The most dangerous aspect of authoritarianism isn’t the consolidation of power itself but the ability to convince citizens that democracy is already lost. President Donald Trump’s administration understands that successful authoritarians erode bastions of dissent while convincing the public that each small slippage of change represents an irreversible landslide victory.
Trump deploys National Guard troops to American cities, issues sweeping executive orders targeting federal agencies and publicly attacks judges who rule against him. Each action is designed to project overwhelming presidential power while masking the institutional resistance that continues to restrain his agenda. This political theater is designed to demoralize the opposition before resistance can further develop.
Beneath this performance lies a different reality: Trump’s administration has suffered defeats in 96% of federal court cases in recent months, with 72% of those losses coming from Republican-appointed judges. His signature tariff policies have been struck down by federal appeals courts as illegal abuses of emergency powers. His attempt to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations was rejected by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found no evidence of the “warlike invasion” required to trigger such extraordinary measures.
Federal judges have blocked Trump’s efforts to freeze billions of Harvard’s funding, terminate protected status for Haitians and Venezuelans and deploy National Guard troops from California to Portland. Trump-appointed Judge Trevor McFadden also blocked retaliation against the Associated Press, demonstrating that his actions have exceeded constitutional boundaries that even sympathetic judges cannot support.
The sustained judicial resistance to Trump’s actions reflects something more significant than routine legal challenges. It reveals an administration so committed to projecting strength that it consistently overplays its hand, pursuing legally indefensible positions that cannot be upheld regardless of ideology. When federal judges describe Trump’s actions as “unconstitutional coercion” that are “violative of the First Amendment,” which occurred in the Harvard funding case, they’re not engaging in political opposition – they’re performing their constitutional duty to check executive overreach.
The data tells the same story of political weakness. Trump’s approval rating has declined to 39%, the lowest level of his second term. Americans reject his core policy approaches, including his National Guard deployments and handling of economic policy. Despite the White House’s claims of victory, inflation has increased to 2.9%; the number of jobs created has slowed dramatically (with third quarter postings falling dramatically below expectations); and food costs have risen year-over-year.
Most telling, the administration has pressured Republican governors to redraw congressional districts in advance of midterm elections, acknowledging that current political dynamics favor Democratic challengers. Engineering the electoral system in one’s favor is hardly the behavior of a confident political movement. It’s widespread recognition that under existing conditions, it will be difficult to re-elect Republican candidates.
The administration’s response to legal defeats shows its underlying weakness. Rather than accepting adverse judicial rulings as part of constitutional governance, Trump officials have pursued the extraordinary step of suing an entire federal court in Maryland to limit judicial authority over immigration cases. They have publicly attacked individual judges, characterized routine court decisions as elements of a judicial coup and demanded Supreme Court intervention in standard lower court proceedings. These tactics stem from a frustrated recognition that executive power can be effectively restrained.
None of my analysis seeks to minimize the genuine threats that Trump’s presidency poses to American democracy. His systematic targeting of federal agencies, unprecedented deployment of military forces into Democrat-led cities and sustained attacks on judicial and monetary independence represent serious departures from democratic norms. He has pushed constitutional boundaries further than any modern president and showed troubling disregard for laws and precedent. These actions constitute clear attempts to concentrate executive power and should be treated as a substantive step toward authoritarianism.
But the danger lies in accepting Trump’s narrative that institutional resistance has already failed. The administration wants Americans to believe that democratic constraints no longer operate effectively. This manipulation may prove more dangerous than the policy initiatives themselves because it encourages the kind of preemptive surrender that makes consolidation possible.
Trump enjoys certain power advantages, including compliant Republican majorities in Congress and a conservative Supreme Court that has provided relief in several emergency appeals. Yet, he also faces systematic legal resistance, declining public support and policy failures that make permanent transformation difficult to achieve.
The American constitutional system, whatever its flaws may be, was designed to make rapid institutional change difficult even for popular presidents with clear mandates. For an unpopular president with often-indecisive policymaking, such transformation becomes nearly impossible to sustain over time. The question is whether Americans will recognize this institutional resilience or surrender to authoritarian theater before the battle has been decided.
The appropriate response requires neither complacency nor despair but informed political engagement based on accurate assessment of institutional realities. This means rejecting the administration’s claims of victory and the opposition’s tendency toward premature surrender. Constitutional democracy remains contested rather than concluded, and outcomes depend largely on how citizens and institutions respond to ongoing challenges.
Accepting Trump’s performative claims of victory as factual reduces the political costs of overreach and makes such successes more likely. But maintaining perspective on institutional constraints, organizing around policy failures and demanding constitutional accountability can ensure that wannabe authoritarianism remains an unsuccessful aspiration rather than an accomplished reality.
Phil Warren is a second-year mechanical engineering and physics combined major. He can be reached at [email protected].
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email [email protected] with your idea.
