Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is significant academic and political debate about the extent to which the United States has embodied authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies. Many scholars classify the US as a hybrid "proto-authoritarian" or competitive authoritarian regime, as opposed to being a healthy democracy or a highly-centralized authoritarian regime. This is the result of significant democratic backsliding, which accelerated during Donald Trump's first presidency, plateaued during Joe Biden's presidency, and accelerated again during Trump's second presidency at a faster, unprecedented rate.
Accusations of authoritarianism center around the concentration of executive power, killings by ICE agents during immigration enforcement operations, controlling information and attacks on free press, suppressing dissent and crackdowns on protests, aggressive foreign policy, undermining democratic institutions and law, dismantling social protections and rights, corruption, and attacking academia.
Concepts and strategy
Democratic backsliding
Democratic backsliding is "a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive, and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection."[3][4]
The 21st century saw the erosion of voting rights and the rise of partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures.[6] The first presidency of Donald Trump accelerated the undermining of democratic norms.[6][7] A paper published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science said, "Trump undermined faith in elections, encouraged political violence, vilified the mainstream media, [and] positioned himself as a law-and-order strongman challenging immigrants and suppressing protests."[6]
Quickly after resuming office for his second term in 2025, Trump became increasingly criticized by political scientists, scholars, and other significant figures for threatening American democracy. Early on, many cited the expansion of executive power and the reduction of agency workforces and regulations by the Department of Government Efficiency as an example of such threats.[9] Freedom House described the pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants as an attempt to "excuse a violent assault on a key element of democracy".[10]
The V-Dem Institute said in 2026 that "the speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history".[11][12] The institute noted executive overreach undermining the rule of law, suppression and intimidation of the media and dissenting voices, loss of legislative constraints, and declining civil rights, equality, and freedom of expression, reaching a 50-year low.[11]
Competitive authoritarianism
In competitive authoritarian regimes, "formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but [...] incumbents' abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their opponents."[13][14] Competitive authoritarian regimes differ from fully authoritarian regimes in that elections are regularly held, the opposition can openly operate without a high risk of exile or imprisonment and "democratic procedures are sufficiently meaningful for opposition groups to take them seriously as arenas through which to contest for power."[13] Competitive authoritarian regimes lack one or more of the three characteristics of democracies such as free elections (i.e. elections untainted by substantial fraud or voter intimidation); protection of civil liberties (i.e. the freedom of speech, press and association) and an even playing field (in terms of access to resources, the media and legal recourse).[15]
In 2019, political scientists Robert R. Kaufman and Stephan Haggard saw "striking parallels in terms of democratic dysfunction, polarization, the nature of autocratic appeals, and the processes through which autocratic incumbents sought to exploit elected office" in the United States under Trump compared to other backsliding countries (Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary).[16] They argued that a transition to competitive authoritarianism is possible but unlikely.[16] In 2020, Kurt Weyland presented a qualitative model for assessing democratic continuity and reversal using historical data from the experience of other countries. His study concluded that the United States is immune to democratic reversal.[17] In 2021, political scientists Matias López and Juan Pablo Luna criticized his methodology and selection of parameters and argued that both democratic continuity and reversal are possible. With regard to the state of scholarly research on the subject, they wrote that "the probability of observing democratic backsliding in the United States remains an open and important question".[18] According to some Canadian security experts, Canada may reevaluate historically close Canada–United States relations in response to democratic backsliding in the U.S., which could bring instability to the region and compromise Canada's greatest source of intelligence, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has openly said that U.S.–Canadian relations have entered a new chapter wherein the United States will no longer be seen as a trustworthy partner.[19][20][21]
Steven Levitsky found the first two months of the second Trump administration to be the most aggressively and openly authoritarian case of democratic backsliding that he has seen, expressing particular concern about attacks on the courts.[22] In September 2025, Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater Associates, has warned that the United States was heading towards 1930s-style authoritarian policies.[23]
Proto-authoritarianism
