Climate change demands collective action: phasing out fossil fuels, transitioning industries, and reevaluating personal consumption, but these measures can conflict with perceptions of individual freedoms and short-term interests. The contemporary Republican Party, particularly under the influence of President Trump and the MAGA movement, and the conservative echo-sphere has increasingly portrayed environmentalism, climate change advocacy, along with global institutions such as the United Nations, World Court, and World Economic Forum at Davos as direct threats to American freedom and sovereignty. To understand and confront this perspective, it's crucial to recognize the underlying ideological foundations that shape this stance.

Environmentalism, especially global climate initiatives, is viewed by many conservatives as a covert mechanism to erode individual liberties, undermine national autonomy, and impose top-down regulatory frameworks on American society. Prominent conservative voices have labeled environmental regulations and agreements like the Paris Climate Accord as economic shackles designed to redistribute wealth and power from the United States to other nations. Rather than being seen as collective action designed to address an existential crisis, environmental initiatives are cast as infringements on property rights, individual choice, and economic freedom.

Similarly, international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (World Court), and even the Catholic Church have become symbols of external interference, perceived as attempting to impose values, standards, and policies antithetical to American sovereignty. MAGA proponents frequently depict these bodies as vehicles for globalist agendas that threaten national identity and democratic governance. Figures within the Republican Party, echoing sentiments championed by President Donald Trump, routinely frame participation in international agreements and bodies as acts of submission to unelected global bureaucrats, undermining domestic governance and American exceptionalism.  

American political culture is famously rooted in ‘rugged individualism,’ a value system of self-reliance, personal liberty, and distrust of government intrusion. This hyper-individualism poses a significant challenge to collective action on climate change. Surveys indicate that while a majority of Americans acknowledge global warming, belief and concern vary widely by region and community​. Research finds that U.S. counties with stronger individualistic and anti-statist cultural traits show lower pro-climate attitudes and preparedness, undermining collective responses​. In practice, this means policies perceived to limit personal choice or economic freedom, such as carbon taxes or regulations on vehicles and appliances often face strong public resistance and political roadblocks in the U.S.

American democracy presents a particularly intricate landscape for climate action, deeply entangled in partisan polarization. Climate change, rather than a unified national concern, has become profoundly politicized, with sharp divisions shaping perceptions of environmental policy. As of 2024, more than half of Republicans view climate initiatives primarily as burdensome governmental interventions that harm economic prosperity, whereas most Democrats perceive them as beneficial, fostering economic growth and innovation. This ideological chasm, intensified by influential fossil fuel interests and structural roadblocks such as the Senate filibuster, has consistently impeded meaningful and lasting climate legislation. Even milestones like President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, heralded as America's most significant investment in clean energy, have favored market-based incentives over regulatory mandates to circumvent accusations of governmental coercion. Such cautious advances, however, remain vulnerable to abrupt reversals, as demonstrated by the subsequent rollback under the Trump-led Republican administration, highlighting the fragility of U.S. climate policy in the face of entrenched political divisions.

American individualism also means compromise is hard-won. Measures that require collective sacrifice or lifestyle change can be portrayed as threats to personal freedom. That said, American democracy also allows robust environmental advocacy and innovation at subnational levels. Numerous states, cities, and civil society groups have pushed forward with climate initiatives even when federal action is increasingly hostile. The U.S. case illustrates a core tension: when freedom is framed as freedom ‘from’ government intervention, building support for sweeping climate policies becomes an uphill battle. Overcoming this requires reframing climate action as compatible with American values (for example, emphasizing market-based solutions, energy independence, or the protection of future generations’ “right to life” and safety) and finding policy designs that minimize perceived infringements on personal choice.

There is also a powerful and intertwined evangelical and white nationalist narrative that positions environmentalism as an ideological adversary, closely echoing arguments promoted by segments of the MAGA movement and conservative media. Within evangelical circles, environmental stewardship is often depicted as fundamentally opposed to their interpretation of biblical "dominion" (Genesis 1:28), which is understood as granting humanity supreme authority over nature. Influential evangelical voices frequently dismiss environmentalism as a contemporary revival of "nature worship" or "paganism," seeing it as a direct challenge to their religious convictions.

Prominent evangelical figures, notably former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, have argued explicitly that climate change lies entirely within "God's domain," thereby dismissing human-driven environmental efforts as misguided attempts to override divine authority. Similarly, influential religious leaders such as televangelist Pat Robertson have gone even further, branding environmentalism as inherently "anti-Christian," and framing climate activism as part of a broader secular or pagan agenda that undermines religious faith. Conservative evangelical media figures regularly amplify this rhetoric, portraying environmental initiatives as deceptive strategies orchestrated by Satan to distract faithful Christians from their essential biblical duties.These subjugation themes are echoed by White nationalist movements that frequently depict environmental policies as part of a globalist scheme designed to weaken national sovereignty, encourage multiculturalism, and erode traditional, often implicitly white, cultural norms. Some within these groups co-opt ecological concerns under the disturbing guise of "eco-fascism," attributing environmental degradation to global migration and the growth of non-white populations. Simultaneously, they reject mainstream environmental advocacy as a liberal conspiracy engineered to empower global elites while disadvantaging white working-class communities.

Central to white nationalist rhetoric is the portrayal of international institutions like the United Nations and World Court as instruments deliberately undermining white Western identity, freedom, and autonomy. These bodies are often vilified as facilitators of a "Great Replacement" or agents orchestrating a "New World Order," with environmentalism cast merely as a convenient justification for authoritarian global governance.

Evangelical and white nationalist critiques notably intersect with narratives espoused by the MAGA movement. High-profile MAGA figures such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Steve Bannon explicitly condemn global environmental initiatives as fundamentally "evil," anti-American plots that endanger personal liberty and national independence. Greene, for instance, has openly characterized climate action as part of a sinister "globalist plot," designed specifically to control American citizens and dismantle their freedoms.

The recent election of Pope Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert Prevost, as the first American pontiff, has ignited a cultural and political debate reminiscent of the 1960 U.S. presidential campaign, when John F. Kennedy's Catholic faith raised concerns about potential papal influence over American governance. Today, similar apprehensions surface as segments of the conservative movement question the implications of Pope Leo XIV's views on American politics.​

Pope Leo XIV has been openly critical of certain U.S. policies, particularly those related to immigration. In a notable instance, he responded to Vice President JD Vance's interpretation of the Christian concept of ordo amoris, which Vance used to justify prioritizing American citizens over immigrants. Pope Leo XIV countered this by stating, “JD Vance is wrong. Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others.” This comment underscores the Pope's emphasis on universal compassion, challenging political narratives that seek to hierarchize love and concern based on nationality.​

Conservative commentator and prominent Trump confident Laura Loomer expressed strong disapproval of Pope Leo. In a post on X, Loomer stated:​ “He is anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis.” ​ She further labeled him as a “WOKE MARXIST POPE” in a subsequent post. ​ Loomer's criticism stems from Pope Leo XIV's past social media activity, where he expressed support for immigrants, environmental protection and social justice causes.  Other conservative commentators echoed similar sentiments. Mike Cernovich referred to the new pope as an “open borders globalist” and speculated that he would advocate for abortion rights, based on his social media activity. ​ Joey Mannarino, a pro-Trump influencer, criticized Pope Leo XIV for his past remarks on immigration and social justice, stating that “this guy is worse than Francis.”

This dynamic mirrors the historical tension during Kennedy's campaign, where fears of divided loyalties were prevalent. The discourse surrounding Pope Leo XIV's election and his interactions with American political figures continues to evoke discussions about the role of religion in public life and the boundaries between spiritual guidance and political governance.

The current confrontation between the Catholic Church and the state of Washington over mandatory reporting of child abuse confessions highlights the ongoing tension between religious authority and secular governance in American society. By threatening excommunication for clergy who comply with the new reporting requirements, the Church is asserting the inviolability of the confessional seal, placing it at direct odds with secular authorities advocating child protection. The Archdiocese of Seattle's insistence that this law breaches constitutional religious protections underscores the profound conflict between religious freedoms and civic responsibilities. This dispute exemplifies the challenges in balancing deeply held spiritual doctrines against societal imperatives to safeguard vulnerable populations, illuminating broader questions about the boundaries of religious liberty in contemporary America.

