Vote against democracy

Autocracy is a form of governance in which all political power resides in the hands of a single ruler or a small elite group. In such systems, the concentration of authority allows the ruler or ruling party to make decisions without being constrained by laws, democratic institutions, or opposition forces. Autocracies often suppress political dissent, limit personal freedoms, and impose stringent controls on society. This centralized form of power stands in contrast to democracies, where power is shared across institutions and checks and balances ensure a distribution of authority. Among the various forms of autocracies, dictatorships are a common and potent example, characterized by the absolute rule of a single leader.

A dictatorship is a specific type of autocracy in which one individual, often known as a dictator, holds absolute control over the state. In a dictatorship, the ruler wields unchecked power, often justifying their authority through various means such as military force, coercion, or political manipulation. Dictators tend to maintain power by weakening opposition, limiting the press, and controlling key institutions, such as the judiciary and military, to suppress dissent and eliminate threats to their rule. While dictatorships may initially emerge through a coup or revolution, they can also arise from within a failing democracy, transitioning the system into a more centralized and autocratic form of government.

Throughout history, several democracies have devolved into autocratic regimes. Often, these transformations occur gradually, as leaders who were initially elected begin to consolidate power, weaken democratic institutions, and erode civil liberties. Economic crises, social unrest, and political instability can create fertile ground for authoritarianism, as leaders promise order, stability, and prosperity in exchange for curtailing democratic freedoms. Over time, this centralization of power eliminates meaningful opposition and undermines the democratic process.

Autocracies often emerge through a series of deliberate steps taken by leaders or regimes to concentrate power, weaken democratic institutions, and suppress dissent. While the specific path to autocracy varies from country to country, certain common stages are often observed. The process typically begins during times of crisis, such as economic turmoil, national security threats, or social unrest. In such situations, aspiring autocratic leaders exploit public fear and frustration, positioning themselves as the only solution to restore stability and order. This was notably the case in Germany with Adolf Hitler, who rose to power during the Great Depression.

Once in power, these leaders focus on eliminating political opposition. This might involve intimidating, discrediting, or even imprisoning rivals, ensuring that no viable alternative can challenge the regime. Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, for example, has employed such tactics to secure his hold on power. With opposition parties weakened, the next step involves undermining democratic institutions. Leaders consolidate their control by stacking the judiciary with loyalists, manipulating election laws, or bypassing constitutional constraints. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has systematically eroded the independence of the judiciary and rewritten electoral laws to weaken checks on his authority.

Another crucial step in the path to autocracy is controlling the media and flow of information. Independent journalism is often the first casualty, with media outlets either co-opted by the state or silenced through censorship and intimidation. This creates an environment where state propaganda dominates, drowning out any dissenting voices. Russia under Vladimir Putin is a prime example, where nearly all major media outlets have come under state control, ensuring that the Kremlin’s narrative remains unchallenged.

As power becomes more centralized, autocratic regimes also target civil liberties. They restrict the right to protest, limit freedom of speech, and crack down on civil society organizations. Under the guise of maintaining national security, these actions suppress public dissent and make it more difficult for opposition movements to organize. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s government has passed laws targeting non-governmental organizations and independent media, gradually silencing critics.

At the same time, autocratic leaders often foster nationalism and division, creating an "us vs. them" mentality. They exploit nationalistic sentiment and exaggerate external threats to justify repressive policies. By framing their actions as necessary for the nation’s survival, they rally public support while dividing the population. Putin’s government, for example, has used Russian nationalism and the portrayal of the West as an existential threat to justify authoritarian policies and stifle opposition.

The expansion of executive power is another hallmark of the slide into autocracy. Leaders increase their authority through emergency laws, decrees, or constitutional amendments, weakening the balance of power. For instance, in the Philippines, former President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, allowing him to rule by decree and effectively dismantling democracy. Many autocrats also build a cult of personality, presenting themselves as the indispensable savior of the nation. This is often achieved through propaganda that portrays the leader as infallible, as seen in North Korea, where the Kim dynasty is revered with near-religious fervor.

Manipulating elections is another strategy frequently used by autocrats. Rather than abolishing elections outright, they often hold elections that appear legitimate but are heavily rigged through voter suppression, ballot manipulation, or the exclusion of opposition candidates. In Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko has maintained power through such manipulated elections since 1994, maintaining the facade of democracy while ensuring his continued rule.

Finally, autocrats take steps to secure long-term control over the state. This may involve changing or abolishing term limits, ensuring their political party's dominance, or even grooming successors who will protect their legacy. Russia's 2020 constitutional amendments, which allow Putin to stay in power until 2036, exemplify how autocrats create legal frameworks that ensure their extended rule.

The path to autocracy is often a gradual process marked by a series of calculated moves that erode democratic structures, suppress opposition, and concentrate power. What may begin as a response to crises can quickly devolve into authoritarianism if left unchecked. These ten steps—exploiting crises, weakening opposition, undermining institutions, controlling information, attacking civil liberties, fostering division, expanding executive power, building a cult of personality, manipulating elections, and securing long-term control—provide a blueprint that many aspiring autocrats follow. Recognizing these signs is crucial for preventing the slow slide into authoritarianism.

Autocratic leaders often rise during times of crisis—economic instability, national security threats, or social unrest. During such moments, the public may turn to strong leaders who promise stability, order, and solutions. Leaders who aspire to concentrate power can exploit these fears by offering themselves as the only capable authority who can restore security, while undermining democratic processes in the name of expediency.

Donald Trump effectively exploited a range of crises, including economic instability, national security threats, and social unrest, to gain power and solidify his political base. His rise in the 2016 election was characterized by his ability to tap into widespread dissatisfaction with the political establishment, frustration with the effects of globalization, and concerns over national security, particularly in the wake of terrorism and immigration issues. By positioning himself as an outsider who could fix the nation's problems, Trump capitalized on these anxieties and presented himself as the strong leader needed to restore order and prosperity.

One of the major crises Trump exploited was the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the widespread discontent with the economic recovery that followed. Many Americans, particularly in rural and industrial regions, felt left behind by globalization and free trade policies. Manufacturing jobs had declined due to automation and outsourcing, and the gap between the wealthy and the working class was widening. Trump framed these economic struggles as the result of poor trade deals, particularly with countries like China and Mexico, and blamed both Republican and Democratic leaders for selling out American workers. His "America First" rhetoric promised to bring back jobs by renegotiating trade agreements, imposing tariffs, and reducing regulations, which resonated with many who felt neglected by the political elite.

By focusing on issues like job loss, stagnant wages, and the perceived negative impact of immigration on the economy, Trump created a narrative that appealed to working-class voters. His promise to "Make America Great Again" was built on the idea that he alone could reverse these economic trends, restore manufacturing, and prioritize American interests over those of other countries.

National security threats, particularly related to terrorism and immigration, were another area Trump exploited to his advantage. Throughout his campaign, Trump highlighted the fear of terrorism, particularly from radical Islamic groups, in the wake of attacks in the U.S. and Europe. He portrayed himself as a tough, no-nonsense leader who would aggressively defend the country by taking a hardline stance on immigration and national security. One of the key issues he focused on was the U.S.-Mexico border, claiming that illegal immigration posed a major threat to both national security and the economy.

His call to build a wall along the southern border became a symbol of his broader immigration policy, which included cracking down on undocumented immigrants, ending sanctuary cities, and instituting a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. Trump’s rhetoric around immigration often invoked fears of crime, job loss, and terrorism, which appealed to voters who believed that previous administrations had failed to protect American borders and interests. Additionally, his framing of the refugee crisis, particularly from countries in the Middle East, as a national security threat allowed him to argue for more restrictive immigration policies. This focus on national security played on the fears of terrorism and uncertainty that had taken root in parts of the electorate, enabling Trump to gain support among voters concerned with these issues.

Trump also capitalized on social unrest and deep cultural divisions in the U.S., especially around issues of race, identity, and law enforcement. As social movements like Black Lives Matter gained national attention, Trump positioned himself as the candidate of "law and order," appealing to those who felt that the social and racial justice movements were destabilizing society. He tapped into resentment toward political correctness, framing himself as a defender of traditional American values, free speech, and individual rights against what he portrayed as the excesses of liberal identity politics.

This rhetoric often stoked racial and cultural tensions, particularly with his response to incidents of civil unrest following police shootings of Black Americans. By labeling protesters as "thugs" and emphasizing his support for law enforcement, he appealed to voters who were alarmed by the images of riots and looting in cities across the country. His promise to restore order and protect communities from what he described as rampant lawlessness helped him rally support among those who feared societal breakdown.