Professor Christina Pagel mapped the first actions of the Trump administration in a Venn diagram that identifies "five broad domains that correspond to features of proto-authoritarian states". These five domains are: undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law, dismantling federal government; dismantling social protections and rights, enrichment and corruption; suppressing dissent and controlling information; attacking science, environment, health, arts and education, particularly universities; aggressive foreign policy and global destabilization.[25]
Unitary executive theory
Unitary executive theory is a theory of United States constitutional law holding that the president, as head of the federal government's executive branch, must retain sole authority over executive administration and officials,[26] structurally centralizing control within a unified hierarchy. Weaker formulations are less controversial than maximalist versions, which face constitutional and practical criticism.[27] During the Reagan era, conservative organizations, including the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, and some Supreme Court justices, most notably Antonin Scalia, began favoring the theory.[28][29][30][31][32]
Trump exerted more control over the executive than any modern president, citing Article II in 2019, "where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."[33][34][27] Before his confirmation as attorney general, Bill Barr supported the theory in a 2018 memo criticizing the Mueller special counsel investigation.[35][36]
By 2018, five justices on the Supreme Court had been executive branch lawyers from the Reagan and Bush eras focused on expanding presidential power.[37] In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Roberts Court held 5–4 that the Executive Vesting Clause gives "the entire 'executive Power' ... to the President alone". The dissent said the constitutional text does not say "entire 'executive power'" or "anything about the President's power to remove subordinate officials at will".[38][39]
This precedent guided Collins v. Yellen (2021), a 7–2 ruling[40][41][39] where Alito wrote the Constitution prohibits even "modest restrictions" on the president's removing single-officer agency heads. The Court reaffirmed that precedents found in Humphrey's Executor and Morrison were the only exceptions to this removal power.[42]
The New York Times and The Guardian reported that Project 2025 sought to establish a framework for expanding presidential power during the second Trump administration based on a maximalist and "contested" version of the unitary executive theory.[43][33] The BBC called Project 2025's application of the theory to independent agencies "controversial".[44] Robert Shea, a former OMB official in the George W. Bush administration, told The Atlantic: "I can't overstate my level of concern about the damage this would do to the institution of the federal government."[45]
Trump v. United States (2024), viewed by some as embracing the theory, further empowered the presidency.[46][47]
Trump's second term expanded control over agencies and the civil service.[48][49] He ordered the targeting of political opponents and civil society.[50][51] He undertook mass firings of employees, inspectors general, and independent agency and oversight board members who might obstruct him.
Legal analysts said these actions set up Supreme Court tests on agencies Congress insulated from presidential control.[37] The Court subsequently ruled in favor of the administration and an expansive view of presidential power.[52]
Under the theory, the administration says the Constitution grants it a right to control or cease law enforcement, which legal experts called a "constitutional power to immunize private parties to commit otherwise illegal acts with impunity".[53] In February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi warned career Justice Department lawyers they could not "substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election" and could face discipline if they failed to vigorously defend the administration's policies.[54] Emil Bove sent a similar letter to Danielle Sassoon, triggering a wave of resignations as each federal prosecutor instructed to seek dismissal of the Eric Adams indictment refused to do so. According to Michael C. Dorf, the administration's stance reflected its expansive view of presidential power.[55]
Trump and his subordinates are seen as embracing an extreme version of the theory, under which[56][57] the administration pursued a revived impoundment power, with Russell Vought and Mark Paoletta citing Article II's Executive Vesting, Faithful Execution, and Commander-in-Chief Clauses as authorizing executive power to decline spending congressionally appropriated funds and as undermining the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Impoundment has not been a central feature of the unitary executive, but the administration has tried to extend the theory outward to override this explicit legislative act constraining how the executive interacts with Congress's constitutional power.[58] Though the Supreme Court has not ruled on the extent of the president's constitutional authority, if any, to impound funds,[59] Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh previously wrote against impoundment,[60][61] and in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. (2024), the Court wrote, "our Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc" under the Appropriations Clause.[62]
In March 2025, the D.C. Circuit held that the president could remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, finding removal restrictions unconstitutional.[63] The theory's impact on federal administration raised concerns over loss of federal expertise.[64]
After stressing the First and Second Bank of the United States as historical precedents to the Federal Reserve,[65] the Court decided Trump v. Cook (2026).