With the growing distrust of nearly all global institutions, environmental protection and climate advocacy is thus deeply tied to broader narratives about freedom, autonomy, and national identity. For nearly 100 million Americans, resistance to these global entities is not merely a policy choice but a fundamental defense of American sovereignty and personal liberty. Understanding this narrative is critical for addressing the polarization surrounding climate action and global cooperation, which hinges on bridging the gap between global responsibility and national self-determination.

How did we get here?

Freedom remains one of humanity’s most treasured yet fiercely contested ideals. Across history, societies have continually struggled to define, implement, and safeguard their diverse interpretations of freedom. Far from being fixed or universally agreed upon, the notion of freedom is continually evolving, shaped by philosophical traditions, political movements, cultural contexts, and technological advancements. What one society perceives as freedom may differ dramatically from another, and even over time within a single culture, competing visions of freedom frequently collide. By unraveling these complexities, we can illuminate a pathway toward understanding environmentalism as the definitive expression of contemporary freedom, an expression rooted in responsibility, sustainability, and the collective right to a flourishing future.

Historical Evolution of Freedom

The idea of freedom has ancient roots. In ancient Greece, the concept of ‘eleutheria’ referred primarily to the status of not being enslaved and the right to participate in the political life of the city-state. However, this freedom was limited to male citizens, excluding women, slaves, and foreigners. The Romans developed the concept further with ‘libertas,’ which emphasized legal rights and protections against arbitrary power.

In ancient Eastern civilizations, freedom took different forms. In ancient India, the concept of ‘moksha’ (liberation) focused on spiritual freedom from the cycle of rebirth. In China, Confucian thought emphasized freedom through social harmony over individual liberty, while Daoist philosophy sought freedom through alignment with natural principles.

During the medieval period in Europe, freedom was largely understood in terms of privileges and immunities granted to particular groups. The Magna Carta of 1215 represented an early limitation on royal power, establishing that even the king was subject to law. Contemporary American leaders would be well-served to reflect on those limitations of sovereign power. The Renaissance period saw a renewed interest in classical ideas of freedom, with thinkers like Machiavelli exploring the concept of civic freedom.

The Protestant Reformation introduced the idea of freedom of conscience in religious matters, challenging the authority of the Catholic Church. This religious conception of freedom would later influence political thought, particularly in the development of liberalism.

The Enlightenment period marked a watershed in the development of freedom as a political concept. Philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant articulated theories of natural rights and individual liberty that would profoundly influence modern political systems. Locke's conception of natural rights to life, liberty, and property provided a foundation for liberal democracy. Rousseau's more complex view emphasized that true freedom came through participation in collective self-governance. The concept was further expanded by Kant who distinguished between negative freedom (freedom from external constraints) and positive freedom (freedom to act according to rational principles).

The American and French Revolutions attempted to implement these Enlightenment ideals, though in different ways. The American Revolution emphasized constitutional protections for individual rights, while the French Revolution initially focused more on collective freedom through popular sovereignty.

The 19th century saw the expansion of freedom through the abolition of slavery, the extension of suffrage, and the development of workers' rights. However, it also witnessed new challenges to freedom through industrialization, imperialism, and the rise of nationalism. Liberal thinkers like John Stuart Mill refined the concept of freedom, arguing in "On Liberty" that individual freedom should be limited only to prevent harm to others. Socialist thinkers like Karl Marx criticized liberal conceptions of freedom as merely formal, arguing that true freedom required economic emancipation from exploitation.

The early 20th century brought further challenges to freedom with the rise of totalitarian regimes that subordinated individual liberty to collective goals defined by the state. The horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust prompted a renewed commitment to human rights in the post-war period.

Freedom in America During Its Revolutionary 

American conceptions of freedom were fundamentally shaped by the Revolutionary period. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The Constitution and Bill of Rights sought to protect individual freedoms through limited government, separation of powers, and explicit protections for specific rights.

America's founding fathers were deeply influenced by Europe's devastating religious wars and sought explicitly to establish a secular state, ensuring political stability through less impassioned, non-sectarian governance. Thomas Jefferson famously articulated the need for a "wall of separation between Church and State," emphasizing the importance of preventing religious passions from corrupting civic affairs. James Madison echoed these sentiments in the ‘Federalist No. 10’, warning that "a zeal for different opinions concerning religion... have divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good." Moreover, John Adams explicitly stated in the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," underscoring the intention to build a nation free from religious domination in politics. These deliberate choices reflected the founders' careful effort to avoid the turbulence and violence experienced in Europe, creating instead a government dedicated to reason, secular authority, and inclusive pluralism.

However, many northern states maintained their own established churches at the state level, often Protestant denominations such as Congregationalism in Massachusetts and Connecticut. These states intended to preserve their autonomy in matters of religion, resisting a centralized national religious establishment while simultaneously protecting their existing state-supported religious institutions.

This duality of no national religion but tolerance of state-established religions was reflected in the U.S. Constitution. Notably, the Constitution itself initially contained only a prohibition on religious tests for federal office (Article VI). The broader guarantee of religious freedom came later in the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, explicitly preventing Congress from establishing a national religion or impeding religious exercise: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Therefore, while many northern states indeed had Protestant establishments at the state level, their representatives generally did not seek to create a Protestant national religion. Instead, they preferred a federal structure where religious decisions remained largely within state jurisdiction, ultimately paving the way for America's foundational principle of religious liberty and secular governance.

However, this vision of personal freedom coexisted with profound contradictions, most notably slavery and the exclusion of women and Native Americans from full citizenship. As historian Eric Foner notes, "The history of American freedom is a tale of debates, disagreements, and struggles rather than a set of timeless categories or an evolutionary narrative toward a predetermined goal."

American’s View of Freedom During the Civil War Period

The Civil War represented a pivotal moment in American conceptions of freedom. Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the subsequent 13th Amendment abolished slavery, while the 14th and 15th Amendments sought to guarantee equal citizenship rights regardless of race. However, the promise of Reconstruction was largely abandoned by the late 19th century, with Jim Crow laws imposing racial segregation and disenfranchisement. This period illustrated how formal legal freedom could be undermined by social and economic realities, a tension that would persist throughout American history.

The Progressive Period

The 1890-1920 Progressive Era in America saw efforts to redefine freedom in response to industrialization and corporate power. Progressive reformers argued that government intervention was necessary to secure "freedom from want" and protect citizens from economic exploitation. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal expanded this conception with his "Four Freedoms": freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. This represented a significant shift toward a more positive conception of freedom that required active government support rather than merely absence of constraint.

There were several significant environmental policies and actions enacted during the Progressive Era in the United States. This period was marked by growing public concern about conserving natural resources, protecting public lands, and addressing the negative environmental impacts of rapid industrialization.

The Progressive Era was foundational in shaping American environmental policy, emphasizing conservation, federal stewardship of natural resources, and the preservation of the nation's natural heritage. Leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, John Muir, and Gifford Pinchot significantly influenced public opinion and policy, creating a lasting legacy of environmental protection. Forest Reserve Act of 1891 authorized the President to set aside public forest lands as national forest reserves. It was a crucial step in protecting millions of acres of forests from logging and exploitation.Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. Forest Service was established in 1905, with Gifford Pinchot appointed as its first Chief Forester. Pinchot promoted the principle of conservation—responsible and sustainable use of natural resources—rather than unchecked exploitation. The Antiquities Act of 1906 empowered the president to designate national monuments to protect natural, historical, and cultural sites. Theodore Roosevelt notably used this act extensively, preserving landmarks such as the Grand Canyon and Devils Tower.Roosevelt established numerous national parks, bird reserves, and wildlife refuges. During his presidency alone, he protected around 230 million acres of public land, laying the foundation for the modern National Park System.  President Woodrow Wilson formally creating the National Park Service in 1916 to oversee and manage protected areas, emphasizing the protection of scenic beauty, natural resources, and historical sites for future generations.

