Former President Donald Trump’s administration has spurred quite a robust discussion. Civic leaders are testifying to its pernicious influence on the state of U.S. democracy. What a lot of political analysts – including us – have argued is that proto-fascist tendencies marked Trump’s tenure, in more ways than one undermining democratic norms. This article focuses on the coercive elements of Trump’s governance, the climate of fear he created, and his attacks on legality.
During the entire course of Trump’s presidency, thousands of American citizens felt the sting of this discriminatory and coercive action both legally and financially. This approach, often referred to as lawfare, has deeply alarmed critics who contend that this weakens the rule of law and democratic institutions. Most people were pushed to do what was asked, leading to an overall sense of fear and apprehension across all industries.
Adding to this atmosphere is an undercurrent of fear based on Trump’s violent supporters. According to one recent report, these convicts have contributed to a culture in which violence is achievable and feared. This feeling resonates with communities that have experienced the heavy hand of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. Many residents express anxiety over potential confrontations, further complicating discussions surrounding immigration policy.
Beyond safety related concerns, Trump’s Department of Education was criticized for promoting censorship. In his presidency, the banning of books sparked nationwide debates over the limits of freedom of expression. It prompted some important questions about the role of government in censorship. In reality, critics say, these actions are a way to pander to conservatives and restrict public access to critical perspectives.
Troubling instances of data disappearing from U.S. federal websites during Trump’s term have raised alarms about transparency and accountability. This worrying trend has been the cause of alarm from watchdogs. They are raising alarms about the rule of governmental operation under Trump’s direction for supposedly often flouting U.S. law.
One of the most controversial topics is still Trump’s baseless denialism of the 2020 presidential election results. Even after overwhelming evidence confirmed the fair result of Joe Biden’s victory, Trump maintained that the election was stolen. Nonetheless, this rhetoric has stoked divisions within the electorate and deepened the climate of distrust that continues to permeate the discourse around electoral integrity.
Trump’s assertion that his “own morality” is the only thing keeping him from exercising untrammeled power — and discretion — as commander-in-chief deserves all of the outrage it has received. Second, Trump intimates that he is not bound by international law. Rather than do that, though, he simply provides his own moral framework as a substitute for our legal norms. Critics argue that international law exists precisely to restrain leaders like Trump, whose actions could lead to significant global repercussions.