Journalist Martin Sandu and authoritarian politics researcher Alex Norris described the maximalist interpretation of executive power in Trump's second term as president, including sweeping executive orders, the federal funding freeze, actions against political opponents and the media, pardons of those involved in the January 6th Capitol attack, the actions of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, and the like as an attempted self-coup.[66][67] The political scientist Lee Morgenbesser argued the actions of DOGE are a form of state capture.[68]
Oligarchy
The Trump administration has been accused of operating like an oligarchy, a type of authoritarian regime based on the concentration of political power into a small group of people or dominant single party.[69][70]
In his presidential farewell address on January 15, 2025, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden warned that an oligarchy was taking shape in America which threatened democracy, basic rights, and freedom, aided by a tech–industrial complex in what Politico described as "echoing Roosevelt's language in calling out the 'robber barons' of a new dystopian Gilded Age".[71][72][73] Elon Musk, a close collaborator of Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign and head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has been described as an oligarch due to his extensive influence on Trump during his second presidency.[74][75][76][77][78][79] Musk contributed over $200 million into the 2024 election, creating a Super PAC to promote Trump's campaign.[80][81][82] Two-time presidential candidate and progressive leader Bernie Sanders started his Fighting Oligarchy ("Where We Go from Here") Tour across America in response to Trump's election victory.[83]
Nationalism
President Donald Trump was described as a nationalist,[84] and he embraced the term himself.[85] Researchers describe the Republican Party in the 21st century as becoming right-wing populist and nationalist, more specifically classified as neo-nationalist,[91] with strongly anti-pluralist,[87] white nationalist and ethnonationalist themes.{{refn|name=WhiteNat|*"Polity V Regime Narrative: United States (2025)" (PDF). Polity Data Series. January 20, 2025. pp. 12–15. Retrieved April 3, 2026.
In a February 2017 article in The Atlantic, journalist Uri Friedman described "populist economic nationalist" as a new nationalist movement "modeled on the 'populism' of the 19th-century U.S. President Andrew Jackson" which was introduced in Trump's remarks to the Republican National Convention in a speech written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Miller had adopted Senator Jeff Sessions' form of "nation-state populism" while working as his aide.[92] By September 2017, The Washington Post journalist Greg Sargent observed that "Trump's nationalism" as "defined" by Bannon, Breitbart, Miller and "the rest of the 'populist economic nationalist' contingent around Trump" was beginning to have wavering support among Trump voters.[93] Some Republican members of Congress were also described as nationalists during the Trump era, such as Representative Steve King,[94] Representative Matt Gaetz,[95] Senator Tom Cotton[96] and Senator Josh Hawley.[97]
During the Trump era, commonly identified American nationalist political commentators included Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter,[98] Michelle Malkin,[99] Lou Dobbs,[100] Alex Jones,[101] Charlie Kirk,[102] Laura Ingraham,[98] Candace Owens,[103] Michael Savage,[104] Tucker Carlson,[105] Mike Cernovich,[106] and Nick Fuentes.[107]
Fascism
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement that rose to prominence in early-20th-century Europe.[108][109][110] Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[110][111] Opposed to communism, democracy, liberalism, pluralism, and socialism,[112][113] fascism is at the far-right of the traditional left–right spectrum.[108][113][114] What constitutes a precise definition of fascism has been a longrunning and complex debate among scholars.
A number of prominent scholars, former officials and critics have drawn comparisons between Trump and fascist leaders with respect to authoritarian actions and rhetoric,[a] while others have rejected the label.