How the Cold War Forged America's Modern Understanding of Freedom

The Cold War (1947–1989) profoundly redefined American notions of freedom, by elevating it into an essential ideological bulwark against Soviet communism. During this period, freedom became intrinsically linked to resistance against collectivist and perceived 'anti-Christian' doctrines, infusing the concept with emotional and religious resonance. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously declared in 1955, "Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life," explicitly merging religious faith with democratic concepts of freedom. Simultaneously, figures like Senator Joseph McCarthy warned that communism represented "a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity," further solidifying the belief that freedom was inseparable from religious adherence to Christianity. 

In response to the Soviet Union’s state-controlled economy and repressive society, Americans increasingly viewed freedom through the lens of free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. Barry Goldwater, the influential conservative presidential candidate in 1964, articulated this sentiment clearly: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size," reflecting a deep-seated belief that true freedom required restricting governmental authority. This blend of capitalist economics, limited governance, and Christianity forged a powerful cultural narrative during the Cold War that continues to shape American politics and society today.

This period saw the emergence of what political scientist Louis Hartz famously termed the "liberal consensus," reflecting a significant narrowing of political debate around a particular conception of freedom deeply linked to American exceptionalism and fervent anti-communism. American exceptionalism—the belief that the United States occupies a unique, divinely favored position among nations—was frequently articulated by leaders who viewed America as a "city upon a hill," a phrase originating from Puritan leader John Winthrop and notably echoed by presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Kennedy, in a 1961 address, invoked this vision explicitly, saying, "We shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us," reinforcing the idea that America’s view of freedom, democracy, Christianity and capitalism were moral examples for the world.

During the Cold War, American exceptionalism was intertwined with anti-communism, framing freedom explicitly as the antithesis to the Soviet Union's repressive political regime. Leaders from across the political spectrum, from Truman to Reagan, routinely underscored this ideological divide. President Ronald Reagan epitomized this perspective by famously branding the Soviet Union as the "evil empire," highlighting a profound moral and spiritual contrast between American democratic ideals and Soviet authoritarianism—a regime characterized by an absolute prohibition on private ownership, severe ban on travel and religious worship, and enforcement through a vast internal surveillance network and brutal system of gulags.

In one of America’s most striking ideological shifts, segments of the American conservative movement, once vehemently opposed to the Soviet Union as the "evil empire," have found common cause with Vladimir Putin's Russia, drawn by shared commitments to traditional values and opposition to liberal social norms, despite Putin continuing to preside over an authoritarian regime that suppresses all political dissent. This alignment is particularly evident in areas such as resistance to LGBTQ rights, promotion of Orthodox Christianity, and advocacy for nationalist policies.​

Putin has positioned Russia as a bulwark against Western liberalism, criticizing what he perceives as moral decay in the West. In a 2013 address, he stated, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” and condemned policies that equate “a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership” as leading to “degradation.”  Such rhetoric has resonated with American conservatives who feel marginalized by progressive cultural shifts.​ 

Institutions like the World Congress of Families (WCF), an American Christian organization, have collaborated with Russian counterparts to promote a global conservative agenda. The WCF has praised Russia's stance on traditional family values, with its managing director, Larry Jacobs, once remarking that “The Russians might be the Christian saviors of the world.”  

This convergence of values has led to a reevaluation of Russia among some U.S. conservatives, who now view Putin's leadership as a model for preserving traditional Christian values in the face of Western liberalism. This perspective marks a significant departure from Cold War-era hostilities and underscores the evolving dynamics of ideological alliances in the 21st century.

Today, America’s political right is reviving past Cold War-era rhetoric, this time drawing a direct comparison between Soviet communism and Chinese socialism, despite critical differences between the two systems. They argue that China's model similarly threatens individual liberty and religious freedom, core American values fiercely championed during the Cold War. Figures such as Senator Marco Rubio and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo consistently frame U.S.-China tensions as a struggle between American freedom and a purported Chinese authoritarianism akin to Soviet totalitarianism. 

However, this comparison conveniently ignores the substantial expansion of personal and economic freedoms in China following its market-oriented reforms initiated after 1980. Chinese citizens today enjoy significant latitude in religious practices and worship, the freedom to travel domestically and internationally, move where they wish, and the ability to establish private enterprises that fuel a dynamic economy. Additionally, China's relatively progressive stance, such as decriminalizing homosexuality and adopting a generally tolerant attitude toward LGBTQ individuals, marks a stark contrast to the enforced atheism and severely restrictive lifestyles characteristic of the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, this simplified framing remains potent in contemporary American political discourse, reflecting how deeply the Cold War legacy of equating freedom with anti-communism persists in shaping America’s geopolitical outlook, particularly its increasingly adversarial stance toward China.

American Media’s Portrayal of Freedom 

In the immediate post-war period, American media largely reflected and reinforced the "liberal consensus" around freedom. Hollywood films, television programs, and mainstream news outlets portrayed America as the leader of the "free world" in contrast to Soviet "tyranny."

The collaboration between the American film and broadcast television industries and the U.S. government played a pivotal role in crafting and disseminating the narrative of American exceptionalism. This partnership was especially pronounced during World War II and the Cold War, where media became a strategic tool for promoting national ideals.​

In the early 20th century, Hollywood's burgeoning film industry began to align its storytelling with themes that highlighted American values like democracy, freedom, and individualism. This alignment was not merely coincidental; it was often encouraged and facilitated by government agencies seeking to use cinema as a means of cultural diplomacy. For instance, during World War II, the Office of War Information (OWI) worked closely with filmmakers to produce content that would bolster American morale and portray the U.S. as a bastion of liberty.​

These concerted efforts between media pioneers and government entities were instrumental in embedding the concept of American exceptionalism into the cultural fabric, using the emerging powerful platforms of film and television to project and reinforce the nation's self-image both domestically and abroad.​ Films like "The Red Menace" (1949) and "I Was a Communist for the FBI" (1951) explicitly linked American freedom to anti-communism. Television shows like "I Led Three Lives" dramatized the threat of communist infiltration. Even children's entertainment like Superman comics featured the hero fighting for "truth, justice, and the American way."

The civil rights movement, Vietnam War, and counterculture of the 1960s prompted more critical media portrayals of American freedom. Television coverage of civil rights protests brought the contradiction between American ideals and racial realities into living rooms nationwide. The Pentagon Papers and Watergate scandal led to more adversarial journalism questioning government authority. Films like "Easy Rider" (1969), "MAS*H" (1970), and "All the President's Men" (1976) challenged traditional narratives about American freedom and authority.

In reaction to the progressive movements of the 1960’s and 70’s, the Reagan era saw a resurgence of traditional narratives about American freedom in mainstream media. Films like "Red Dawn" (1984) and "Rocky IV" (1985) revived Cold War themes. Reagan himself skillfully used television to promote his vision of freedom tied to free markets, limited government, and American exceptionalism. The fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union were portrayed in American media as the ultimate vindication of American conceptions of freedom. Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" thesis, suggesting the universal triumph of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism, received widespread media attention. However, this period also saw the growth of media fragmentation through cable television and early internet, allowing for more diverse perspectives on freedom to circulate.

Post-9/11 Era to Present

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, prompted a new media narrative about freedom under threat, requiring security measures that accepted limiting certain liberties. The USA PATRIOT Act and large-scale surveillance programs on American citizens were portrayed as necessary sacrifices of freedom for security. The ‘War on Terror’ generated media debates about torture, detention without trial, and surveillance that echoed Cold War tensions between security and liberty. Films like "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012) and television shows like "24" reflected these complex negotiations.

The rise of social media and digital platforms has fundamentally transformed media portrayals of freedom. These platforms have enabled previously marginalized voices to participate in public discourse about freedom, while simultaneously creating new challenges through misinformation, filter bubbles, and algorithmic curation that can limit exposure to diverse perspectives. Recent years have seen increasingly polarized media portrayals of freedom, with conservative outlets emphasizing freedom from government regulation and progressive outlets focusing on freedom from discrimination and economic insecurity. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified these divisions, with competing media narratives about freedom in relation to public health measures.

