Just weeks into Donald Trump’s second term, the newly inaugurated U.S. president has wasted no time diving headfirst into controversy. His early executive orders, many of which mirror the ultra-conservative Project 2025 blueprint, have reignited debates over immigration, civil rights, and government overreach. From rolling back diversity initiatives to reinstating bans on transgender military service members, Trump’s actions underline a familiar playbook: fear-mongering as governance. 

But first, what exactly is populism? According to political scientist Jan Zielonka, it is a political style that emphasizes a stark division between the “pure people” (that’s us–the common folk!) and the “corrupt elite” (those seemingly out-of-touch politicians). Populism is frequently described as a “thin ideology” because it can be combined with various other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism, allowing it to manifest across the political spectrum. This framework

often features a charismatic leader who claims to be the voice of the common folk. In this narrative, scapegoats—be they ethnic, religious, or political minorities—are conveniently identified as the source of all societal woes. Sound familiar?

For Duterte, drug users are the root of all societal evil, a notion he has championed with alarming zeal. His infamous anti-drug campaign has transformed neighborhoods into battlegrounds where police act as judge, jury, and executioner. The result? A society rife with paranoia, where neighbors eye each other with suspicion, convinced that anyone could be a potential criminal or informant. Duterte’s rhetoric was unflinching: “I will kill you,” he declared to those involved in drugs—a

statement that underscored his hardline

stance.

In Trump’s case, immigration has often taken center stage. From his 2016 campaign rhetoric labeling some Mexican immigrants as “rapists” to policies aimed at restricting entry from certain countries and tightening border security, Trump has consistently framed immigration as a challenge to national security and cultural cohesion. His administration’s family separation policy at the U.S.-Mexico border became one of the most polarizing symbols of this approach. 

Both leaders thrive on this fear-driven approach to bolster their image as “men-of-the-people.” By painting drug users or immigrants as existential threats, Duterte and Trump not only stoke division but also justify draconian policies that resonate with their bases while further polarizing their nations. This ethos cultivated by both leaders creates an “us versus them” mentality that fractures communities. The message is crystal clear: if you’re not with us, you’re against us. This approach erodes trust among citizens and breeds animosity between different social groups. It is as if our leaders are trapped in a perpetual game of hot potato, tossing responsibility around while the real issues  simmer on the back burner. When will we stop blaming one another and pointing fingers? It’s time that instead of vilifying groups of people, we demand leaders who bring us together rather than tear us apart. In a world already grappling with division and chaos, the last thing we need is more fear-mongering from our so-called leaders. We must elect leaders who promote inclusivity and collaboration—not stoking fears or creating enemies. Dialogue over diatribe. Community over conflict. 

In the Philippines—where nearly 30% of the population is composed of youth—the younger generation holds immense potential to mold a more inclusive future. They can participate in local governance through initiatives like Sangguniang Kabataan (SK), volunteer for campaigns prioritizing unity over division, and use social media platforms to amplify advocacy efforts for equitable policies. Grassroots dialogues can also help bridge divides within communities while pushing for reforms like improved voter registration access to empower more citizens in shaping democracy. When people come together, they become stronger, more resilient, and far less susceptible to the whims of fear-mongering demagogues. After all, isn’t it time we stopped letting fear define our politics?