Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!
Last Updated on: 8th February 2025, 09:34 pm
As Mark Twain is reported to have said, history doesn’t repeat but it rhymes. Trump 2.0’s actions are very much rhyming, albeit discordantly, and with a dismal period from the past of the United States’ proclaimed great enemy, China. Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, launched in 1966 and lasting until 1976, was a decade-long campaign to reassert communist ideology and eliminate perceived bourgeois influences in China. Millions of intellectuals, scientists, and government officials were purged, often through public humiliation, imprisonment, or execution.
Mass starvation was primarily a feature of the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) rather than the Cultural Revolution. The Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong’s campaign to rapidly industrialize China and collectivize agriculture, led to widespread famine, causing the deaths of an estimated 30 to 45 million people. Policies such as forced collectivization, exaggerated grain production reports, and the diversion of rural labor to steel production contributed to food shortages and starvation.
The Cultural Revolution, while highly disruptive to governance, education, and scientific progress, did not result in famine on the same scale. However, it did lead to economic stagnation, mismanagement, and food shortages in some areas, particularly due to the removal of experienced agricultural planners and administrators in favor of politically loyal but inexperienced revolutionaries. Political purges and mass displacement affected rural production, but there was no famine comparable to the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward.
The USA’s current administration appears to have learned nothing actually useful from history, either that of the United States or that of other countries. Its tariffs, for example, ignore the lessons from the Smoot-Hawley Act. It was signed into law in 1930, sharply raising U.S. tariffs on hundreds of imported goods in an effort to protect American industries during the Great Depression. Instead of fostering economic recovery, the act triggered a wave of retaliatory tariffs from other nations, leading to a collapse in global trade. U.S. exports plummeted, worsening the economic downturn and deepening unemployment. The legislation is widely regarded as a policy failure that exacerbated the Depression and contributed to rising economic nationalism worldwide. It was eventually undone by trade liberalization measures in the following decades, including the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.
But the theme of this analysis: the eerie parallels between the USA’s current paroxysms and those of the Cultural Revolution. Let’s step through this, note by note.
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao led a sweeping purge of academics, scientists, and government officials deemed politically unreliable or too closely aligned with Western or bourgeois influences, replacing them with ideologically driven loyalists. In a modern parallel, the Trump administration has dismissed climate scientists, environmental regulators, and inspectors general, often replacing them with loyalists who reject mainstream scientific consensus. While the scale and methods differ, both efforts reflect a broader pattern of sidelining expertise in favor of ideological conformity, with lasting consequences for policy and institutional stability.
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao dismantled universities, sidelined scientists, and replaced experts with ideologically driven revolutionaries, bringing research and innovation to a standstill. In a modern parallel, the Trump administration has aggressively cut funding for climate science and removed references to climate change from government materials, weakening institutional knowledge and disrupting policy-making. While differing in scope and execution, both efforts reflect a broader pattern of prioritizing political loyalty over expertise, with long-term consequences for scientific progress and governance.
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s government rejected established scientific knowledge in favor of ideological doctrine, sidelining experts and replacing them with politically loyal revolutionaries. Policies were driven by ideology rather than evidence. In a modern parallel, the Trump administration has dismissed scientific advisors, and appointed officials skeptical of established research, including placing prominent vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The administration’s embrace of anti-vaccine rhetoric and its weakening of regulatory agencies reflect a broader pattern of prioritizing political ideology over scientific expertise, echoing past efforts to reshape governance at the expense of evidence-based policy.
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao shut down universities and dismantled academic institutions, arguing that they were breeding grounds for elitism and counter-revolutionary thought. Education was replaced with ideological indoctrination, and intellectuals were sent to the countryside for reeducation, leading to a lost generation of scientists, engineers, and academics. In a modern parallel, the Trump administration’s proposal to dismantle the Department of Education reflects a similar hostility toward established educational structures, casting universities as centers of liberal indoctrination. While not yet an outright closure of institutions, stripping federal oversight and slashing research funding threatens to weaken universities, limit access to higher education, and erode academic independence—echoing Mao’s assault on intellectualism in pursuit of ideological conformity.
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s government dismantled institutions in favor of ideological conformity, replacing scientific research with political dogma and disrupting governance on a massive scale. In a modern parallel, Elon Musk, appointed by President Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has implemented rapid and aggressive strategies to reform federal agencies. His approach has led to unauthorized access to sensitive government financial systems, the shutdown of an independent federal agency, and significant intrusions into other government operations, resulting in lawsuits, public protests, and internal resistance.