A core psychological aspect of American identity, the steadfast belief that "nobody tells me what to do," resonates powerfully within the MAGA movement and among conservative Republicans. This deeply ingrained individualistic ethos champions personal autonomy, defiance against external authority, and suspicion toward collective or institutional directives. Such attitudes help illuminate the pronounced resistance among conservatives and Trump supporters toward environmental regulations and policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, which they perceive as unwarranted intrusions upon their personal freedoms.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the fierce opposition among conservative Republicans and MAGA adherents to mask mandates, lockdown orders, and vaccination requirements vividly illustrated this "no one tells me what to do" mindset. Resistance to public health guidelines was frequently portrayed as a defense of individual freedom against perceived governmental tyranny. Similarly, the MAGA rallying cry to “drain the swamp” encapsulates a defiance of conventional political authority, institutions, and norms, which are viewed as intrusive on personal liberty and self-determination.

President Donald Trump embodies this attitude, frequently operating from a position of personal authority and dismissing collaborative negotiation. His presidency is characterized by a "my way or the highway" leadership style, exemplified by abrupt withdrawals from international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord, the World Health Organization, as well as confrontational approaches to allies and trade partners. Trump's insistence on personal loyalty and his public rebukes of those who disagree with him reflect this ethos and reveal a skepticism towards cooperative governance and multilateral diplomacy.

This psychological orientation significantly undermines the ability to build effective cooperative alliances, both domestically and internationally. Complex global challenges, like climate change, public health crises, economic cooperation, and security issues, depend upon mutual trust, compromise, and sustained collaborative effort. The insistence on absolute individual autonomy and rejection of external guidance erodes trust, alienates allies, and fractures the internal cohesion necessary to respond effectively to shared problems such as climate change, public health crises, or gun control. When individual autonomy is elevated above collective welfare, political polarization intensifies, eroding the capacity for consensus and compromise, and ultimately endangering the very foundations of democracy. The delicate balance between safeguarding personal liberties and embracing communal responsibilities continues to pose one of America's most profound and challenging societal dynamics.

One Planet, Divergent Ideas of Freedom

Contemporary Europe

Contemporary Europe embraces a nuanced, socially integrated view of freedom, emphasizing individual autonomy balanced with collective responsibility. Unlike conceptions of freedom in the United States that prioritize a more unbounded individualism, European societies often regard freedom as deeply intertwined with social cohesion, equity, and environmental sustainability. This is reflected in robust public welfare systems, shorter working hours, generous family leave policies, and comprehensive environmental protections. Such policies highlight Europe's belief that true freedom includes freedom from poverty, insecurity, and environmental degradation—conditions that enable citizens to meaningfully engage in civic and community life.

Europe’s conception of freedom is also closely linked to a multilateral and cooperative approach towards global governance. The European Union itself exemplifies a belief that national sovereignty is enhanced rather than diminished through collaboration within global institutions such as the United Nations, the World Court, and international climate accords. Furthermore, contemporary Europe tends toward secular governance, carefully balancing respect for diverse religious practices with firm commitments to secularism, tolerance, and pluralism. Freedom of religion is guaranteed, yet religious practice is viewed as a personal right, not a basis for public policy. Thus, Europe's vision of freedom reconciles individual liberties with collective welfare and global interdependence, placing it distinctly apart from the more individualistic and religiously driven interpretations found in the United States.

Chinese Conceptions of Freedom and Environmental Stewardship

After World War II, China was home to the world's poorest communities. After enduring millennia of rule under absolute emperors and subsequent exploitation by foreign imperial powers, the Chinese people only began to experience the true benefits of contemporary freedoms starting in the 1980s. Remarkably, between 1980 and 2010, China achieved unprecedented economic growth, the fastest ever recorded globally, lifting hundreds of millions of people from desperate poverty. Yet this remarkable rise came at an enormous price: devastating environmental degradation that threatened both China's ecological health and its continued prosperity. The urgency to balance economic progress with sustainable practices became critical—not only for China, but for the entire world.

As a result, the Chinese people increasingly view environmental regulations and the fight against climate change as essential priorities, driven by personal experiences with severe pollution and ecological challenges. Public awareness of environmental issues surged significantly from 1990-2010 after prolonged exposure to hazardous air quality, water contamination, and food safety concerns, making environmental protection a top social demand. Surveys consistently show strong public support for stringent environmental regulations and ambitious climate actions, often exceeding 80 percent approval. Citizens widely endorse government initiatives like transitioning to renewable energy, improving air and water quality standards, investing in green infrastructure, and the national goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. This broad-based support stems from the recognition that ecological health directly affects individual quality of life, economic stability, and overall social well-being.

President Xi Jinping succinctly emphasized China's commitment to environmental sustainability with his statement: "绿水青山就是金山银山" "Clear waters and green mountains are as valuable as mountains of gold and silver." This phrase encapsulates China's modern approach to environmental governance, reflecting Xi's stance that ecological preservation is foundational to sustainable economic growth and societal prosperity. The statement underscores China's national shift toward prioritizing environmental protection alongside economic development, marking a strategic departure from earlier models of growth at any ecological cost.

President Trump's recent assertion that pollution imposes "no cost to society" starkly contrasts with the prevailing scientific consensus and economic analyses, as well as the environmental policies championed by Chinese President Xi Jinping. While Trump's stance aligns with his administration's broader deregulatory agenda which has been characterized by rolling back over 125 environmental safeguards and weakening protections for clean air, water, and public health, President Xi has increasingly positioned environmental protection as central to China’s national development. Trump's dismissal of pollution's societal impacts raises substantial concerns about the long-term implications of American policy for both environmental stability and economic health.

Confucian philosophy, which has profoundly shaped Chinese culture for over two millennia, conceptualizes freedom differently from Western traditions. Rather than emphasizing individual autonomy and rights against external constraints, Confucianism focuses on moral self-cultivation and proper social relationships as the path to a meaningful form of freedom. 

The encounter with Western ideas in the 19th and 20th centuries prompted significant reconsideration of freedom in Chinese thought. The Reform and Opening period beginning in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping introduced market elements while maintaining party control, creating a hybrid system that challenges Western assumptions about the relationship between economic and political freedom. Contemporary Chinese discourse on freedom reflects this complex historical legacy. Official Chinese government perspectives often emphasize "freedom from want," collective development over individual political rights. As President Xi Jinping has stated, "We should ensure and improve living standards... and continuously enhance people's sense of fulfillment, happiness, and security."

In some ways unfamiliar to Western observers, Chinese are psychologically freer than their western counterparts. The concept of ‘finding the loose brick" (找到松动的砖头) in Chinese society refers to the practice of finding flexibility within seemingly rigid systems. Unlike Western approaches that emphasize formal rules and rights, this approach focuses on navigating constraints creatively rather than directly challenging them. This phenomenon manifests in various aspects of Chinese life. In business, entrepreneurs find ways to innovate within regulatory frameworks rather than seeking to dismantle them. In daily life, individuals develop strategies to achieve personal goals while maintaining social harmony.

The "loose brick" approach contrasts with Western legalism, which tends to emphasize clear rules and rights. While Western systems provide formal freedoms that may be practically difficult to exercise at times, the Chinese approach offers practical freedoms within a system that formally appears more restrictive. As sinologist Perry Link notes, "The Chinese political system is not a monolith but a hodgepodge of bureaucracies that sometimes compete with one another... The smart citizen learns where the cracks are and how to use them." China's view of international institutions is also fundamentally pragmatic and strategic. Beijing generally supports and actively participates in global institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization, viewing them as essential platforms for advancing its diplomatic, economic, and geopolitical interests. 

Domestically, the Chinese central government enjoys exceptionally high approval ratings compared to the United States federal government. Surveys conducted by reputable institutions such as the Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center indicate that the Chinese government regularly receives approval ratings exceeding 80% among its citizens, a reflection of perceived effectiveness, economic growth, poverty alleviation, infrastructure development, and overall improvements in living standards.

Chinese citizens typically direct their political frustrations and grievances toward local authorities rather than the central government, which enjoys significant public trust. This phenomenon reflects the common perception among Chinese that local officials are more susceptible to corruption, inefficiency, and mismanagement. Citizens frequently believe that local leaders fail to effectively implement the beneficial policies and directives issued by Beijing. In contrast, the central government is often viewed as responsive, competent, and dedicated to improving the lives of ordinary people. Consequently, when problems such as pollution, land seizures, or inadequate public services arise, citizens protest at local offices or file petitions against local bureaucrats, while maintaining a strong confidence in national leadership. This dynamic allows the Chinese Communist Party leadership to maintain legitimacy, with citizens often appealing directly to Beijing to intervene and correct perceived local abuses.

