Författare: Thomas Gift Associate Professor and Director of the Centre o

The angry debate over US visas and foreign workers that erupted over the holidays has exposed splits within Donald Trump’s Maga supporters on immigration policy.

The fiery words exchanged between two Trump factions over H-1B visas, which allow immigrants to work in the US based on speciality talents or skills, may just be the opening salvos of a broader war for influence at Trump’s base in Mar-a-Lago.

On the one hand, tech mogul, immigrant, and Trump’s (for now) right-hand man Elon Musk declared his strong support for easing restrictions on these visas, pledging that he’d be willing “go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend”.

On the other hand, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon pilloried the H-1B visa programme as “a total and complete scam from its top to the bottom”.

The controversy isn’t just an ideological clash between right-wing nativists, who view immigrants as threats to US jobs and culture, and big tech titans eager to expand their access to global talent. Instead, it’s a fight for power over the future direction of Trumpism.

“The coalition of the tech right and the nationalist right was bound to be tested,” said writer Ali Breland. The test, it seems, has come even before Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

Maga splits

Just like Democrats are dealing with their own fissures between progressives and moderates following the 2024 election, Maga is trying to settle its civil war over Trump’s signature issue, immigration.

Silicon Valley, as represented by Musk, has made its position clear. It wants to increase the number of skilled-worker visas to bring more tech talent to America’s shores. The policy isn’t new. In 2012, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised to “staple a green card to the diploma of someone who gets an advanced degree in America”.

Splits over skilled worker visas.

Yet the very fact that expanding H-1Bs is the “establishment” stance is what has other Maga-ites steaming. Romney isn’t exactly the posterboy for the Trumpist revolution. Moreover, in his first administration, Trump himself pushed for restricting H-1B visas, a position he now seems to have revised.

In 2016, Trump railed against H-1B workers who he claimed “substitut[ed] for American workers at lower pay”. He has now said: “We need smart people coming into our country. We need a lot of people coming in. We’re going to have jobs like we’ve never had before.”

That Trump’s recent statements sound a lot like they were coming from Musk is sparking worries among Trump nationalists that Maga’s immigration policy is being redefined. For those who believe Musk is influence-peddling for what’s best for his corporate bottom line, his proposal on immigration is exhibit A.

The increasing marginalisation of “America first” nativists, and the elevation of Musk, suggests a departure from policies championed during Trump’s first term. Whether that shift extends beyond immigration is worrying plenty of figures accustomed to wielding power in Trump’s base in Mar-a-Lago.

For the hard right, the concern goes beyond Musk, who’s hunkered himself down in a US$2,000 (£1,622) per night room at Trump’s Florida estate. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Apple’s Tim Cook have both visited Trump since November’s election, and are jockeying for position as Trump builds out his cabinet and priorities for this first 100 days in office.

Meta is even changing personnel to align with the new Trump White House. The company recently announced that it would be replacing its head of global policy, Nick Clegg, former deputy prime minister of the UK and former leader of the left-leaning Liberal Democratic party, with Joel Kaplan, who has his roots in the George W. Bush administration.

Tech titans v nationalists

Silicon Valley and Trump anti-immigration nationalists were never natural allies, and any short-lived coalition was already shows signs of fracturing. Yet it’s not inevitable that Musk and the big tech leaders who currently have Trump’s ear, will retain that clout once his presidency starts – or ends.

As many experts have noted, Trump is more transactional than ideological, and is prone to making decisions based more on polls than a firmly grounded set of first principles. The much-discussed “bromance” between Trump and Musk could rupture over personality or policy differences.

On immigration, Trump might seek a compromise between Maga nationalists and big tech chief executives. Reviving the US-Mexico border wall could appease Maga nationalists who want tighter immigration enforcement. At the same time, expanding immigration pathways for foreign workers with degrees from the likes of California Institute of Technology and MIT could also help court big tech leaders.

The real flashpoint, however, may arise over Trump’s broader, populist approach to resisting hyper-globalisation, of which immigration is merely one part of a larger agenda.

Many within the Maga nationalist right are deeply sceptical of unbridled global capitalism, which is most clearly reflected in Trump’s calls for imposing 10-20% tariffs on US imports and 60% tariffs on imports from China. If there’s one policy that could reduce profits, and hence awake the sleeping giants of Palo Alto, it’s walling off the US economy from the rest of the world.

