Last updated 1 week ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The term “McCarthyism” has become a potent political shorthand in American politics. It evokes a dark chapter in the nation’s history, synonymous with making public accusations of disloyalty and subversion with little to no evidence, often as a means to suppress political opposition.
In recent years, this term has been invoked to describe the pressures exerted by the Trump administration on media outlets, universities, and liberal groups.
This analysis seeks to provide an evidence-based examination of this comparison, first establishing a clear understanding of the McCarthy era as a historical benchmark, then documenting the actions of the Trump administration, and finally analyzing the parallels and crucial distinctions between the two periods.
Understanding the McCarthy Era (1947-1957)
To assess the validity of modern comparisons, it’s essential to understand McCarthyism not merely as the actions of one man, but as a broader political and social phenomenon rooted in a specific and anxious historical context.
The Second Red Scare: A Climate of Fear
The anti-communist crusade of the 1950s did not emerge from a vacuum. It was fueled by the potent anxieties of the post-World War II era, a period known as the Second Red Scare. The breakdown of the US-Soviet wartime alliance, the Soviet Union’s successful test of a nuclear bomb in 1949, high-profile espionage cases, and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 all contributed to a pervasive national fear of communist infiltration and an “enemy within.”
This climate of fear created fertile ground for political repression long before Senator Joseph McCarthy became its public face. The machinery of this repression was institutionalized by President Harry S. Truman. In response to right-wing pressure, Truman signed Executive Order 9835 in 1947, establishing a loyalty program for all federal civil-service employees.
The order mandated screening for “membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association” with any organization deemed “totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive.” This program, which predated McCarthy’s rise by three years, created the framework for a government-sanctioned hunt for disloyalty.
The phenomenon was so deeply embedded in the federal apparatus, particularly the FBI under Director J. Edgar Hoover, that historian Ellen Schrecker has argued the era is more accurately named “Hooverism.” McCarthy was not the sole architect of the crusade that bears his name; he was the most visible and reckless practitioner who exploited a pre-existing, institutionalized system of political repression.
The Playbook of Persecution
The enforcement of political conformity during this era relied on a set of powerful and destructive tactics, wielded by institutions like the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and, most notoriously, McCarthy’s own Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Public Accusations
The signature tactic was the use of unsubstantiated public accusations to generate media attention and political power. The most famous example occurred in February 1950, when Senator McCarthy delivered a speech claiming to possess a list of known members of the Communist Party working in the State Department. The charge was explosive and, despite a lack of evidence, catapulted him to national fame.
Blacklisting
Beyond formal government action, a pervasive system of informal blacklisting emerged, with devastating consequences. In the entertainment industry, the “Hollywood blacklist” destroyed the careers of over 300 actors, writers, and directors based on mere suspicion of communist sympathies, often without any chance for them to defend themselves. This extra-judicial punishment was a powerful tool for enforcing ideological conformity.
Loyalty Oaths
The federal loyalty program inspired a wave of similar requirements at the state and local levels, as well as in the private sector. Loyalty oaths became a common tool to compel allegiance and root out dissenters among teachers, public employees, and others.
The Targets and Consequences
The primary targets of this persecution were government employees, academics, labor union activists, and prominent figures in the entertainment industry. The human cost was immense. Thousands of Americans faced FBI investigations, loyalty tests, and congressional hearings.
The consequences ranged from imprisonment and deportation to, most commonly, the loss of employment and the complete destruction of careers and livelihoods. The climate of fear created a profound “chilling effect” on free expression and dissent.
So pervasive was this atmosphere that the American Library Association adopted its “Library Bill of Rights” in 1953 as a direct response to the pressures of McCarthyism to censor books and ideas.
The Collapse of a Crusade
McCarthy’s influence began to wane as his accusations grew more reckless. The turning point came in 1954 with the nationally televised Army-McCarthy hearings. During these hearings, McCarthy accused a young lawyer in the firm of Army counsel Joseph Welch of having ties to a communist organization.
Welch’s famous rebuke—“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”—exposed McCarthy’s cruelty to a national audience and marked the beginning of his downfall.
The final blows to the era’s legal underpinnings came from the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. In its 1957 decision in Yates v. United States, the Court ruled that the government must prove that a defendant took concrete steps toward the forcible overthrow of the government; merely advocating it in theory was not sufficient.
This decision effectively ended the Smith Act prosecutions that had been a key legal tool of the era and helped restore vital civil liberties.
The Trump Administration Pressure Campaign
The Trump administration has engaged in a multi-front pressure campaign against institutions it perceives as adversarial. This campaign is characterized by the systematic use of the executive branch’s vast powers, representing a strategic, top-down effort to enforce political loyalty.
“The Enemy of the People”: War on Media
The administration has conducted a sustained rhetorical and institutional assault on the press, aiming to undermine the credibility of independent journalism.
Rhetorical Attacks
The most visible tactic has been the relentless use of denigrating language. President Trump has repeatedly labeled news organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the people,” while describing journalists as “dishonest,” “corrupt,” “human scum,” and “some of the worst human beings you’ll ever meet.”
