Cult of Personality? The USDA Trump Banner and its Authoritarian Echoes

In May 2025, a striking banner featuring the portrait of Donald Trump was hung on the front of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) headquarters in Washington, D.C. The massive image of Trump, positioned next to a banner of Abraham Lincoln—the USDA’s founder—was intended to mark the department’s 163rd anniversary. Instead, it triggered widespread public backlash and sparked comparisons to authoritarian propaganda.

A Creeping Cult of Personality?

The display drew immediate reactions on social media and in the press. Critics dubbed the image "deeply creepy" and reminiscent of Big Brother, evoking George Orwell’s dystopian 1984. Comparisons were also made to historical regimes where a leader’s image was omnipresent in public life, most notably Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany.

In 1930s and 40s Germany, after Hitler came to power, his portrait became a staple in public buildings—schools, government offices, police stations, and even private businesses. The goal was clear: create a single focal point of loyalty and obedience in the form of the leader. The USDA banner, hung on a federal agency’s building, echoed this tactic, intentionally or otherwise.

Beyond the USDA

The Agriculture Department banner isn’t the first time Donald Trump has embraced grand visual displays of his image:

• Trump International Hotel & Tower, Chicago (2014): Trump installed a massive stainless-steel sign bearing his name, which faced criticism for its size and self-aggrandising tone.

• St. John’s Church Photo Op (2020): During protests near the White House, law enforcement forcibly cleared Lafayette Square so Trump could stage a photo holding a Bible outside St. John’s Church—an act widely condemned as authoritarian imagery for political theatre.

These instances illustrate a pattern: the deliberate use of Trump’s image and brand in public and symbolic ways that elevate his persona, often above institutions.

A Warning from History

History shows that when leaders become the focus of national symbolism, democratic norms are often at risk. The Nazi regime’s reliance on Hitler’s image was not simply aesthetic; it was a mechanism of control and conformity. By making the leader omnipresent, the regime positioned loyalty to a person over loyalty to laws or democratic principles.

The USDA banner, whether a harmless tribute or a strategic move, fits into a concerning trajectory. While Trump has not mandated portraits of himself in every school or office, the use of public spaces to elevate his image mirrors tactics seen in undemocratic states.

Soapbox Opinion

Both Donald Trump and his close ally J.D. Vance have expressed authoritarian-leaning views, often praising or admiring strongmen like Vladimir Putin—not out of personal affection, but because they envy the unchecked power such leaders wield. Their rhetoric and actions reveal a desire for the kind of system where dissent is muted, opposition is crushed, and decisions go unquestioned.

Symbols matter. When government buildings become backdrops for political glorification, it's not just decoration—it’s messaging. The USDA banner controversy serves as a reminder: democracies must remain vigilant against the creeping influence of authoritarian-style propaganda, even when it comes cloaked in patriotic colours.

The difference between Tory and Labour policy making

The difference between Dictatorship and Democracy

It is clear that the Tory process for policy making is strongly dictatorial as was evidenced by May going off and negotiating what she thought Brexit would be which wasn't what most in her party were prepared to accept.  We see the same with Johnson now and Cameron in the past. I've not been able to find any updates to the below for the Tories and there is still evidence of clear Dictatorship within the Tory party.

Corbyn puts forward the views agreed by representatives and not his own. It is well known that Corbyn is personally for unilateral disarmament is it part of Labour policy NO whilst Corbyn as leader obviously has as strong say its not his policies that we see from Labour. He's just the spokesperson.  So people can drag up his views from that past on the EU, single market, Unilateral disarmament etc etc its not those views that he's putting forward in parliament or to the people and in some cases he's changed his views, which people do over time.

So lets look at the differences and I urge you to check this if you have any doubt. because the way the Tories are set up is the reason the UK finds itself in the mess that it does.

Outline of the Conservative party policy making process 

In the past the Conservative policy making process and the manifesto have tended to come from the leader and a small group of advisors, as was the case for writing the 2010 manifesto. 

The Conservatives continue to have the least formal and least democratic policy and manifesto making processes but there have been recent changes to increase backbencher involvement; several of the bodies listed below were set up specifically to do so. As they are relatively new it remains to be seen how much influence they will have, particularly over education policy. 

The Conservatives are thought to be less advanced than the other parties in developing policy for 2015 and beyond as a result of the lack of formal structures to develop manifesto policies separate to government policy. It has been difficult for the Conservative leadership to distinguish between government and Conservative policy separate from the coalition. However 2014 has already seen the Conservatives and Lib Dems start to distinguish themselves from one another, as the election approaches this is likely to increase.

ConservativesOf the three main parties, the Conservative Party grants least influence to members in the formulation of policy. As Bale notes, the party leader dominates the Conservative Party and, in opposition in particular, the party operates as ‘an essentially top-down organization’. Indeed, Bale portrays the Conservative Party’s vesting of power and autonomy in its leader as almost the polar opposite of the Labour Party’s model of organisation, 

Labour on the other hand is a democratic party with the Leader taking forward policy decided by over 200 representatives and discussed at Annual conference. Obviously the leadership make decisions on day to day items as long as they follow main policy.

About Labour’s Policy Process

Our policy development process is designed to involve members, local parties, trade unions, socialist societies, elected representatives as well as the wider community.
Policy is developed through the National Policy Forum (NPF). This is a body of over 200 representatives from all the major groups of the Labour Party, from constituency parties and regions to affiliated trade unions, socialist societies, MPs and councillors.  Its role is to shape the Party’s policy agenda, drawing up policy documents for agreement.
NPF representatives are placed onto one of eight policy commissions that examine specific policy areas; each commission is co-convened by a Shadow Secretary of State and an NEC member.
These Commissions consider the policy submissions which come in from across the Labour Party, and develop detailed positions which are then discussed at Annual Conference. The current commissions are:

• Economy, Business & Trade

• International

• Health & Social Care

• Early Years, Education & Skills

• Justice & Home Affairs

• Housing, Local Government & Transport

• Work, Pensions & Equality

• Environment, Energy, & Culture

Policy making runs from general election to general election, with updated documents produced for every Annual Conference. Members, supporters and affiliate groups make submissions to the process detailing their views. What they tell the NPF shapes the documents produced.  

LINKS
https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/about/policy-process
https://www.ascl.org.uk/download.C2C47F02-5FFF-4157-B73FE140EFE6A25B.html
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/10/02/the-influence-of-party-members-on-policy-varies-across-the-major-parties/