Just over a week ago, a libertarian friend texted me, baffled at seeing fellow libertarians expressing support for former President Trump as the final weeks of the 2024 election closed. He asked, “What’s the libertarian pitch for Trump? The guy doesn’t respect basic voting norms or democracy. Enlighten me. I just can’t get past the January 6th and election denial stuff. It’s disqualifying.” After sharing my personal insights into this with my friend, I asked if it would be helpful if I reported out and wrote about this, quoting fellow libertarians as to where they have landed on Trump—and the 2024 contest, more broadly. The bottom line: A lot of libertarians, at least right-leaning ones, have indeed rallied to Trump’s side, even though this might seem incredible and crazy to many across all American political demographics.
Let’s say at the outset that “a lot of libertarians” does not mean most, or even half, based on my totally unscientific sample of friends and fellow ideological travelers. Nonetheless, it should be indicative of some trends. For starters, nearly everyone full-on loathes Democrats’ (and in some cases, Trump’s) anti-free speech stances. Many also mention concerns about civil liberties with both parties, for what that’s worth. But for those who are firmly in the Trump column, one major differentiator stands out: Foreign policy.
Austin Petersen, a former candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination who lost out to former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson in 2016, cites “Trump's aversion to getting America involved in endless wars” as a “big” reason to back him, “even if he's not the ideal libertarian candidate.” Says Austin, “[Trump’s] presidency showed a real attempt to pull back from the constant military entanglements we’ve seen for decades, even if the execution wasn’t always perfect.”
This general sentiment has been echoed by other libertarians. Jack Hunter, a libertarian-conservative writer who previously worked for Rand Paul—the libertarian Republican senator who notably has not endorsed Trump in 2024 over spending and domestic surveillance concerns—puts foreign policy top of the list also. “2024 will be the first time I will vote for Donald Trump, after voting Libertarian in 2016 and 2020,” Jack says. The Democrats and Republican establishment are happy to send billions to Ukraine and perhaps US soldiers to that region for the rest of my life… Trump’s first inclination is to make a deal. To sit down and talk with people. He has said this of Ukraine and Russia. He has said the same of Israel and Gaza…I don’t know what Trump will actually do. I do know that he gives far more reasonable and sane answers on American foreign policy than what the Dick Cheney-endorsed Kamala Harris says. She sounds like Lindsey Graham. Indistinguishable and dangerous.”
Another former Rand Paul staffer, Brian Darling, agrees. Brian is careful to note that he voted for Reagan in 1984 and Ron Paul in 1988, so his history of being a committed libertarian-ish Republican is lengthier than most. This year, he’s going with Trump, partly because of foreign policy, where he also prefers a restrained approach.
One activist prominent in the Republicans for Johnson-Weld movement with which I worked in 2016, and who we will call Eric, told me, “Democrats forfeited their chance to win libertarian Republicans over when they skipped the chance to nominate Tulsi Gabbard before she left the party.” While there are a number of issues on which Gabbard might appear to occupy a slightly different position to most Democrats, foreign policy has probably been the most notable. Where Gabbard has defected to Trump, Liz Cheney has defected to Harris—something that could move Trump-curious libertarians into his column and out of hers.
Another libertarian policy wonk (we’ll call him Richard) has been very put off by the alignment between Cheney and Harris. Richard offers that “Normally, I’d be hesitant to vote for either candidate in a national race but I am seriously considering voting against Harris this time. Her decision to revive the Cheneys as political allies nauseates me. Liz Cheney’s record—e.g. her ferocious defense of torture, her attacks on Rand Paul as siding with ISIS, and her strong support for the imperial executive—conflicts entirely with the constitutional principles that Harris/Walz supporters claim to champion.”
Richard adds, “As for Dick Cheney, well, where to begin. In my estimation, he was absolutely worse than Trump due to his disregard for the Fourth Amendment, his demolition of Congressional war powers, and his unlimited enthusiasm for the cruel and unusual. This, to say nothing of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.” Richard is also worried about the Biden-Harris administration’s policy on Israel continuing. “I'm appalled by the current administration's bizarre obeisance to Israel's retributive war aims,” he tells me.
Richard worries that a deal has been cut between Harris and Cheney in exchange for Cheney’s support—and that possibly, she will be nominated as US Ambassador to the United Nations if Harris wins. His views, overall, are also shared by Margaret, the most Trump-friendly female libertarian with whom I spoke.
Austin’s decision wasn’t informed by the Cheney endorsement—though undoubtedly that endorsement has hardened his commitment to Trump. In his view, “we’re witnessing a realignment—especially as the establishment, including neoconservatives, has found more in common with Democrats on foreign policy and government control. So, while seeing people like Liz Cheney line up behind Harris is telling, my support for Trump this time was already forming before that. I've been very much out front and way ahead of the curve in this respect.”
But economic policy also matters. Austin also noted that “the Democrats under Harris (and previously Biden) have leaned hard into big-government approaches on everything from healthcare to the environment.” He believes that “Trump, for all his flaws, at least pushes back on that with deregulation and lower taxes. For someone like me who’s concerned about individual freedom and limited government, that resonates more than the central-planning-heavy agenda coming from Harris and her ilk. The news that he would replace the income tax with tariffs is a very exciting prospect, even if a compromise from my view to get rid of both.”
Trump’s pro-tariff approach, however, has put off a lot of libertarians, too. Says one libertarian writer who has worked as a regular contributor and reporter at several prominent right-of-center publications (we’ll call him “Tom”), “I don’t agree with his policy on tariffs.” While Brian is still voting for Trump, he did note that he is “uncomfortable with Trump on tariffs.” However, he still thinks Trump is overall better on the economy, principally because he has committed to keeping taxes low and working towards what Brian terms “a low regulatory state.”
