By Moss Magnusson, Political Theory
The rise of Trump coincides not just with stark changes in political norms but also marked shifts in GOP policy. To analyze this change over time, I will compare and contrast the modern-day GOP platform with that of 2016 and the Reagan presidency. Stances on issues such as abortion, immigration, foreign policy, and education, will serve as reference points to see how much has changed within the party during the rise of Trump.
The evolution of GOP policies from the Reagan era to the Trump era is complex and influenced by numerous political, economic, and social factors. While this essay provides a broad comparison, it does not capture the full scope of nuanced policy shifts, ideological debates, and external influences that have shaped the party over time. The positions discussed here are meant to highlight general trends rather than provide an exhaustive analysis of every divergence and continuity.
Immigration
When Ronald Reagan took the stage in a 1980 GOP presidential debate, he demonstrated a more nuanced view on immigration than we see today. Throughout his presidency, he “praised the country’s immigrant past and hailed the entrepreneurial achievements of newcomers” (Tichenor 1994). In fact, during that 1980 debate—in Houston, Texas, of all places—he explicitly opposed “putting up a fence,” arguing instead that we ought to work on “recognition of our mutual problems” (Gonyea 2018). And, despite passing a strict immigration law focused on border security later in his presidency, he offered amnesty to millions of immigrants who entered illegally prior to 1982 (Gonyea 2018).
Trump’s thoughts on immigration during his campaign in 2015 read differently than Reagan’s did in 1980. He focused much of his energy on one thing that Reagan was explicitly against—“I would build a great wall…and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall” (BBC Newsround 2019). Above this, the anti-immigration rhetoric of not just the Trump administration but much of the GOP in 2024 has taken a somewhat assertive turn. The immigration problem is instead often referred to as an “invasion,” and the 2024 Trump campaign promised mass deportations, in which Trump hopes to deport “millions of undocumented immigrants” (Sentner 2024).
This stance on immigration has gained significant traction among Republicans in recent years. According to a 2022 Pew Research Center poll, 91% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view strengthening security along the southern border as an “important” goal (Pew 2022). Similarly, 79% of the same group consider increasing deportations to be equally “important” (Pew 2022). The current GOP approach to immigration has galvanized support for more stringent measures than those advocated by the party in previous years, reflecting a shift toward harder-line policies.
Abortion
For as long as I can remember, the issue of abortion has been argued in one way—pro-life vs. pro-choice. The Republican party generally favored federal bans on abortion, opposed federal funding for abortions, and occasionally favored constitutional amendments to these ends (Granberg 1987). They rested this stance on the idea that they were protecting “the sanctity of human life” (Sentner 2024). This was certainly the case during the Reagan era, and it continued to be the precise rhetoric used by Trump and the GOP in 2016. The GOP platform of 2024 has steered far away from explicitly arguing for these principles—using the word abortion just once compared to 35 times in 2016 (Sentner 2024). Rather than framing the issue as a moral imperative to protect life, the party now emphasizes states’ rights, arguing that abortion policy should be determined on a state-by-state basis. This reflects a stark change in GOP policy and a strategic pivot toward decentralizing the issue and aligning it with broader conservative principles of local governance.
Foreign policy
The GOP has made a similar move on foreign policy, coinciding with the rise of Trump. The very first sentence of an article written by Ivo Daalder on the subject reads: “Ronald Reagan must be turning in his grave” (Daalder 2024). With respect to foreign policy, Reagan is defined as a “conservative internationalist” which, as defined by the Reagan Foundation, means support for the “expansion of freedom through the use of military force” (Continetti 2019). The policy translation of this stance is described by the Reagan Foundation here:
…the forward presence of U.S. forces; alliances based on security guarantees with NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines (as well as a commitment to aid in Taiwan’s defense); protection of the global commons of air, sea, space, and cyber; free trade; membership and leadership in international institutions such as the UN, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund; foreign aid; large conventional and nuclear forces; promotion of democracy and human rights; and a willingness to intervene overseas if circumstances warrant (Continetti 2019).
