The Ballot or the Bullet Revisited: A Historical Analysis of Malcolm X’s Potential Response to the Trump Administration’s Civil Rights Record (2017-2021)

Editorial Credit: Spotlight Images Agency / shutterstock.com

1. Introduction: Malcolm X’s Enduring Challenge to American Power

Malcolm X remains one of the 20th century’s most compelling and controversial figures, an enduring symbol of radical critique against American racial injustice and systemic hypocrisy. His intellectual journey—from a leading spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI) advocating Black separatism to an independent activist embracing orthodox Islam and advocating for human rights on an international stage following his transformative Hajj —offers a complex and evolving framework for analyzing power and oppression. This report undertakes a historically grounded, hypothetical analysis exploring how Malcolm X, drawing upon the full arc of his documented philosophies, might have interpreted and responded to the specific civil rights climate, policies, and rhetoric characterizing the Donald J. Trump administration from 2017 to 2021. This exercise is inherently interpretive, aiming not to put words in Malcolm X’s mouth, but to apply his known analytical methods and core principles to a later historical context.   

The analysis will delve into several key themes central to Malcolm X’s thought. It will examine his persistent critique of systemic American hypocrisy, famously encapsulated in his “American Nightmare” formulation, and how this might apply to the Trump era’s racial discourse. It will explore his advocacy for Black self-determination, political power, and economic independence, rooted in Black Nationalism, and consider this in light of Trump administration policies affecting voting rights and diversity initiatives. The report will also engage with Malcolm X’s famous “Ballot or the Bullet” framework, considering its implications regarding political strategy and self-defense in the face of perceived rollbacks in civil rights enforcement. Finally, it will incorporate his later, post-Hajj emphasis on a human rights paradigm and international solidarity, assessing how this perspective might inform a critique of the Trump administration’s domestic and foreign policies.   

Such an analysis holds contemporary relevance. Understanding how a figure who so sharply diagnosed the contradictions within American society might view modern political developments can illuminate ongoing struggles for racial justice and equality. Malcolm X’s enduring significance lies not merely in the specific positions he held at different times, but in his method of critique: his unflinching exposure of systemic flaws, his demand for accountability beyond superficial gestures, and his insistence on connecting domestic racial oppression to global power dynamics. This critical method, focused on dissecting power structures and exposing hypocrisy, remains a potent tool for understanding the persistence of racial inequality, suggesting that his framework would engage with the system producing certain policies, not just the policies themselves in isolation.   

2. The “American Nightmare” Revisited: Malcolm X’s Critique of Systemic Hypocrisy and Trump’s Rhetoric

Central to Malcolm X’s worldview was the unshakeable conviction that for Black people in the United States, the celebrated “American Dream” was, in fact, an “American Nightmare”. He consistently argued that the Black experience was defined by systemic political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation, all perpetrated “at the hands of the white man”. This framing rejected the notion that racism was merely a matter of isolated incidents or individual prejudice; instead, he saw it as woven into the very fabric of American society and its institutions. He famously declared, “Being born here in America doesn’t make you an American,” pointing to the need for constitutional amendments and civil rights legislation—and the filibustering against them—as proof that Black people were treated as victims of “Americanism,” not beneficiaries. For Malcolm X, American democracy itself was often “nothing but disguised hypocrisy”.   

Applying this trenchant critique to the rhetoric of the Trump administration (2017-2021) yields a potentially stark interpretation. Specific statements and actions during this period—such as the remarks following the 2017 Charlottesville white supremacist rally implying moral equivalence between marchers and counter-protesters (“very fine people on both sides”) , the reported reference to African nations, Haiti, and El Salvador as “shithole countries” , the persistent insistence on the guilt of the exonerated Central Park Five , the tweets urging congresswomen of color to “go back” to the “crime infested places from which they came”, and attacks on majority-Black communities like Baltimore —would likely be viewed by Malcolm X not as mere political missteps or “gaffes,” but as overt manifestations of the deep-seated, systemic racism he spent his life condemning. His framework, which identified the “white man” or, more broadly, the white power structure as the common oppressor, would readily interpret such language as confirmation of the enduring nature of white supremacy within American political discourse. The very overtness of this rhetoric might be seen as simply stripping away the polite veneer that often masked the “disguised hypocrisy” he diagnosed, revealing the “American nightmare” in its unvarnished form.   