These attacks were disseminated through hundreds of tweets and public statements, often targeting specific outlets like The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post.
Restricting Access and Pressure
The rhetoric has been matched by concrete actions. The administration has revoked White House press credentials, denied Pentagon office space to outlets that published unfavorable coverage, and banned reporters from pooled press events.
Federal agencies have been used to apply pressure. The FCC revived previously dismissed complaints against broadcasters and demanded interview footage from CBS’s 60 Minutes at a time when its parent company’s merger required FCC approval.
Legal and Financial Coercion
The administration has also employed legal and financial leverage. This includes filing multi-billion dollar lawsuits against news organizations like The Wall Street Journal.
Corporate influence has also been a factor. After a Trump ally gained control of Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, a conservative think tank head with no journalism background was installed as the network’s ombudsman.
This climate has had tangible consequences for journalists. Figures like Karen Attiah of The Washington Post and Matthew Dowd of MSNBC have been fired for commentary critical of right-wing figures, creating a chilling effect within newsrooms.
Contradictory Policy
In a move that stands in stark contrast to these actions, the administration issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, titled “Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship.” The order claims the previous administration “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech” and pledges to ensure no taxpayer resources are used to “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”
Federal Coercion in Higher Education
Universities have become a key battleground, with the administration using the full financial and regulatory power of the executive branch to pressure academic institutions.
Funding as a Weapon
The administration has repeatedly used federal funding as a tool of coercion. It froze billions of dollars in research funding for major universities, including Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, to compel compliance with demands on issues ranging from campus protests to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Several universities, including Columbia and Brown, ultimately agreed to settlements that involved financial payments or policy changes to have their funding restored.
Harvard chose to sue, with a federal judge initially ruling the freeze unconstitutional, though the administration has vowed to appeal.
Investigations as Leverage
Federal investigations have been launched as another form of pressure. A sweeping probe into “alleged incidents of antisemitism” at the University of California, Berkeley, resulted in the university providing the names of 160 faculty members, students, and staff to the administration.
Critics argue these investigations use antisemitism as a pretext to target dissent, particularly pro-Palestinian activism on campus.
Reshaping Curriculum and Culture
The administration has pursued a broader cultural agenda through executive actions. This includes directives aimed at eliminating DEI programs, rolling back civil rights protections in education, and attempting to reshape historical narratives.
An executive order directed the Interior Department to remove exhibits from national parks and museums that reflect “any ‘corrosive ideology’ that disparages America and its heroes,” specifically targeting what the president called an overemphasis on “how bad slavery was.”
Chilling Student Protest
The administration has also taken steps to quell student activism. Students at several Washington, D.C. universities have protested what they describe as a “law enforcement takeover,” alleging that their administrators are capitulating to administration demands to clamp down on protests in order to preserve federal funding.
Targeting the “Radical Left”: Weaponizing Government
A central theme of the administration has been a campaign of “retribution” against a wide array of perceived political enemies, using the full power of the administrative state. This coordinated, multi-agency effort is not the work of a single rogue actor but a centrally directed strategy based on an expansive view of presidential power, aimed at dismantling the operational capacity of opposition institutions.
Targeting Liberal Nonprofits
Following the killing of a conservative commentator, administration officials vowed to investigate and “destroy” progressive groups like the Open Society Foundations and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which they claimed, without evidence, promote violence.
Actions under consideration include reviewing the tax-exempt status of these organizations, a move that threatens their financial viability and operational freedom.
Weaponizing the Department of Justice
The administration has moved to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence. It has launched investigations into political opponents, including the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue, and targeted individuals and law firms involved in challenging the 2020 election or protecting voting rights.
Attacking the Legal Profession
In an unprecedented move, the president issued executive orders revoking the federal security clearances of law firms and prohibiting federal contracts with them, citing their work representing opponents of the administration or their internal diversity initiatives.
This has been described by legal experts as an attempt to intimidate the legal profession and make it harder for administration opponents to find representation.
Expanding Surveillance
The administration has sought to compile a master list of data on every American by merging data across federal agencies and has demanded access to sensitive state voter rolls.
Critics describe these actions as a dangerous expansion of surveillance power and an attempt to monitor ideological opponents.
Rhetoric of Violence
The campaign has been accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric, such as the president’s statement that “we just have to beat the hell” out of “radical left lunatics,” which critics argue creates a permissive environment for hostility and violence against political opponents.
Comparing Two Eras of Political Pressure
Synthesizing the historical record of the McCarthy era with the documented actions of the Trump administration reveals both striking echoes and profound differences. The comparison is useful for identifying shared demagogic tactics but may also obscure the more novel aspects of the modern pressure campaign.
