In the first 100 days of his second term in office, US President Donald Trump has concentrated power in his own hands, undermining the checks and balances designed to protect American democracy. His actions are akin to those of democratically elected leaders elsewhere who have gradually turned their countries into autocracies.
In past decades, the most common way for a democracy to die has been at the hands of a democratically elected leader with autocratic tendencies. Such leaders have concentrated power in their own hands and undermined the three institutions designed to hold them accountable: governmental institutions such as the courts, non-governmental institutions such as the media, and elections as a mechanism for empowering ordinary citizens. In the first 100 days of his second term, President Trump has done all of the above.
Trump has maximized his power at the expense of the US Congress, and the current Congress, controlled by Trump’s Republican Party, has so far seemed willing to relinquish power to the President. The courts, in contrast, have resisted Trump’s actions. Numerous judges, some appointed by Trump or previous Republican presidents, have impeded the administration’s implementation of its agenda. In response, the President and his administration have portrayed the judges’ actions as unconstitutional and called for their impeachment.
Because court processes are slow, the clash between Trump and the courts was far from over as his presidency reached the 100-day mark. For those interested in the future of American democracy, this battle is the most important one to follow. Research has shown that defending democracy against an autocratic head of state often requires help from the courts, and in the first 100 days of the second Trump presidency, filing lawsuits was the most common method used by his opponents to resist his actions.
Trump has also been aggrandizing his power within his own branch of government. For example, he has fired numerous officials appointed to act independently as guardrails against corruption and ethics violations.
In the realm outside of government, Trump has taken action to silence the media, the academic community, and civil society. Such attacks on freedom of speech and civil society functions are often among the first steps in the creation of an autocracy.
Some media companies, academic institutions, and civil society actors have stood up to Trump. For example, the Associated Press has refused to change its coverage, and Harvard University has rejected Trump’s demands to implement a number of policy changes in order to continue receiving government funding. Both are fighting the administration in court. Non-governmental organizations have been active in filing lawsuits in defense of individuals and communities impacted by Trump’s executive orders.
The courts have also been an important venue for the Democratic Party to resist Trump’s actions. Democratic governors and attorneys general have joined forces to sue the administration in an effort to block its policies.
In addition to governmental and non-governmental institutions, ordinary citizens play an important role in checking presidential power. They can protest or voice their concerns to their representatives in Congress, and some have already done so in response to Trump’s actions. Ultimately, however, their power lies in their ability to vote for change in the next election, and undermining that power is a crucial step toward autocracy.
Trump has attempted to assert control over the Federal Election Commission by mandating a White House review of its regulations and by firing its chair without cause. He and his administration have also eliminated most of the government task forces and teams that worked to combat foreign electoral interference. In addition, he has attempted to implement radical changes to election rules and practices via an executive order, including requiring specific proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. This executive order has been challenged in court by the Democrats and voting rights groups.
As most of the resistance to Trump’s actions is unfolding in the courts, the Supreme Court will play a crucial role in shaping the future of American democracy. Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether the Court will be able to prevent autocratization. Rendering a decision unequivocally against the administration could prompt open defiance by Trump, and if he were to get away with ignoring the Supreme Court’s orders, it could cause the judicial system to lose all legitimacy.
However, no one knows what will happen if the Court and the President confront each other directly. Saying that this would create a profound constitutional crisis obscures the fact that there are numerous unanswered questions. Would the Court be willing to send US marshals to detain one of Trump’s cabinet secretaries or another key member of his administration? If so, would Trump break the law by ordering the marshals to refuse a court order? Would they follow the law or obey the President, who oversees them? Would the Court appoint an outside replacement for the marshals?
To avoid inviting open defiance, the Court may resort to carefully worded orders that give the appearance of upholding the rule of law but leave the administration with loopholes, allowing it to ignore the spirit of the rulings while following the letter. In practice, this would give the administration a free hand to erode democracy. Based on the Supreme Court’s rulings on issues related to the Trump administration so far, this outcome seems more likely than a major showdown, and while less dramatic, it may be even more detrimental because the Court would effectively be surrendering its power to the President.
It is too early to predict the fate of American democracy, but the risk of its demise is real. If this risk were to materialize, it could bring about a new world order under the rule of autocratic great powers.
Photo: White House Flickr/United States government work, Abe McNatt