Trump has supported political violence against opponents; many academics cited Trump's involvement in the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack as an example of fascism. Trump has been accused of racism and xenophobia with respect to his rhetoric about illegal immigrants and his policies of mass deportation and family separation. Trump's base, referred to as the MAGA movement, is sometimes analyzed as a cult of personality. Especially during his second term, several experts of fascism have characterized Trump and his allies' rhetoric and style of governance as authoritarian, and have compared them to previous fascist leaders'. In contrast, some scholars have described Trump variously as an authoritarian populist, a far-right populist, a nationalist, or of a different ideology.[116][117]
Heritage Foundation projects
Flood-the-zone
"Flood the zone" is a political strategy in which a political figure aims to gain media attention, disorient opponents, and distract the public from undesirable reports by rapidly forwarding large volumes of newsworthy information to the media.[119][120][121][122] The strategy has been attributed to U.S. President Donald Trump's former chief political strategist Steve Bannon.[122][123][124]
The strategy came to public light after Bannon told Michael Lewis in 2018 that "The Democrats don't matter [...] The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit".[125] Trump adopted the strategy during the 2016 presidential election,[121][126] followed by other right-wing political figures such as Éric Zemmour and Elon Musk.[127][128][129][130]
Authoritarian actions
Targeting of press
Attacks against journalists have become more frequent since the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign, with journalists — especially those reporting on political news — being victims of assault,[131][132] equipment theft and damage,[133] detainment,[134] arrest,[134] cyberattacks,[135] and doxxing[132] at increasing rates by police, civilians, and immigration enforcement agents.[135] Trump's actions have contributed to a significant decline in the freedom of the press.[b]
These are widely considered the result of a combination of factors. Recent police attacks against journalists have been widely attributed to militarization of police in the U.S.,[143][144] the degree of influence of pro-Israel lobbies and lobbyists on crackdowns on the Gaza war protests by government and university officials,[145][146] and Trump's militarization[147] and deployment[148][149] of law enforcement. Civilian attacks against journalists have increased largely as a result of Trump's legal and rhetorical attacks against journalists who are critical of his platform and due to his role propagating election denial conspiracy theories, often resulting in his supporters taking violent action.[150][131][151]
In a Pew Research survey of 11,889 U.S. journalists conducted from February 16 to March 17, 2022, 57% stated that they were "extremely" or "very" concerned about the prospect of press restrictions being imposed in the United States.[152] The U.S.'s Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index ranking fell from 20th in 2010 to 57th in 2025.[153] According to RSF, "after a century of gradual expansion of press rights in the United States, the country is experiencing its first significant and prolonged decline in press freedom in modern history, and Donald Trump's return to the presidency is greatly exacerbating the situation."[154] During Trump's second presidency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have repeatedly assaulted and arrested journalists.
- 2026 Delaney Hall hunger strike and protests – Reporters Without Borders said "these attacks are unconstitutional repression typical of an authoritarian regime" of the May 31 mass arrests/journalist charges.[155]
Targeting of transgender people
During the second presidency of Donald Trump, the United States government has taken a series of actions to persecute people who are transgender. These actions have been accompanied by anti-transgender rhetoric and misinformation, often to dehumanize and scapegoat transgender people and portray them as a social threat.
The administration has restricted, defunded, and blocked gender-affirming care—especially in the case of minors—as well as research and education related to transgender issues. It has utilized censorship of inclusive language for the purpose of anti-transgender policy and directed law enforcement and the FBI to investigate the promotion of "radical gender ideology". The Trump administration has undergone purges of transgender military personnel, prohibited transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports, discriminated against transgender inmates, and has created restrictions on passports and international travel for transgender people.
The Trump administration's actions targeting transgender people draw much of their design from the anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom, and form part of the broader 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States and the anti-gender movement. The administration's actions have been referred to by some advocates as the early stages of genocide similar to that of persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany, arguing they seek to "marginalize them socially and economically".[156]
Targeting of government
Targeting of elections
Donald Trump's targeting of elections stems from his loss in the 2020 United States Presidential Election, in which he was defeated by Joe Biden. Donald Trump, shortly after his defeat, began spreading conspiracy theories and false information regarding the election integrity of the election, claiming that the election was stolen.[157] His primary arguments for making this claim were because of illegal immigrants voting, dead people voting, mail-in ballots, and rigged voting machines.[158]
During his 2024 campaign, Donald Trump began promoting the SAVE act, which would require in-person voter registration, proof of citizenship when registering to vote, mandatory photo ID when voting, heavily restricting mail-in and absentee ballots, requiring that states submit their voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security so that noncitizens can be purged from the list, and criminal punishments for election officials that do not comply with the SAVE act provisions.[159] Donald Trump makes the claim that this bill is a security measure for future elections, however multiple critics point out that the very strict rules could make many US citizens, most notably married women who changed their last names, ineligible to vote in elections.[160] Critics also point out that the SAVE act would act as a voter suppression law against low-income and rural Americans who do not have easy access to proof of identification and access to polling locations.[161][162] Currently, the bill has passed the House of Representatives multiple times, with some provisions of the SAVE act piggybacking on other legislative items, however the bill keeps stalling in the Senate.