But Trump’s broader economic policy is not read so favorably by other libertarians. Per Tom, “I don’t agree with his policy on immigration, and I don’t agree on his policy on spending… He also refuses to admit there needs to be cuts to Social Security and Medicare.” Colorado libertarian Ross Kaminsky also views Trump as far worse on economic policy than some who have committed to Trump seem to think he will ultimately be. Ross, who votes primarily on economic issues, says “I see Kamala Harris has having no potential upside and certain but relatively limited downside. Donald Trump has more potential upside but not as much more as a Republican should have because of his love of tariffs and his unwillingness to reform ‘entitlement’ programs.” Ross considers that Trump also has “potentially massive downside.” He adds, “On a policy basis, I have a slight preference for Trump but because of Jan 6, where he was willing to let his own VP get hurt or killed if that's what it took so steal an election, Trump is disqualified. So even if I thought he were a very good candidate and likely to be a decent president, I cannot consider voting for him.”
But for those libertarians not in the Trump column, who does this mean they will be supporting? Despite the endorsement of Jeff Flake, a more libertarian-Republican who previously held office as a Senator and Congressman from Arizona and most recently has served as US Ambassador to Turkey under Biden, Harris does not seem to be a tenable option for many libertarians who are balking at Trump.
John Vaught LaBeaume, who served as deputy communications director for the Libertarian Party's 2016 campaign, is an exception. He voted for Biden in 2020, and now plans to vote for Harris “very reluctantly” because the Libertarian Party has demonstrated insufficient pragmatism (such that he seems unlikely to return to voting Libertarian even after Trump exists the political stage). John cannot vote for Trump. His enthusiasm for Harris sounds about as low as possible, however: “Now, for the third time, to counter the plainly unacceptable Donald Trump, I'm forced to vote for the Democratic nominee who instead indulges their progressive base and its maximalist leftist demands,” says John.
The drift of the Libertarian Party is also a concern for Shikha Dalmia, who recently wrote that it has been subject to “a hostile takeover by a Holocaust-denying, white nationalist-friendly, ultra-reactionary faction, has gone full MAGA, inviting Trump to speak at its national convention—with the party’s national chair even supporting Trump over her own party’s nominal candidate.” Shikha has committed to voting for Harris this year.
In general, and not limited to Shikha, it would be fair to say based on my informal sampling that more female than male libertarians appear at least tepid, if not warm-ish to backing Harris in part because of the sorts of concerns she and John voice. As another put it, without disclosing who she in fact intends to vote for (if she votes on the presidential line at all), “I would sooner strangle myself with my own shoelaces than vote for Trump.” One imagines voting for Harris would be substantially less painful.
Perhaps an odd duck out in a group more female than male, Tom’s responses present a tiny sliver of a possibility that he could wind up with Harris—but it’s an exceedingly slim chance. As he puts it, “I don’t agree with her climate policy, I don’t agree with her spending policy, I don’t agree with her antitrust policy, I’m not a fan of price controls, and I don’t agree with her energy policy. Her decision to run as ‘not Trump’ does nothing to convince me otherwise.” If I had to bet money, I’d guess he winds up voting for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party nominee, even though he is also far from sold on that. Tom says, “I have yet to decide if I’ll vote for Chase Oliver due to the LP’s current structure and desire to be edgelords vs. policy positions.”
Oliver has, however, earned Ross’ vote already. “I have voted Libertarian more than Republican for president for most of my adult life and this time is easier than most,” he says. Ross is not alone; the libertarian friend whose text question prompted me to write this column also plans to vote Libertarian, though he lives in a bluer state than Ross or Tom.
Eric and Austin can’t do it, though. Per Eric, “With the Libertarian Party… it’s been back to business as usual: insufficient pragmatism to accomplish much,” he told me. Austin puts it slightly more diplomatically, “The Libertarian Party, unfortunately, hasn’t provided a compelling alternative, and many find themselves aligning with Trump on economic and civil liberties issues, even if they hold their noses on others.”
Of course, another option is writing in—or opting out of voting on the presidential line altogether. This is what another libertarian friend, who does vote in a swing state, will be doing. As he puts it, “The worst mistake voters can make is to vote strategically. If you vote for a candidate that doesn't represent your positions or ideals just because you want to keep someone else even worse from winning, then you will never get to vote for a candidate that you like. If we reward terrible politicians with our votes even if they are terrible, all we will get are awful choices. No candidate is owed our vote. If they want it, they should come get it. As Charles Spurgeon counseled, ‘Of two evils, choose neither.’”
That’s where I have also landed—though unlike him, I don’t live in a swing state, so perhaps my decision is less gutsy or bold or praiseworthy than his. At the end of the day, as a Connecticut registered Republican, I have decided to write in Rand Paul on the presidential line and Jeff Flake on the vice presidential line. Both are better from my standpoint than Trump and Harris on tariffs and immigration; both are Republicans who have declined to endorse Trump (though, as noted, Flake has endorsed Harris); both have a strong record on spending, health care policy and civil liberties, all issues that matter a great deal to me.
But for others, the issues that matter most are different— and for those who rank foreign policy as a top concern, especially, Trump has proven to be a draw. If he wins, one hopes those in his political operation, if not Trump himself, will remember that libertarians helped put him back in the Oval Office and craft policy with this in mind—at least where international relations are concerned.
Note: This piece was written and finalized before news of Trump’s rally, and certain comments made at it, broke or had started being truly digestible in terms of potential electoral effects. I’m not sure what was said at that rally will cause any of the libertarians I spoke to who are backing Trump to bail on him, though I could imagine it for one in particular.