Kamala Harris’s Warnings: A Deep Dive into the Reality of Trump’s Presidency

Introduction: A Cautionary Tale

During the heated 2024 presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris issued a series of stark warnings about what Americans could expect if Donald Trump returned to the White House. Her predictions, dismissed by Trump’s supporters as partisan fear-mongering, have proven remarkably prescient in the eight months since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025. Ahead of former Vice President Kamala Harris’s television interview scheduled for next week, I thought it important to examine her specific campaign predictions and compare them to the documented actions of the Trump administration. This reveals a troubling pattern of authoritarian governance that validates many of her most dire warnings.

After Trump’s election, MAGA supporters were jubilantly crashing social media, celebrating their victory while claiming that those on the left were upset. The most interesting aspect of the situation was their enthusiasm for electing a convicted felon who pardoned multiple others involved in obstructing the peaceful transfer of power. This culminated in a shocking display of defiance, as they opted to “piss and defecate in the US Capitol,” highlighting an extremely unusual set of choices.

The MAGA supporters, in a display of apparent glee, reportedly danced and laughed, seemingly unfazed by the consequences of higher prices, impending tariffs scheduled to take effect before Christmas, reduced educational opportunities, and rising unemployment rates. Their attitude was fueled by the widening gap between the impoverished masses and the increasingly affluent wealthy. Oh, and their president is bankrupting their local soybean farmers to boot! I say, “they not like us (me).”

The Military Against Americans: From Campaign Warning to Reality

Harris’s Prediction

One of Harris’s most prominent campaign warnings centered on Trump’s October 2024 comments about using the military against “the enemy from within”—Americans who opposed him. During a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, Harris declared: “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged, and he is out for unchecked power...He wants to send the military after American citizens.” She specifically warned that, “He’s saying that he would use the military to go after them... We know who he would target because he has attacked them before. Journalists whose stories he doesn’t like. Election officials who refuse to cheat...Judges who insist on following the law instead of bending to his will.”

The Reality

Harris’s warnings have materialized with alarming precision. In June 2025, Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid protests against immigration raids, overriding California Governor Gavin Newsom’s objections. The administration later expanded military deployments to Washington, D.C., with plans for Chicago and other Democratic-led cities. This followed protests against racial injustice and police brutality, with the federal government citing concerns about civil unrest as the primary justification.

The legal system has validated Harris’s concerns. On September 2, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act when deploying military forces. He wrote that the rationale for deployment was contrived because there was no rebellion, and civilian law enforcement could respond to the protests and enforce the law. Judge Breyer described the administration’s actions as “creating a national police force with the President as its chief” and criticized the politically motivated nature of the deployment.

Military leaders themselves have expressed alarm. U.S. military personnel criticized Trump’s actions, which have “overtly pitted the military against his professed political opponents.” They noted that he “suggested Governor Newsom be arrested, requested military personnel cheer as if at a political rally, and stated protesters at his birthday party in Washington, D.C. over the weekend would be met with ‘very big force.’”

Trump has threatened a military invasion of Chicago, citing his “Department of War.” Yep, your president has pledged an open war on his own citizens while you argue over the difference between “freedom of speech,” opinion, and what is racism. Welcome to the circus. President Trump is now pledged to wage war on anyone who says anything mean about Charlie Kirk or protests against his “invasions” or calls his “firings” illegal. The courts have blocked his firing of Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve for now. Queue the circus clowns and bring in the unicycle and lion tamer? Oh, the circus tent is quite large. Even Piers Morgan has entered the center ring under the big top, saying the left is to blame for Charlie Kirk’s death over his “opinions.” Although the alleged shooter is white, from Utah, and from a Republican family.

An opinion is “Sprite is better than Coca-Cola.” Saying, “If I get on a plane and the pilot is black, I think he is not qualified” is racist. Attacking female black professors with a racial hatred email campaign is not an opinion that is racist. Know the difference.

January 6 Pardons: A Promise Kept

Harris’s Prediction

Throughout her campaign, Harris repeatedly highlighted Trump’s promises to pardon January 6 defendants. “He says one of his highest priorities is to set free the violent extremists who assaulted those law enforcement officers on January 6,” Harris warned during her closing argument speech at the Ellipse.