Furthermore, Trump positioned himself as the champion of voters who felt alienated by the changing cultural landscape, particularly in rural and suburban areas. He repeatedly used divisive language to pit "real Americans" against elites, immigrants, and minorities, framing the election as a battle for the soul of the nation.

Once in power, an aspiring autocrat focuses on weakening political opposition. This can take various forms, including arresting or intimidating opposition leaders, discrediting rival political parties, or using state resources to control the political landscape. By neutralizing political opponents, the leader ensures there is no viable alternative, making it easier to consolidate power.

Donald Trump employed a variety of tactics to weaken or dismantle opposition, often targeting political rivals, discrediting opposition parties, and using his influence to shape public opinion and political discourse in his favor. While the U.S. political system has checks and balances that prevent the kind of outright repression seen in autocratic regimes, Trump used both overt and subtle methods to undermine his opponents and consolidate his influence over his supporters.

One of his most consistent strategies was to discredit political opponents, often through personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and inflammatory rhetoric. He regularly referred to prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi using derogatory nicknames ("Crooked Hillary," "Sleepy Joe"), framing them as corrupt, incompetent, or weak. These attacks were designed to undermine their credibility and erode public trust in their leadership.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, Trump's attacks during the 2016 election centered around the email scandal, which he used to portray her as corrupt and a criminal. His calls to "lock her up" became a rallying cry at his campaign events, despite no criminal charges being brought against Clinton. Similarly, during the 2020 election, Trump repeatedly accused Joe Biden of being involved in corrupt dealings in Ukraine, amplifying unsubstantiated claims in an effort to delegitimize his opponent. By constantly attacking the integrity and competence of his opponents, Trump aimed to polarize the electorate and make it harder for political rivals to gain widespread support.

A significant way Trump weakened opposition was by undermining confidence in the U.S. electoral process, particularly during the 2020 presidential election. Leading up to the election, Trump repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that mail-in voting would lead to widespread fraud. After losing the election, he refused to concede, claiming the election had been "stolen" through massive voter fraud. These false claims were bolstered by legal challenges, many of which were thrown out of court due to lack of evidence, but they nonetheless eroded trust in the electoral system among his supporters.

By casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election, Trump effectively sought to delegitimize the Biden administration even before it took office. This narrative culminated in the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters, who believed they were defending democracy against a fraudulent election. In doing so, Trump not only weakened his immediate political opposition but also undermined one of the core pillars of democratic governance—the peaceful transfer of power.

While Trump didn’t directly use the full weight of state resources to suppress opposition in the way autocrats in other countries have, he did use government institutions to his political advantage in ways that blurred ethical lines. His frequent attacks on the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI, particularly regarding investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, were aimed at discrediting institutions that could hold him accountable. He referred to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as a "witch hunt" and repeatedly sought to undermine the legitimacy of both the FBI and the intelligence community when their findings were unfavorable to him.

Trump also sought to influence the Justice Department by pressuring it to investigate his political rivals, including urging an investigation into Hunter Biden during the 2020 election campaign. His public and private statements pushed for political use of the DOJ, though officials largely resisted these demands. However, this pressure had the effect of signaling to his supporters that political opponents were corrupt and that state institutions should be used against them.

Trump also frequently lashed out against those who criticized him, whether they were political opponents, members of his own party, or civil servants. He had a pattern of firing or publicly attacking individuals who disagreed with him or challenged his actions. Notable examples include firing FBI Director James Comey, who was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, and dismissing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in Trump’s first impeachment trial regarding his attempt to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden.

Trump’s firing of these officials sent a clear message: those who opposed or criticized him, even within the government, would face retaliation. This climate of intimidation discouraged dissent and strengthened Trump’s control over his political allies and government institutions. Even within his own party, Trump worked to ensure loyalty by attacking Republican leaders who disagreed with him or did not support his claims of election fraud after 2020, such as former Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Mitt Romney, and later, Representative Liz Cheney. His threats of primary challenges to Republicans who opposed him helped keep many within the GOP in line, further weakening opposition within his own ranks.

Trump’s use of social media, especially Twitter, was one of his most effective tools in controlling the political narrative and attacking his opposition. By bypassing traditional media channels, he was able to communicate directly with millions of supporters, framing news events, promoting conspiracy theories, and launching attacks on opponents in real-time. His tweets often contained inflammatory language aimed at Democrats, journalists, and even members of his own administration.

Trump’s ability to shape public opinion through social media helped polarize the political landscape, creating a deeply loyal base that viewed opposition to him as opposition to their values and the country itself. His frequent denunciations of the "fake news" media also worked to discredit any critical reporting, creating an environment where large portions of the public only trusted Trump-aligned sources of information.

Trump’s two impeachments (in 2019 and 2021) both resulted from allegations of misconduct in office, but rather than weaken his political standing, these impeachments often served to strengthen his hold over his base. In the first impeachment, Trump was accused of abusing his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for military aid. During this process, Trump and his allies aggressively attacked the credibility of the proceedings, framing them as partisan attacks by Democrats. This polarized the country further and allowed Trump to present himself as a victim of a political witch hunt, rallying his supporters around the notion that the political establishment was out to get him.

Similarly, after the January 6 insurrection, Trump’s second impeachment trial again polarized the political landscape, with Trump continuing to maintain that his actions were justified and that the impeachment was another example of political persecution. In both cases, Trump's ability to galvanize his supporters through these trials, despite the serious allegations against him, allowed him to weaken the effectiveness of the impeachment process as a tool for holding him accountable.

A crucial step toward autocracy involves undermining the institutions that safeguard democracy, such as the judiciary, legislative bodies, and electoral commissions. Autocrats gradually erode these institutions' independence by installing loyalists, manipulating election rules, or even bypassing constitutional laws altogether.

Donald Trump has engaged in numerous actions that undermined key institutions meant to safeguard democracy, including the judiciary, legislative bodies, and electoral systems. These institutions serve as critical checks on executive power, but Trump, through both rhetoric and policy, sought to weaken their independence and erode public trust in their legitimacy.

One of the most direct ways Trump undermined democratic institutions was through his repeated attacks on the judiciary, especially judges who ruled against him or his administration. Trump routinely attacked federal judges by questioning their integrity, qualifications, and impartiality. For example, when a federal judge blocked his administration’s travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries in 2017, Trump referred to the ruling as "ridiculous" and called the judge a "so-called judge." This kind of rhetoric sought to delegitimize the judiciary in the eyes of his supporters and create the impression that judges were politically biased against him.

In another instance, during the legal battle over his immigration policies, Trump attacked U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presided over a case involving Trump University. Trump claimed that Curiel's Mexican heritage made him biased against Trump because of his stance on immigration, a statement widely criticized as undermining the independence of the judiciary by injecting racial and political motivations into legal decisions.

Trump’s continual verbal attacks on the judiciary, particularly when judges ruled against him, contributed to undermining public confidence in the courts, which play a vital role in upholding the rule of law in a democracy.

While appointing judges is a legitimate power of the presidency, Trump sought to reshape the judiciary by appointing a significant number of conservative judges, many of whom were young and would serve for decades. Trump appointed more than 230 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices, reshaping the ideological makeup of the federal courts. His appointments were often fast-tracked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, ensuring that even if Trump’s policies were blocked by the legislative or executive branches, his judicial appointees would provide favorable rulings for years to come.

While appointing judges is part of the democratic process, Trump’s explicit statements about expecting loyalty from his appointees and his focus on judicial decisions favorable to his agenda suggested an attempt to politicize the judiciary, a dangerous precedent for an institution that is supposed to remain independent and neutral.

Perhaps Trump's most significant attack on democratic institutions came during and after the 2020 presidential election, when he repeatedly and baselessly claimed that the election was rigged against him. Even before the election, Trump sought to undermine confidence in the outcome by declaring that mail-in voting, which was expanded due to the COVID-19 pandemic, would lead to widespread voter fraud. Despite multiple studies and investigations proving that voter fraud is extremely rare in the U.S., Trump and his allies spread misinformation about the integrity of the election process.

After losing the 2020 election, Trump launched a barrage of legal challenges to contest the results in key swing states. Despite the fact that more than 60 lawsuits were dismissed or ruled against him—often by judges he had appointed—Trump continued to claim that the election had been stolen. His refusal to accept the results, culminating in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, severely undermined public trust in the electoral system. Millions of his supporters came to believe, without evidence, that the election had been rigged, a belief that persists among a significant portion of the electorate.

