The Leviathan, Selfish Human Nature, and the Legitimization of Authoritarian Immigration Policies: A Hobbesian Analysis of the Trump Era

Recommended Citation (APA)

Filho, C. I. (2025, February 20th). The Leviathan, Selfish Human Nature, and the Legitimization of Authoritarian Immigration Policies: A Hobbesian Analysis of the Trump Era. EBS I&D Centre. www.ebscentre.org 

Article - The Leviathan in Trumps Immigration Policy.pdf

Download PDF • 322KB

Resumo

Thomas Hobbes' seminal work, The Leviathan (1651), posits that humans are inherently selfish, leading to a natural state of war—bellum omnium contra omnes—where individuals would act in their own interests to the detriment of others. To escape this chaos, Hobbes argues for the establishment of a social contract enforced by a sovereign power, the Leviathan, which ensures order through punitive authority. This article examines the application of Hobbesian philosophy to the immigration policies enacted during the Trump administration. By prioritizing state sovereignty and punitive enforcement over international commitments to human rights, the administration echoed Hobbes’ justification for strong governance while marginalizing humanitarian considerations. Through an interdisciplinary approach that includes political philosophy, international law, and security studies, this paper critically evaluates the implications of Hobbesian realism in contemporary authoritarian governance.

Palavras-chave: Leviathan, Hobbes, Trump, Immigration, Human Rights, Authoritarianism, State Sovereignty.

---

Introdução

The Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration, including family separations, border wall expansions, and the withdrawal from international refugee agreements, presents an ideal case study for the practical application of Hobbesian theory. This article explores how the principles outlined in The Leviathan—specifically, human selfishness, the necessity of a social contract, and the enforcement of state power—inform and justify authoritarian policies. However, while Hobbesian realism provides a framework for understanding the state's approach to maintaining order, it does not account for the democratic nature of American society, where widespread public opposition to human rights violations challenges the unilateral imposition of harsh policies.

The U.S. public's rejection of inhumane immigration measures demonstrates a critical divergence from Hobbes' model, where citizens actively resist excessive state control rather than submit unconditionally to sovereign authority. We argue that while Hobbesian realism explains certain aspects of Trump's governance, it also highlights the tension between authoritarian enforcement and democratic values, complicating the legitimacy of state power when it violates fundamental human rights and international legal commitments..

Hobbesian Theory: Selfishness, Social Contract, and Sovereign Authority

Hobbes views human nature as inherently competitive and self-serving, necessitating a social contract to avoid mutual destruction. Without a central authority to impose order, individuals would exist in a state of anarchy, constantly at war with one another (bellum omnium contra omnes). To counteract this, people collectively surrender certain freedoms to a sovereign power, which then assumes the role of enforcing laws, ensuring security, and upholding societal stability (Hobbes, 1651/1996).

However, the Leviathan’s role is not merely to wield power but to act as an embodiment of the collective will. Hobbes emphasizes that the sovereign’s legitimacy arises from its function as an agent of the people's security and welfare rather than from arbitrary or self-serving rule. In this sense, the Leviathan is not intended to be a despotic figure but a necessary institution that channels individual interests toward collective benefits, thus preventing chaos (Skinner, 2008).

In the U.S. context, the Trump administration’s policies reflect a selective interpretation of Hobbesian governance, where state power was employed to enforce strict immigration policies under the guise of national security. However, Hobbes' vision of the social contract implies that sovereignty should function to achieve the collective good rather than serve the ruler’s personal or ideological objectives (Forsyth, 2018, pp. 110-15). The stark division between Trump's approach and the democratic opposition highlights the limitations of a purely authoritarian application of Hobbesian thought. While Hobbes argues for a strong state to prevent disorder, he also acknowledges that such a state must align with societal consensus to maintain legitimacy. In the U.S., the rejection of human rights violations by large segments of the population illustrates a fundamental dissonance between authoritarian interpretations of Hobbes and the democratic principles that seek to balance state power with moral obligations.

The Trump Administration and Immigration Policy: A Hobbesian Application

The Trump administration’s immigration policies reflected a Hobbesian justification for state sovereignty over humanitarian considerations. However, they also revealed a critical deviation from Hobbesian principles—the failure to align state power with the collective good. Three key policies illustrate this tension:

Family Separations and Zero Tolerance: The administration’s decision to separate migrant children from their parents as a deterrence strategy aligns with Hobbes’ belief in punitive enforcement to ensure compliance with state directives (Cruz, 2019). However, this policy faced strong backlash from American society and international organizations, demonstrating the limits of sovereign power when it conflicts with widely accepted human rights norms.

Border Wall and National Security Rhetoric: The narrative that migrants pose an existential threat mirrors Hobbes’ assertion that without strict controls, society devolves into chaos (Trump, 2019). Yet, in a democratic system, the imposition of such strict measures without broad societal agreement creates resistance rather than order, as evidenced by the numerous legal and political challenges these policies faced.

Withdrawal from International Treaties: By pulling out of the Global Compact for Migration, the administration rejected international norms in favor of absolute sovereignty, similar to Hobbes’ argument that the sovereign is not bound by external moral considerations (Guterres, 2018). However, in an interconnected global order, absolute sovereignty can undermine international stability and cooperation, making it counterproductive in the long term.

The Erosion of Humanitarian Values and International Law

While Hobbesian realism explains these policies, it also exposes their fundamental shortcomings. The prioritization of state control over human dignity violates established human rights principles, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948). The erosion of asylum protections and the legitimization of excessive police power threaten the foundational values of international law and the liberal democratic order (Kaldor, 2020).

Moreover, the selective use of Hobbesian theory to justify strict immigration controls disregards another essential aspect of governance—the necessity of maintaining legitimacy. When policies alienate large segments of the population and undermine international commitments, they contribute to instability rather than order. The resistance to these policies within the U.S. and among global allies illustrates the dangers of an unbalanced application of sovereign power. Without adherence to international law and humanitarian principles, states risk fracturing diplomatic relations and eroding trust within the global community.

Conclusion: The Risks of a Hobbesian Approach to Governance

The application of Hobbesian realism to contemporary governance provides insight into the justification for authoritarian policies but also reveals its dangers. The Trump administration’s use of state power to enforce draconian immigration policies illustrates how a Leviathan-like approach can undermine humanitarian commitments and international peace agreements. While sovereignty remains a crucial aspect of national governance, unchecked authoritarianism risks reinforcing the very chaos Hobbes sought to eliminate.

In a world increasingly shaped by globalization, diplomacy, and human rights frameworks, the question remains: How can international diplomacy be leveraged to restore the balance between sovereign power and the protection of human rights? The failure of unilateral authoritarian approaches suggests that multilateral cooperation and adherence to international treaties are essential for ensuring both security and humanitarian integrity. As states continue to grapple with immigration and border control, policymakers must consider how diplomacy, ethical governance, and collective agreements can serve as mechanisms to rebuild trust and uphold the principles of international law.

Referências

Cruz, C. (2019). Children in Cages: The Impact of U.S. Immigration Policy on Human Rights. Human Rights Review, 20(3), 312-328.

Guterres, A. (2018). Statement on the U.S. Withdrawal from the Global Compact for Migration. United Nations, Press Release.

Hobbes, T. (1651/1996). Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.

Kaldor, M. (2020). Global Security Cultures: International Norms and the Changing Nature of Security. Polity Press.

Trump, D. J. (2019). State of the Union Address. The White House.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly.

Skinner, B. F. (1979). The shaping of a behaviorist. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar.

Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group Dynamics. Publisher Cengage.