It Appears To Be Ron Paul’s World

And It Appears We’re Now Living In It

If someone were to ask who the second most influential politician of the last 30 years has been, we’d probably hear a lot of ‘Bamas, maybe a few Pelosis, perhaps even some Bushes.

The Whole Truth’s pick? Ron Paul.

Ron Paul first ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988 and later sought the Republican nomination in both 2008 and 2012. Although Paul’s three campaigns were all technically unsuccessful, they’ve had a huge impact in terms of popularizing libertarian beliefs and heightening public awareness of novel political issues. Though his campaign platform evolved across his three campaigns, his core beliefs and campaign promises remained the same throughout, and can be roughly summarized as follows:

1. Reduce Government Size and Eliminate Income Tax

Paul promised to drastically shrink the federal government to its constitutional limits, by eliminating agencies like the Department of Education and FEMA. He proposed abolishing the income tax, arguing that scaling back spending would make it unnecessary.

2. Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

Paul strongly opposed US military interventions into foreign wars and even advocated for the withdrawal from overseas bases, as well as ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He strongly and consistently criticized the military-industrial complex, arguing that trade and diplomacy are more effective foreign policy tools than the preferred strategy of numerous “entangled alliances.”

3. Protect Individual Liberties and Privacy

Paul promised to restore civil liberties by opposing laws like the Patriot Act, which he voted against, and rejecting government overreach like mandatory vaccinations or healthcare mandates.

4. Promote Free-Market Solutions

Paul championed free-market economics, opposing government subsidies, bailouts, and regulations which he claimed distort markets. He applied this to issues like healthcare, where he criticized Obamacare, and environmental policy, where he rejected climate change as a pretext for government control, instead favoring market-driven solutions.

5. End the Federal Reserve and Restore ‘Sound Money’

Perhaps his most memorable stance, Ron Paul strongly advocated for the abolition of the Federal Reserve across each of his three campaigns. His criticisms of the Fed center around the inherent ‘wrongfulness’ (and dangers) of allowing private, unelected bankers to manipulate the economy, and the risks presented by dissolution of the Gold Standard.

Notice Anything Interesting?

It’s worth remembering—each of these five ‘talking points’ were relatively fringe views at the time of each applicable campaign (hence Paul’s relative lack of success with the actual voting public). What is remarkable, though, is that we appear to be living out Ron Paul’s predicted future in real time—37 years after he first introduced these ideas to the public. Although the Trump Administration has not explicitly referenced Ron Paul as a source of inspiration, it’s undeniable the Administration’s agenda in its first 100 days broadly align with Paul’s stances in each of the aforementioned arenas. Let’s take a look:

1. Reduce Government Size and Eliminate Income Tax

As Ron Paul first suggested in 1987, President Trump has dismantled the Department of Education, signing an Executive Order transferring the department’s authority to states and local communities. The Order references the $3 Trillion of federal funds devoted to the Department since its inception, and the lack of corresponding improvement in student achievement. Additionally, Trump signed an Executive Order to conduct a "full-scale review" of FEMA. The Order cites concerns about FEMA’s bias in aid distribution during Hurricane Helene (remember, when they skipped all the houses with Trump signs?). These Orders have accompanied mass Federal layoffs and hiring freezes, along with a restructuring and reduction in size of executive agencies.

Furthermore—apart from Paul, President Trump has been the only Presidential candidate in recent years to publicly suggest abolishing the federal income tax. While Paul focused on reeling back spending to achieve this, Trump has speculated that his cherished tariffs might yield sufficient revenue to make the federal income tax a thing of the past.

2. Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

Like Paul, Trump has voiced skepticism about prolonged military engagements in foreign countries, calling for an end to the “forever wars” that have characterized America’s post-WWII military history. This stance has been formally applied to the conflict in Syria, as well as the more recent Russia-Ukraine war, the India-Pakistan conflict, and the Israel-Palestine (thing?).

Additionally, you may remember that, while running against Trump in last year’s election, Kamala Harris made full and public use of the endorsement of Liz Cheney (daughter of Dick—Vice President to George W. Bush). If any of you wondered why Democrats believed Liz Cheney was going to rescue Harris’ foundering campaign: let me explain. Cheney was simply a ‘dog-whistle’—a proxy that the Harris campaign used to signal to the military industrial complex, which had been so beloved and supported by Cheney’s father. You see, similar to Ron Paul, Trump positioned himself as the anti-war candidate, disavowing the objectives of the military industrial complex entirely. Liz Cheney was Harris’ way of hinting to the military industrial elite “Look, we’re your guys now!”