By attacking the legitimacy of the election process and refusing to accept defeat, Trump undermined one of the most fundamental democratic institutions—the peaceful transfer of power.

In addition to his broad attacks on the electoral system, Trump directly pressured state election officials to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In a now-infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump urged him to "find 11,780 votes" to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the state. Raffensperger refused to comply, citing the need to follow the law, but the incident was a clear example of Trump’s willingness to use his influence to manipulate election outcomes.

Similarly, Trump and his allies pressured state legislatures and electoral commissions to decertify election results, pushing for the appointment of alternate slates of electors in an attempt to override the will of the voters. While these efforts ultimately failed, they represented a direct attack on the integrity of state-run election systems and posed a serious threat to the democratic process.

Throughout his presidency, Trump repeatedly undermined the role of Congress as a check on executive power. He ignored or obstructed congressional investigations, most notably during the impeachment proceedings in 2019 and 2020. Trump directed members of his administration to defy congressional subpoenas related to the investigation into his dealings with Ukraine, preventing key witnesses from testifying. His administration also refused to turn over requested documents, obstructing the legislative branch’s ability to conduct oversight.

This defiance of congressional oversight set a dangerous precedent, as it weakened the ability of the legislative branch to hold the executive accountable. By refusing to cooperate with investigations, Trump effectively challenged the authority of Congress and signaled that the executive branch could operate with impunity.

Trump also targeted independent agencies, which are designed to operate free from direct political control in order to ensure their integrity and objectivity. For example, he repeatedly attacked the FBI and the intelligence community, particularly after the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey and his relentless criticism of Special Counsel Robert Mueller were part of his broader strategy to discredit institutions that were investigating him or his associates.

Similarly, Trump sought to weaken the independence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) by pressuring it to investigate his political rivals, including calling for investigations into Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Though DOJ officials resisted many of these demands, Trump’s actions eroded the perception of the department as an independent, non-partisan institution.

While not a formal institution of government, a free and independent press is often considered the "fourth estate," crucial to holding power accountable. Trump’s relentless attacks on the media, labeling it as the "enemy of the people" and dismissing any critical reporting as "fake news," were part of a broader effort to discredit any institution that could challenge his narrative. By constantly undermining trust in the press, Trump encouraged his supporters to ignore legitimate journalistic investigations and reporting, reducing the effectiveness of the media as a watchdog.

Autocratic regimes often strive to control the flow of information to shape public opinion and eliminate criticism. Independent media are either taken over, silenced, or subjected to heavy censorship. State-controlled media, in turn, promote government propaganda that supports the regime’s narrative. This suppression of independent journalism stifles dissent and creates an environment where the regime's perspective dominates.

Donald Trump attempted to control the flow of information, shape public opinion, and eliminate criticism through a variety of strategies aimed at undermining independent media, silencing dissent, and promoting his own narrative. While the United States has constitutional protections for free speech and a free press, Trump's efforts to delegitimize independent media, promote alternative sources of information, and attack critical outlets were central to his presidency. These efforts created a deeply polarized media environment and made it more difficult for the public to distinguish between factual reporting and political propaganda. Here are several key ways in which Trump sought to control information and attack the media:

One of Trump's most consistent strategies for controlling the flow of information was his use of the term "fake news" to discredit media outlets that were critical of him. This label was frequently directed at major news organizations such as The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, and others that published reports unfavorable to his administration. By repeatedly calling these outlets "fake news," Trump sought to create an environment where his supporters would question the legitimacy of any negative press coverage.

This tactic was particularly effective in shaping public opinion among his base, as polls during his presidency showed that many Trump supporters had significantly less trust in mainstream media. By framing critical news coverage as biased or dishonest, Trump created an alternative reality in which he and his preferred sources of information—such as Fox News, One America News Network (OANN), and Newsmax—were the only trustworthy providers of facts.

He frequently used his platform to attack individual journalists and media outlets. He would often single out reporters during press briefings or on Twitter, publicly insulting them and questioning their professionalism. For example, Trump repeatedly attacked CNN's Jim Acosta, calling him "rude" and "terrible" during press conferences, and at one point temporarily revoked his White House press credentials after a contentious exchange. The hostility Trump displayed toward journalists created a hostile environment for the press, where reporters felt intimidated and vilified simply for doing their jobs.

These personal attacks were designed to undermine the credibility of journalists and discourage tough questioning or investigative reporting. In doing so, Trump sought to delegitimize the media's role as a check on his power, turning public sentiment against the press and stifling critical voices.

Trump was a key promoter of alternative media outlets that aligned with his views, often amplifying conspiracy theories and misinformation through these channels. During his presidency, Trump frequently cited outlets like Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax, which provided favorable coverage and echoed his talking points. These outlets played a central role in promoting Trump’s narrative, particularly when it came to controversial topics like the Russia investigation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2020 election.

By promoting these alternative media outlets, Trump was able to bypass mainstream journalism and create an echo chamber where his views were amplified and criticism was filtered out. This was particularly evident in his response to the 2020 election, where OANN and Newsmax promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, further cementing Trump’s influence over a segment of the population that trusted these outlets over more established news sources.

In addition, Trump often shared and promoted conspiracy theories through social media. For example, he retweeted false claims about mail-in voting leading up to the 2020 election and promoted conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and his family. These tactics allowed Trump to bypass fact-checking and push unverified information directly to his supporters.

Trump’s use of social media was one of his most powerful tools for controlling information. He used his personal Twitter account, with millions of followers, to communicate directly with the public, bypassing traditional media outlets. This allowed Trump to shape public opinion in real-time, providing him with an unfiltered platform to attack opponents, spread misinformation, and promote his agenda. Throughout his presidency, Trump frequently used Twitter to announce policies, attack critics, and promote conspiracy theories. His tweets often became major news events themselves, driving the political conversation and forcing both media outlets and political figures to respond to his messaging. This created a unique media environment where Trump was able to dominate the news cycle and control the narrative on his terms.

By using social media to spread his message directly, Trump minimized the ability of traditional media to filter or contextualize his statements. This direct communication also allowed him to avoid accountability for false or misleading claims, as he could quickly shift focus by generating new controversies.

Trump’s administration took steps to limit press access to key information and events. In addition to temporarily revoking press credentials for journalists like Jim Acosta, the Trump White House frequently restricted the number of press briefings held. During certain periods, press briefings were held less frequently, and when they were, Trump’s press secretaries often provided little substantive information or engaged in hostile exchanges with reporters. This created a more controlled media environment where critical questions were often deflected or ignored.

Furthermore, Trump and his allies repeatedly threatened legal action or regulatory measures against media companies that were critical of him. For example, Trump often attacked The Washington Post and its owner, Jeff Bezos, and suggested retaliating by using antitrust measures against Amazon, the company Bezos founded. While these threats were not always acted upon, they sent a clear message that the administration was willing to use state power to target media outlets that did not align with Trump's agenda.

Throughout his presidency, Trump consistently undermined the credibility of fact-checkers and experts who challenged his claims. When media outlets, independent organizations, or even governmental agencies debunked his statements or provided evidence that contradicted his narrative, Trump would often dismiss them as biased or politically motivated. This was especially evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Trump frequently contradicted public health experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and dismissed reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that conflicted with his messaging on the virus.

By discrediting fact-checkers and experts, Trump blurred the line between truth and falsehood, making it more difficult for the public to discern fact from fiction. This tactic was effective in maintaining his base’s loyalty, as many of his supporters came to reject any information that did not come directly from Trump or sources he endorsed.

In addition to promoting alternative media, Trump often rewarded friendly outlets with access and exclusive interviews while punishing those who were critical. Fox News, particularly during the earlier years of his presidency, was frequently given access to interviews and coverage opportunities that other outlets were denied. By shaping access in this way, Trump incentivized favorable coverage while limiting the ability of more critical media to ask tough questions or provide balanced reporting.

As his presidency progressed, Trump’s relationship with Fox News became more complicated, especially after the 2020 election, when Fox acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory. Trump then turned to even more fringe outlets like OANN and Newsmax, which continued to promote his false claims of election fraud. This reliance on ideologically aligned media helped Trump maintain control over his narrative, even as more mainstream outlets moved away from him.