The Reality

On January 21, 2025—just one day after his inauguration—Trump offered pardons to some 1,500 January 6 rioters. This fulfilled campaign promises he had made repeatedly, including his September 2022 pledge to give “full pardons with an apology to many” and his March 2025 Truth Social post promising to “Free the January 6 Hostages being wrongfully imprisoned!”

The speed and scope of these pardons validated Harris’s warnings about Trump’s priorities upon taking office, demonstrating his commitment to what she characterized as freeing “violent extremists.”

The “Enemies List”: Revenge and Retribution

Harris’s Prediction

A central theme of Harris’s campaign was Trump’s obsession with revenge. In Philadelphia, she warned voters to imagine Trump in the Oval Office “stewing over his enemies list,” describing him as “full of grievance... full of dark language that is about retribution and revenge.” At her closing Ellipse speech, she characterized Trump as “unstable, obsessed with revenge, consumed with grievance, and out for unchecked power.”

The Reality

Trump’s presidency has been marked by systematic targeting of political opponents. The Trump administration took a series of actions using the government to target his political opponents and civil society, described by the media as part of his promised “retribution” and “revenge” campaign.

Specific actions include:

• FBI raids on the home of John Bolton, former Trump adviser turned critic.

• On April 24, 2025, Trump directed the Justice Department in a presidential memorandum to investigate the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue in an attempt to cripple the Democratic Party’s political infrastructure.

• On January 27, the DOJ fired more than a dozen officials who worked on criminal cases against Trump and launched a “weaponization working group” to review and investigate officials at both the state and federal levels who previously investigated Trump.

• Trump has targeted Kamala Harris, Beyoncé, and Oprah for prosecution, claiming Harris and the celebrities involved should be ‘prosecuted.’

  
  

The scope of Trump’s targeting has been extensive. An NPR investigation found that since 2022, Trump has made more than 100 threats to prosecute or punish perceived enemies, with targets including journalists, election officials, judges, and political opponents.

Weaponizing Government Institutions

Harris’s Prediction

Harris warned that Trump would use the power of government to punish his opponents and reward his allies, fundamentally corrupting democratic institutions.

The Reality

The Trump administration has systematically politicized government institutions. He ended the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence, weaponizing it and ordering it to target his political enemies. He politicized the civil service, undertaking mass layoffs of government employees to recruit workers more loyal to himself.

The administration has implemented unprecedented loyalty tests. Candidates for top national intelligence and law enforcement positions were given Trump loyalty tests. Candidates were asked to give yes or no responses to whether or not January 6 was an “inside job” and whether or not the 2020 election was “stolen.” Those that did not say yes to both answers were not hired.

Authoritarian Alignment: The Company He Keeps

Harris’s Prediction

While Harris didn’t make specific predictions about Trump aligning with authoritarians during the 2024 campaign, she had previously criticized his relationships with dictators and strongmen as inappropriate for an American president.

The Reality

Trump’s continued admiration for authoritarian leaders has been on full display. Trump erupted on social media as Chinese leader Xi Jinping hosted the authoritarian leaders of Russia and North Korea at a stunning military parade in Beijing, writing, “Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America.”

Xi Jinping staged a staggering show of China’s military power before some of the world’s most powerful authoritarian leaders, rallying them behind his vision for a new world order as U.S. President Donald Trump wages a global trade war, with “the defining image of the spectacle... the sight of Xi, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un standing side by side.”

Despite his frustration with being excluded from authoritarian summits, Trump continues to praise these leaders. His past comments about Kim Jong Un being “top of the line... really smart” and Putin having “very strong control over a country” demonstrate the pattern Harris warned about.

Constitutional and Legal Violations

Harris’s Prediction

Harris warned that Trump represented a fundamental threat to democratic norms and constitutional governance.

The Reality

Legal scholars and courts have validated these concerns. Several of Trump’s actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution, according to American legal scholars. He undertook a massive expansion of presidential power under a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory.

Violating the Posse Comitatus Act through military deployments represents just one example of constitutional overreach that courts have been forced to check.