During Trump's second term in office, he has signed numerous executive orders to target mail-in ballots, ordering the United States Postal Service (USPS) to create a list of approved mail-in voters, creating a standard mail-in ballot envelope design with upgraded security features, mandated non-delivery of unauthorized mail-in ballots, and criminal actions against non-compliance.[163] Donald Trump also signed a separate executive order that would require the USPS to stop delivering mail-in ballots to the 23 states that did not provide the federal government with unredacted voter rolls. All or most of the provisions in his executive orders attacking mail-in ballots have been shot down by federal courts or have faced fierce opposition by states that do not comply with his executive orders.[164]
Apart from the SAVE act, Donald Trump is also responsible for igniting the redistricting battle before the 2026 United States midterm elections. On July 7, 2025, Donald Trump made a formal request to Texas governor Greg Abbot and the Texas Legislature to gerrymander the congressional districts to help republicans gain 5 extra seats, in an attempt to hold the narrow majority (220-212) republicans maintained in the 2024 House of Representatives Elections.[165] His reasons for this request was to dilute voting power of democrats in Texas, especially ahead of an anticipated Democratic wave year, and anticipating that further Republican controlled states would join in on redrawing maps.[166] Although Democratic controlled states attempted to fight back with their own maps, Republicans are currently forecasted to have a net gain of 10 seats through redistricting efforts.[167][168]
Donald Trump, during the redistricting efforts, also filed an amicus brief challenging section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in the Supreme Court case of Louisiana v. Callais. The section prohibited states from racially gerrymandering in order to dilute the voting power of minority voters.[169] After the decision, Donald Trump publicly thanked Justice Samuel Alito for writing the majority opinion. Donald Trump called the eliminating of Louisiana's majority black district as a "Big win" and "The kind of ruling I like".[170]
Targeting of civil society
During Donald Trump's second presidency, the Trump administration took a series of actions using the government to target his political opponents and civil society. News outlets described his actions as part of his promised "retribution" and "revenge" campaign, within the context of a strongly personalist and leader-centered conception of politics.[171][172][173][174] During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly stated that he had "every right" to go after his political opponents.[175]
He undertook a massive expansion of presidential power under a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory.[176] Several of his actions ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution according to American legal scholars,[177][178][179] the Government Accountability Office,[180] and federal judges.[181][182][183] He threatened, signed executive actions against, and ordered investigations into his political opponents, critics, and organizations aligned with the Democratic Party.[184] He politicized the civil service,[176] undertaking mass layoffs of government employees to recruit workers more loyal to himself.[185] He ended the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence, weaponizing it and ordering it to target his political enemies.[186] He utilized several government agencies to retaliate against his political enemies and continued filing personal lawsuits against his political opponents, companies, and news organizations that angered him.[173][187]
By July 2025, Trump had extracted more than $1.2 billion in settlements in a "cultural crackdown" against a variety of institutions that largely chose to settle rather than fight back.[188] He engaged in an unprecedented targeting of law firms and lawyers that previously represented positions adverse to himself.[189][190] He targeted higher education by demanding it give federal oversight of curriculum and targeted activists, legal immigrants, tourists, and students with visas who expressed criticism of his policies or engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.[191] He also detained and deported United States citizens.[192]
Trump's actions against civil society have been described by legal experts and political scientists as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding,[193][194][195] as well as negatively impacting freedom of the press,[196][197][198] free speech, and the rule of law.[186][199][200][201]
In February 2026, during his State of the Union address to Congress, Trump was publicly criticized by Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who challenged his immigration policies and accused his administration of harming U.S. citizens. In response, Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social, suggesting that the lawmakers "should be sent back from where they came". Omar, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Somalia, and Tlaib, a U.S.-born citizen of Palestinian descent, were both widely reported to have been the focus of these remarks. Media outlets and civil rights organizations described Trump's comments as xenophobic and controversial, drawing bipartisan criticism for targeting members of Congress based on their heritage.[202][203][204][205]
Persecutions of political opponents
