One fascinating espionage technique during the Cold War was the “sleeper mole.” These were Soviet agents who operated inconspicuously in the West for years—sometimes even decades—awaiting activation. To avoid being recognized as communists, these moles had to cultivate the opposite image. In the eyes of Soviet strategists, the perfect cover? An extreme capitalist: someone who lines his house with gold, plasters his name in gold letters on buildings, and constantly boasts about wealth and success.
Of course, it would be absurd to seriously consider Donald Trump a Russian mole. Still, his economic policies do raise questions about his supposed commitment to free-market capitalism. Trump is adored by his supporters as a champion of market freedom, but his recent policy proposals suggest a different economic vision.
Last week, he proposed increasing taxes for the ultra-wealthy—those earning more than 2.5 million dollar a year—to nearly 40 percent. Previously, Trump had also indicated he was open to ending the preferential tax treatment of “carried interest” and raising the “SALT cap,” allowing homeowners to deduct up to 30,000 dollar in state and local taxes from their federal returns. This would amount to a significant tax break for affluent American neighborhoods, but it deviates from traditional Republican policy.
The red flag in Mar-a-Lago
For many Americans, the word “socialist” is a political slur. Reality, however, is more nuanced. Socialism, in its various forms, encompasses more than just high taxes or an expansive welfare state. In some interpretations of socialist theory, the goal is a society with centralized economic planning—where market mechanisms, profit motives, and private capital eventually play no role. That’s called communism.
Vladimir Lenin once described his ideal society as “one big factory”—a centrally planned economy where production decisions are made by the state rather than the market. Remarkably, Trump’s recent rhetoric on economic policy echoes this centralist vision. He literally said:
“I meet with the companies, and then I determine a fair price—what I consider a fair price—and they can pay that, or they don’t have to. They don’t have to do business with the United States, but I set a tariff for countries… At some point in the not-too-distant future, I’ll set a fair price of tariffs for different countries… I am this giant store. It’s a giant, beautiful store, and everyone wants to shop there. And on behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set the prices, and I’ll say: if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.”
This isn’t capitalism. This isn’t a free market. This is a centrally planned economy with an autocrat at the helm. Instead of allowing market forces to determine what a “fair price” is, Trump envisions himself as the central decider.
In that regard, Trump finds himself aligned with Bernie Sanders, as both men believe American children have too many toys, too many school supplies, or too many choices in deodorant. That’s not capitalist criticism. That’s central planning at its finest: “people have too much choice” is an argument only a central planner would make.
Nationalism and socialism are the same
On an economic level, there are many similarities between nationalism and socialism. Nationalized industries are socialized industries, socialized industries are nationalized industries, nationalized healthcare is socialized healthcare, and so on.
At least the old communists in Moscow had the humility to assume that a committee of experts was needed to manage the economy using “scientific” principles—or at least they pretended to. Trump, on the other hand, claims to know everything himself. His statements about tariffs and trade policy suggest a belief in the ability of a single central authority—in this case, himself—to make complex economic decisions that are typically left to the market.
What’s striking is that Trump’s economic vision, in some ways, has more in common with Bernie Sanders—though from a different side of the political spectrum—than with traditional Republican economic thinkers. Both men make grand promises without clearly explaining how they will be funded. In Trump’s case, he promises substantial tax cuts for the middle class while simultaneously proposing massive government spending, with no clear plan to address the resulting budget deficit.
Historically, economies that have relied too heavily on centralized decision-making have struggled to effectively manage the complexity of modern markets. Price signals get distorted, innovation is stifled, and the system’s responsiveness declines. The challenge for any policymaker—including Trump—is to strike a balance between legitimate national interests and the dynamics of a functioning market economy.
Han Dieperink is Chief Investment Officer at Auréus Vermogensbeheer. He previously served as Chief Investment Officer at Rabobank and Schretlen & Co.