To consolidate power, autocratic leaders systematically erode civil liberties and personal freedoms. This often starts with restricting the right to protest, limiting freedom of speech, and curbing the activities of civil society organizations. These restrictions weaken any form of public resistance and make it harder for citizens to mobilize against the regime.

Donald Trump took several actions during his presidency that critics argue undermined civil liberties and personal freedoms, particularly with regard to the right to protest, freedom of speech, and the activities of civil society organizations. While the U.S. Constitution guarantees these rights, Trump's rhetoric, policies, and actions at times targeted groups exercising these freedoms, raising concerns about the erosion of these core democratic principles.

Trump's administration took a hardline approach to protests, particularly those that opposed his policies or raised issues of racial justice. One of the most significant examples came during the protests following the killing of George Floyd in 2020. The protests, which were part of the larger Black Lives Matter movement, were widespread and often peaceful, though some instances of violence and looting occurred. Trump frequently characterized these protests as chaotic, dangerous, and a threat to law and order. He threatened to deploy federal troops to cities like Portland and Washington, D.C., where protests were taking place.

In June 2020, the most notorious example occurred when federal law enforcement officers, acting under the direction of the Trump administration, used tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades to forcibly clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House. This was done so that Trump could stage a photo opportunity at a nearby church, holding a Bible. The use of such force against nonviolent protesters raised alarms about the administration’s willingness to suppress the constitutional right to peacefully assemble and protest.

Trump also repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to deploy military forces domestically to quell protests. While he did not ultimately invoke the act, the threat itself represented an unprecedented move to suppress public demonstrations and criminalize dissent.

Trump’s presidency was marked by frequent attempts to delegitimize criticism and suppress dissenting voices. His most well-known strategy was attacking the media, labeling any critical coverage as "fake news" and calling the press the "enemy of the people." This rhetoric not only sought to discredit the press but also created an environment in which public criticism of Trump was framed as illegitimate or unpatriotic, effectively chilling free speech for those opposed to his policies.

In addition to attacking the press, Trump frequently lashed out at individual citizens or public figures who spoke out against him. For example, when professional athletes, including NFL players, began kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice and police brutality, Trump called for them to be fired and accused them of disrespecting the flag and the military. This response targeted a form of peaceful protest, which is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. His efforts to publicly shame and delegitimize these protests were seen as attempts to suppress a powerful form of political expression.

Trump also used his platform to attack companies or organizations that did not align with his views, such as when he suggested that the federal government should reconsider Amazon’s contracts and criticized Twitter and Facebook for allegedly being biased against conservatives. While these actions did not directly limit free speech, they demonstrated Trump's willingness to use his influence to intimidate organizations that facilitated or allowed critical viewpoints.

Throughout his presidency, Trump and his administration made efforts to curb the activities of civil society organizations, particularly those that engaged in advocacy for civil rights, environmental protections, and immigration reform. Trump's policies and rhetoric were hostile toward many non-governmental organizations and grassroots groups that challenged his administration's policies, especially in areas like immigration and racial justice.

One notable example of Trump's hostility toward civil society organizations was his administration's stance on immigration advocacy groups. Trump's hardline immigration policies, including the "zero tolerance" policy that resulted in family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border, were widely condemned by human rights organizations. In response, Trump and his allies often framed these organizations, as well as sanctuary cities, as supporting criminal activity by defending the rights of immigrants. This rhetoric not only sought to discredit the work of these organizations but also stigmatized their efforts to protect vulnerable populations.

Additionally, Trump's administration sought to limit the influence of environmental organizations. His administration rolled back numerous environmental protections and made it more difficult for environmental groups to challenge these decisions in court. By limiting the ability of civil society organizations to engage in legal advocacy or regulatory oversight, Trump's administration curtailed their capacity to hold the government accountable for policies affecting the environment, public health, and civil rights.

Trump’s administration frequently labeled its critics as unpatriotic, criminal, or dangerous. During the 2020 protests, Trump sought to characterize protesters and activists as domestic terrorists or anarchists. This language not only delegitimized peaceful protests but also laid the groundwork for more aggressive legal and law enforcement actions against activists. Trump signed an executive order in June 2020 calling for the federal prosecution of individuals involved in defacing or toppling statues, including those of Confederate leaders. The order sought to impose harsh penalties on protest actions, even in cases where public property was the target of political expression.

By labeling protesters as criminals or terrorists, Trump promoted the idea that dissent was inherently unlawful and should be met with severe punishment. This rhetoric was also reflected in the administration’s support for law enforcement crackdowns on protests, including the deployment of federal officers to cities like Portland, where unmarked federal agents were filmed arresting protesters in unmarked vehicles, raising concerns about violations of due process.

Another way Trump sought to erode civil liberties was through his administration’s treatment of whistleblowers and government officials who spoke out against him. One of the most prominent examples of this occurred during Trump's first impeachment, which centered around his attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Several government officials, including Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified against Trump during the impeachment proceedings. Vindman, who was a key witness, faced retaliation from the Trump administration and was ultimately removed from his position. This action sent a clear message to other government employees: dissent would be met with punishment.

Trump’s treatment of whistleblowers and internal critics extended beyond impeachment-related matters. Throughout his presidency, Trump fired or publicly attacked inspectors general, intelligence community officials, and career civil servants who were involved in investigations or reports that contradicted his administration’s narrative. By cracking down on internal dissent, Trump undermined mechanisms within the government that are designed to check executive power and ensure accountability.

While Trump did not enact sweeping surveillance measures comparable to past administrations, there were notable instances where his administration targeted activists and protesters. For example, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies reportedly engaged in intelligence-gathering activities related to protests in Portland, Oregon, in 2020. Federal agents collected information on journalists, protesters, and activists, raising concerns about the government using surveillance to intimidate those engaged in constitutionally protected activities.

Additionally, there were reports that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice sought to gather information on protest leaders and activists involved in movements against racial injustice. The use of government surveillance in this context raised significant civil liberties concerns, particularly as it mirrored historical instances of government monitoring aimed at suppressing social movements.

Autocrats frequently exploit nationalist sentiment and create or exaggerate external and internal threats to rally support. By fostering a sense of national pride and unity, they can justify authoritarian policies as necessary for the protection of the nation. At the same time, dividing society along ethnic, religious, or political lines weakens potential resistance. Ethnic or ideological divisions are used to demonize specific groups, framing them as threats to national security.

Donald Trump frequently exploited nationalist sentiment and amplified both external and internal threats to rally support, foster a sense of national pride, and justify policies that critics have described as authoritarian. Throughout his presidency, Trump positioned himself as a defender of American values and national identity, often invoking a nostalgic vision of America’s past greatness while framing his opponents and perceived enemies as threats to that vision. This strategy was particularly effective in galvanizing his political base and consolidating power, as it allowed him to portray himself as the protector of the nation while marginalizing and demonizing specific groups. By fostering ethnic, religious, and political divisions, Trump weakened potential resistance to his policies, deepened societal polarization, and framed opposition as unpatriotic or dangerous.

One of the central themes of Trump's political messaging was his slogan "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), which appealed to a deep sense of nationalism and pride in American identity. The MAGA message evoked a romanticized vision of America’s past—an era when, in Trump’s telling, the country was prosperous, powerful, and respected. This rhetoric resonated particularly with white, working-class Americans who felt economically marginalized and culturally alienated by globalization, immigration, and the progressive social movements that had gained traction in the years prior to his presidency. By promising to restore America’s greatness, Trump tapped into a powerful strain of nationalism that focused on economic protectionism, military strength, and cultural preservation.

At the same time, Trump framed his campaign and presidency as a defense of American sovereignty and traditional values, particularly against what he described as external threats like immigration and unfair trade practices, as well as internal threats from progressive policies and movements. By emphasizing the need to restore national pride, Trump effectively created a political narrative where any dissenting viewpoints were seen as challenges to the core identity of the nation.

Trump frequently exaggerated or created external threats to rally his supporters around his nationalist agenda. One of the most prominent examples was his rhetoric surrounding immigration. Throughout his 2016 campaign and presidency, Trump painted immigrants—particularly those coming from Latin America—as dangerous criminals, drug traffickers, and gang members. His repeated assertion that Mexico was "sending" rapists and criminals across the border fueled fear and resentment, which he used to justify harsh immigration policies, such as building a wall on the southern border and implementing family separation policies. The portrayal of immigrants as an existential threat to national security helped rally support for these controversial measures, even though studies show that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens.

