Tag: democratic participation

Image: ChatGPT

TikTok, the wildly popular video-sharing platform with more than 150 million American users, is once again under threat of a nationwide ban unless former President Donald Trump—now in office again—extends the deadline requiring its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest. While the national security rationale remains a central talking point, the deeper issue is being overlooked: the demographic most impacted by this ban—American youth under 18—has no political representation and no say in this decision. In a democratic society, such a disconnect between governance and those governed raises serious ethical and structural concerns.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed into law by President Biden in April 2024, mandates ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban by January 19, 2025. This law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in TikTok v. Garland, reinforcing the government’s authority to act on national security grounds (Associated Press, 2025). But enforcement of the ban has been repeatedly delayed by President Trump through executive orders—ostensibly to allow for negotiations over a U.S. buyout of the platform (Allyn & Kim, 2025a).

What’s most troubling is how this entire debate—playing out in congressional hearings, courtrooms, and campaign rallies—has occurred without the inclusion or input of those most affected: young people. Teenagers make up a disproportionately large share of TikTok users, yet their opinions, interests, and creative spaces are being weighed and possibly erased by people they cannot elect, pressure, or even speak to.

Recent polling shows the sharp generational divide on this issue. According to Pew Research Center (McClain, 2023), only 18% of teens support a TikTok ban, in contrast with 38% of adults. Yet because minors cannot vote, run for office, or make financial contributions to campaigns, their overwhelming opposition to a ban goes unheard. The structure of the U.S. political system excludes them from direct participation, allowing their interests to be ignored in the name of protection.

This is not the first time youth culture has been targeted under the guise of national security or moral panic. In the 1950s, comic books were accused of corrupting children’s minds, leading to the creation of the Comics Code Authority, which gutted much of the medium’s artistic vitality (Reynolds, 1992). In the 1980s, Dungeons & Dragons was falsely linked to Satanism and suicide. Explicit music in the 1990s brought about parental advisory stickers and congressional hearings, though few long-term effects on youth behavior were ever substantiated. Time and again, American policy has leaned toward paternalistic control over genuine youth inclusion—and TikTok is only the latest chapter in this pattern.

Of course, concerns about data collection by a Chinese-owned company should not be dismissed. TikTok collects biometric identifiers, geolocation data, browsing history, and more. However, as Fung (2023) of CNN reports, there is no public evidence that this data has been shared with the Chinese government. Many social media platforms based in the U.S. collect similar or even more invasive information. If the core issue is data privacy, then comprehensive tech regulation—not selective banning—would be the more consistent and democratic solution.

Other democratic nations have pursued more measured responses. European governments have banned TikTok from official devices and demanded stricter privacy guarantees—but they have not banned it entirely from public use (Allyn, 2025). These more proportionate policies allow youth culture to continue while addressing national concerns with oversight and regulation. The U.S., on the other hand, is preparing to take the most drastic possible action: a nationwide removal of an app integral to teenage expression, identity, and even income.

TikTok is not just a platform for memes and dances. It is a digital public square for many young people. It’s where they express creativity, share political ideas, discover new music, form friendships, and build audiences. For some, it is a crucial income source through brand deals and affiliate links. Shuttering TikTok removes not just an app but an ecosystem of youth culture—without even giving that generation a seat at the table.

There are alternatives to an outright ban. The RESTRICT Act gives the Commerce Department the ability to monitor and restrict apps controlled by foreign adversaries, without defaulting to prohibition. Proposals such as requiring data localization, implementing third-party audits, or placing restrictions only on government devices would achieve better balance between security and liberty. More radically, policymakers could establish formal youth advisory boards to provide input on cultural and digital policy.

In a democratic society, representation is fundamental. And yet, American teens remain politically invisible. Their cultural spaces are scrutinized, regulated, or shut down by adults who claim to act in their best interest—but without ever asking what those interests actually are. To ban TikTok without youth input is to legislate without listening. It is a contradiction of democratic ideals.

The debate over TikTok is not simply about data or geopolitics—it is about who gets to be heard. Until young people are seen as full participants in the democratic process, decisions like these will continue to reflect not just national interests, but generational neglect. We must do better. Not only because TikTok matters—but because youth voices matter.

References

Allyn, B. (2025, April 4). Trump issues another TikTok ban extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/04/nx-s1-5347418/trump-tiktok-second-ban-delay

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025a, January 18). Trump says he’ll likely give TikTok a 90-day extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/18/nx-s1-5266883/trump-tiktok-delay-ban

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025b, January 19). TikTok is back online in the U.S., following Trump’s promise to pause the ban. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/19/nx-s1-5267568/tiktok-back-online

Associated Press. (2025, January 17). Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a federal law that could force TikTok to shut down on Jan. 19. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-supreme-court-national-security

Fung, B. (2023, March 21). Lawmakers say TikTok is a national security threat, but evidence remains unclear. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/tech/tiktok-security/index.html

McClain, C. (2023, December 11). A declining share of adults, and few teens, support a U.S. TikTok ban. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/11/a-declining-share-of-adults-and-few-teens-support-a-us-tiktok-ban/

Reynolds, R. (1992). Superheroes: A modern mythology. University Press of Mississippi.