The present-day ideas echoed by the Trump administration, the GOP, and the Republican party in general are growing further and further away from those of the Reagan era. Trump has repeatedly criticized the amount of aid going to Ukraine and has most commonly been associated with rhetoric embracing domestic issues first (Kakissis 2024; Chicago Council Surveys 2024). (Although generally speaking, skepticism over foreign aid has been a longstanding theme amongst the GOP.)
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has been polling the support for an active U.S. role in world affairs for over 50 years now. Here is what their data looks like on this question:
The takeaway is that Republicans continually show decreasing support for U.S. involvement in world affairs (Chicago Council Surveys 2024). During the Reagan presidency, support peaked at around 71% amongst Republicans. In 2018, support remained high at around 70% and is now down to 54% in 2024 (Chicago Council Surveys 2024). Republican lawmakers are following their voters, falling in line with Trump (Daalder 2024), and expressing support for a less multilateral approach—favoring American interests first and foremost (Chicago Council Surveys 2024). Issues such as the Iraq War, where Republicans were previously hawkish, are now being denounced by the same party. It is worth noting, however, that Reagan was selective in his interventions—he withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and did not intervene in certain global conflicts where Cold War interests weren’t directly involved. However, broadly, differences in foreign policy stances between Trump and Reagan suggest a large shift in GOP foreign policy.
Education
While Trump has shown a significant departure from many Reagan-era ideas, education is not particularly one of them. Reagan shared the belief that the Department of Education needed to be brought to an end—an idea that Trump and many other Republicans have been outspoken about during the 2024 election. Reagan describes his position here: “I believed that federal educational programs could be administered effectively without a Cabinet-level agency” (L.A. Times 1985). “Believe” here is past tense because Reagan faced stiff opposition in Congress for this move (L.A. Times 1985). Trump, however, enjoys a Republican majority in the House and Senate, suggesting that with increasing support for ending the DOE in the Republican party, such a change could be possible. Still, whether such a move would pass is highly speculative.
Moss Magnusson is a senior at Binghamton University, double majoring in political science and PPL (politics, philosophy, and law). Originally from Rhinebeck, NY—a small upstate town in the Hudson Valley—Moss has gained valuable experience during his time interning on Capitol Hill, where he contributed to writing congressional records and other legislative materials. While deeply engaged in his political science studies, he also enjoys spending time with friends, playing tennis, and reading. After graduating this spring, Moss plans to work for a year while preparing for the LSAT, with the goal of attending law school the following fall.
References
BBC Newsround. 2019. “Why does Donald Trump want to build a border wall?” BBC, May 23. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/46811167
Berry, Libby et al. 2024. “America’s foreign policy future: Public opinion and the 2024 election.” The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, November 1. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americas-foreign-policy-future-public-opinion-and-2024-election
Cerda, Andy and J. Baxter Oliphant. 2022. “Republicans and Democrats have different top priorities for U.S. immigration policy.” Pew Research Center, September 8. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/08/republicans-and-democrats-have-different-top-priorities-for-u-s-immigration-policy/
Continetti, Matthew. 2019. “Internationalism and the American right.” Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute, July. https://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-institute/publications/internationalism-and-the-american-right/
Daalder, Ivo. 2024 “The grand old party is no more.” America Abroad, February 18. https://ivodaalder.substack.com/p/the-grand-old-party-is-no-more
Gonyea, Don. 2018. “The GOP’s evolution on immigration.” NPR, January 25. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/25/580222116/the-gops-evolution-on-immigration
Granberg, Donald. 1987. “The abortion issue in the 1984 elections. Family Planning Perspectives, 19(2) (March-April): 59–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2135050
Kakissis, Joanna. 2024. “What will Trump’s presidency mean for Russia’s war on Ukraine?” NPR, November 7. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/07/nx-s1-5181985/2024-election-trump-russia-ukraine-war
Los Angeles Times. 1985. “Why Reagan’s immigration reform failed”. Los Angeles Times, January 29. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-01-29-mn-13948-story.html
Sentner, Irie. 2024. “How has Trump transformed the Republican Party? Look at the platforms.” Politico, June 17. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2024/republican-platform-trump-changes/Tichenor, Daniel J. 1994. “The politics of immigration reform in the United States, 1981-1990.” Polity 26(3): 333–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235150
Happy Medium 
You must be logged in to post a comment.