At a Glance: McCarthyism vs. the Trump Era
| Feature | McCarthy Era (1947-1957) | Trump Era (2017-Present) |
|---|---|---|
| Key Leader & Position | U.S. Senator (Joseph McCarthy) | President of the United States (Donald Trump) |
| Primary “Enemy” | Communists and perceived sympathizers (“Reds”) | A diffuse coalition of “the radical left,” “fake news,” “the deep state,” and “woke” institutions |
| Key Tactics | Unsubstantiated public accusations, blacklisting, legislative hearings (HUAC), loyalty oaths | Executive orders, weaponization of federal agencies (DOJ, FCC, IRS), funding freezes, lawsuits, social media attacks |
| Primary Targets | Government employees, entertainers, academics, union leaders | Journalists, universities, liberal nonprofits, law firms, political opponents, civil servants |
| Media Relationship | Exploited “objective” reporting norms to spread accusations; later challenged by journalists like Murrow | Declared media “the enemy of the people”; bypassed traditional media via social media; cultivated friendly media outlets |
| Legal/Gov’t Tools | Smith Act, McCarran Internal Security Act, Congressional subcommittees | Unitary executive theory, executive orders, control of federal departments and regulatory bodies |
| Historical Context | Start of the Cold War; fear of foreign infiltration and espionage | Heightened political polarization; populist backlash against perceived cultural and political elites |
The Echoes: Why the Comparison Resonates
The Demagogue’s Toolkit
The most compelling parallels lie in the shared populist style. Both McCarthy and Trump rose to national prominence by stoking fears of an “enemy within,” demonizing their opponents, and presenting themselves as the sole defenders of the American way of life.
Their rhetoric oversimplifies complex problems and is animated by a powerful sense of grievance against perceived elites, whether it was McCarthy’s attacks on “the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths” or Trump’s railing against a “global power structure.”
The Cohn Connection
There is a direct tactical and philosophical bridge between the two eras in the person of Roy Cohn. As chief counsel to McCarthy, Cohn perfected the art of the baseless accusation and public humiliation. He later became a lawyer, mentor, and friend to a young Donald Trump, counseling him on how to intimidate and pressure political figures.
Cohn represents a continuity of a particular political style based on relentless attack and a disregard for evidence.
Cultivating a Climate of Fear
Both periods are marked by the creation of a “chilling effect” that stifles dissent. Just as McCarthyism led individuals to self-censor for fear of being blacklisted, the Trump administration’s actions have created an environment of intimidation.
Reports indicate that liberal donors have slowed their charitable giving out of fear of IRS investigations, law firms have become hesitant to represent administration opponents, and journalists have faced firings for their commentary.
The Divergences: Why History Is Not Repeating
Despite the similarities in style, the differences in substance, scale, and context are profound.
The Apex of Power
This is the most critical distinction. Joseph McCarthy was an influential U.S. Senator who wielded the power of a single legislative committee. Donald Trump commands the full power of the Presidency, allowing him to direct the entire executive branch—including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the FCC, and the IRS—as instruments in his political campaign.
This represents a fundamental difference in the scale and nature of the power being applied.
Purging Individuals vs. Restructuring Institutions
This divergence has led historian Ellen Schrecker to argue that the current era is “worse than McCarthyism.” McCarthyism, while devastating, primarily attacked individuals for their alleged political activities and associations.
The Trump administration’s campaign, in contrast, attacks the core functions and very existence of institutions. It targets university funding, curriculum, and admissions; seeks to dismantle and defund nonprofit organizations; and attempts to delegitimize the entire news media as an institution.
This represents a shift from persecuting dissenters to attempting to cripple the infrastructure of civil society itself.
The Modern Information Ecosystem
The media landscape has been completely transformed. McCarthy exploited the norms of a centralized, “objective” press to amplify his unproven claims; journalists reported what the senator said, and his fame grew.
Trump, by contrast, operates in a fragmented and polarized media environment. He can bypass traditional gatekeepers entirely through social media and rely on a friendly partisan media ecosystem to validate his narrative, all while branding any critical journalism as “fake news.”
Persistence and Ideology
The passions McCarthy aroused were intense but relatively short-lived. His movement faded once his methods were exposed to the public and he was censured by his Senate colleagues.
Analysts suggest the movement behind Trump may be more durable, as it is rooted in a broader and deeper set of cultural grievances, including racism, sexism, and nativism, that could outlast his political career. Moreover, where McCarthy’s was a “hit-and-run” approach to persecution, Trump is described as being obsessed with revenge, never forgetting an enemy or a slight.
A New Kind of Challenge
While the tactics of stoking fear and demonizing opponents are a clear echo of the past, the fusion of this demagoguery with the centralized power of the modern presidency presents a historically distinct challenge.
McCarthy was a symptom of a widespread panic that was eventually contained by other American institutions like the Senate, the courts, and the press. The modern pressure campaign features an executive branch actively seeking to subvert, delegitimize, and control those very institutions.
The traditional checks and balances that contained the excesses of the past are now the primary targets of the campaign itself, suggesting that the “off-ramps” that ended the McCarthy era may no longer be as readily available.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
