Introduction
This article analyzes the process of transforming anti-establishment rebellion into a functional apparatus of power. The primary case study is Donald Trump's alliance with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the implementation of the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) program.
The reader will discover how a heterogeneous coalition distrustful of elites seizes control of the state. The text explains the mechanisms of the personalization of power and the shift in the so-called 'regime of knowledge' within the U.S. federal administration.
The Absorption of Heterodoxy in the Trump-Kennedy Alliance
RFK Jr.'s entry into Trump's camp is an example of the institutionalization of rebellion. Kennedy, a political outsider from a prestigious dynasty, ceased criticizing the system from the outside and began managing it from within as the Secretary of HHS.
This process demonstrates that the system is capable of absorbing heterodox movements. Rather than fighting the rebellion, the power structure incorporates it into state apparatuses, transforming the nature of protest into administrative responsibility for the outcomes of policy decisions.
The Coalition of Negative Trust and the Insider-Outsider Mechanism
Trump and Kennedy were not united by a shared doctrine, but rather by a coalition of negative trust. Both built their support on deep distrust of the media, pharmaceutical corporations, and regulatory agencies.
Kennedy suspended his independent campaign due to the pressures of the majority system and the lack of viable paths to electoral votes. He opted for a strategic alliance that granted him access to the state in exchange for delivering his network of anti-establishment supporters to Trump.
Federal Populism and the Chain of Equivalence Mechanism
The MAHA movement bridges contradictory currents: progressive ecology, libertarianism, anti-corporate populism, and conservatism. These coexist through a so-called chain of equivalence, where differences are overlooked in favor of a common enemy—a state captured by corporations.
This approach allows individuals with diverse goals to unite as long as they agree that current institutions are corrupt. In this way, a populist slogan becomes a federal strategy, influencing research priorities and scientific communication in the U.S.
Summary
The analysis illustrates the transition from campaign populism to the systemic restructuring of the state. The utilization of unitary executive theory and tools such as Schedule F (Policy/Career) increases the president's vertical control over the administration.
The paradox is that by building powerful tools for control and the removal of civil servants, the current administration is paving the way for its future opponents. These mechanisms will remain within the structure of government long after their creators have left the White House.
Frequently Asked Questions
In what way does Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s entry into Donald Trump's camp illustrate the process of transforming rebellion into an apparatus of power?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s joining Donald Trump's coalition illustrates the mechanism of political absorption of heterodoxy, in which the two-party system takes over movements arising outside its center. This process occurs by offering rebels appropriate space, language, and access to state institutions.
What connected Donald Trump and RFK Jr., given their programmatic differences, and why did Kennedy eventually suspend his campaign?
Donald Trump and RFK Jr. were linked by a deep distrust of the state, the media, corporations, and traditional party structures. Kennedy suspended his campaign in key states due to falling support and strategic pressure resulting from the US two-party electoral system.
How did Trump and RFK Jr. manage to combine such diverse interest groups within a single program?
Trump and RFK Jr. combined different interest groups through a model of federated populism, creating a coalition of protest groups with differing worldviews. The common denominator became the narrative of 'regulatory capture' of the state by linked interests, which allowed heterogeneous demands to be united around the common goal of restructuring the center of power.
How does a change in government administration affect the way public institutions communicate scientific research results, and what does this mean for citizen trust?
A change in government administration can lead to a shift in the epistemic language of public institutions, manifested, among other things, by a move away from categorical statements toward highlighting the need for further research on a given issue. A situation where different institutions interpret the same evidence differently makes it difficult for citizens to delegate the cognitive process to experts and undermines epistemic trust.
In what way was RFK Jr.'s anti-establishment movement integrated into the structures of the US federal government?
RFK Jr. was integrated into the federal government structures by taking the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), which was confirmed by the Senate on February 13, 2025. Additionally, he headed the presidentially appointed 'Make America Healthy Again' commission, which transformed a campaign slogan into an element of the federal decision-making process.
What ideological currents make up the MAHA movement and what allows them to coexist despite internal contradictions?
The MAHA movement consists of progressive-ecological, libertarian, populist-anti-corporate, and culturally conservative currents. The coexistence of these contradictory traditions is possible due to the presence of a strong common antagonist and a consensus regarding priorities and loyalty to the project.
How can RFK Jr. realistically influence the healthcare system after taking office, and what does this process mean for his anti-establishment identity?