In the United States, the relationship between citizens and government presents an intriguing reversal of the dynamic seen in China. Americans generally hold their local governments in significantly higher regard than the federal government. Polling consistently shows that citizens perceive local authorities as more responsive, accountable, and attuned to community needs. This higher local approval stems from the tangible and visible services provided by local governments such as schools, parks, police, fire departments, and community projects that directly affect daily life.

In stark contrast, public approval ratings for the U.S. federal government often hover around 20–30 percent, as measured by polling organizations like Gallup and Pew Research Center. This lower approval reflects persistent dissatisfaction with political gridlock, economic disparities, polarization, institutional inefficiency, and perceived governmental dysfunction. Americans frequently view Washington as distant, overly politicized, and unresponsive, fostering deep dissatisfaction and skepticism toward national leaders and institutions. This American dynamic is the exact opposite of China and highlights how differing political structures and cultural attitudes shape public trust, civic engagement, concepts of freedom and the distribution of political accountability within each nation.

China’s Environmental Approach Underscores Social Stability

China’s approach to environmentalism has undergone a profound transformation over the last two decades.  Initially prioritizing economic growth without sufficient regard for environmental costs, China has since made environmental sustainability a cornerstone of national development and a critical factor in maintaining social harmony. In contrast to the decentralized, bottom-up environmentalism common in the United States, China's strategy is notably centralized, relying on powerful state-led initiatives and stringent regulatory measures. This top-down approach has yielded impressive results, including contributing half of the world’s investments in renewable energy infrastructure, rigorous air quality controls, and ambitious climate goals, most notably China’s pledge to achieve national carbon neutrality by 2060. Unlike in many Western contexts environmental protection is framed as essential for maintaining social harmony and long-term economic viability rather than purely ecological or individual health concerns.

China now positions itself as a global environmental leader, contrasting sharply with Western nations retreating from climate commitments. The Chinese government views proactive environmental leadership as enhancing national prestige, global influence, and domestic legitimacy. It supports international climate institutions such as the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, championing the principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” emphasizing developed countries' historical obligations to take primary responsibility for climate action. China's approach to environmentalism emphasizes state-driven solutions, global leadership, and environmental responsibility as central to national rejuvenation and global prestige.

Concepts of Freedom and Environmentalism in Russia

In Russia, the relationship between freedom and environmentalism mirrors the perspective we’re seeing with the Trump administration. The Russian conception of freedom emphasizes national strength, sovereignty, and autonomy, frequently defined by resistance to perceived external interference or influence. Environmentalism is often viewed skeptically, interpreted as an external agenda that threatens national independence and economic development rather than a legitimate domestic priority.

Historically influenced by periods of authoritarian rule, the Russian understanding of freedom frequently emphasizes social order, stability, and state-driven security rather than individual liberties as commonly articulated in Western contexts. Environmentalism in Russia is largely perceived through a lens of geopolitical pragmatism. While environmental concerns are acknowledged, especially given the visible impacts of climate change in Siberia and the Arctic, the Russian state views environmental initiatives primarily through the prism of economic competitiveness and geopolitical strategy. Consequently, Russia often portrays international environmental agendas as potential threats to its economic growth, energy exports, and sovereign decision-making, preferring a cautious engagement that prioritizes national interests and resource sovereignty.

Conservative religious leaders in America often have more in common philosophically with Russian traditions than with traditional Western or European liberal values. The Russian Orthodox Church, deeply influential in shaping Russian views on freedom, governance, and environmental responsibility, emphasizes a concept of personal liberty aligned with spiritual discipline, moral accountability, and collective welfare, rather than Western ideals of individual autonomy. It advocates for a structured societal order in which the state acts as a protector of moral integrity, traditional values, and national cohesion, perceiving governmental authority as divinely ordained to preserve social harmony. This perspective resonates closely with many conservative American religious movements that similarly emphasize morality, traditional authority, and collective well-being over individualistic freedoms.

Regarding environmentalism, the Russian Orthodox Church promotes a vision of humanity as stewards of God’s creation, emphasizing spiritual and moral responsibility toward the environment. However, this stewardship is typically framed within the context of religious and national values rather than global environmental movements, which the Orthodox Church often sees as influenced by secular, liberal ideologies. Thus, while encouraging ecological consciousness as part of spiritual responsibility, the Church remains cautious toward international environmental activism, viewing it as a potential vehicle for external interference in Russian sovereignty and cultural identity.

Concepts of Freedom and Environmentalism in India

Democracy in India means climate measures must generally win public approval or at least not provoke strong backlash. We see this in how policies are implemented: the government tends to favor win-win initiatives and avoid harsh restrictions. Renewable energy expansion has been a win-win with India having rolled out one of the world’s largest solar energy programs (aiming for 450 GW of renewable capacity by 2030) and promoted schemes like UJALA, which distributed hundreds of millions of efficient LED bulbs to households, cutting emissions and electricity bills simultaneously. These actions face little opposition because they align with development, providing jobs and better services. 

In contrast, attempts to remove subsidies on fossil fuels (like the subsidized kerosene and cooking gas many poor Indians rely on) have historically sparked protests, leading governments to backtrack or slow the reforms. Any climate policy that significantly raises costs for average citizens, for instance, a new carbon tax on fuel or electricity is politically sensitive in India’s democracy, unless accompanied by offsets or framed as pro-poor. The memory of India’s 2011 anti-corruption protests and other mass movements makes leaders cautious about triggering anger over prices or perceived “elitist” environmentalism.

Nonetheless, India has shown that the national government can promote climate action when policies are carefully designed. The country voluntarily set, and met, a goal to source 40% of its electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030, achieving this target nearly a decade early, by 2021, thanks to a solar and wind boom. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sensing both domestic and international expectations, announced a target for India to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. 

While 2070 is later than the mid-century targets of richer nations, it was a notable commitment for a developing democracy and provides a framework to gradually steer India’s economy toward lower emissions. Although India will continue to increase greenhouse gas emissions for decades, importantly, India has tied its climate promises to receiving climate finance and technology from developed countries, echoing its stance on equitable responsibility. Culturally, there is an acceptance among many Indians that while individual freedoms (speech, enterprise, etc.) are cherished in the political sphere, when it comes to climate and environment, the community’s survival and progress are paramount.

However, people are more inclined to embrace environmental regulations when they perceive tangible, immediate benefits, such as cleaner air in heavily polluted cities, efficient waste management, or enhanced water security as each directly contribute to an improved quality of life. In rural regions, the adoption of renewable energy is often warmly received when it delivers reliable electricity to communities previously without it, rather than solely as an abstract environmental imperative.

Environmentalism in India frequently highlights the tension between economic aspirations, poverty alleviation, and sustainable development. While many in India acknowledge the urgency of environmental challenges, particularly related to air and water pollution, deforestation, and climate vulnerability, national discourse often frames environmental issues as questions of equity, justice, and historical responsibility, stressing the right of developing nations to pursue growth. India's approach thus emphasizes climate justice, demanding that developed nations recognize historical responsibility, share technological innovations, and provide financial support to enable India’s sustainable development path.

In India, the relationship between religion, personal freedom, state authority, and environmentalism is deeply interconnected, shaped by diverse spiritual traditions and complex historical dynamics. India’s pluralistic religious landscape, predominantly Hindu but also encompassing significant Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, and Jain populations, emphasizes a form of personal freedom often understood within the framework of communal harmony, social duty (dharma), and ethical living rather than strict individual autonomy.

Environmentalism in India is thus widely viewed through both spiritual and pragmatic lenses. Indian environmental movements, inspired by historical precedents like the Chipko Movement, advocate protecting ecosystems not only for their inherent ecological value but also as part of spiritual and cultural heritage. However, rapid industrialization and economic growth often complicate this narrative, leading to internal debates about the role of the state in balancing environmental protection with development needs. Thus, India's understanding of freedom, religion, environmental responsibility, and governance reflects an ongoing negotiation between traditional spiritual values, individual aspirations, communal responsibilities, and the pressures of modern economic progress.