Furthermore, Malcolm X consistently critiqued the hypocrisy inherent in the United States positioning itself as a global leader of freedom and democracy while simultaneously denying basic rights and dignity to its own Black citizens. He saw the US projecting an image abroad that starkly contrasted with the reality at home, labeling the nation the “earth’s number-one hypocrite”. The Trump administration’s “America First” posture , coupled with its withdrawal from international bodies like the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization, and simultaneous assertions of American exceptionalism , could be interpreted through Malcolm X’s anti-imperialist lens as a modern iteration of this hypocrisy. He might see the retreat from multilateralism not as isolationism, but as an assertion of unilateral power consistent with the historical patterns of Western dominance he criticized, predicting that such imperial pursuits would inevitably lead to negative consequences—the “chickens coming home to roost”.   

Malcolm X’s analysis consistently emphasized the systemic nature of racism, embedded within government structures and policies. Therefore, the actions and rhetoric of the Trump administration would likely be framed not as the fault of one individual, but as symptoms of the enduring systemic issues he identified decades prior. His post-Hajj evolution, which led him to renounce the NOI’s blanket condemnation of all white people as “devils” and embrace a concept of universal brotherhood within Islam, would likely inform the target of his critique. Rather than focusing solely on the race of the individuals involved, his evolved perspective would likely concentrate on condemning the ideology of white supremacy and the system that perpetuated racial hierarchy and oppression, whether through overt rhetoric or discriminatory policies. The fight, in his later view, was against the structures and beliefs that denied human rights, regardless of the specific individuals enacting them at any given moment.   

3. “The Ballot or the Bullet” in the Face of Modern Challenges: Voting Rights and Political Power

Malcolm X’s 1964 speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet,” remains one of his most potent and widely cited orations. Delivered shortly after his departure from the Nation of Islam, it presented a stark ultimatum to Black America and the nation at large. The speech was far more than a simple call for violence; it was a sophisticated argument demanding political maturity, the strategic exercise of voting power, and the assertion of the right to self-defense when the state proved unwilling or unable to protect Black lives and rights. The core message resonated with an urgency born of deep skepticism towards the American political system: “It’s one or the other in 1964. It isn’t that time is running out — time has run out!”.   

This skepticism extended to both major political parties. Malcolm X viewed the Democrats and Republicans not as genuine alternatives for Black Americans, but as participants in a “political con game” designed to secure Black votes through “false promises” while ultimately upholding a system of oppression. He specifically criticized the Democratic Party for controlling Congress yet failing to pass meaningful civil rights legislation, blaming inaction on Southern Dixiecrats whom he saw as merely “Democrats in disguise”. He argued that Black voters, by uncritically supporting the Democrats, had “sewed up” the government for them but received nothing substantial in return. This perspective suggests he would view the partisan struggles of the Trump era less as fundamental ideological battles and more as internal power dynamics within the same fundamentally flawed system, potentially distracting from the core need for independent Black political action.   

The Trump administration’s approach to voting rights and election integrity would likely be interpreted by Malcolm X as a direct confirmation of his warnings. Actions and rhetoric during this period—including the establishment of the controversial Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ostensibly to investigate voter fraud, persistent, unsubstantiated claims of widespread illegal voting that could justify aggressive voter roll purges, challenges to the legitimacy of election results and mail-in voting, and the Justice Department’s reversal of its position on challenging restrictive state laws like Texas’s voter ID law —would fit squarely within Malcolm X’s framework of a “government conspiracy” designed to dilute or neutralize Black political influence. He argued that the government itself was often the primary obstacle to Black progress.   

In response to such challenges, Malcolm X stressed the need for Black Americans to become “politically mature”. This involved understanding the strategic value of the ballot, recognizing the power of the Black vote as a unified bloc, especially in close elections, and demanding tangible results rather than symbolic gestures. He famously advised, “A ballot is like a bullet. You don’t throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket”. Faced with perceived efforts to undermine voting rights, his approach would likely involve not only sharp critique but also a renewed call for grassroots political education to empower the community, counter misinformation, and mobilize strategically.   

The “bullet” component of his ultimatum represented the right and necessity of self-defense, invoked “by any means necessary” when the government failed in its duty to protect its citizens. He questioned the logic of adhering to nonviolence when faced with brutality, particularly if the state itself was complicit or negligent. The heightened racial tensions, widespread protests against police brutality, and the administration’s sometimes confrontational rhetoric towards dissenters during the 2017-2021 period could arguably strengthen the “bullet” side of Malcolm X’s calculus. If the state apparatus—including law enforcement and the Justice Department (as discussed in the next section)—was perceived as actively rolling back protections or failing to ensure safety and equal justice, the rationale for community-based self-reliance and self-defense, independent of the state, would become more pronounced within his framework. The “Ballot or Bullet” formulation implies conditionality: the viability of the ballot hinges on the system’s willingness to allow its meaningful exercise and protect those who use it. Systemic efforts to undermine that viability inherently push the analysis towards the alternative.   