A Militarized Spectacle and a Day of Defiance

By Katherine Walter

On June 14, 2025

In Donald Trump

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES – JUNE 14: Thousands of demonstrators gathered at Daley Plaza, holding up signs and vocalizing slogans as they participated in a large march across downtown Chicago on June 14 to voice their opposition to the policies of President Donald Trump’s administration on ‘No Kings’ Day national protest.(Photo by Jacek Boczarski /Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) (Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Today, June 14, 2025, marks a symbolic and deeply contested moment in American political life. What should have been a celebration of national unity and civic pride—the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army and Flag Day—has instead become a flashpoint for ideological division and widespread protest. In Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump presided over a lavish and heavily militarized parade, coinciding with his 79th birthday, a convergence of personal and national milestones that critics say dangerously conflates the state with one man’s cult of personality (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025).

The military parade included over 7,000 troops, armored tanks, fighter jets, and even vintage WWII aircraft rumbling down Constitution Avenue, where an 18-mile security perimeter cordoned off large swaths of the city (Associated Press, 2025; Times of India, 2025). The estimated cost of the spectacle—between $25 and $45 million—was shouldered by a combination of government funds and undisclosed private donations (The Sun, 2025). Trump’s speech delivered at the opening of the parade was infused with nationalist rhetoric, invoking military obedience, patriotism, and “loyalty above politics.” Conspicuously absent was any mention of democratic norms, freedom of the press, or checks and balances. In this omission, critics say, lies the deeper threat of the parade: not simply the flaunting of military might, but the implicit message that personal rule and military force are superior to democratic deliberation.

This view has been sharply contested across the nation today through an estimated 2,000 protests organized under the banner of “No Kings Day” (Archie, 2025). These grassroots actions, held in nearly every state, serve as a counter-narrative to the parade’s pageantry. Demonstrators gathered in city parks, college campuses, public squares, and outside federal buildings to denounce what they see as a creeping authoritarianism that seeks to replace public service with personal loyalty, and democratic power with centralized control. As one protest sign read in Boston, “Democracy doesn’t need tanks. It needs voters.”

According to NPR’s reporting, “No Kings Day” is more than a single-day action—it is part of an ongoing movement rooted in civic resistance to the iconography of authoritarianism (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025). Protestors cite not only the militarization of public spaces, but also the Trump-era erosion of institutional norms: court-stacking, attacks on journalists, politicization of the Department of Justice, and the increasing normalization of dehumanizing rhetoric toward immigrants and political opponents. As one organizer in Chicago explained, “This is not about left or right. It’s about the line between democracy and dictatorship.”

In Seattle, protestors formed a human chain around the local federal courthouse. In Austin, a group of veterans read aloud passages from the Constitution in front of the state capitol. In New York, an interfaith coalition gathered at Riverside Church to pray for the resilience of American democracy. Many rallies included signs bearing slogans like “No Throne in the White House” and “The Republic, Not the Emperor.”

The irony of staging a military parade ostensibly to celebrate freedom while thousands gather to protest against perceived tyranny was not lost on foreign observers. Le Monde in France called the day “a surreal juxtaposition of liberty and submission.” German outlets compared the parade to historical shows of power under monarchies and fascist regimes. And in Canada, the phrase “No Kings” trended across social media, boosted by solidarity rallies in Toronto and Vancouver.

The optics of the parade—and its timing—are particularly provocative. According to NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025), the event was initially pitched by Trump’s advisors as a “celebration of American greatness,” but it quickly evolved into what one anonymous source described as “theatrical power projection.” Though the Army’s 250th anniversary offers a legitimate historical milestone, critics argue that wrapping it around Trump’s personal brand diminishes the institution’s apolitical legacy. “This isn’t about honoring the military,” said Dr. Nathaniel Cortez, a historian of civil-military relations. “It’s about co-opting the military to serve political theater.”

In the past, presidential celebrations of the military have been framed by humility and respect for civilian oversight. Trump’s approach, however, recalls more disturbing precedents: Charles de Gaulle’s Bastille Day parade in 1968 during a political crisis, or the Soviet-style parades of Red Square. Such displays function as political pageants designed to link the identity of the leader to the strength of the state. That is precisely what many Americans protested against today.

Moreover, the fusion of military ritual with personal celebration—Trump’s birthday being the secondary justification for the date—signals a transformation of public commemoration into an extension of personal mythology. The implication is subtle but sinister: that the nation’s power flows not from the people but from the person who commands the spectacle. As NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025) noted, the parade’s symbolism mirrors that of dynastic traditions where leaders mark their rule not through elections, but through choreographed shows of loyalty and grandeur.