Midway through the first year of his second term, Trump made several posts on Truth Social account Pam Bondi ordering her to prosecute his political opponents, specifically naming Senator Adam Schiff, former FBI Director James Comey, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump stated "We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility." According to an administration official, the posts were intended to be direct messages and were accidentally posted publicly.[206]
Months later, Comey and James were indicted, on charges that were later dismissed. In July 2026, journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan reported that Trump told a White House advisor that he did not care whether the prosecution of James was successful and that the only purpose was to drag James into court. "I want to make her life miserable," Trump reportedly told the advisor.[207][208]
After six members of congress posted a video[209] advising service members not to carry out illegal orders, the administration investigated the representatives[210][211][212] and sought an indictment, but a grand jury declined to bring charges.[213] The administration also convicted John Bolton, prosecuted LaMonica McIver,[214] and indicted Comey again, this time on an Instagram post prosecutors claim was a threat against the president.[215] The Trump administration has also opened investigations into political opponents Jerome Powell,[216] Tim Walz, Jacob Frey,[217] Gavin Newsom, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, George Soros, Alexander Soros, Jack Smith, John Brennan, E. Jean Carroll, Reid Hoffman, Miles Taylor, and Christopher Krebs.[218]
Immigration enforcement
Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term as President of the United States on January 20, 2025, with one of his key campaign promises being to crack down on immigration.[220] That evening, Trump signed several executive orders related to immigration, including declaring a national emergency at the Mexico–United States border, blocking asylum seekers from entering the U.S., expanding the detention of apprehended migrants pending removal proceedings, ending birthright citizenship for new children born to parents who are not U.S. permanent residents, suspending almost all refugee admissions to the U.S., and officially designating certain international cartels and criminal organizations as terrorists.[221] Trump signed the Laken Riley Act on January 29, 2025, which mandates the detention of immigrants who are arrested, charged with, or convicted of certain crimes.
Border encounters between migrants and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continued to decline[222] since Trump took office in 2025; refugee admissions have also plummeted. The administration has also expanded its immigration detention and deportation operations. The overall strategy of the Trump administration, and the often maximalist tactics employed, primarily by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, have received widespread criticism, and protests have erupted across the country in response.
In 2025, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which appropriated $170 billion to immigration enforcement through 2029. In 2026, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Secure America Act which appropriated, through 2029, an additional $69.5 billion dollars.[223]
Domestic military actions
During his second presidency, Donald Trump ordered deployments of National Guard troops to select U.S. cities in 2025 and certain deployments have continued into 2026. Trump has given multiple explanations for the deployments, saying they are officially part of crackdowns on protests, civil unrest, crime, homelessness, and illegal immigration. The actions targeted Democratic Party-led cities and sparked significant controversy, with critics labeling them as abuses of power and potential violations of laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement.[224][225][226] The moves came amidst broader expansions of the military's domestic use during the second Trump administration,[227] and Trump's prior comments during his presidential campaign to use the military to end civil unrest and protests without consent from state governors and target "the enemy within".[228][229]
Deployments began in Los Angeles in June 2025 and expanded to Washington, D.C., in August 2025, before presidential authorizations were issued to expand to Memphis, Tennessee, and Portland, Oregon, in September 2025. Federal forces arrived in Memphis in October 2025.[230] Plans were underway for Chicago and potentially other cities like New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Oakland, California.[231][232][233][234] In September 2025, Trump told military leaders to view the deployments as "training grounds for our military" and described America as under "invasion" and waging "a war from within".[235] In October 2025, Trump authorized federal troop deployments in Chicago as part of Operation Midway Blitz, a multi-agency surge aimed at "criminal illegal aliens" in Illinois and moved on to New Orleans in December.[236][237][238]
On September 2, 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration had illegally sent troops into Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a development described as potentially complicating Trump's threats for further military deployment.[239] Further court cases and appeals questioned the legality of the deployments, with the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting an administration emergency appeal of a lower court ruling blocking the National Guard deployment to Chicago.[240][241][242] On December 31, Trump announced that the administration would be ending its efforts to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago, while suggesting that future National Guard deployments in those cities were still possible.[243][244] In January 2026, all troops deployed to Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles were withdrawn,[245] while the National Guard deployment to the District of Columbia was extended to the end of the year.[246]