Musk’s reliance on a young, fiercely loyal team, many with little experience in governance, mirrors Mao’s use of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution—enthusiastic but often reckless enforcers of ideological purity. Just as the Red Guards targeted experts and officials deemed counter-revolutionary, Musk’s inner circle has sidelined veteran executives in favor of aggressive disruption. The recent firing of a team member over vile social media comments underscores the dangers of unchecked youthful zeal in positions of power, where ideological fervor can quickly spiral into chaos. [Editor’s note: That person has been re-hired, following a Twitter/X poll. —Zach Shahan]
The Trump administration’s decision to remove references to “transgender” and list only “LBG” instead of “LGBT” on official government websites echoes broader efforts to erase certain identities from public discourse, much like restrictions on language during China’s Cultural Revolution. Just as Mao’s government banned certain terms and rewrote ideological doctrine to align with party orthodoxy, the administration’s moves to eliminate references to transgender identities parallel past attempts to control social narratives by limiting language itself. Similarly, Trump’s ban on pronouns in workplace communications reflects an effort to reshape discourse through linguistic control, drawing from the same playbook of enforcing ideological conformity by restricting how people are allowed to describe themselves and others.
In the U.S., the mass release and pardoning of January 6th rioters, many of whom already view themselves as foot soldiers in a political struggle, has emboldened a militant grassroots movement loyal to Trump. These individuals, already willing to challenge government institutions, could act as a decentralized force of intimidation and political enforcement, much like the Red Guards did. If they receive further encouragement, whether in the form of direct calls to action or through the dismantling of legal constraints, they could function as an extralegal force pushing for ideological conformity through pressure, harassment, and potentially even violence.
At the same time, Musk’s youthful, ideologically aligned hires—many of whom lack formal experience but have been granted extraordinary influence—mirror another aspect of the Red Guards: the replacement of institutional expertise with fervent, disruptive loyalists. The combination of both elements—pardoned insurrectionists and a new class of hyper-loyal disruptors within key industries—raises the possibility of a volatile, anti-institutional movement that operates both from the streets and within the halls of power.
As the Trump administration moves to dismantle the Department of Education, erase climate science references, and purge federal databases, efforts to preserve knowledge and challenge these actions have intensified. Universities, independent researchers, and advocacy groups have launched large-scale data archiving projects, mirroring efforts undertaken during Trump’s first term. Institutions like Harvard Law School’s Innovation Lab and the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) have been working to back up climate research and government records before they disappear.
Legal challenges have also surged, with organizations such as the ACLU and Public Citizen filing lawsuits to block funding cuts to scientific agencies and prevent the suppression of public health data. Meanwhile, some government employees have engaged in quiet resistance, leaking information and storing key datasets in decentralized repositories to ensure continued access. These efforts reflect a broader historical pattern where scholars and activists work to safeguard knowledge in the face of politically motivated erasure, much like dissidents in authoritarian regimes who preserved banned books, research, and historical records against ideological purges.
However, legal challenges to the Trump administration’s sweeping policy changes face mounting difficulties as the president floods the zone with executive orders, personnel purges, and agency overhauls while openly disregarding legal constraints. Courts, already backlogged, struggle to keep pace as Trump’s team implements policies faster than they can be challenged or overturned. By the time lawsuits are filed and heard, agencies have been gutted, data erased, and institutional structures irreversibly altered.
The administration’s defiance of judicial rulings, including ignoring congressional subpoenas and resisting oversight, further undermines the legal system’s ability to act as a check on executive power. Meanwhile, Trump’s expanded appointments of loyalist judges and his threats against dissenting legal officials create an environment where traditional legal remedies become weaker, leaving opponents scrambling to find alternative avenues for accountability before irreversible damage is done.
The Trump administration’s strategy of flooding the zone with executive actions, purging officials, and ignoring legal constraints bears striking parallels to Mao’s Cultural Revolution, where rapid, chaotic policy shifts overwhelmed institutional resistance and eroded the rule of law. Just as Mao bypassed the Communist Party bureaucracy and encouraged the Red Guards to enforce ideological purity through direct action, Trump has sidelined regulatory agencies, dismissed career officials, and replaced them with political loyalists, ensuring policies take effect before legal challenges can materialize.