The experiences of the U.S., Europe, China and India illustrate how freedom and environmentalism are context-dependent concepts, shaped by national narratives, historical legacies, and developmental priorities. China and Russia views freedom primarily in collective and nationalistic terms, approaching environmentalism with strategic caution. In contrast, India's government frames freedom around individual and community rights and responsibilities, positioning environmentalism as a global justice issue intricately linked to economic equity and historical accountability.

The Global South: Development Priorities, Freedom and Climate Justice

The “Global South” refers broadly to developing nations in regions like Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific, are a diverse group with differing cultures and governments, but many share common challenges in the climate arena. Generally, these countries contributed relatively little to historical emissions but are highly vulnerable to climate impacts, and they face pressing development needs (poverty reduction, infrastructure, healthcare) that compete for attention and resources. When discussing personal freedom, democracy, and climate change in the Global South, the key theme is climate justice and the right to develop. Many leaders and citizens argue that their countries should not be forced to curtail economic growth, and the freedoms that come with improved prosperity, resulting from a problem created chiefly by the few legacy industrialized nations (Britain, Germany and the U.S.). This perspective shapes both domestic public support for climate measures and international negotiations.

In international forums, developing countries frequently invoke the principle of equity. For example, the ALBA coalition of Latin American nations has explicitly asserted that rich countries must “pay their climate debt” and allow poorer nations the freedom to develop.  Similarly, African leaders have been vocal that their continent, which has contributed the least to global emissions, should have the latitude to use its natural gas and other resources to industrialize. In 2022, Senegal’s President Macky Sall (then chair of the African Union) insisted “Africa must be able to exploit its large gas reserves for another 20 or 30 years to further its development… It would be unfair to stop us.” This sentiment that environmental limits should not indefinitely trap countries in poverty resonates with publics across the Global South. It ties into concepts of freedom at both the national and personal level: the sovereign freedom to chart their own economic course and at the individual level freedom from the hardships of underdevelopment.

The governance systems in the Global South range from vibrant democracies (e.g. South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia) to authoritarian regimes (e.g. the Gulf petro-states, many single-party or military governments) to fragile states in conflict. These political contexts influence climate policymaking. Democracies in the Global South often incorporate climate action into broader appeals for sustainable development. For instance, South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution guarantees environmental rights, and the country has developed a ‘Just Transition’ plan to move away from coal in a way that protects workers and communities. 

However, democratic politics can slow progress if powerful interests like South Africa’s coal mining unions or Brazil’s agribusiness lobby resist changes that threaten jobs or profits. In Brazil’s democracy, climate policy has swung dramatically depending on leadership.  President Jair Bolsonaro rolled back environmental protections and saw deforestation in the Amazon surge, whereas his successor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva campaigned on saving the rainforest and quickly strengthened conservation efforts. This shows how public opinion and electoral freedom can lead to very different climate outcomes in the same country. Brazilian society values the Amazon as part of national heritage, but economic pressures and populist rhetoric about “freeing” land for development created a pendulum in policy. Ultimately, Brazil’s return to pro-climate policies under Lula, driven by both domestic civil society pressure and international expectations, demonstrates a democratic course-correction that authoritarian systems might not achieve if a regime is anti-environment.

In many Global South democracies, public support for climate initiatives is tightly linked to immediate benefits. People are likely to back reforestation, clean energy, or climate adaptation projects if these also create jobs, improve resilience to disasters, or reduce pollution locally. However, if climate measures are perceived as threatening livelihoods such as ending fuel subsidies that help keep cooking or transport affordable, they can trigger unrest. Nigeria, a quasi-democratic country, saw major strikes and protests when it tried to remove gasoline subsidies in 2012; the policy was partly motivated by fiscal needs and also to reduce wasteful fuel use, but the public outcry forced a reversal. 

A unifying trend in the Global South is the push for climate finance and technology transfer from wealthier nations. Developing countries often say they are willing to pursue low-carbon development, but need the freedom to choose their path and significant support to do so. This was evident in the formation of blocs like the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), which includes India, China, and many others, calling on developed nations to drastically cut their own emissions and fulfill pledges to fund mitigation and adaptation in poorer nations​. Such cooperation among Global South states is a diplomatic exercise of collective freedom: amplifying their voice to shape international norms in a way that accounts for their needs and values.

Culturally, concepts of freedom in many Global South societies focus on freedom from want and vulnerability. For populations that are still securing basic necessities, their pragmatic viewpoint is simply that a truly free and good life is founded not on an abstract personal freedom but on stable housing, food security, and protection from natural disasters. Climate change is understood as a threat to those freedoms (e.g. farmers losing crops to drought have less economic freedom), so there can be grassroots support for adaptation measures like building flood defenses or improving water management. However, when it comes to mitigation like cutting emissions, people expect that burden to fall on those who can afford it. 

In small island developing states like those in the Pacific, which are democracies in peril of rising seas, the populace is extremely climate-conscious.  They reflect a high willingness to support global climate action because their very national existence and freedom to remain on their ancestral lands is at stake. They willingly implement local green policies and lead international moral calls for action. In these nations, freedom is intertwined with physical survival; accepting stringent climate policies is seen as necessary for preserving their homeland and sovereignty.

In summary, across the Global South the narrative often frames climate action not as opposition between freedom and regulation, but as a question of which freedoms are prioritized and whose responsibility it is to act on them. Citizens and leaders seek the freedom to pursue development and lift living standards, while also desiring freedom from the ravages of climate change. They tend to support climate mitigation if it aligns with development and if richer countries share the cost. As global climate negotiations and partnerships evolve such as funds for “Loss and Damage” agreed in 2022 to compensate vulnerable nations, the hope is that climate justice considerations will allow these countries to both exercise their development rights and participate in the global emissions reduction effort.

America’s Weakening Social Cohesion

The current political dynamics in the United States, characterized by deep polarization, distrust in institutions, and the rise of aggressive populist rhetoric, pose a significant risk of social instability and civil strife. One clear manifestation is the intense partisan divide driven by narratives that delegitimize democratic processes, most vividly illustrated by the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. This event, fueled by widespread misinformation about election integrity promoted by President Trump and amplified by influential conservative media, demonstrated how easily heated political discourse can transform into violent confrontations.

Beyond electoral violence, social instability is further exacerbated by movements that portray institutions such as public education, federal law enforcement, and environmental protection agencies as fundamentally opposed to American freedom and identity. President Donald Trump has frequently employed charged rhetoric to criticize the judiciary, often labeling judges who oppose his policies as “communist” or “radical left.” At a rally in Michigan marking his 100th day in office, Trump condemned “communist radical-left judges” for obstructing his agenda, asserting that “nothing will stop me” from making America safe. This pattern of attacking the judiciary has been a consistent feature of his political strategy, aiming to delegitimize legal opposition and galvanize his base. 

Trump's use of the term “communist” extends beyond judges to a broad spectrum of opponents, including educators, diversity and environmental advocates, and political adversaries. During his 2024 campaign, he referred to then-Vice President Kamala Harris as “Comrade Kamala,” a tactic reminiscent of Cold War-era fearmongering. This rhetoric serves to paint his critics as threats to American values, leveraging historical anxieties to rally support.​

President Trump’s tactics are reminiscent of those developed by his former confidant and attorney Roy Cohn, who first gained notoriety as the chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy during the ‘Red Scare’ of the 1950s. Under McCarthy, Cohn perfected a strategy of exploiting public fears of communist infiltration to consolidate political influence and discredit opponents. Trump's repeated accusations of communism against judges, political adversaries, and democratic institutions echo his mentor’s strategy, leveraging historical anxieties to rally his base, delegitimize opposition, and strengthen his own political position. This deliberate revival of Cold War-era fearmongering underscores a troubling continuity between Trump's rhetoric and the divisive methods pioneered decades ago by Cohn and McCarthy.

Legal experts have raised concerns that such inflammatory language undermines the independence of the judiciary and erodes public trust in democratic institutions. The American Bar Association and other legal organizations have condemned these attacks, emphasizing the importance of judicial impartiality and the rule of law.  Branding judges as “communists” not only misrepresents their role but also poses a danger to the foundational principles of American democracy.