Keeping visa numbers at status quo levels is one thing. Upsetting international supply chains, particularly to Asia, is another.

The debate over H-1B visas, significant as it may now seem, could ultimately pale in comparison to a broader reckoning about whether the US will retreat further into economic protectionism. If Musk will “go to war” over skilled-worker visas, just think what the big tech titans will do when the stakes are even higher. Läs mer…

Kash Patel, Donald Trump’s nominee to direct the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), once declared that his first act in power would be to “shut down the FBI Hoover building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the deep state”.

Trump appears to agree with the sentiment, but not the solution: why shut the FBI down when you can use it to harass your political enemies?

Trump plans to install Patel as FBI director to replace Christopher Wray, whom he appointed in 2017 after dismissing his predecessor, James Comey. Patel made a name for himself in Trump’s first term as deputy assistant to the president, senior director for counter-terrorism at the National Security Council and deputy acting director of national intelligence. Yet according to critics, his primary credential to lead the FBI is simple: he’s a devoted Trump loyalist.

Wray is in the seventh year of a ten-year term, an unusually long tenure designed, not unironically, to insulate FBI directors from political pressure. That means either Wray will need to resign or a showdown will ensue, with Trump ousting the current director to replace him with Patel. It’s hard to know which Trump would relish more.

What’s Trump got against the FBI?

Trump’s grudge against the FBI began with its investigation into alleged collusion between his 2016 campaign and Russia. It deepened with the bureau’s probe into Trump’s role in to the January 6 attack on the US Capitol and escalated further with the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate, to investigate his alleged mishandling of classified documents.

Most recently, Trump advocates have attacked Wray for questioning whether it was a bullet or shrapnel that hit Trump during his first assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania. The FBI later clarified that it was a bullet. Trump’s grudging acceptance of the acknowledgement suggests that it did little to earn his favour.

Patel not only lacks the typical credentials of an FBI director, but even within Trump’s orbit, many have have voiced doubts about his suitability. Patel’s former supervisor (and deputy national security advisor) Charles Kupperman called Patel “untrustworthy” and “absolutely unqualified”. When Trump considered Patel as FBI director during his first term, then Attorney General Bill Barr said it would happen “over my dead body”.

Patel meets with senators to discuss his nomination.

But Patel’s résumé perfectly aligns with the type of people Trump seeks to surround himself in his second term: loyalists turned political executioners. Patel speaks breathlessly about the need to target members of the media, who Trump calls the “enemy of the people,” and government officials, who he perceives as being part of the Trump resistance.

In 2023 Patel published a book titled Government Gangsters. In it, he listed specific names of “deep state” members who he thought Trump should go after. On a podcast with former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, Patel said that high-ranking officials who weren’t subordinate to Trump, including Attorney General Merrick Garland, should have to pay a price or face jail time.

Concerning Trump’s adversaries, Patel has insisted: “We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly – we’ll figure that out.”

Some within the current White House believe that, as FBI director, Patel could lead a witch hunt into Joe Biden’s family, close allies and associates. It’s one justification for why Biden pardoned his son Hunter, and why others in Biden’s inner circle are encouraging him to preemptively pardon Democrats who could face Patel’s wrath.

Despite concerns, Trump’s soon-to-be vice president J.D. Vance has said that Patel is in a “very good spot” for confirmation by the Senate, which requires a simple majority. Compared to other nominees like Pete Hegseth who is currently facing the political test of his life to become secretary of defense, Patel may be in for a less rocky confirmation than some expect.

If confirmed, Patel will enter the FBI’s Washington headquarters at a time when faith in the bureau is sinking, thanks in no small part to Trump’s relentless attacks on it. According to Gallup polling, the proportion of Americans who think that the FBI is doing an “excellent” or “good” job has dropped from 59% in 2014 to 41% today – the lowest percentage this century. It’s also down to 26% among Republicans.

Trump wants Patel to clean house and wants a FBI director whose thinking is in line with the White House. But for now, much of the Maga movement sees the FBI as reflecting the kind of “deep state” insidiousness that Trump promises to cure.

That attitude shows just how far the left and right have swapped opinions toward some of America’s most powerful institutions such as the FBI. Republicans now vow to purge Washington institutions that progressives once criticised, while Democrats defend institutions that conservatives once championed.

Under Patel, expect the J. Edgar Hoover building to be writing history, not encasing it. Apparently, the last thing Washington needs is another museum. Läs mer…