Both leaders used sheer volume and speed as a tactic, making it nearly impossible for courts or institutions to respond in time. Mao’s purge of judicial and government officials, combined with mass political prosecutions, created a legal vacuum where the Party’s authority became absolute—similarly, Trump’s disregard for judicial rulings and expanded judicial appointments weaken checks on executive power, creating an environment where ideology increasingly overrides legal precedent. In both cases, the deliberate erosion of legal institutions makes resistance difficult, forcing opponents to seek alternative methods of preserving governance, often outside the traditional system.
In the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution, China faced a severe shortage of skilled professionals, forcing the country to seek expertise from abroad to rebuild its academic, research, and industrial capacities. Decades of ideological purges had devastated universities, disrupted scientific progress, and left industries lagging behind global standards.
Recognizing this crisis, Deng Xiaoping initiated a series of economic and educational reforms in the late 1970s, reopening universities, sending thousands of students and researchers to study in the United States and Europe, and inviting foreign experts to assist in modernizing key sectors. Joint ventures with Western companies, technology transfers, and scientific collaborations became central to China’s strategy for rapid industrialization. These efforts helped China reestablish a foundation for innovation, ultimately transforming the country into a global leader in manufacturing, technology, and research. The reliance on foreign expertise during this period underscores the long-term consequences of the Cultural Revolution’s assault on knowledge and the difficulty of rebuilding institutions once they have been dismantled.
China has emerged as the dominant force in the global clean technology revolution, leading in solar, wind, battery storage, and electric vehicle production, while aggressively scaling up green hydrogen and advanced grid technologies. Yet as Chinese companies look to expand into the U.S. market, they face mounting obstacles driven by xenophobia, Sinophobia, and growing isolationism.
Policymakers in Washington, citing national security concerns, have imposed trade restrictions, blocked Chinese investment in critical sectors, and ramped up tariffs on clean energy imports, slowing the deployment of affordable green technologies. The political climate makes it increasingly difficult for Chinese firms to partner with American universities and businesses, cutting off opportunities for collaboration that could accelerate the U.S. transition to clean energy. While China continues to push forward with massive industrial policy investments, the U.S. risks handicapping its own clean energy future by prioritizing geopolitical rivalry over technological cooperation, echoing past periods of self-imposed isolation that have left nations struggling to keep pace with global innovation.
During his first term, Donald Trump implemented aggressive policies targeting Chinese researchers in the U.S., citing concerns over intellectual property theft and national security. The China Initiative, launched by the Department of Justice in 2018, aimed to root out economic espionage but quickly expanded into a broad crackdown on academics with ties to China, leading to wrongful prosecutions and driving many Chinese-born scientists out of American universities.
The policy created a chilling effect on US international research collaboration, particularly in fields like clean energy and biomedical research, as institutions became wary of hiring or working with Chinese scholars. Many top researchers relocated to China, accelerating the country’s rise in advanced technologies, while U.S. universities suffered a decline in international talent and global scientific partnerships. The initiative was widely criticized for racial profiling and was officially ended in 2022, but its long-term impact on the U.S. research ecosystem remains significant, with ongoing hesitancy toward scientific exchanges and collaborations with China.
Before being elected, Trump expressed openness to Chinese automakers establishing factories in the United States, provided these facilities are built and staffed by American workers. However, America has little expertise or competence in modern, highly automated factories like those being run in China’s modern automotive industry. The Administration’s actions explicitly make China’s firm and Chinese executives much less likely to build factories in the country. China isn’t ignorant of its own history, for the most part, and Chinese people know exactly how bad the Cultural Revolution was.
Xi Jinping was not personally purged during the Cultural Revolution, but his family suffered significantly. His father, Xi Zhongxun, a high-ranking Communist Party official, was purged in 1962—before the Cultural Revolution officially began—but his downfall deepened during Mao’s campaign. Branded a “counter-revolutionary”, Xi Zhongxun was imprisoned and sent to perform forced labor, while his family faced persecution.
As a result, Xi Jinping was sent to the countryside in 1969 as part of Mao’s “Down to the Countryside Movement”, where millions of young people, especially children of purged officials, were forced to live and work in rural areas to be “re-educated by the peasants.” Xi lived in a cave dwelling in Shaanxi province and performed hard labor for several years.
While not directly purged, his family’s suffering during the Cultural Revolution played a key role in shaping his political outlook, particularly his later emphasis on stability, centralized control, and loyalty to the Party, as seen in his leadership style today.