Similarly, Trump framed trade imbalances and globalization as external threats that were "stealing" American jobs and wealth. His criticism of trade deals like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and his imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods were framed as necessary steps to protect American workers from the negative effects of global trade. By casting foreign countries, particularly China, as economic adversaries, Trump fostered a sense of economic nationalism that pitted the United States against global competitors, further reinforcing the idea that America was under siege from external forces.

Trump also sought to exploit internal divisions, often along political, ethnic, and ideological lines, to rally his supporters and weaken opposition. One of his most divisive strategies was his framing of political opponents and protest movements as dangerous threats to the nation. For instance, during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests that erupted in 2020 after the killing of George Floyd, Trump characterized the movement as violent and anarchic, despite the fact that the vast majority of protests were peaceful. He used images of looting and rioting, which occurred in isolated instances, to portray the entire movement as a threat to law and order. Trump repeatedly referred to protesters as "thugs" and described the protests as an assault on American values, suggesting that only a forceful response—including the deployment of federal troops—could restore order.

This rhetoric served to divide society along racial and ideological lines, as Trump’s message was primarily aimed at white, suburban, and rural voters who feared the racial justice movement and urban unrest. By demonizing the protesters and equating them with radical elements seeking to destroy the country, Trump effectively framed the fight for racial equality as a threat to national security and American unity.

Moreover, Trump often framed his political opponents in the Democratic Party as socialists or communists who wanted to fundamentally reshape the country in ways that would undermine traditional American values. This narrative, which was frequently used during his 2020 reelection campaign, portrayed progressives and Democrats as a danger to the nation's economic and political systems. By painting his opponents as extreme leftists or as aligned with foreign ideologies hostile to the United States, Trump sought to mobilize his base against a common enemy, thus deepening political polarization.

He also exploited ethnic and religious divisions to maintain support and justify certain policies. One of the most notable examples was his travel ban, which targeted several Muslim-majority countries. Announced early in his presidency, the ban was framed as a measure to protect the United States from terrorism, even though there was little evidence that immigrants from the affected countries posed a significant threat to national security. The travel ban was widely criticized as discriminatory and anti-Muslim, and it fueled Islamophobia within the U.S. By associating entire national and religious groups with terrorism, Trump fostered an environment of fear and suspicion toward Muslims, both domestically and abroad.

Additionally, Trump’s rhetoric on immigration often crossed into racially charged territory. For instance, during his campaign and presidency, he repeatedly referred to Mexican immigrants as criminals and "bad hombres." His administration’s policy of family separation at the border was widely condemned for its cruelty and the dehumanizing treatment of migrants, particularly those from Central and South America. By portraying immigrants from certain ethnic backgrounds as dangerous and inferior, Trump played on xenophobic fears and fostered ethnic divisions, weakening the broader coalition that might have opposed his policies.

Trump’s nationalist rhetoric also served as a justification for policies that critics described as authoritarian. Whether it was his aggressive stance on immigration, his hardline approach to protest movements, or his efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election, Trump consistently framed his actions as necessary to protect the nation from existential threats. For instance, his repeated warnings about a "caravan" of Central American migrants approaching the U.S. border in 2018 were used to justify sending troops to the border and implementing harsh immigration measures, even though there was no credible threat to national security.

Similarly, Trump’s attempts to discredit the results of the 2020 election by claiming it was rigged against him were framed as efforts to protect the integrity of the democratic process, despite widespread evidence that the election was free and fair. His refusal to concede, and his encouragement of efforts to overturn the election results, culminated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters on January 6, 2021. In this instance, Trump’s rhetoric about the election being "stolen" from him created a sense of urgency among his base, who believed they were defending the nation from an illegitimate government.

Throughout his presidency, Trump used the idea of national security and protection as a rationale for policies and actions that expanded executive power, marginalized certain groups, and polarized the country. By exaggerating threats and fostering fear, he was able to justify policies that eroded democratic norms and undermined civil liberties, all in the name of protecting America.

An essential hallmark of autocracy is the expansion of executive power. Leaders seeking to centralize authority often amend the constitution, issue decrees, or pass emergency laws that increase their power. These moves allow them to bypass checks and balances, creating a legal framework that justifies their authority.

Donald Trump sought to expand executive power and centralize authority during his presidency through a variety of tactics that often strained or attempted to bypass traditional checks and balances. While Trump did not explicitly amend the Constitution, he frequently pushed the boundaries of executive authority in ways that tested the limits of presidential power. His efforts to consolidate control often involved attempts to override legislative and judicial constraints, issuing executive orders, and using emergency powers to justify unilateral actions.

Trump relied heavily on executive orders to implement policies without going through Congress. Executive orders are a legitimate tool for presidents, but Trump used them in ways that critics argued were attempts to bypass the legislative process. For example, early in his presidency, Trump issued the travel ban, which barred citizens from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. This executive order was implemented without prior consultation with Congress, and it faced numerous legal challenges, eventually being revised after several court rulings. The travel ban was framed as necessary for national security, but it was also viewed as a means to assert executive control over immigration policy without seeking congressional approval.

Trump also used executive orders to roll back Obama-era regulations on climate change, health care, and financial oversight, often bypassing Congress’s legislative role in shaping these policies. By relying on executive orders, Trump demonstrated a preference for using unilateral presidential power rather than navigating the often slower and more complicated legislative process, effectively expanding his authority in areas traditionally regulated by Congress.

One of the most high-profile examples of Trump’s attempt to expand executive power was his declaration of a national emergency in 2019 to fund the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. After failing to secure the necessary funding from Congress, Trump declared the emergency under the National Emergencies Act, allowing him to redirect funds from other areas of the federal budget, such as military construction projects.

This move was controversial because it circumvented Congress, which holds the power of the purse. Trump’s use of the national emergency declaration to achieve a policy objective that Congress had explicitly refused to fund was seen as an attempt to override the legislative branch’s authority. Although Congress passed a resolution to block the emergency declaration, Trump vetoed it, demonstrating his willingness to assert executive power over the expressed will of lawmakers.

Trump consistently sought to expand executive authority over immigration, an area where the president has significant but not unlimited power. In addition to the travel ban, Trump used executive orders and agency rule changes to implement restrictive immigration policies, such as the "zero tolerance" policy that led to family separations at the border. This policy was implemented unilaterally by the Trump administration and sparked national and international outrage.

He also sought to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation. Despite public support for the program and legal challenges, Trump’s administration pushed forward with attempts to dismantle it. Although the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to terminate DACA, his attempts to expand executive authority over immigration illustrated his willingness to take unilateral action on contentious issues.

Throughout his presidency, Trump frequently resisted congressional oversight, an essential check on executive power. For example, during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump refused to cooperate fully with Congress. His administration repeatedly defied subpoenas for documents and testimony, and Trump directed key officials not to testify during impeachment proceedings.

By refusing to comply with congressional investigations, Trump undermined one of the legislative branch’s key tools for holding the executive accountable. This defiance of oversight extended beyond the Russia investigation. Trump frequently blocked attempts by Congress to scrutinize his administration’s actions, including its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its use of federal law enforcement during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.

Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military in response to domestic protests was another example of his attempt to expand executive power. In the summer of 2020, following nationwide protests against racial injustice and police brutality, Trump suggested he would send federal troops to cities where local officials were unable or unwilling to suppress protests. Although he ultimately did not invoke the Insurrection Act, he did deploy federal law enforcement officers to cities like Portland, Oregon, where their actions sparked accusations of excessive force and unlawful arrests.

This use of federal agents in a domestic law enforcement capacity raised concerns about the militarization of civil responses and the executive branch’s willingness to override local and state authorities. It demonstrated Trump’s willingness to use federal power to assert control over domestic affairs, further expanding the role of the executive branch.

Trump frequently attacked the judiciary when it ruled against him, attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the courts. For example, when judges blocked his travel ban, border wall, and other policies, Trump publicly criticized them, calling their rulings politically motivated and suggesting that they were part of a broader effort to thwart his agenda. By questioning the integrity of the judiciary, Trump sought to weaken one of the key checks on executive power.

Moreover, Trump’s successful appointments of three Supreme Court justices and numerous federal judges reshaped the judiciary for years to come. While appointing judges is a standard presidential power, Trump’s rhetoric often suggested that he expected loyalty from these appointees, reflecting his broader desire to centralize authority by influencing the judiciary’s decisions.