3. Protect Individual Liberties and Privacy

President Trump has prioritized free speech, criticizing Big Tech censorship on social media and pushing for reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Further, mirroring Ron Paul’s skepticism of federal mandates, Trump openly opposed COVID-era mandates during his 2024 campaign, while his choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services (RFK Jr.), is a vocal critic of vaccine mandates and federal public health overreach, aligning with Ron Paul’s belief that such mandatory healthcare policies violate personal choice.

4. Promote Free-Market Solutions

Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) was created to target wasteful regulations and agencies, aligning with Paul’s push to shrink government and let markets operate freely. Additionally, Trump’s 2025 agenda rolled back Biden-era regulations to boost industries like energy and manufacturing, a free-market outcome Paul would support.

Trump’s drug pricing executive order earlier this week targeting Big Pharma’s high drug prices, aimed to cull “price gouging” and “anticompetitive practices.” This resonates with Paul’s disdain for pharmaceutical monopolies enabled by government-granted patents and FDA rules (although Paul would no doubt have chosen a strategy that doesn’t involve domestic market manipulation.)

5. End the Federal Reserve and Restore ‘Sound Money’

Like Ron Paul, Trump has made abundantly clear his disdain for the Federal Reserve and their “politically-motivated” economic policy, most recently criticizing Fed Chairman Jerome Powell for “playing with politics” in refusing to lower interest rates. However, Trump has stopped short of calling for the abolition of the Fed in its entirety.

What about the Gold Standard? Public clamor for the return of the Gold Standard has been picking up traction of late, particularly among libertarian minded, pro-crypto enthusiasts—largely tied to distrust in fiat currency and fears of an inflationary crisis. In a March 2025 interview on Fox & Friends, Trump suggested he was looking into reviving the Gold Standard, saying “Gold is real money, not like this fake stuff we print. I’m looking at it, very strongly.”

Chicken or the Egg?

As you can see, Trump’s second term agenda is a lot more Ron Paul-y than any other modern Presidential agenda—including that of Trump’s own first term. Now, we’re not saying that Trump is a secret graduate of the Ron Paul School of Economics and Straight-Shooting. What’s more likely, is that Ron Paul’s speculations and prognostications have largely come true—his ideas are simply the logical solutions, and Trump is empowered to implement them, as he no longer gives a f***. Has Trump adhered strictly to Ron Paul’s recommendations? Of course not—but, what we’re seeing is probably a lot like what a Ron Paul presidency would actually have looked like, when faced with the realities of political practicality.

However, Trump hasn’t (yet) implemented the ‘big’ changes Ron Paul advocated—namely, repeal of the Patriot Act and abolition of the Federal Reserve. But, as some may have noticed—there has been increasing discussion about these possibilities, particularly among the more ‘grassroots’ Republican Congressmen (i.e. Thomas Massie and Ron Paul’s own son, Rand). How likely is it that those changes will be coming down the line? Not very.

Abolishing or broadly reforming the Federal Reserve would require a bill to pass both the House and Senate. Even with Trump’s explicit support, this is a tall order. Given the Fed’s deep integration into the economy (and a total lack of political alignment within the Republican party) such a bill would face insurmountable resistance from more ‘moderate’ (AKA ‘establishment’) Republicans, who view the Fed as essential for stability.

The situation is similar with respect to the Patriot Act. For those who don’t know, the Patriot Act is a piece of legislation that capitalized on post-9/11 chaos and fear to supercharge the power of the surveillance state and military-industrial complex, under the guise of fighting terrorism. In practice, the Act has eroded constitutional protections like nobody’s business, enabling unconstitutional surveillance mechanisms like warrantless wiretapping and the indefinite detention of American citizens. However, at this point, the Patriot Act is so entrenched in the function of the nation’s security apparatus that its full repeal remains a distant prospect.

Give Us What We Want When We Want it

The odd thing is that public support for broad reform of the Patriot Act, reinstatement of the Gold Standard, and reform of the Federal Reserve is quite high (especially considering there has been relatively little mainstream discussion or publicization of the issues).

Herein lies the problem.

The political discourse is still not dictated by the public. It’s dictated by “those who know better.” But those same people have opposed Ron Paul’s ideas since 1988, and he has now been vindicated on several key issues, such as the prescription drug pricing issue, and the needlessness of foreign interventionism.

But we’re the constituents. So why can’t we just get what we want, when we want it? And, if it all goes south, at least it’ll be our fault next time…