In the same month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the deployments to Los Angeles, Memphis, Portland, Chicago, and the District of Columbia cost $496 million from June through December 2025, and would cost $93 million per month if all five deployments and the deployment in New Orleans were continued in 2026 (which would amount to $1.1 billion in total if continued for the whole year).[247][248] A minority staff report issued by the Senate Homeland Security Committee in February 2026 estimated that the deployment to the District of Columbia alone from August 2025 through the end of the month would cost $332 million (or $602 million on an annualized basis), which compared with a $599 million budget for the Metropolitan Police Department for fiscal year 2026.[249][250] As noted by local elected and law enforcement officials,[251][252][253] crime statistics from before the National Guard deployments showed falling violent crime and property crime rates in Portland,[254][255][256] Los Angeles,[257][256] Chicago,[258][259] Memphis,[257][256] New Orleans,[253][256] and the District of Columbia.[260][257][256]
Activism and intervention
The detention of Mahmoud Khalil (March 8–June 20, 2025; 104 days) was the US federal government's incarceration and attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a student at Columbia University and a lead negotiator of the Gaza Solidarity Encampment during the Gaza war and genocide. On March 8, 2025, plainclothes US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents took Khalil—who had not been accused of, charged with, or convicted of any crime[261][262]—from his Columbia residential apartment building in the Morningside Heights neighborhood of New York City.[263][264][265] The agents did not have a warrant[266] and were acting on orders from the State Department to revoke Khalil's student visa. When the agents were informed that Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, they said that status would be revoked instead.[263] By March 10, ICE had transported Khalil to its LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana,[264][267] where he was held until being released on bail on June 20.[268]
_Enforcement_and_Removal_Operations_(ERO)_in_Los_Angeles,_California,_June_12,_2025_-_76.jpg)
Speaking to reporters at the White House during the June 2025 Los Angeles protests, Trump described the protesters as "insurrectionists" and then later via Truth Social while also placing the blame on Governor Newsom.[269][270] Many in the media speculated that this language could give him a rationale for invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act.[271] Trump further suggested that Governor Newsom should be arrested, saying, "I would do it if I were Tom", referring to Tom Homan, whom Newsom has taunted to go to California to arrest him. Newsom responded shortly after, saying: "This is a day I hoped I would never see in America" and "this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism."[272]
The No Kings protests are a series of three protests (June 2025, October 2025 and March 2026), mainly held in the United States, opposing the actions and policies of the second Trump administration. The group also held a concert, entitled "Rise Up, Sing Out," on June 14, 2026, to compete with America250's concert and the UFC Freedom 250 fight.
Renée Nicole Macklin Good, a 37-year-old American woman, was fatally shot in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during Operation Metro Surge by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross on January 7, 2026[c] after she stopped to observe an ICE operation on her way home from dropping her son off at school.[277][278] The killing sparked national protests and multiple investigations.
In January–February 2026, protests occurred throughout the United States in response to the shootings by immigration agents in the second Trump administration, most notably the killing of Renée Good and the shooting of two people in Portland, Oregon.[279] At least 36 arrests were made, including 30 in Minneapolis[280] and six in Portland.[281] The protests were later further fueled by the killing of Alex Pretti,[282] and anti-ICE protests have continued throughout the year.[283]
On May 22, 2026, in Newark, New Jersey, immigrants detained in Delaney Hall, a private prison run by GEO Group used for holding immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), held a month-long hunger and labor strike protesting conditions inside the facility. Detainees have been given expired food with worms or mold, sleep on the floor in overcrowded rooms, have been denied medical care for serious conditions, and have reportedly been abused by guards. Protests supporting the strikers escalated outside the facility with over 90 arrests. Conditions inside the facility worsened, with reports of batons, pepper spray, and tear gas being used against strikers and multiple ambulances arriving at the facility throughout the strike. The strikes ended due to actions taken by guards to intimidate, segregate, and discipline strikers, such as by putting strike leaders in solitary confinement, threatening to force-feed strikers, and transporting strikers to unknown facilities around the country.