RFK Jr. can influence the system by changing research, regulatory, and communication priorities, as well as appointing leadership in agencies, although his actions are limited by law, budget, and judicial review. Taking office means he ceases to be an outsider and becomes part of the state, forcing the anti-establishment movement to redefine its enemy and transition from slogans to bureaucratic administration.
How has the MAHA movement been integrated into state structures, and what does this say about contemporary political divisions in the USA?
The integration of MAHA into state structures testifies to the institutionalization of the movement and the transformation of American populism into a broad coalition. This indicates the emergence of a new axis of political conflict in the US, based on opposing trust in institutions with distrust toward expert institutions.
Why is RFK Jr.'s nomination to HHS more than just a personnel change in healthcare?
RFK Jr.'s nomination introduces an epistemic policy—a dispute over how the state should define truth and who should set scientific standards. It is an attempt to rebuild the state's knowledge regime and modify the social system of trust in institutions such as the FDA, NIH, and CDC.
How are anti-establishment movements and figures like RFK Jr. absorbed by the state apparatus?
Anti-establishment movements are absorbed by the state apparatus through the transformation of external criticism into personal appointments and specific positions within the organizational chart. This process involves translating protest energy into institutional capacity for action, which requires shifting language from the level of criticism to the level of constructing procedures and managing agencies.
Are the changes in the Trump administration merely a matter of selecting loyal people, or a deeper restructuring of how the state is managed?
The changes in the Trump administration go beyond the mere selection of loyal individuals and may signify a deeper restructuring of the rules governing state management. It is crucial to examine whether this reform aims to create a system more controllable by the president by changing the way the civil service is staffed and the relationship with bodies such as the FBI and the Department of Justice.
On what legal and constitutional basis is the Trump administration seeking to increase control over federal agencies and officials?
The Trump administration bases its actions on the unitary executive theory, according to which the president, as the sole holder of executive power, should exercise oversight over all administrative bodies. The justification is democratic accountability—the president possesses an electoral mandate that professional officials do not, which is intended to prevent the bureaucracy from neutralizing legal government decisions.
How does the Trump administration plan to increase control over professional federal officials?
The Trump administration plans to increase control over officials by introducing a Schedule Policy/Career, covering approximately eight thousand senior policy-influencing positions. This solution limits traditional protections against removal from office, making it easier to dismiss individuals who block legal guidelines or improperly perform their duties.
Does changing the status of officials to political appointees actually increase the steerability of the state, and what risks does this pose for the judiciary?
Changing the status of officials to political appointees may increase the steerability of the state by reducing agency losses and making it easier to remove individuals blocking the president's program. However, this carries the risk of prioritizing a superior's preferences over law and expertise and creates an incentive to avoid substantive dissent. In the judiciary, this could lead to the dismantling of institutional autonomy and the undermining of the legitimacy of investigations.
How does the administration justify purges within the Department of Justice, and how can one distinguish between restoring neutrality and new politicization?
The administration justifies the purges as a process of restoring neutrality, accountability, and trust after a period of so-called 'weaponization' of the justice system. Distinguishing depoliticization from new politicization requires an analysis of specific procedures, such as the consistency of procedural standards in cases involving political opponents or the reasons for officials' dismissals.
Does increased presidential control over the federal administration mean the total disappearance of the system of checks and balances?
No, increased presidential control over the federal administration does not mean the total disappearance of the system of checks and balances, but rather a shift in that balance within the executive branch. The president still operates within the framework of statutes, budget law, and under the oversight of Congress and federal courts.
How do the Supreme Court's jurisprudence and changes in the employment structure of officials translate into the president's actual control over the state?
The president's control over the state increases through Supreme Court rulings that introduce broad criminal immunity for official acts, as well as civil service reforms that increase the vertical controllability of the administration. A key tool includes the new Schedule G category of employees, which allows positions to be more easily filled by individuals directly aligned with a given administration's program.
What are the risks associated with excessive personalization and controllability of the federal administration in terms of decision quality and state impartiality?
Excessive controllability can lead to limiting leaders' access to reliable information, as experts—fearing consequences—may present only an optimistic view of reality, thereby lowering the quality of decisions. In the case of investigative and prosecutorial institutions, increased political responsiveness threatens state impartiality and the principle of equality before the law.
What are the long-term effects of restructuring the executive branch for future presidents, and which aspects of the state remain outside the administrative sphere?
The restructuring of the executive strengthens the institution of the presidency by providing future leaders with tools to control officials and regulations, regardless of their political affiliation. Outside the administrative sphere lie the material capabilities of the state, such as industry, energy, logistical infrastructure, and strategic economic self-sufficiency.