Immigration: From Mass Deportation Warnings to Reality

Harris’s Predictions

During the 2024 campaign, Harris warned about Trump’s promise of “the largest mass deportation in American history.” She criticized Trump’s plans to use military resources for immigration enforcement and highlighted the human cost of his proposed policies. In her 2019 town hall, Harris had called Trump’s family separation policy a “human rights abuse” and warned that his immigration agenda would tear apart families and communities.

The Reality

Trump’s immigration enforcement has exceeded even the harsh predictions made during the campaign. Since taking office, the administration has pursued what experts call a “maximalist” deportation campaign affecting hundreds of thousands of immigrants through detentions and expulsions.

Scale of Operations: ICE has deported nearly 200,000 people in the first seven months of Trump’s administration, putting the administration on track for over 300,000 deportations in fiscal year 2025—the highest level in a decade. The administration has set ambitious goals of 3,000 arrests per day and one million deportations annually.

Military Involvement: Harris’s warnings about military involvement in immigration enforcement have materialized. The administration has enlisted multiple federal agencies, deployed troops to the border, and used military aircraft for deportations. By July 2025, the Department of Defense had increased authorized military personnel supporting ICE from 1,200 to 1,700.

Targeting Non-Criminals: While Trump campaigned on deporting “the worst of the worst,” data shows a shift toward arresting migrants with no criminal convictions. In Los Angeles and New York, almost 60% of those arrested by ICE in the first ten days of June had no criminal convictions, contradicting the administration’s stated priorities.

Infrastructure and Funding: Congress provided $170.1 billion in new spending for immigration enforcement, making ICE the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency in history—funded at a level higher than some foreign militaries.

Economic Policy: Middle-Class Tax Relief vs. Consumer Tax Burden

Harris’s Predictions vs. Trump’s Promises

The 2024 campaign featured starkly different economic visions. Harris proposed middle-class tax relief, including an expanded child tax credit and small business support, funded by higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Trump promised extensive tariffs and tax cuts, claiming tariffs would boost manufacturing and pay for other initiatives.

Harris’s Tax Plan: Analysis showed Harris’s proposals would provide average tax cuts of 2.7% for middle-class families and 7% for the poorest Americans, while the richest 1% would pay an average of 4.1% more in taxes.

Trump’s Economic Claims: Trump claimed foreign countries would pay his tariffs and that tariffs would boost American manufacturing without harming consumers. He dismissed concerns about inflation stemming from his tariff policies.

The Economic Reality

Eight months into Trump’s presidency, the economic impact has validated Harris’s concerns about the burden Trump’s policies would place on working families.

Tariff Impact on Consumers: Trump’s tariffs have proven to be exactly what Harris called them—a “Trump Tax” on American consumers. From January to April 2025, the average applied U.S. tariff rate rose from 2.5% to about 27%—the highest level in over a century.

Consumer Costs: The tariffs amount to an average tax increase of nearly $1,300 per U.S. household in 2025, with some analyses showing losses of $3,800 per household from all tariffs combined. For the poorest households, the burden is $1,700 annually, contradicting Trump’s claims that foreign countries would pay.

MAGA don’t care because six-pack and smokes will be available so how some where and enough leftover for bullets to fire at stop signs on the weekends from the .30-06 Springfield and empty beer bottles on creek beds in small-town USA.

Economic Disruption: The tariffs have caused significant economic disruption. The 2025 stock market crash followed Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, and businesses have reported “irreversible damage” from the trade policies. Many companies have canceled orders from China entirely due to prohibitively high tariff levels.

GDP Impact: Economic modeling shows Trump’s tariffs reducing U.S. real GDP growth by 0.5 to 0.9 percentage points, with the economy persistently 0.4-0.6% smaller in the long run—equivalent to $100-180 billion annually in lost economic output.

MAGA won’t understand this GDP impact because they can’t figure out opinion and racism. They sanitize a person’s life although that person didn’t care about children dying due to mass shootings and said it’s a consequence for gun support. MAGA believes children dying is okay as long as the gun lobby keeps cranking out more ammo.

Manufacturing Reality: While Trump claimed tariffs would boost manufacturing, the reality is more complex. Projections indicate that advanced manufacturing output will decrease by 2.7%, and the growth of basic manufacturing pushes out other sectors, leading to a 3.6% contraction in construction and a 0.8% contraction in agriculture.