Prominent conservative legal figures have increasingly voiced alarm over former President Donald Trump's authoritarian tendencies. J. Michael Luttig, a respected conservative jurist and former federal appeals court judge, has been particularly outspoken, describing Trump as "a clear and present danger to American democracy" and advocating for his disqualification from holding office under the 14th Amendment due to his role in the January 6 Capitol attack. ​ 

In a collective effort to uphold constitutional principles, Luttig joined forces with fellow conservatives George Conway and Barbara Comstock to establish the Society for the Rule of Law Institute. This organization aims to counteract what they perceive as "anti-constitutional and anti-democratic law" propagated by Trump and his allies, emphasizing the need for principled legal voices to challenge authoritarian legal theories. ​

Additionally, Paul Clement, a former U.S. Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, has emerged as a formidable legal opponent to Trump. Despite his conservative credentials, Clement has prioritized the defense of judicial independence and the rule of law over party loyalty, challenging Trump administration policies he views as executive overreach. ​ These actions underscore a significant rift within conservative legal circles, highlighting concerns that Trump's tactics threaten the foundational principles of American democracy.

On the other hand, conservative political figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ron DeSantis, and Steve Bannon have openly framed progressive or liberal policies as existential threats to national sovereignty, traditional values, and individual liberties. Their narratives galvanize supporters through confrontational language, fueling hostility and encouraging political violence, exemplified by increased threats against public officials, educators, and healthcare workers.

Their perspective is encapsulated in recent remarks by Russ Vought, the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, who stated: “Over the past four years, government spending has taken an aggressive turn against the American people, channeling trillions of taxpayer dollars into supporting cultural Marxism, radical Green New Deal scams, and even financing what amounts to our own invasion (referring to illegal immigration). No agency has remained untouched by this taxpayer-funded cultural revolution orchestrated by the Left.”

Further adding to this volatile mix outside the government are extremist groups, including White Christian Nationalist movements, which have become increasingly mainstreamed within the broader political landscape. Rhetoric from prominent political figures suggesting that governmental actions such as COVID-19 lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or climate change initiatives constitute authoritarian overreach, serve as rallying cries for these groups, legitimizing their perception of violence as justified resistance. Episodes such as armed protests against COVID restrictions in state capitols, threats against school boards implementing curriculum changes, and violent confrontations between protesters and counter-protesters over racial justice issues all illustrate how these political forces have translated into direct societal conflict.

These developments suggest that unless steps are taken to mitigate inflammatory rhetoric, rebuild institutional trust, and reinforce a shared commitment to democratic norms and values, the U.S. faces an increased likelihood of enduring social division and heightened risk of civil unrest, potentially escalating into widespread instability.

America’s Weakening Psychological Well-Being

Moreover, the relentless intensity of America’s culture war is exacting a heavy toll on individual mental health and community cohesion. Families find themselves divided, unable to bridge ideological divides at the dinner table, and lifelong friendships have completely unraveled as differing worldviews are recast as existential threats. This relentless atmosphere of discord and alienation fosters anxiety, depression, and feelings of hopelessness, especially among younger generations who fear inheriting a deeply fractured society. The ongoing erosion of common ground threatens to inflict lasting damage, undermining not only the nation's political stability and environmental resilience but also its fundamental capacity for empathy, cooperation, and collective action.

Recent polling further highlights the ongoing decline in Americans' self-reported mental health. Gallup's 2024 survey found that the decline has disproportionately affected young adults, particularly young women aged 18 to 29. From 2020 to 2024, a mere 15% of women in this age group rated their mental health as "excellent," a precipitous drop from the 48% who did so between 2010 and 2014.

it is not solely the toxic political discourse fueling this anxiety; equally damaging is the prolonged governmental inaction and the overt hostility toward environmental efforts from the Trump Administration. Climate change is now recognized as far more than an environmental or economic emergency—it has emerged as a profound societal and psychological crisis. Recent studies illuminate the immense mental health toll climate anxiety exacts, particularly among young people. A landmark global survey published in The Lancet Planetary Health in 2021 revealed that nearly 60% of individuals aged 16 to 25 reported feeling "very worried" about climate change. Even more troubling, nearly half stated these anxieties negatively affect their daily activities and overall emotional well-being. This pervasive psychological distress—often referred to as "eco-anxiety"—reflects a deeper collective experience marked by feelings of helplessness, grief, and profound uncertainty about the future.

In the United States, a parallel and equally troubling trend has unfolded over recent couple decades—a marked decline in the psychological well-being of its citizens, particularly younger populations. Multiple authoritative studies clearly demonstrate deteriorating mental health across America. Research from the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2019, based on the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), revealed a dramatic rise in mental health disorders among adolescents and young adults from 2005 to 2017. Notably, the proportion of youths aged 12 to 17 exhibiting symptoms of major depression increased alarmingly to 13.2%. Simultaneously, instances of severe psychological distress among young adults aged 18 to 25 surged by an even more concerning 71% between 2008 and 2017.

More recent polling further highlights the ongoing decline in Americans' self-reported mental health. Gallup's 2024 survey found that the decline has disproportionately affected young adults, particularly young women aged 18 to 29. From 2020 to 2024, a mere 15% of women in this age group rated their mental health as "excellent," a precipitous drop from the 48% who did so between 2010 and 2014.

The prevailing American narrative of freedom that celebrates unchecked capitalism and hyper-individualistic pursuits as pathways to prosperity and personal fulfillment is increasingly revealing its limitations, causing widespread societal distress. A critical examination, grounded in global assessments such as the World Happiness Report, places the United States at 24th, significantly behind other developed nations that consistently occupy top rankings. This disparity underscores substantial deficiencies within the American model. America's contemporary conception of freedom, deeply rooted in laissez-faire capitalism and minimal governmental oversight, fails to produce optimal psychological and social outcomes compared to more balanced, socially inclusive approaches practiced by other developed nations.

Profound economic disparities, exemplified by the fact that the bottom 50 percent of Americans own just 2.6 percent of the nation’s wealth, coupled with fragile community networks and limited access to essential services such as healthcare and education, have created widespread stress, insecurity, and disenfranchisement across vast portions of the American population. 

This economic divide is starkly reflected in health outcomes. A recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that the wealthiest 10% of Americans have a median life expectancy 14 years longer than the poorest 10 percent. Moreover, this longevity gap has been widening over time. Research from the Brookings Institution revealed that over just 20 years between 1970 and 1990, the life expectancy difference between the top and bottom income deciles increased from 5 to 12 years for men, and from 3.7 to over 10 years for women These deep-rooted inequalities, intensified by severe political polarization, are steadily undermining social cohesion and pose a significant threat to long-term societal stability.

It appears to be no coincidence that American lifespans began declining just as income levels for the working class started to flatten after 1970. As economic growth became increasingly concentrated among the wealthiest segments of society, wage stagnation and rising economic insecurity placed substantial stress on working-class households, limiting their access to quality healthcare, nutritious food, and stable housing, all essential determinants of long-term health. Research consistently links working-class wage stagnation to poorer health outcomes, highlighting how chronic stress, reduced community support, and financial insecurity directly impact life expectancy. The reversal of America's upward trajectory in lifespan beginning in 1970 illustrates the profound connection between economic well-being and population health.

Recent studies and reports have highlighted another concerning trend: states with Republican leadership generally exhibit lower life expectancies in part influenced by ideological stances against federal assistance.​  State-level data reveal substantial disparities. For instance, a Yale University study published in April 2025 found that women born in Connecticut in 2000 could expect to live 12.5 years longer than those born in 1900, reaching a life expectancy of 87.1 years. In contrast, life expectancy gains in states like Mississippi and West Virginia were minimal or even declined over the same period. Specifically, life expectancy for West Virginian women dropped from 78.4 years in 1950 to 75.3 years in 2000. 