In foreign policy, Trump frequently bypassed congressional authority, expanding executive control over international relations. For example, Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from international agreements like the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Accord, ignoring bipartisan opposition in Congress. He also engaged in significant actions, such as the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020, without consulting Congress, sparking debates about the president's war powers.

While the president has broad authority over foreign policy, Trump's willingness to make major decisions without congressional input or approval reflected his efforts to further consolidate power within the executive branch.

Trump’s most extreme effort to expand executive power came during and after the 2020 presidential election. Trump refused to concede after losing the election to Joe Biden, claiming widespread voter fraud without evidence. His efforts to overturn the results included pressuring state officials to "find" votes, filing numerous lawsuits to challenge the outcomes, and attempting to persuade the Department of Justice to support his baseless claims of fraud.

The culmination of these efforts was the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which occurred after Trump urged his supporters to protest the certification of the electoral results. Trump’s attempt to override the election results was a direct attack on the democratic process and the peaceful transfer of power, raising serious concerns about his willingness to expand executive authority to maintain control.

Many autocrats cultivate a personal image of infallibility and indispensability, often presenting themselves as the embodiment of the nation. Through state-controlled media, education systems, and propaganda, the leader is portrayed as a visionary savior who must remain in power for the country to thrive.

Donald Trump cultivated a personal image of infallibility and indispensability throughout his political career, positioning himself as the central figure in the national narrative and often presenting himself as the embodiment of the nation’s identity, interests, and future. This image-building strategy helped him rally a deeply loyal base of supporters, secure his political influence, and sideline opposition. By framing himself as a unique leader capable of solving the country's problems, Trump sought to elevate his personal importance beyond that of a typical president, portraying any criticism of him as a direct attack on the nation itself.

From the start of his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump adopted a narrative of personal indispensability, positioning himself as the sole leader capable of solving America’s most pressing problems. In his 2016 Republican National Convention speech, he declared, "I alone can fix it," referring to issues like crime, immigration, and economic decline. This statement encapsulated Trump's broader messaging throughout his campaign and presidency—he presented himself as a political outsider with unique skills and strength, necessary to restore the country to greatness. By implying that other politicians were incompetent, corrupt, or weak, Trump contrasted himself as a decisive and capable leader, indispensable for the country’s success.

This approach reflected Trump's larger-than-life persona and played into his brand as a businessman who could "get things done." His supporters embraced this image, viewing him as someone willing to break the mold of traditional politics to achieve results. This perception of indispensability fed into the idea that Trump was not just a president but a national savior.

Trump’s use of the "Make America Great Again" slogan reinforced his image as the embodiment of the nation's future. The slogan suggested that under Trump’s leadership, America could return to a previous era of strength and prosperity. This narrative tied Trump's personal success to the success of the country, framing him as not just a political leader but a movement leader—one who stood for the revival of national pride, sovereignty, and identity.

The slogan was powerful because it invoked a sense of nostalgia for an undefined "better" past while presenting Trump as the only leader capable of restoring this greatness. In this narrative, Trump became synonymous with America’s renewal, reinforcing the idea that his leadership was crucial for the country's survival and progress. The phrase became a cultural marker among his supporters, further enhancing the connection between Trump's personal image and national identity.

Trump’s image of infallibility was reinforced by his frequent demonization of critics and political opponents. He consistently framed those who disagreed with him—whether they were Democrats, members of the media, or even dissenters within his own party—as enemies of the nation. By presenting his critics as disloyal or harmful to the country, Trump positioned himself as the protector of American interests, making any attack on him an attack on the country itself.

This framing was most visible in his consistent labeling of the media as the "enemy of the people." By dismissing critical press coverage as "fake news" and accusing journalists of undermining the nation’s success, Trump delegitimized any information that contradicted his narrative. This tactic created an environment where his supporters were less likely to believe criticism or scandals involving him, reinforcing the perception of his infallibility.

Trump’s leadership style relied heavily on cultivating personal loyalty, both among his political allies and his base of supporters. He frequently rewarded those who were loyal to him and punished or attacked those who expressed dissent. This emphasis on loyalty over expertise or independent thought reinforced the idea that Trump’s leadership was indispensable and that success was tied directly to personal allegiance to him.

Trump’s rallies became key venues for fostering this loyalty. These rallies were not just political events but theatrical performances that centered on Trump himself. They were carefully crafted to showcase his power, reinforce his narrative of victimhood and triumph, and strengthen the bond between him and his supporters. By maintaining a close connection with his base through these rallies, Trump ensured that his personal image remained central to his political strategy.

Throughout his presidency, Trump fostered what many observers described as a "cult of personality." This term refers to a political leader’s ability to create an image of themselves as an almost messianic figure—an infallible and irreplaceable leader whose personal qualities are portrayed as central to the nation’s success. Trump often presented himself as a victim of conspiracies—such as the "deep state," Democrats, or the media—who was fighting against overwhelming opposition to protect the nation’s future.

This image of himself as a figure constantly under siege bolstered the perception that he was not only infallible but also indispensable. His base often viewed any attempt to hold him accountable, such as his impeachments or investigations into his administration, as part of a broader attack on their values and interests. Trump's ability to frame these challenges as political persecution allowed him to galvanize his supporters around the idea that his leadership was vital for the protection of the country, democracy, and traditional American values.

Trump frequently positioned himself as a symbol of the nation itself, embodying its identity, strength, and future. He often referred to himself in terms that suggested he was leading a national movement, not just a political campaign. His references to "we" and "us" when talking about his policies or the country's future blurred the line between Trump the individual and America as a whole.

His rallies, speeches, and tweets frequently invoked themes of patriotism and national pride, tying his leadership directly to the country’s wellbeing. By cultivating this image, Trump reinforced the idea that he was not just another politician but a symbol of America’s strength, sovereignty, and greatness. His narrative that the country could not thrive without him strengthened the sense that his leadership was indispensable to the nation’s future.

Trump’s actions following the 2020 election, where he refused to concede defeat and falsely claimed widespread voter fraud, exemplified his belief in his own indispensability. By rejecting the results of a democratic election and framing the outcome as a stolen victory, Trump suggested that the nation could not move forward without him in power. His rhetoric encouraged his supporters to view the election outcome as illegitimate and part of a larger conspiracy to remove him from office.

This refusal to accept the results culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, where Trump’s supporters sought to prevent the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. Trump’s actions during this period reflected his unwillingness to step aside, further demonstrating his belief that he was the only legitimate leader for the country. His role in this insurrectionary moment highlighted the dangers of a leader cultivating a personal image of indispensability at the expense of democratic norms and institutions.

While some autocratic regimes abolish elections entirely, many maintain a veneer of democracy by holding elections that are neither free nor fair. Elections are often rigged through voter suppression, ballot manipulation, or the outright exclusion of opposition candidates. These controlled elections give autocrats a veneer of legitimacy while ensuring that they remain in power.

While Donald Trump did not yet attempt to abolish elections entirely, he did engage in actions that undermined the integrity of the electoral process and sought to manipulate outcomes. During his presidency, Trump and his allies consistently spread misinformation about the U.S. election system, particularly focusing on voter fraud and election security. His efforts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of elections, especially after his loss in the 2020 presidential race, were seen as attempts to weaken public trust in the democratic process. Rather than abolish elections outright, Trump tried to influence them through voter suppression, ballot manipulation claims, and efforts to disqualify opposition, effectively maintaining a veneer of democracy while undermining its core principles.

From early in his political career, Trump made unsubstantiated claims about widespread voter fraud. Even after winning the 2016 election, Trump claimed—without evidence—that millions of illegal votes were cast, which he said cost him the popular vote. These false claims laid the groundwork for his later efforts to discredit the electoral process. During the 2020 election, Trump amplified these claims, repeatedly warning that mail-in voting, which was expanded due to the COVID-19 pandemic, would lead to mass fraud.

By sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the election process, Trump sought to delegitimize any election result that did not favor him. His rhetoric not only undermined trust in the electoral system but also set the stage for his refusal to accept defeat in the 2020 election. These actions had a long-term effect, as a significant portion of the American public came to believe in unproven claims of election fraud, which continues to destabilize faith in U.S. elections.

Trump and his allies supported or endorsed measures that were widely viewed as voter suppression tactics, particularly aimed at communities of color and low-income voters, who are more likely to vote Democratic. These efforts included supporting stricter voter identification laws, reducing access to mail-in voting, and closing polling places in predominantly minority communities.

