Trump, Feudalism, and the Erosion of Rational Governance

The modern political landscape is often framed as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, capitalism and socialism, or progress and tradition. But beneath these debates lies a more fundamental shift—one that mirrors the structure of medieval feudalism, where power was concentrated in the hands of a select few, governance was based on personal loyalty rather than institutional stability, and the masses lived in economic and political dependency.
Under Donald Trump, this transformation has become more pronounced. His administration blurs the lines between state and corporate power, leadership and spectacle, reality and performance. Yet, beyond these structural changes, another factor sets Trump apart: his declining cognitive state, which shaped his leadership's erratic, fragmented nature.

A Government of Lords and a Leader in Decline
Feudalism relied on rigid hierarchies where kings ruled not through institutions but through direct relationships with their vassals. Trump’s administration follows this model, prioritizing loyalty over competence. He surrounds himself with corporate overlords, political insiders, and family members, rather than experienced policymakers.
From the beginning, he aligned himself with tech moguls like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, whose dominance in the digital economy makes them modern-day feudal lords. These corporate leaders control the fundamental resources of the modern era—not land, but data, platforms, and digital infrastructure—ensuring that power remains concentrated in private hands.
Yet, a declining king stands at the heart of this feudal structure. Some years ago, Forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee ( https://bandylee.com/) and a coalition of mental health experts warned about Trump’s cognitive deterioration, arguing that his speech patterns, erratic behavior, and inability to maintain logical coherence pointed to serious neurocognitive decline.
Researchers had already noted a shift in his speech complexity from his 40s to his 70s, with increasing signs of fragmented thought patterns and circumstantiality—a tendency to lose track of ideas mid-sentence. By 2024, his public statements exhibited extreme tangentiality, where he would frequently veer off-topic, struggle to complete thoughts and insert unrelated ideas into conversations.
These patterns are not simply a rhetorical style but a sign of cognitive impairment, reinforcing that America’s government has become a personal fiefdom ruled by an erratic sovereign, surrounded by barons of industry who truly dictated policy.

The Return of Crusader Politics: Fragmented Speech, Fragmented Governance
Trump’s administration not only mimics feudal structures in terms of governance but also revives medieval-style exclusionary politics.
One of the most striking examples in his earlier term was Executive Order 13769, commonly known as the "Muslim Ban," which restricted travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Much like medieval rulers justified wars and conquests through religious and cultural purity narratives, Trump framed immigration restrictions as a necessity for national security, stoking fears of foreign "invaders" in ways reminiscent of Crusader rhetoric.
Yet, unlike medieval kings who at least maintained coherent political objectives, Trump’s delivery of these policies becomes increasingly erratic. His speeches, often riddled with incoherence, contradictions, and unrelated tangents, signal a leader struggling to grasp reality.
Instead of making logical, structured arguments, he jumps between unrelated topics, attacks the media, revisits personal grievances, and returns to well-worn talking points without connection to the policy. His inability to maintain a linear argument reflects a more profound cognitive shift that paralleled the breakdown of centralized governance in medieval feudal states, where political decisions often hinged on the whims of an aging or incapacitated ruler.

Digital Serfdom: The New Lords of Power
In medieval feudalism, land was the primary source of wealth and control. Today, that role is played by digital platforms, data, and algorithmic dominance, which determine everything from employment opportunities to public discourse.
Under Trump, Big Tech monopolies solidifies their role as modern feudal lords, much like medieval aristocrats who controlled resources and dictated the conditions under which the population lived and worked.

• Social media platforms have become the new royal court, shaping narratives and controlling which voices are amplified or silenced.
• Gig economy platforms like Uber and Amazon turn workers into digital serfs, dependent on monopolized platforms with little bargaining power.
• The extraction of user data mirrors medieval taxation, where economic value was systematically extracted from the public without direct compensation.

Much like medieval peasants, the modern public finds itself trapped in a system where resource access is dictated not by democratic governance but by the whims of corporate overlords. Trump’s presidency does not challenge this structure; it reinforces it, creating a state where economic and political power are wielded not by elected representatives but by a coalition of business elites and political insiders.

Beyond Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism: The Rise of Feudal Technocracy
Trump’s rule also marks a shift away from traditional political ideologies. Unlike past Republican administrations that adhered to neoliberal free-market principles or neoconservative interventionist strategies, Trump’s model of governance resembles a mix of feudalism and technocratic oligarchy:

Economic policy prioritized protectionism over free trade, with tariffs and economic nationalism overriding traditional conservative orthodoxy.

• Foreign policy is increasingly erratic, moving from structured interventionist policies toward isolationist, transactional diplomacy.
• Institutions are weakened as governance increasingly revolves around personal relationships, political spectacle, and corporate influence rather than the democratic process.

At the same time, Trump’s cognitive instability plays a key role in this shift. His declining coherence, short attention span, and inability to maintain structured thought contribute to an increasingly impulsive, unpredictable, and erratic governance style. This instability further empowers corporate elites, party insiders, and personal loyalists, who take advantage of his mental decline to consolidate power in their own hands.
In this sense, Trump is not just the architect of feudalism—he is its captive. Just as aging medieval kings often became puppets of their courtiers, Trump’s erratic leadership allows others to manipulate policy behind the scenes, ensuring that power remains in the hands of a privileged few.

Conclusion: A Nation Drifting Toward Feudal Rule
Feudalism is not just a historical relic—it is a power structure rooted in hierarchy, economic dependency, and the centralization of control in the hands of an elite few. Under Trump, these feudal dynamics re-emerge in full force:

1. Big Tech controls the digital economy, dictating access to employment, information, and public discourse.
2. Governance is shaped by personal loyalty and spectacle rather than institutional stability.
3. Workers and consumers have become digital serfs, reliant on monopolized platforms with little autonomy.
4. The cognitive decline at the top creates instability, allowing opportunistic elites to consolidate power behind the scenes.

As America moves into the 21st century, the key question is whether this techno-feudal order will solidify or collapse under its weight. History tells us that all feudal structures eventually fall, but whether the replacement will be more democratic or authoritarian remains uncertain.

With Trump’s cognitive decline accelerating, his ability to sustain this model is weakening, but the system he helped create remains deeply entrenched. The question now is not just what will come after Trump but who will take the throne next—and whether they will rule as Democrats or Lords.

---