, but rooted in community-driven self-rule.

Today’s version looks very different, especially in tandem with all what is happening in the Middle East. In terms of US domestic policy, under such initiatives as Project 2025 and the proposed “Big Beautiful Bill,” populism is being used to justify re-centralizing power in the presidency. Backed by conservative think tanks and the MAGA movement, this new model seeks to dismantle federal agencies, strip social safety nets, and reshape governance around executive authority.

Both movements claim to speak for “the people,” but their approaches diverge sharply. One distributed power; the other consolidates it. As the U.S. confronts deep divisions, this shift reveals how populism can either empower communities—or undermine democratic institutions in the name of national unity. So far, it is working, and on the international level as well.

Squatter Sovereignty (1840s–1850s): A doctrine asserting that settlers in U.S. territories could vote on key issues like slavery without federal oversight. Though framed as democratic, it often ed to violence and manipulation, most notoriously in “Bleeding Kansas.”

I recently came across a series of newspaper articles from 1882 to 1883—where Baptist thinkers debated “squatter sovereignty.” Their reflections echo today’s struggles. In my view, the term is misapplied to churches. Originally, squatter sovereignty meant that people in U.S. territories—lacking federal representation but enjoying limited self-rule—could resolve major issues on their own, free from Congressional interference.

But this principle helped fuel the bloodshed in Kansas. Known as the “Free-State doctrine,” it was embraced by settlers’ who were intent on making Kansas a free state, with or without Congress’s approval. It became labeled “popular sovereignty,” and mockingly, “squatter sovereignty.” Meanwhile, a similar sentiment in the South sparked a counter-reaction—thousands crossed into Kansas to impose their will, answering one injustice with another. It gave us John Brown, later famous for the raid on the Federal Arsenal, Harper’s Ferry WV and the firing shots of the American Civil War.

The Modern Age is not the first time!

Fast-forward to today, Squatter Sovereignty, Project 2025, and the “Big Beautiful Bill”: A Historical Comparison of Power, Populism, and Policy in American history, political struggles over who holds legitimate authority—and how that authority is exercised—have often hinged on interpretations of sovereignty.

In the 19th century, the concept of “squatter sovereignty,” also known as popular sovereignty, became a flashpoint in debates over the expansion of slavery into U.S. territories. It gave settlers the right to determine by vote whether slavery would be permitted in new territories, rather than having Congress being the authority to dictate such matters. Now in the 21st century, Project 2025, and the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”, represent contemporary efforts to reassert strong centralized executive power in matters of immigration, administration, and national identity.

It should be noted, that the centralization of power in the executive is nothing new, being a platform of the Republicans at the time Lincoln was elected, and a major contributing factor to the secession of the Southern States, CSA, that triggered the civil war in the United States. Like many things, US politics moves in cycles, and what we often see is old wine in new bottles.

The “Big Beautiful Bill”: Nationalism as Territorial Control

The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” linked to Trump immigration restrictions, especially crackdowns and political motivated decisions, pushes for sweeping executive authority over who belongs in the U.S. Key elements include mass deportations, expanded detention, curtailed asylum access, and attempts to redefine birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Like squatter sovereignty of the 1850s, the bill centers on territorial control—but in reverse. Where squatter sovereignty gave power to settlers to decide the fate of territories, this agenda consolidates power in the executive, overriding local autonomy (e.g., sanctuary cities) in favor of a nationalized definition of belonging.

This shift parallels Project 2025, which aims to centralize federal authority under presidential control. Together, they frame executive power as a vehicle of the popular will—much like squatter sovereignty once did—but now from the top down. Local voices are reduced to legal hurdles or electoral rituals, further weakened by systems like the Electoral College.

Both then and now, “the people” are invoked to justify authority. But while 19th-century sovereignty operated through chaotic grassroots democracy, today’s model enforces unity through centralized executive orders—declaring not just what America is, but who counts as American.

Ugly Balancing Act

As for Democracy, Populism, and the Shape of Power, both the 19th-century squatter sovereignty and modern initiatives like Project 2025 reflect the ongoing American struggle of balancing popular will, territorial control, and federal authority.  However, while squatter sovereignty distributes decision-making to small communities (with mixed and often bloody results), Project 2025 and the Big Beautiful Bill reflect a desire to consolidate power in a single, strong executive figure.

Each movement reflects a different form of populism—one local and grassroots, the other national and centralized. As Americans reconsider the future of their republic in times of polarization, the historical echoes between past and present reveal enduring questions, especially: Who speaks for the people?

Who decides the fate of a place or people?

And how far should sovereignty extend—down to the settler, or up to the state? These shifts underscore enduring American tensions around sovereignty—who holds it, who exercises it, and whether “democracy” means empowering local voices or a central figurehead. These are questions I have no easy answer for, and perhaps it is better to discuss the history roots and evolution of fascism instead, as often the end result is the same.

In our day, however, our mission is to apply the term “squatter sovereignty” within our modern political situation, as a matter of comparison and contrast between the 19th century and the 21st century and explain much of what is happening in terms of political agendas.

What is concerning, was that both these polar opposites have been seen before, right before the American Civil War of the 1860s. Are we seeing a repeat, in the US and with its closest allies? It should not be difficult to link the local to the global, and to see that little of what is transpiring is by happenstance.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, as we see in the western proxy war against Russia, especially now with the unprovoked attacks on Iran, and the threats and saber rattling against China, the West in general, and the US in particular, are incapable of any meaningful reform of their own failing economies. I am reminded of the quote by Tsun Zu, a Chinese military leader and military philosopher, who said, “An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.” In its late-stage of imperialism, the US has become very evil indeed.