One of the most high-profile examples occurred in 2020, when Trump and Republicans tried to block mail-in ballots or limit their use, particularly in swing states. Trump’s administration also sought to undermine the U.S. Postal Service during a time when millions of Americans were expected to vote by mail due to the pandemic. These actions were interpreted as attempts to restrict voting access and disproportionately affect groups that might lean against him in the election.

In Texas, Georgia, and other key battleground states, Republican officials, often encouraged by Trump’s rhetoric, pursued laws that made it harder for people to vote, particularly by reducing early voting periods, restricting absentee ballot access, and implementing harsher voter ID requirements. Trump’s push for these changes was seen as an effort to suppress voter turnout in communities that might oppose him, effectively manipulating the electoral process.

After losing the 2020 election, Trump tried to exclude opposition by attempting to overturn the results in key states. He and his legal team filed over 60 lawsuits in battleground states, claiming without evidence that there were widespread irregularities and fraud in the voting process. Courts across the country, including judges appointed by Trump, consistently dismissed these cases due to a lack of evidence. Despite the legal failures, Trump continued to insist that the election had been stolen from him, fostering the false belief among many of his supporters that the results were illegitimate.

Perhaps the most direct attempt to manipulate the election outcome came when Trump personally pressured election officials in states like Georgia to "find" enough votes to overturn the results in his favor. In a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump asked him to "find 11,780 votes" to reverse Biden’s victory in the state. This attempt to directly influence the vote count was widely condemned as an abuse of power and an attack on the electoral process.

Beyond direct voter suppression and legal challenges, Trump also attempted to manipulate the 2020 election results through legislative and procedural means. He and his allies encouraged Republican-controlled state legislatures in battleground states to send alternate slates of electors to the Electoral College, thus bypassing the popular vote in those states. This plan sought to overturn the will of the voters by replacing legally chosen electors with Trump loyalists. While this effort ultimately failed, it represented an unprecedented attempt to manipulate the mechanisms of American democracy.

Additionally, Trump's pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to reject the certification of Electoral College results on January 6, 2021, was part of a broader strategy to disrupt the legal process of affirming the election results. Trump falsely claimed that Pence had the authority to overturn the results, even though the Vice President’s role in the certification process is ceremonial. Pence refused, but the pressure exerted on him demonstrated Trump's willingness to distort legal and constitutional norms in an attempt to cling to power.

Even after leaving office, Trump continued to push for changes to election laws in states across the country, often encouraging restrictions that critics argue are designed to suppress opposition. In states like Georgia and Texas, Republican legislators, influenced by Trump’s false claims of election fraud, passed new voting laws that restrict access to absentee ballots, limit early voting hours, and empower partisan officials to oversee election administration. These laws were seen as direct responses to Trump’s calls to "secure" future elections, despite no evidence of widespread fraud in 2020.

By promoting these changes, Trump and his allies continued to erode the democratic process by undermining public confidence in free and fair elections. These efforts also set a precedent for future elections, where baseless claims of fraud could be used to justify further restrictions on voting rights or attempts to manipulate outcomes through legal or procedural means.

Finally, the ultimate goal of an autocrat is to secure long-term control over the state. Leaders do this by changing term limits, ensuring their political party’s dominance, or even grooming successors who will protect their legacy. In some cases, autocrats ensure their continued control by setting up systems of patronage that make it difficult for any future government to operate without their blessing.

During his time in office, Donald Trump sought to secure long-term control over the state and influence the future of the Republican Party in ways that could ensure his personal dominance or protect his political legacy. While he did not make a direct attempt to formally change presidential term limits, his rhetoric, actions, and influence on the Republican Party reflect efforts to maintain political power, consolidate control, and position himself as a central figure for the long term. Below are some of the key ways Trump tried to secure lasting control over the state, bolster his political influence, and ensure the continuation of his legacy.

Although Trump did not formally attempt to change the U.S. Constitution’s 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to two terms in office, he did frequently comment about or hinted at the idea of staying in power beyond the standard two terms. On multiple occasions, he suggested that he deserved more time in office, citing what he called the "unfair" investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his presidency. While these statements were often framed humorously, they planted the notion among his supporters that Trump should continue to lead beyond the usual term limits.

These remarks were seen by many as undermining the democratic tradition of a peaceful transfer of power, and while there was no formal attempt to extend his tenure, his casual mentions of term limit changes reflected a desire for continued influence and control. This rhetoric also energized his supporters, some of whom embraced the idea that Trump should remain in power indefinitely.

One of the most significant ways Trump attempted to secure long-term control over the state was through his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. After losing to Joe Biden, Trump refused to concede, launching a series of legal challenges and promoting false claims of widespread voter fraud. His goal appeared to be the invalidation of the election results in key battleground states, allowing him to remain in power for a second term despite losing the Electoral College and the popular vote.

Trump's pressure on state election officials, such as his call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to overturn Biden's victory in the state, demonstrated his willingness to use personal influence to cling to power. His promotion of baseless conspiracy theories and his encouragement of the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol were seen as attempts to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and potentially secure a second term through extralegal means. Although these efforts ultimately failed, they revealed Trump's willingness to undermine democratic processes to maintain control.

Trump worked to secure long-term control by reshaping the Republican Party to align more closely with his vision, values, and personal leadership. During his presidency, he exerted significant influence over the party, ensuring that his supporters and loyalists filled key positions within the GOP. Politicians who criticized Trump or opposed his policies—such as former Senators Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney—often found themselves marginalized within the party. In contrast, those who supported Trump unconditionally were rewarded with endorsements and political backing.

Trump’s influence over the Republican Party continued even after leaving office. Many Republican lawmakers remained aligned with Trump’s policies and rhetoric, fearing the backlash from his loyal voter base if they were seen as opposing him. This dominance ensured that the GOP remained closely tied to Trump, even when some members might have preferred to distance themselves from his more controversial positions or actions.

By maintaining such a firm grip on the Republican Party, Trump effectively secured long-term influence over its direction and ensured that any potential future leaders would need his approval or align with his agenda to succeed.

Following his loss in the 2020 election, Trump continued to promote the "Stop the Steal" movement, which falsely claimed that the election had been rigged against him. This movement became a rallying cry for Trump’s supporters, many of whom believed that he had been unfairly removed from power. By promoting these conspiracy theories, Trump sought to delegitimize the electoral process and undermine the incoming Biden administration, creating a narrative that could potentially allow him to reclaim power in future elections.

This movement also laid the groundwork for Trump’s continued political relevance, positioning him as a potential candidate for future elections. His refusal to accept the 2020 results has kept his supporters engaged and energized, ensuring that he remains a dominant figure in Republican politics even after leaving office.

While Trump has not explicitly groomed a successor in the traditional sense, he has worked to build a political dynasty within his own family and among his closest allies. Several members of Trump’s family, including his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, held senior positions within his administration and became prominent figures in Republican politics. Ivanka, in particular, has been viewed as a potential future candidate, with speculation that she could run for office herself one day. Similarly, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. has become a key voice in Republican circles, frequently promoting his father’s policies and maintaining his influence among the party’s base.

In addition to his family, Trump has cultivated a network of loyalists and allies within the Republican Party who have risen to prominence thanks to his endorsement. Figures like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene have aligned themselves with Trump’s brand of populism, often echoing his rhetoric and policies. By grooming these figures and elevating loyalists within the GOP, Trump has helped ensure that his legacy and political influence will continue to shape the party, even if he is not actively in office.

Trump has consistently teased the possibility of running for president again in 2024, keeping his political base engaged and fueling speculation about his future ambitions. By maintaining an active presence in politics, holding rallies, and continuing to fundraise through his political action committees (PACs), Trump has positioned himself as a potential candidate for a future election. His influence over the Republican Party remains strong, and many GOP figures continue to seek his endorsement or align themselves with his policies in preparation for 2024.

This strategy of remaining politically relevant allows Trump to continue shaping the party’s direction while keeping the option of returning to power open. By keeping his base mobilized and maintaining control over the Republican Party’s agenda, Trump has effectively ensured that his influence will continue to be felt for years to come.

One of Trump’s key strategies for securing long-term control was his concerted effort to weaken opposition within the Republican Party. Throughout his presidency and beyond, Trump used his political capital to target and marginalize Republicans who challenged him. For example, he frequently attacked "RINOs" (Republicans in Name Only) and endorsed primary challengers to those he saw as insufficiently loyal to him. Notable examples include his attacks on Senator Mitt Romney and Representative Liz Cheney, both of whom opposed Trump on various issues, including his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

By punishing dissent within the GOP, Trump made it clear that loyalty to him was a prerequisite for success in the party, thereby securing his grip on its future direction. This strategy further ensured that his political influence would continue, as potential challengers were either sidelined or forced to align with his agenda to remain politically viable.

