In the initial weeks of his tenure, President Donald Trump has actively worked to dismantle various parts of the federal government, engaging in efforts perceived as attempts to concentrate power in his hands. He has made moves such as granting pardons to individuals involved in the attack on the U.S. Capitol and appointing loyalists to high positions within the FBI and the military. The Department of Justice has undergone a purge, dropping investigations connected to Trump allies. Independent agencies like the Federal Election Commission have not escaped his influence, while media organizations facing his dissatisfaction have been penalized. Some of his supporters have suggested a willingness to defy judicial orders.
Experts and analysts who monitor democratic practices globally have raised alarms about the potential dangers that a second Trump term could pose to the democratic fabric of the United States, fears that the president’s early actions in office have only amplified. Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth College political scientist, emphasized this point, noting that Trump’s approach reflects strategies historically utilized by elected authoritarians. He and over 800 academics have voiced concerns over his apparent efforts to weaken the rule of law and erode the foundational constitutional checks and balances.
Nyhan draws parallels between Trump’s actions and those of other leaders who have sought to centralize authority, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban. Observers from nations with histories of authoritarian rule express unease over the American situation. Maria Ressa, a Nobel laureate journalist, compared the gradual threats to democracy to a slow, damaging bleed, risking the eventual collapse of democratic institutions.
President Trump presents himself as a strong, central figure, asserting on social media sites that his actions to “save” the nation justify his disregard for legal constraints, echoing sentiments traditionally associated with autocrats. His supporters interpret his assertive approach as an effort to fulfill the populace’s desire for a strong leader. Despite legal challenges, some of his more controversial initiatives, such as eliminating certain federal agencies and altering citizenship laws, have been temporarily blocked by the courts.
Last year’s campaign saw Trump promising to dismantle what he described as a corrupt bureaucratic system, highlighting his determination to overhaul government functions perceived as having led to past failures, including his legal troubles. From his first moments in office, Trump articulated a vision of returning power, wealth, and freedom to the American people through significant government reform. In collaboration with figures like Elon Musk, Trump aims to substantially cut down federal operations, positioning these efforts as democratic restoration.
However, experts in democracy, like Kevin Casas-Zamora of International IDEA, argue that Musk’s interpretation of democratic power overlooks its inherent limitations—a critique of the notion that electoral victory confers unrestricted authority. On the international front, Trump’s administration has stirred concern among European allies regarding America’s NATO commitments and its positioning towards Russia, particularly in negotiations concerning the Ukraine conflict. Critics within the U.S., such as Senator Bernie Sanders, warn that the administration’s affinity for Russian alliances poses significant risks to democratic principles and longstanding partnerships.
Observers point out that Trump’s continuous maneuvers primarily serve to consolidate personal power, lacking a clear ideological framework, an opinion echoed by Georgetown law professor Josh Chafetz. While Trump has indicated compliance with judicial decisions and congressional oversight concerning his reforms, there is a consistent narrative of dissatisfaction with judiciary outcomes unfavorable to his administration. Additionally, Trump’s reliance on the Department of Justice as a tool for political leverage is drawing intense criticism, exemplified by the controversial dismissal of corruption charges against high-profile figures.
In Washington, new DOJ appointments have sparked controversy, particularly regarding potential motivations tied to past political conflicts, illustrating the perceived politicization of federal law enforcement. Additionally, tensions with media entities have escalated, leading to restrictive measures against those critical of Trump’s policies and scrutiny over public media organizations receiving federal support. The administration’s attempt to assert control over independent regulatory bodies is a move that has incited historical comparisons. Some political figures voice explicit caution against the risks of repeating past authoritarian regimes’ mistakes, urging vigilance to safeguard democratic norms.