As of May 2025, ten Republican-led states have declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), citing concerns over long-term costs and ideological opposition to expanding government healthcare programs. These states include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. ​ 

This resistance has left many low-income residents without access to affordable healthcare. For instance, Texas leads the nation in uninsured residents, with nearly one million Texans lacking health insurance due to the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. Similarly, in Wisconsin, Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos stated that “Medicaid expansion will never happen” as long as he holds his position, despite the potential to bring $2 billion in federal funds and extend care to nearly 90,000 Wisconsinites. ​ 

The decision to forgo Medicaid expansion has also had significant impacts on rural healthcare. Approximately 72% of all rural hospital closures since 2010 occurred in states that rejected the Medicaid expansion, disproportionately affecting deep red states such as Oklahoma, Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi.  Additionally, the Trump Administration's proposed federal budget cuts targeting Medicaid and other health programs threaten to exacerbate these disparities. Such cuts could result in millions losing health coverage and place additional strain on state healthcare systems. ​

These policy decisions underscore the profound impact of political ideology on public health outcomes, with Republican-led states' resistance to Medicaid expansion contributing to significantly lower life expectancies and reduced access to healthcare services.​

Global Counterpoints 

Europe offers a compelling counterpoint. Nations such as Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland repeatedly top global happiness rankings precisely because their economic models temper the excesses of capitalism with robust social safety nets, extensive public services, and proactive redistribution mechanisms. These countries prioritize equity and collective prosperity, factors closely correlated with higher levels of societal trust, lower stress, and greater overall satisfaction. European citizens benefit from universal healthcare, quality education, strong environmental laws and robust welfare systems, demonstrating that balanced government intervention can significantly enhance societal well-being.

China and India provide additional dimensions for understanding the complexities at play. China’s authoritarian capitalism, although they self-declare as a socialist state, has undeniably driven substantial economic growth and poverty alleviation. Over the past four decades, China has achieved a remarkable feat by lifting approximately 800 million people out of extreme poverty, accounting for more than 75 percent of global poverty reduction during this period, even passing the lifespan of Americans by 2016. China now has more middle-class citizens than America or Europe. However, China’s limitations on political involvement cap the overall happiness rating for its citizens, ranking 68^th last year. India’s democratic structure, combined with a rapid market expansion, also highlights that democracy alone does not guarantee happiness. Persistent inequality, inefficient governance, and insufficient social infrastructure result in relatively low happiness scores, ranking 118^th, despite vibrant democratic processes.

The World Happiness Report underscores that economic prosperity alone is inadequate to guarantee happiness. True societal well-being requires not just wealth but also equitable distribution, effective governance, strong community ties, and environmental sustainability. America's current trajectory, emphasizing unchecked capitalism and individualism without commensurate social and environmental protections, deepens divides and fostering instability.

Europe demonstrates that balanced capitalism with robust social protections leads to higher happiness compared to the purely market-driven U.S. model, which exacerbates inequalities. Democracy combined with inclusive capitalism in Europe has led to consistently high happiness levels, whereas democracy without strong welfare provisions (U.S., India) results in lower happiness. China's authoritarian capitalism achieves high marks for economic stability but at the expense of limiting political involvement, capping overall happiness. 

Environmental concerns also affect happiness significantly. Europe's proactive stance on sustainability contributes positively to societal well-being, whereas environmental degradation in India reduces life satisfaction despite economic growth. In summary, the most successful formula for sustained societal happiness appears to be a balanced integration of democracy, capitalism, a strong social welfare state, and proactive environmental programs as effectively demonstrated by Europe, contrasted with more polarized and less balanced systems in the U.S., China, and India.

Contrasting Environmental Policies Between the World’s Two Super Powers

The environmental policies of the Chinese government and the current Trump administration represent fundamentally divergent approaches to climate change and sustainability.​ China has articulated a long-term vision to address climate change, aiming to peak carbon emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. The nation has made substantial investments in renewable energy, surpassing its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target for wind and solar capacity six years ahead of schedule, reaching 1,206 GW in July 2024. China's 1+N Framework, established in 2021, provides a structured approach to achieving its climate goals. ​ 

Recent studies suggest that China is approaching, or may have already reached, its peak in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, ahead of its official target of peaking before 2030.​ According to a 2024 survey by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), 44% of climate experts believe that China's CO₂ emissions have already peaked or will do so in 2025. Analyses indicate that China's emissions remained flat or slightly increased in 2024, with a 0.8% year-on-year growth. This stabilization is attributed to a record surge in clean energy, including significant expansions in solar and wind power, which helped offset emissions from other sources. 

In contrast, the Trump administration has taken steps to roll back environmental regulations and prioritize fossil fuel development. On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order halting federal approvals for wind energy projects, prompting legal challenges from multiple states. The administration has also moved to eliminate programs like Energy Star, which promoted energy efficiency and consumer savings. ​ 

President Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about climate change, referring to it as a "hoax" and advocating for increased oil and gas production under the mantra "drill, baby, drill." His administration's policies include withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, dismantling climate-focused executive orders from the previous administration, and reducing support for renewable energy initiatives. ​ 

While China's approach involves setting long-term climate goals and investing in renewable energy, albeit with ongoing reliance on coal, the Trump administration's policies have focused on deregulation and expanding fossil fuel use. China's strategy reflects an acknowledgment of climate change as a significant issue, whereas the Trump administration has deprioritized climate concerns in favor of energy independence and economic considerations.​

This divergence underscores the varying national strategies in addressing global environmental challenges, with China's policies aiming for gradual transition and the Trump administration favoring economic and energy production goals that maintain the status quo.

Freedom and The Rise of Illiberal Democracies

Historically, the development of democracy and expansion of freedom have often occurred together, particularly in Western contexts. The American and French Revolutions linked democratic governance with protection of individual rights. The "third wave" of democratization in the late 20th century similarly connected democratic transitions with expanded freedoms.

However, this relationship has not been universal or straightforward. The rise of illiberal democracies in recent decades demonstrates that electoral democracy does not automatically secure individual freedoms. Countries like Hungary and Turkey maintain democratic elections while restricting press freedom, academic freedom, and minority rights.

Under former President Trump and a significant faction of conservative Republicans, America has experienced a concerning drift toward illiberal democracy. Characterized by intensified polarization, weakening institutional checks and balances, attacks on the judiciary and independent media, and increasingly restrictive voting laws, this trend signals a retreat from core liberal democratic principles. Trump's repeated undermining of electoral integrity, dismissal of critical media coverage as "fake news," and his supporters' embrace of authoritarian-leaning rhetoric have collectively eroded public trust in democratic institutions. Conservative legislatures at the state level have advanced measures to curtail voter participation, gerrymander electoral districts, and limit the rights of marginalized groups, further weakening the foundational ideals of American democracy. This shift toward illiberalism, driven by an agenda of nationalism and cultural grievance, poses an enduring threat to America's democratic health and stability.

The Path Forward

The relationship among personal freedom, democratic governance, and climate action is intricate, nuanced, and deeply influenced by cultural and political contexts. Globally, varying cultural norms and institutional structures profoundly shape how nations confront the concepts of freedom and address the global warming. European democracies, for instance, typically succeed in enacting ambitious environmental measures through consensus-driven approaches, although this requires ongoing negotiation to maintain fairness and mitigate unequal burdens. Conversely, the United States exemplifies how a pronounced commitment to individual liberty can impede essential collective action, especially when such actions demand personal sacrifice or behavioral change. Furthermore, the evolving democratic dialogue in America reveals increasing polarization, with influential conservative media voices actively questioning or dismissing the necessity of meaningful climate interventions.

Authoritarian models exemplified by China can jump-start massive changes and potentially leapfrog in green technology, while developing nations across the Global South remind us that climate solutions must be equitable and paired with development; their calls for climate justice are fundamentally about reconciling ‘freedom from poverty’ with ‘responsibility for the planet.’ They show that while emissions cuts are needed everywhere, the pathway to decarbonization can’t ignore historical inequalities.

Ultimately, different concepts of freedom, whether it’s the American notion of minimal government, the European idea of collective welfare, the Chinese prioritization of stability, or the Global South’s aspiration for developmental autonomy, all influence how far and how fast societies will go in transforming their economies for sustainability. The most successful climate actions seem to occur when policymakers harness cultural values rather than fight them.  For instance, framing climate stewardship as patriotic and pro-economic in the U.S., as safeguarding social welfare in Europe, as advancing national greatness and “ecological civilization” in China, and as a path to self-reliant development in the Global South. 

No one system has a monopoly on effective climate action. Enlightened leadership and public engagement can drive progress in democracies and non-democracies alike, just as obstruction or apathy can impede them.  Climate change, after all, is a collective problem that demands collective solutions; aligning those solutions with people’s sense of freedom and fairness is key to achieving the broad-based support needed to save our shared planet.