4. Self-Determination Under Siege: Responding to DEI Rollbacks and Weakened Enforcement

A cornerstone of Malcolm X’s philosophy, particularly evident in his advocacy for Black Nationalism, was the principle of self-determination. This encompassed far more than mere integration into existing white structures; it demanded that Black people achieve political, economic, and social control over their own communities. His vision included fostering Black pride, building Black-owned businesses to create economic independence, establishing community-controlled political mechanisms, and restoring cultural connections to Africa. This stood in contrast to the mainstream civil rights movement’s initial focus on desegregation, which Malcolm X sometimes criticized as seeking proximity to whiteness rather than building independent Black power.   

Viewed through this lens of self-determination and empowerment, the Trump administration’s policies targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and weakening civil rights enforcement would likely be interpreted as direct assaults on efforts, however imperfect, to address systemic inequality and empower marginalized communities. Key actions included:

• Executive Order 13950 (“Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”): Issued in September 2020, this order prohibited federal agencies, contractors, and grantees from conducting DEI training that included “divisive concepts” such as the idea that the U.S. is fundamentally racist or sexist, that individuals are inherently biased due to their race or sex (consciously or unconsciously), or discussions of concepts like white privilege or systemic racism. The order promoted a “colorblind” approach and had a documented chilling effect on DEI programs across sectors, with organizations cancelling or altering trainings for fear of losing federal funding or facing investigation via a dedicated hotline.   
• Broader Anti-DEI Actions: The administration moved to terminate DEI offices and programs within the federal government, challenged DEI efforts in corporations and universities through investigations and legal threats, and revoked requirements like EO 11246 mandating affirmative action for federal contractors. Rhetoric often framed DEI itself as discriminatory or “anti-white”.   
• DOJ Civil Rights Division Shifts: The Department of Justice under the Trump administration significantly altered its approach to civil rights enforcement. It ceased pursuing and sought to dismantle the use of disparate impact liability—a crucial tool for challenging policies that disproportionately harm marginalized groups even without explicit discriminatory intent. The DOJ froze ongoing civil rights litigation, sharply curtailed the use of consent decrees to reform police departments exhibiting patterns of misconduct, revoked guidance on addressing racial disparities in school discipline, shifted resources towards investigating alleged “anti-white” discrimination, and proposed eliminating the Community Relations Service, an office created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mediate racial tensions.   

Malcolm X, who emphasized the need for Black people to understand their history and the nature of their oppression, would likely view EO 13950’s prohibition on discussing systemic racism and related concepts as a deliberate attempt to enforce ignorance and prevent the very consciousness-raising he deemed essential for liberation. The attack on teaching historical truths aligns directly against his advocacy for re-education.   

Furthermore, the administration’s embrace of “colorblindness” as the justification for dismantling race-conscious programs would likely be seen by Malcolm X as a sophisticated tool for maintaining white supremacy. His analysis consistently held that ignoring race within a system structured by racial hierarchy only serves to perpetuate existing inequalities. Such policies, from his perspective, would not represent a move towards genuine equality but rather a reinforcement of the status quo by denying the need for targeted remedies.   

The weakening of federal civil rights enforcement mechanisms, particularly within the DOJ, would confirm Malcolm X’s deep-seated belief in the government’s unreliability in protecting Black interests. While he advocated for independent Black institutions, the active dismantling of even minimal federal protections would underscore the urgency of his call for self-reliance. The reduction in federal oversight could be seen as both a threat and an imperative, validating his argument that Black communities must build their own political, economic, and potentially even justice systems rather than depending on a government structure he viewed as inherently compromised. These actions, aimed at disempowering rather than empowering, would likely be interpreted as proof of the system’s fundamental resistance to genuine racial equality.   

The following table summarizes the potential points of conflict between Malcolm X’s core principles and specific Trump administration actions related to civil rights:

Table 1: Malcolm X’s Principles vs. Trump Administration (2017-2021) Civil Rights Actions

5. Beyond Civil Rights: A Human Rights and Internationalist Lens on the Trump Era

Malcolm X’s ideological journey took a profound turn following his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964. This experience, where he witnessed Muslims of all races interacting as equals, led him to embrace orthodox Sunni Islam, adopt the name el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, and renounce the NOI’s strict racial separatism. Crucially, this period saw him shift his strategic focus from a purely domestic civil rights struggle to a broader, international human rights framework. He founded the secular Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) in June 1964, explicitly modeling it after the Organization of African Unity (OAU).   