The Tax Policy Contrast

The contrast between what Harris promised and what Trump delivered couldn’t be starker:

• Harris’s Promise: Tax cuts for families earning under $400,000, funded by higher taxes on the wealthy.

• Trump’s Reality: The largest tax increase since 1993, disproportionately affecting working families through tariffs while planning corporate tax cuts.

  
  

Middle-Class Impact: Under Trump’s implemented policies, the middle fifth of Americans face a tax increase of 2.1% of their income through tariffs, while the richest Americans benefit from planned corporate tax cuts. This is the opposite of Harris’s proposal, which would have provided middle-class families with an average tax cut of $1,980.

Conclusion: The Accuracy of Harris’s Warnings

Eight months into Trump’s second presidency, Kamala Harris’s campaign warnings have proven remarkably prescient. Her predictions about military deployment against Americans, January 6 pardons, targeting political enemies, weaponizing government institutions, expanding presidential power, harsh immigration enforcement, and the economic burden of tariffs have all materialized with disturbing accuracy.

Immigration: The “largest mass deportation in American history” is underway, with military involvement, targeting of non-criminals, and family separations that Harris warned would constitute “human rights abuse.” Considering that Donald Trump is often portrayed as a successful businessperson and someone who supports American businesses, it seems contradictory that his ICE agents were involved in an operation that resulted in the roundup of over 470 individuals in Georgia, at an auto plant, and the detention and shackling of around 300 Korean workers for deportation.

Economic Policy: Trump’s tariffs have become exactly what Harris called them—a tax on American consumers, contradicting his campaign promises while implementing the largest tax increase since 1993 that disproportionately burdens working families.

Democratic Institutions: The systematic targeting of political opponents, weaponizing of government agencies, and expansion of presidential power have unfolded precisely as Harris predicted.

The pattern that emerges suggests Harris understood both the authoritarian trajectory and the economic consequences Trump would pursue better than many who dismissed her warnings as partisan hyperbole. From the immediate pardoning of January 6 defendants to implementing consumer-crushing tariffs, Trump has followed the playbook Harris outlined during her campaign. He has canceled cancer research. I mean, his administration has clogged up the scientific gears that have made huge life-saving progress.

In short, he wants more Americans to die by halting cancer research, stopping vaccines, and removing reproductive healthcare options for the most vulnerable Americans. Yeah, that sounds awesome, not really! Don’t forget he himself is old as dirt.

Perhaps what’s most troubling is how quickly and thoroughly they implemented these actions. Within days of taking office, Trump had pardoned insurrectionists and begun targeting political opponents. Within months, he was deploying military forces domestically and implementing historic tariff increases. The systematic nature of these actions suggests not spontaneous decisions but a deliberate strategy to merge power, punish enemies, and transfer economic costs to working families—exactly what Harris warned would happen. Also, he has let Russia fly drones into NATO countries, and not even George Bush or Ronald Reagan ever did that. So yes, there is a compromise issue here. He is the only U.S. president to bow down to Putin—why is that? Please MAGA explain why your guy lets another foreign leader walk all over his back and dance on his head.

Her predictions about the economic impact were correct. While Trump promised his policies would benefit working families, the reality has been a massive tax increase in tariffs that disproportionately affects those least able to afford it, while corporate tax cuts benefit the wealthy—the exact opposite of Harris’s middle-class-focused tax plan.

As the rest of Trump’s term unfolds, Harris’s other warnings—about threats to democracy, press freedom, and the rule of law—deserve serious attention from Americans concerned about the preservation of democratic institutions. Her accurate predictions validate her concerns and soberly remind people how quickly democratic norms erode and economic hardship arises when authoritarianism remains unchecked.

The question now is not whether Harris’s warnings were accurate—the evidence shows they were—but whether American institutions and the American people have the strength and will to resist the authoritarian trajectory and economic policies she so clearly foresaw.

But if we can’t tell the difference between a ham sandwich and a cheeseburger, then I fear it doesn’t matter how many cooks we have in the kitchen if people prefer to starve, accepting a lie.