Every leader in China’s government and businesses has personal family stories of themselves, their parents or at most their grand parents being harshly impacted by the Cultural Revolution and at the hands of the Red Guard. They know how this story ends. They are undoubtedly shaking their head in dismay as a country which once helped them modernized and overcome the impacts of the Cultural Revolution, starting with Nixon and continuing onward, now rejects the lessons of history and falls into the trap of ideological purges and anti-intellectualism.
And, of course, China will move into the gap left globally by the USA with Chinese products and services. Trade ties will strengthen with every other country in the world as the USA declines. China and the rest of the world will deal with climate change.
As I noted after the election, Trump and his hostility to climate action will merely slow the USA’s deployment of wind, solar, batteries, electric vehicles and heat pumps, not stop the inexorable tide of better, more efficient technologies. His focus on expanding US oil and gas will also collapse between the Scylla of declining global demand impacting oil prices and the Charybdis of US shale now entering declining returns.
It is deeply sad to see the USA ignoring the lessons of history over and over. With luck, the United States’ internal chaos will not spill to strongly over its borders, except by trade disruption that leads to the rest of the world trading more with each other and less with America. But the Trump 2.0 is much more warlike than Trump 1.0, rattling sabers and proposing to send troops onto foreign soil to expand America.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has conducted numerous military interventions across the world, interventions mostly considered invasions by the people in those countries. In the 1950s, it intervened in Korea, Iran, and Guatemala. The 1960s–1970s saw invasions and operations in Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and the Dominican Republic. In the 1980s, the U.S. invaded Grenada and Panama while launching military actions in Libya and Iran. The 1990s included interventions in Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia. The 2000s saw full-scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with operations in Pakistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. In the 2010s–2020s, U.S. forces have been active in Niger and Venezuela. These interventions, ranging from full-scale invasions to drone strikes and regime-change efforts, have shaped global geopolitics for decades.
An example of Trump 2.0’s perspective is his proposal to deploy U.S. troops to the Gaza Strip with the aim of clearing the area of militant groups and redeveloping it into a resort destination. Similarly, in his bluster regarding Greenland, he refused to rule out taking it by force. Similarly, he refused to rule out the military option regarding the Panama Canal, which he falsely claims is being run by China. He has ruled out — for now — military force to annex Canada, but Canada’ Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has made it clear publicly that he and the Canadian government consider the threat of annexation to be serious. With Trump’s current aggressive stances, every country with or near American bases is likely considering the implications should Trump’s trade and rhetorical wars go hot.
Perhaps the only good news out of this is that in a recent call with China’s Director of the CCP Central Foreign Affairs Commission, Marco Rubio, the new Secretary of State, emphasized that the U.S. does not support Taiwanese independence and advocates for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. That’s a very pragmatic response because all war game modeling has made it clear that if the United States tried to intervene militarily with China over Taiwan, America would lose the battles, never mind the war. As I noted last year, the USA has made its own global force projection much more difficult with the combination of ceding global ship building to Asia — with China alone taking 59% of 2023’s ship orders — and the well-intentioned but ultimately destructive Jones Act leading to no domestic logistical fleet capable of supporting any prolonged actions.
China’s foreign military footprint remains remarkably limited compared to the United States. While the U.S. has deployed forces across the globe and maintains over 750 military bases in more than 80 countries, China has largely avoided direct military engagement beyond its borders. Instead, Beijing has focused on economic and strategic influence through trade, infrastructure projects like the Belt and Road Initiative, and diplomatic ties rather than military force. China’s only overseas military base, in Djibouti, stands in stark contrast to the vast U.S. military network, reflecting its preference for soft power over direct intervention. While both nations seek to shape global affairs, the U.S. has relied on military dominance, whereas China has prioritized economic and technological expansion as its primary tools of influence. China’s military expansion in recent years is best understood as an allergic response to US saber rattling and a very potent defensive force, not an expansionist and invasive force like the United States’.
The history of the USA over the past 40 years is that they can only win battles against vastly inferior forces and can’t win wars. But Trump and his Administration show virtually no understanding of history, the actual strengths and weaknesses of the USA and the reality of any other country. The paroxyms of the US Cultural Revolution and the inflation that Trump’s trade wars will cause may very well lead to the need to distract Americans with a foreign war. The odds of Trump 2.0 putting the USA into another foreign military disaster are high.
Chip in a few dollars a month to help support independent cleantech coverage that helps to accelerate the cleantech revolution!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
CleanTechnica’s Comment Policy