Donald Trump’s administration has been hit by mounting allegations that he is pushing the United States in the direction of authoritarianism. Recent federal actions taken by Trump, especially in the realm of California’s recent lawsuit, have deepened these worries. To his credit, in a bold and unprecedented move, he put 4,000 National Guard troops onto the streets of Los Angeles. He then reinforced their role by deploying 700 active duty Marines to the effort. California’s newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom was staunchly opposed to these deployments. Historically, he has had complete authority of all military action taken within the state.
The reasons behind these aggressive Trump moves seem to be fourfold. Analysts say that he is simply intent on making California an example to the rest of the states. This deep blue state is home to one of the nation’s largest immigrant communities. That said, Trump is usurping Newsom’s role here when it comes to deploying the National Guard. He hopes to destabilize what he calls a “Democratic stranglehold” in California.
Trump’s unhinged threats to unleash “very big force” on peaceful demonstrators have raised quite a stir. These remarks have raised alarms about the potential politicization of the military. National security, anti-corruption, and good governance experts have cautioned that Trump’s efforts to politicize the military are dangerous. This will likely open a Pandora’s box for subsequent administrations.
Additionally, though, Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—his actual title is policy advisor—has had a tremendous impact on shaping Trump’s agenda. He has promoted the use of emergency declarations, a controversial practice that critics say gives dictatorships powers. This strategy just so happens to be at the heart of the ongoing erosion of democratic norms and checks and balances.
Political analysts have reacted to these developments with unusual alarm. Steven Levitsky, a Harvard professor, stated, “Trump is throwing authoritarian punches at a much greater rate than any of these other cases in their first year in power.” Further detailing that these actions are too experimental and their effects yet unknown. More than anything else, it’s the societal response that will ultimately dictate the future state of American democracy.
“But we don’t yet know how many of those punches will land or how society will respond.” – Steven Levitsky
Levitsky recently observed that authoritarian tactics produce a real chilling effect. This intimidates would-be political candidates and citizens alike from participating in the political process. As he explained it, “Nobody is going to want to run for these seats if they’re scared. The general public is intimidated. I’m somewhat intimidated.” Such a culture of fear might even inhibit political engagement and debate.
Legal scholar Kim Lane Scheppele warned about the dangerous precedent Trump was setting with his consolidation of power. She remarked, “Has Trump solidified his power? Have we reached a point where we have an out-of-control president who controls all the institutions? No, but we’re at the 11th hour.” She noted most particularly the dangerous rapidity at which Trump is activating authoritarian triggers.
“He’s moving at a truly alarming speed and pressing all the authoritarian buttons. We’re a few Supreme Court decisions away from having a president we can’t get rid of.” – Kim Lane Scheppele
Whether intentional or not, Trump’s deployment of military forces to California is a powerful message. It underscores his willingness to go around or outside of normal governance structures. Scheppele noted, “He wants to establish that he can disable the governors from fighting back against him [by using] military force.” The situation presents an interesting dispute between federal and state authority, as well as the possible implications on civil liberties.
Further complicating these concerns are recent examples of violence by Trump supporters that foretell a new activist polarization and violence never before seen in American political life. Vance Boelter, a 57-year-old Trump supporter, has been linked to a fatal shooting. This violent crime took the lives of Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, shocking the community and leaving two others seriously injured. News reports suggest that Boelter had a list of more than 45 Democratic targets when he was arrested.
The implications of Trump’s actions extend beyond immediate political consequences. They suggest a broader trend toward authoritarianism that could reshape the nation’s democratic fabric. Eric Rubin, a political analyst, remarked that “This is going faster than Putin even came close to going in terms of gradually eliminating democratic institutions and democratic freedoms.”
As Trump continues to navigate this contentious political landscape, many remain concerned about his administration’s approach to governance during crises. Levitsky pointed out that in the U.S. Constitution, “almost every existing constraint on executive power can be circumvented in a state of emergency.” This reality is deeply troubling, both for the potential for abuse of power and for the undermining of the rule of law.
“And it’s becoming clear that the administration is learning that emergencies are the easiest route to circumvent the law and not be blocked by the courts.” – Steven Levitsky
Due to such obstacles, many political observers are cautiously optimistic that members of Congress—Republicans and Democrats alike—will act swiftly to combat any abuse of power. National Review’s David Frum had some interesting thoughts on this dynamic. He professed to believe that Congress would vigorously defend its prerogatives and would impeach and remove any usurping president who dared to venture beyond constitutional constraints. That is a seemingly impossible task in our current political environment.