Charles Gilbert Wood
In recent weeks, headlines have been dominated by Donald Trump’s controversial alignment with Russian President Vladimir Putin, rather than with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Alongside this, the former President’s social media presence has raised significant concerns. On 18 February, the official White House social media pages posted a video titled “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight.” The footage depicted deported individuals in restraints being escorted onto a plane—a portrayal many have criticised as dehumanising and deeply inappropriate.
Immigration remains a polarising issue across Western democracies, often exploited by populist figures to bolster political support. If deportations must occur, they should be managed with sensitivity and respect. The tone of the video in question, however, arguably trivialises the pain and dignity of those affected. While some Trump supporters may argue that illegal status justifies such treatment, the individuals involved remain human beings. When society begins to lose sight of this, the implications become dangerous.
37,660 individuals were deported during Trump’s first month in office, compared to 57,000 in Biden’s final month.
The Trump administration has previously pledged to carry out “mass deportations.” However, it’s worth noting that the Biden administration deported approximately 1.5 million people over four years—figures comparable to Trump’s first term, according to the Migration Policy Institute. An unpublished Department of Homeland Security document shows that 37,660 individuals were deported during Trump’s first month in office, compared to 57,000 in Biden’s final month.
The contrast, then, lies not only in the numbers but in the rhetoric and tone used. The way each administration frames immigration and deportation reveals differing attitudes—not just about policy but about human dignity. The framing adopted in this recent video suggests a concerning appetite for the spectacle of suffering.
The term ASMR, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, refers to “feelings of well-being” and “a tingling sensation.” It is typically associated with calming or comforting content—not scenes of forced deportation. The use of this label to accompany such a video raises serious questions about the cultural and moral landscape being cultivated, where the discomfort or humiliation of others becomes a source of satisfaction for some.
Trump’s consistent use of the term “alien” to describe undocumented immigrants
While comparisons between Trump and authoritarian leaders of the 1930s may be provocative, the dehumanisation of marginalised groups is not unique to one era. History consistently shows that when society becomes desensitised to the suffering of minority communities—whether Jewish, queer, Black, or undocumented—the results can be catastrophic. Trump’s consistent use of the term “alien” to describe undocumented immigrants exemplifies a broader rhetorical strategy aimed at ‘othering’ and delegitimising.
The following day, on 19 February, another controversial post appeared on the White House social media accounts. This time, it was an AI-generated image of Trump wearing a crown, accompanied by the phrase “Long Live the King.” The post came shortly after the administration blocked New York’s congestion pricing plan, which would have introduced fees for vehicles entering certain areas of the city.
The image’s aesthetic, reminiscent of a TIME Magazine cover with its stark red border and bold symbolism, was widely interpreted as evoking authoritarian or monarchical imagery. New York Governor Kathy Hochul responded critically, stating: “New York hasn’t laboured under a king in over 250 years and we sure as hell are not going to start now.” Her comments reflect a broader discomfort with the symbolism and its potential implications.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly rejects monarchy. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 states: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.” To see such imagery emerge from an official platform raises questions about the administration’s relationship to the founding values of American democracy.
If key principles—such as the rejection of authoritarianism—are undermined, the integrity of the entire democratic framework is at risk.
It is essential to scrutinise political leadership, regardless of allegiance. While the Constitution is frequently invoked to support policies such as gun rights, it must also be defended in its totality. If key principles—such as the rejection of authoritarianism—are undermined, the integrity of the entire democratic framework is at risk.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in resisting the temptation to approach politics with the loyalty of a sports fan. Democracy demands engagement, not blind allegiance. When the rhetoric and actions of leadership trivialise human suffering or flirt with authoritarian aesthetics, it is not just policy that is at stake—but the very soul of the nation.
Charles Gilbert Wood