Even Trump’s defenders have struggled to explain why a peacetime display of this magnitude is necessary, especially given its cost. Some Republican lawmakers voiced quiet discomfort but avoided public criticism. Others leaned into the cultural symbolism, echoing Trump’s call for “patriotic renewal.” In contrast, Democratic leaders have been blunt in their condemnation. Senator Ayanna Hartsfield (D-MA) called the parade “an absurd coronation fantasy that has no place in a constitutional republic.”

In this broader context, “No Kings Day” is not simply a reaction to a parade. It is a demand for clarity about what kind of country the United States aspires to be. The protestors are asking fundamental questions: Does patriotism require submission to military power, or is it best expressed through dissent? Is democracy sustained by displays of force, or by critical, engaged citizenship? Who ultimately holds the power—the people or the personalities?

By evening, as the sun set over the National Mall and the last aircraft flew over the Lincoln Memorial, the contrast between the military’s rumble and the people’s chants could not have been more distinct. One was loud, orchestrated, and state-sanctioned. The other was messy, diverse, and democratic.

It is easy to become desensitized to the spectacle. But moments like this one call for vigilance. Authoritarianism rarely arrives at once. It comes in increments—in normalization, in silence, in distraction. Today, many Americans refused to be silent or distracted. Instead, they marched, spoke, resisted, and insisted: there are no kings here.

References

Archie, A. (2025, June 14). ‘No Kings’ protests against Trump planned nationwide to coincide with military parade. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5432708/no-kings-protests-military-parade

Associated Press. (2025, June 14). The Army is set to celebrate 250 years with a parade that coincides with Trump’s birthday. https://apnews.com/article/4cca4da0e89908d39c820240744375a1

Bauer, J. (2025, June 13). Major ‘No Kings Day’ protest brewing. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/06/13/major-no-kings-day-protest-brewing-amid-military-parade-plans/

The Cut. (2025, June 14). What to Know About ‘No Kings Day’. https://www.thecut.com/article/no-kings-day-protests-what-to-know.html

The Sun. (2025, June 14). Trump parade LIVE: Crowds begin to gather in Washington DC. https://www.the-sun.com/news/14479749/donald-trump-us-army-parade-birthday-live/

Times of India. (2025, June 14). Donald Trump’s 79th birthday: Washington to host US Army parade and celebrations on June 14. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/donald-trumps-79th-birthday-washington-to-host-us-army-parade-and-celebrations-on-june-14/articleshow/110044218.cms

Washington Post. (2025, June 13). ‘No Kings’ protests nationwide to push back on Trump’s ‘overreach’. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/13/no-kings-protest-anti-trump-army-parade/

Wise, A. & Lonsdorf, K. (2025, June 14). Trump marks Army anniversary and birthday with military parade in D.C. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5429660/military-parade-trump-army-anniversary-birthday

The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism in America Under Trump’s Second Term

By Katherine Walter

On April 23, 2025

In Donald Trump

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES – 2024/04/25: An activist holding a sign with Save Our Democracy written on it stands outside the US Supreme Court, as the court prepares to hear arguments on the immunity of former US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The erosion of democratic norms in the United States has become increasingly evident during President Donald Trump’s second term in office. While formal democratic institutions still exist—elections are held, opposition parties campaign, and courts operate—the substance of democratic governance is steadily being hollowed out. This phenomenon, known as “competitive authoritarianism,” describes a regime type where democratic structures are maintained in name but systematically subverted in practice. The United States, once a model liberal democracy, is beginning to exhibit the core traits of such regimes, and political scientists are issuing increasingly urgent warnings.

Competitive authoritarianism, as defined by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, is a hybrid regime that blends formal democratic institutions with authoritarian behavior. It allows for elections and political opposition but ensures that incumbents enjoy unfair advantages and engage in systematic efforts to undercut political competition (Levitsky & Way, 2010). What sets these regimes apart from outright dictatorships is the preservation of the outward trappings of democracy. What distinguishes them from genuine democracies, however, is the deliberate weakening of institutions meant to ensure accountability, transparency, and fairness.

Recent surveys reveal that political scientists overwhelmingly believe the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction. Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan organization that assesses the health of American democracy through surveys of political science scholars, found a sharp drop in expert evaluations of the nation’s democratic functioning following Trump’s re-election in 2024. Their Democracy Rating, which scored the U.S. at 67 out of 100 just prior to the November election, plunged to 55 within weeks after the new administration took office (Carey, 2025). John Carey, one of the project’s co-directors, remarked that the decline is unparalleled in the project’s history and reflects deepening concerns among scholars that the country is transitioning away from liberal democratic norms.