Some protesters blocked ICE vehicles from entering or exiting the facility. ICE agents attacked protesters and journalists with batons, pepper spray, and tasers. Local officials including Governor Mikie Sherrill were denied access to the facility, and Senator Andy Kim was pepper sprayed by ICE while trying to de-escalate.
Governor Sherrill ordered the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) to take over operations outside the facility for ICE, and she also established "protest zones" for protesters to move inside, while Newark mayor Ras Baraka established an overnight curfew surrounding Delaney Hall. Riot police were then repeatedly deployed and used batons, pepper spray, tear gas, flash grenades, rubber bullets, horseback police, SWAT teams, armored vehicles, and undercover police to disperse, kettle, mass arrest, and criminally charge protesters who refused to leave, with many journalists being injured or arrested.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has characterized protesters as agitators and rioters, saying "There is NO hunger strike at Delaney Hall. There are NO subprime conditions or abuse at the facility."[284][285][286] Governor Sherrill accused some protesters of being from "national extremist groups" without naming specific groups,[287][288][289] and Mayor Baraka has criticized both protesters and police, saying the police's actions were "in some cases, unconstitutional."[290] Municipal, state, and federal actions have sparked significant backlash from advocacy groups and the political left.
Other incidents and aspects
A month after the beginning of the presidency, the government had been sued 200 times for "executive overreach", which the administration lost for the most part.[291] On Twitter, Trump justified his policies by quoting Napoleon: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law".[34] In reaction, the American Left accused him of acting as a dictator.[292][293][294]
The right-wing and left-wing media both claim that their policies allowed a hitherto concentration of executive power in US history. Experts and newspapers feared a constitutional crisis because of frequent checks and balances breaches.[34] The Trump administration often questioned the legitimacy of judges blocking his executive orders.[292][293][295]
According to The New Yorker, Trump's new governance based itself on unconditional loyalty towards himself. Trump allegedly implemented a climate where any criticism even among the Republicans is sanctioned. Figures like Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer acted as ideological safeguards by listing potential dissidents among the party.[296]
The administrations openly wanted to concentrate political powers within Trump's hands. They justify it with the unitary executive theory, alleging that by having been elected and with the approval of the Constitution, Trump is warranted in having unchecked and absolute power on the judicial branch, and on politics in general.[291] Legal expert Julien Jeanneney argued that the "unconstitutional" policies of Trump are backed by the Supreme Court, of which a third of the judges had been appointed by Trump during his first presidency, hence making Republican judges the majority. According to Jeanneney most of the judges "seem clearly on Trump's side concerning most of his policies, even when they violate the Court's long-lived principles".[297]
Numerous experts of fascism and historians (Jason Stanley, Marci Shore, Timothy Snyder,[298] Johann Chapoutot,[299] Paul Lerner, Anne Berg,[300] Diana Garvin, Tiffany Florvil, Claudia Koonz,[301] Asma Mhalla,[302] and Ben Worthy[303]) denounced the authoritarianism of the presidency, which they explicitly linked to fascism. However experts Christopher R. Browning,[300] Roger Griffin,[304] Janos Bourgeois,[305] Lloyd Cox and Brendon O'Connor[129] contested this comparison, although Browning noted "uncanny resemblances" between Trump and Hitler,[300] and Cox and O'Connor talked about "proto-fascist phenomenon".[129]
See also
Further reading
- Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Problems of International Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521882521.
Notes
- Trumpism has been likened to Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism by historians and election experts.[115]
- At the time of the shooting, Ross worked as an officer under the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) of ICE, which is the directorate in charge of detentions and deportations. ICE agent is commonly used by English-language speakers and media to refer to ERO officers. Ross was identified by cross-referencing statements made by federal officials concerning a dragging incident the shooter was involved in with court documents.[274] His name had not been released by federal authorities.[275][276]