The OAAU aimed to unify people of African descent throughout the Western Hemisphere, reconnect them with their African heritage and contemporary African liberation struggles, and internationalize the plight of Black Americans. Its program emphasized “Restoration” (re-establishing communication with Africa), “Reorientation” (developing a global consciousness and understanding the Black struggle as part of a worldwide fight against oppression), Education (studying non-Western cultures and languages), Economic Security (building independent economies), and Self-Defense. Malcolm X argued that framing the issue as “human rights,” rather than “civil rights,” elevated it beyond the jurisdiction of the inherently compromised US government and allowed Black Americans to appeal to international bodies like the United Nations and the world court. He actively sought alliances with African leaders and saw the Black American struggle as intertwined with anti-colonial movements globally.   

Applying this internationalist human rights lens to the Trump administration (2017-2021) reveals further layers of potential critique. The administration’s “America First” foreign policy, its withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization, and the Paris Climate Agreement , and its general skepticism towards multilateralism would likely be seen by Malcolm X as a rejection of global solidarity and universal human rights principles. His critique of US imperialism and its hypocrisy suggests he would view such actions not merely as isolationism, but as consistent with a historical pattern of powerful nations prioritizing self-interest and unilateral action over international cooperation and accountability. The retreat from global human rights engagement would be interpreted as an attempt to shield the US from external scrutiny regarding its domestic racial issues, precisely the kind of international pressure Malcolm X sought to leverage through the human rights framework.   

Furthermore, Malcolm X’s evolved understanding of shared struggles among oppressed peoples suggests he would vehemently condemn the Trump administration’s harsh immigration policies. Actions like the travel restrictions targeting several Muslim-majority countries (“Muslim ban”), the “zero tolerance” policy leading to family separations at the border, the severe restrictions on asylum seekers , and the pervasive anti-immigrant rhetoric would likely be analyzed as extensions of the same racist and xenophobic logic underpinning domestic discrimination against Black Americans. He would likely connect the dehumanization inherent in these policies to the historical and ongoing dehumanization of Black people, viewing both as products of a white supremacist ideology aimed at maintaining national and racial boundaries against perceived “outsiders.” The targeting of immigrants, particularly those from non-European nations, would be seen as part of the broader global struggle against racial hierarchy that he embraced in his final year.   

6. Conclusion: The Uncompromising Voice in a New Era

Analyzing the potential response of Malcolm X to the civil rights landscape under the Trump administration (2017-2021) reveals a figure whose core critiques of American society remain profoundly relevant. Grounded in his lifelong confrontation with systemic racism and hypocrisy, his perspective would likely involve a fierce denunciation of the administration’s rhetoric and policies. He would probably interpret the overt racial discourse, the challenges to voting rights, the weakening of civil rights enforcement, and the attacks on DEI initiatives not as temporary deviations, but as confirmations of the “American Nightmare” —a system inherently resistant to genuine racial equality and Black empowerment.   

His “Ballot or the Bullet” framework suggests a dual response: a renewed call for Black political unity, consciousness, and the strategic exercise of the vote to gain community control, coupled with an unwavering assertion of the right to self-defense in the face of perceived government failure or hostility. The administration’s actions, particularly the dismantling of federal enforcement mechanisms and the attempts to suppress discussions of systemic racism through measures like EO 13950, would likely reinforce his emphasis on Black self-determination, self-reliance, and the necessity of building independent institutions.   

Crucially, Malcolm X’s post-Hajj evolution towards an international human rights framework adds another dimension. He would likely connect the domestic civil rights rollbacks to the administration’s isolationist foreign policy and harsh immigration measures, viewing them as interconnected manifestations of a white supremacist ideology rejecting universal human rights and global accountability. While his later thought opened the door for potential cross-racial alliances against common oppressive systems, his fundamental critique of American power structures remained sharp and uncompromising.   

The enduring legacy of Malcolm X lies in his insistence on confronting uncomfortable truths, his demand for fundamental change rather than superficial integration, and his connection of the Black American struggle to global dynamics of power and resistance. His voice, though silenced decades ago, continues to resonate, urging critical thinking, historical awareness, and a refusal to accept injustice or hypocrisy. Applying his analytical framework to the complexities of the 21st century underscores the ongoing need for vigilant, informed, and courageous engagement in the fight for true racial justice and human rights.