While Donald Trump has not fully transitioned into an autocratic leader, his actions during his first term displayed a clear inclination toward authoritarian tendencies. It is essential to consider that all of these actions—undermining democratic institutions, attacking the media, challenging the results of elections, and attempting to centralize power—were carried out within a single term. As Trump now runs for a second term in the 2024 presidential election, the stakes are even higher, and the possibility of him embracing more autocratic strategies looms large.

Trump’s first term was marked by several moves that undermined key democratic principles. His repeated attacks on the judiciary, disregard for the role of Congress, and willingness to challenge the results of the 2020 election all hinted at a desire for expanded executive power. His frequent use of executive orders, deployment of federal law enforcement to control protests, and attempts to overturn election results revealed a pattern of behavior that could be seen as laying the groundwork for a more autocratic style of leadership. Despite these tendencies, the U.S. system of checks and balances largely held, preventing Trump from fully realizing his authoritarian ambitions.

However, even within those constraints, Trump demonstrated that he could weaken democratic norms. His false claims of widespread voter fraud in 2020, refusal to concede defeat, and encouragement of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot showed how far he was willing to go to retain power. While the legal and political frameworks of the United States ultimately stopped these efforts, they also demonstrated the fragility of the democratic process when faced with a leader who is unwilling to abide by its principles.

A second term for Donald Trump presents a fundamentally different scenario. In the U.S. system, a president’s second term is typically their last, due to the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. This restriction means that, unlike during his first term, Trump would no longer face the same electoral accountability after his second term begins. Without the pressure of re-election, there would be little incentive for Trump to temper his authoritarian instincts or maintain a veneer of democratic governance.

In a second term, Trump would likely view the presidency as his last chance to solidify his legacy, push his agenda without restraint, and potentially seek to extend his influence beyond the confines of the Constitution. Given his past behavior, it is plausible that Trump could take more aggressive steps to centralize power, weaken opposition, and circumvent democratic institutions in ways that were not fully possible during his first term.

Trump’s disdain for democratic institutions was clear during his first term, and a second term would likely see an escalation of these efforts. For instance, Trump might take more direct actions to undermine the judiciary by appointing more loyalist judges, further eroding the independence of the courts. He could also deepen his influence over the Department of Justice, using it more explicitly as a tool to punish political opponents or protect allies, as he has hinted at in the past.

Moreover, Trump’s efforts to challenge the legitimacy of elections could become even more pronounced. Given that he has already established a narrative that U.S. elections are rigged, Trump may use a second term to push for sweeping changes to the electoral system that would entrench his party’s power and suppress voter turnout among groups that typically oppose him. These changes could include more restrictive voting laws, greater politicization of electoral oversight bodies, and attempts to curtail the power of independent media.

One of the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes is the suppression or elimination of political opposition. While Trump did not fully dismantle the opposition during his first term, his efforts to discredit and weaken it were unmistakable. He frequently attacked Democratic leaders, labeled the media as "fake news" or "the enemy of the people," and marginalized Republicans who opposed him. In a second term, Trump could intensify these attacks, using the power of the state to limit the political influence of his opponents.

For instance, Trump could ramp up investigations into political adversaries or use the legal system to intimidate and harass opponents, as he attempted to do with the investigations into Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton. Additionally, by reshaping federal institutions, Trump could foster an environment where dissent is increasingly dangerous, either politically or legally. His loyalists within the Republican Party, who have embraced his vision of populism and nationalism, would be more likely to push policies that secure long-term GOP dominance.

Trump’s previous actions suggest that he has little regard for the rule of law, particularly when it comes to personal and political accountability. During his first term, Trump showed a willingness to interfere with investigations that targeted him or his allies, including firing FBI Director James Comey and criticizing the Mueller investigation. In a second term, Trump could go even further by purging the leadership of institutions like the FBI, CIA, and Department of Justice, replacing them with loyalists who would act in his interest.

Without the need for re-election, Trump could openly challenge legal constraints on presidential power, asserting executive authority in unprecedented ways. This could lead to a constitutional crisis if Trump seeks to expand his power beyond what is permitted by law, knowing that impeachment or legal challenges may no longer be viable political tools against him, especially if his party controls Congress.

While Trump has not made explicit moves to change presidential term limits, the rhetoric around his desire to stay in power longer than two terms could become more serious in a second term. If he were to consolidate power and reshape key institutions, Trump might attempt to push for constitutional amendments that extend presidential terms or eliminate term limits altogether. While such a move would require significant political support, Trump's control over the Republican Party and his loyal base could make this a plausible long-term goal.

Even without formal constitutional changes, Trump’s behavior could set a dangerous precedent, normalizing the idea that a president can extend their tenure by circumventing democratic norms. His previous flirtation with the idea of staying in power beyond two terms, combined with his disregard for the outcome of the 2020 election, suggests that Trump may consider more drastic measures if he perceives his hold on power to be at risk.

Another avenue through which Trump could secure long-term control is by grooming successors from within his family or close allies. His daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr. have both been floated as potential future candidates, and Trump himself has hinted at their political ambitions. A second Trump term could be used to further elevate their profiles and ensure that they are positioned to continue his political legacy after he leaves office.

Beyond his family, Trump has cultivated a group of loyalists within the Republican Party who share his vision and ideology. Figures like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Senators Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, among others, have aligned themselves closely with Trump’s brand of populism. In a second term, Trump could work to solidify their influence within the GOP, ensuring that the party remains loyal to his agenda even after his presidency ends.

While Donald Trump did not fully transition into an autocrat during his first term, the groundwork he laid suggests that a second term could see a significant escalation of authoritarian tendencies. Without the constraints of re-election, Trump would have fewer incentives to abide by democratic norms and could push more aggressively to consolidate power, weaken opposition, and undermine the institutions that hold the executive accountable.

Trump’s first term demonstrated his willingness to test the limits of executive power, challenge the legitimacy of elections, and undermine the rule of law. A second term, free from electoral constraints, could lead to a more concerted effort to secure long-term control over the state, potentially resulting in the erosion of democracy and a shift toward autocracy. The risks of such a transition would not only impact the U.S. political system but also set a dangerous precedent for future leaders who may follow Trump’s example.

Autocracy typically represents a system where political power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small group, often at the expense of the general population. For the people living under such regimes, autocracy usually means a loss of political and civil rights, as decisions are made by the ruling authority without public input or checks and balances. Citizens in autocracies often face limited freedom of speech, restricted press, and minimal opportunities to participate in the political process, such as through free elections or independent institutions. This creates an environment of fear and oppression, where dissent is silenced, and ordinary people have little say in shaping the future of their country.

One of the major consequences of autocratic rule for citizens is poverty and economic inequality. Autocratic leaders frequently use state resources to enrich themselves and their loyalists while neglecting the needs of the general population. Without accountability or transparency, corruption tends to flourish, with government funds being siphoned off for personal gain rather than being invested in public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This often leads to widespread poverty, as economic development is stunted, and wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few elites. In such a system, opportunities for upward mobility are rare, and many people are left struggling to meet their basic needs.

Furthermore, autocracies often deprive people of basic human rights. Governments in autocratic systems frequently suppress freedom of expression, assembly, and association, preventing citizens from organizing or voicing opposition. Human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings, can become common under these regimes. For people living under autocracies, the lack of accountability often means they have no recourse to justice, leaving them vulnerable to state violence and oppression. In many cases, the promise of security and stability made by autocratic leaders comes at the cost of personal freedoms, human dignity, and the right to participate in the governance of their own country.

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote against the core principles of democracy. His repeated attacks on democratic institutions, disregard for the rule of law, and refusal to accept the results of free and fair elections show a dangerous pattern of undermining the very foundation of American democracy. Supporting a leader who consistently threatens the peaceful transfer of power and spreads misinformation about the electoral process jeopardizes the freedoms that have been fought for over centuries. If we truly value democracy, with its checks and balances, free press, and respect for civil rights, we must reject any candidate who seeks to consolidate power at the expense of these principles. The future of democracy depends on choosing leaders who respect the system, not those who seek to dismantle it for personal gain.