From Red Guard to Red Hat: Trump’s Cultural Counterrevolution Against America
As the United States contends with an authoritarian retrenchment cloaked in electoral legitimacy, observers have reached for analogies. Some evoke the populist fervor of Mussolini or the surveillance of the Stasi. But to understand what is happening to American higher education under the current regime, one must look east—to the People’s Republic of China—and to Deng Xiaoping’s controlled ideological remodeling of the Chinese state.
Contrary to common misconception, Deng was not a liberal reformer. He was the architect of a more durable authoritarianism—one that replaced mass terror with institutional reprogramming. Under Deng, universities were rebuilt as instruments of the Party, stripped of their revolutionary chaos and remade to serve national strength, not truth. Dissent was not shouted down by Red Guards. It was silently absorbed, filtered, and neutralized.
Now, in Trump’s second term, American universities are undergoing a similarly chilling transformation. The federal government is no longer simply critical of elite institutions—it is attempting to restructure them, root and branch, through coercive oversight. A startling case in point: the April 11, 2025 letter sent from federal authorities to Harvard University.
Harvard as Enemy of the State
In that letter, the federal government outlines a sweeping set of demands that would, if accepted, render Harvard indistinguishable from a state-controlled ideological organ. The government proposes:
The elimination of all DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives—regardless of form or name.
A federally supervised audit of faculty and students for “viewpoint diversity”, with power to restructure departments that fail the test.
A forced restructuring of governance, weakening the power of students and untenured faculty while empowering those “most devoted” to the government’s interpretation of scholarship.
A mandate that all admissions and hiring data be shared with the government and the public.
A purge of departments accused of “ideological capture,” including Harvard’s Divinity School and Middle Eastern Studies.
An explicit ban on foreign students deemed hostile to “American values”, with mandatory DHS reporting.
Ongoing federal audits and quarterly reports through 2028, enforced under penalty of financial divestment.
This is not policy oversight. This is ideological occupation.
The Dengist Parallel
Deng Xiaoping’s post-Mao strategy involved marginalizing political chaos not by loosening control but by institutionalizing it. He shifted from revolutionary purges to performance-based loyalty. Universities were not burned down—they were retooled to serve state objectives.
That is precisely what Trump’s administration is attempting to do.
Where Mao had Red Guards, Trump has compliance officers. Where Deng had audits and loyalty tests, Trump has federally mandated “viewpoint diversity.” The terms differ, but the mechanisms echo: restructure governance, purge ideological enemies, redefine scholarship as patriotism, and silence dissent by bureaucratic control rather than brute force.
Censorship and Loyalty: From Harvard to Homeland Security
In three separate executive orders and memoranda issued on April 9, 2025, the Trump administration escalated its war on independent thought by targeting former federal officials, elite universities, and now private law firms.
Chris Krebs and the Attack on Truth
The first memorandum accused former CISA Director Christopher Krebs of “weaponizing and abusing his Government authority” by coordinating with social media platforms to limit misinformation about the 2020 election and COVID-19. The administration ordered:
The revocation of Krebs’ security clearance.
A review of all CISA activities over the past six years.
Suspensions of clearances for anyone associated with Krebs, including those at SentinelOne.
The charge? Not espionage. Not sabotage. Simply: dissent from the regime’s narrative.
Miles Taylor and the University of Pennsylvania
The second memorandum takes aim at Miles Taylor, the former DHS staffer and author of the anonymous “resistance” op-ed. Taylor is accused of:
Publishing classified material for “personal notoriety.”
Undermining government policy.
Engaging in behavior that could be “characterized as treasonous.”
The directive:
Suspend all clearances for Taylor and anyone associated with him, including affiliates of the University of Pennsylvania.
Launch a federal investigation into Taylor’s entire government service.
This move does not merely punish whistleblowing. It criminalizes it.
Susman Godfrey and the War on the Legal Profession
The third, and perhaps most revealing, executive order targets a private law firm—Susman Godfrey LLP. The White House accused the firm of:
Undermining elections and the U.S. military by promoting “radical ideology.”
Funding organizations engaged in unlawful racial discrimination.
Administering diversity-based hiring programs deemed contrary to American interests.
The order demands:
Suspension of all security clearances held by Susman employees.
Identification and withdrawal of government resources provided to Susman.
Review and termination of contracts with Susman or contractors affiliated with it.
Restrictions on access to federal buildings and hiring of Susman alumni.
What was once reserved for foreign adversaries is now used against domestic legal entities.
Coercion by Contract, Punishment by Memo
Together, these documents outline a model of governance that is not merely authoritarian but totalizing. Education, speech, employment, and security clearance are now part of an integrated political loyalty system.
This is not cultural conservatism. This is not healthy skepticism of elite institutions. This is a counterrevolution, targeting knowledge itself as a threat to state authority.
Trump’s second term has turned “Harvard” into a symbol—not of liberal overreach, but of what must be destroyed and rebuilt in the regime’s image. The long arc from Nixon’s university antagonism to today’s federally enforced ideological audits marks a turning point: the transformation of the American university from critic of the state to instrument of it.
Conclusion: America’s Rectification Campaign
What we are witnessing is America’s own zhèngfēng (整风) campaign—a term borrowed from the Chinese Communist Party’s internal purges of the 1940s and later iterations under Mao and Deng. Originating in Yan’an during the 1942–44 Rectification Movement, zhèngfēng was a method of ideological cleansing within party and intellectual ranks. It combined enforced self-criticism, bureaucratic restructuring, and the redefinition of loyalty to the regime, often through informal purges cloaked in administrative procedure.
Unlike show trials or street violence, zhèngfēng worked quietly—through paperwork, personnel reviews, audits, and coerced confessions. It reasserted party control not just by silencing dissent but by institutionalizing obedience.
In Trump’s America, zhèngfēng takes the form of:
Loyalty audits disguised as viewpoint diversity reviews.
Ideological restructuring of universities under the guise of meritocracy.
Public purging of legal professionals, civil servants, and whistleblowers through executive fiat.
In Deng’s China, those who resisted were labeled disloyal. In Trump’s America, they are labeled un-American.