Indeed, many of the mechanisms of democratic backsliding are now visible. There has been a notable decline in the independence of the judiciary. Courts are increasingly seen as obstacles to be circumvented or delegitimized rather than respected. The administration’s open hostility toward judges who rule against its interests, and its efforts to ignore or delay implementation of adverse rulings, weakens the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach (Davies, 2025). In authoritarian regimes, the erosion of judicial independence is a common step toward consolidating power, and the United States appears to be following this well-worn path.

Control over information is another hallmark of competitive authoritarianism, and here, too, the Trump administration has made significant inroads. Efforts to delegitimize critical media, restrict press access, and promote alternative narratives through state-aligned media channels have intensified. Rather than treating journalists as watchdogs of democracy, the administration has cast them as enemies of the state, a tactic historically used by authoritarian leaders to erode public trust in independent reporting (Vanity Fair, 2025). Meanwhile, whistleblowers and dissenting voices within federal agencies face unprecedented retaliation, creating a chilling effect on those who might speak out against abuses of power.

Perhaps most telling is the administration’s brazen politicization of independent institutions. Agencies like the Department of Justice, which are meant to operate without partisan interference, have been systematically filled with loyalists. These appointees often demonstrate an unwavering allegiance to Trump himself rather than to the rule of law or democratic principles. The result is an executive branch that no longer merely implements policy but acts as an instrument of partisan enforcement and retribution (AP News, 2025). In such an environment, the rule of law becomes a weapon wielded selectively rather than a standard applied equally.

The ideological framework behind this shift is equally alarming. Influential figures within Trump’s inner circle, including J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller, advocate for what they term “post-liberal” governance. This philosophy openly rejects pluralism and treats democratic norms as expendable if they stand in the way of achieving right-wing political dominance. Rather than being embarrassed by authoritarian tactics, these actors embrace them as tools to achieve what they view as a higher cultural or political mission. The executive power grab is not accidental but rather a deliberate effort to reshape the United States into a regime that structurally favors one ideological faction (The Atlantic, 2025).

Even academia is under assault. Universities that have resisted administration pressure to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have faced funding threats. Harvard University, for example, had $2.2 billion in federal grants frozen in retaliation for refusing to remove certain DEI programs (The Guardian, 2025). This effort to discipline institutions of higher learning is not merely symbolic. It signals an authoritarian desire to exert control over the production of knowledge and stifle ideological diversity.

Political scientists like Steven Levitsky, who have long studied democratic erosion in other parts of the world, now assert that the United States itself is no longer a full democracy. As Levitsky told NPR, “We are no longer living in a democratic regime” (Davies, 2025). Such a statement, unthinkable even a few years ago, now feels tragically plausible.

The descent into competitive authoritarianism is not inevitable, but it is advancing. If Americans—citizens, scholars, journalists, and public servants alike—fail to defend democratic principles with vigilance and moral clarity, they may soon find that the institutions they took for granted no longer offer any protection. Competitive authoritarianism thrives not in moments of crisis alone, but in the slow, grinding normalization of anti-democratic practices. The United States must wake up to the danger it now faces. The time for complacency has long passed.

References

Carey, J. (2025, April 22). Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist

Davies, D. (2025, April 22). America’s path to ‘competitive authoritarianism’: Political scientist warns U.S. democracy is unraveling. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/1246322283/levitsky-harvard-democracy

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.

The Atlantic. (2025, April 17). A loophole that would swallow the Constitution. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/04/trump-constitution-abrego-garcia/682487/

The Guardian. (2025, April 20). The Trump-Harvard showdown is the latest front in a long conservative war against academia. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/20/harvard-trump-conservative-history-academia

Vanity Fair. (2025, April 23). Trump’s attacks on press freedom are paving the way for authoritarianism. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-press-freedom-authoritarianism

AP News. (2025, March 15). Trump’s moves test the limits of presidential power and the resilience of US democracy. https://apnews.com/article/542ac437a58880e81c052f8f2df1643f

Parallels Between Trump’s America and Hitler’s Germany

By Katherine Walter

On February 25, 2025

In Donald Trump

The ascensions of Adolf Hitler in early 20th-century Germany and Donald Trump in 21st-century America, though separated by time and context, exhibit notable parallels in their political strategies and ideological stances. Both leaders harnessed societal unrest, employed propaganda, and targeted marginalized communities, including the LGBTQ community, to consolidate power. This analysis explores these similarities, with a focus on recent actions by the Trump administration in 2025, including its stance on LGBTQ rights and authoritarian tendencies. By examining the historical trajectories of both leaders, this post reflects on the potential implications for American democracy and the importance of safeguarding human rights.

Historical Context and Rise to Power

Adolf Hitler’s rise during the 1930s capitalized on Germany’s economic despair, political instability, and societal disillusionment with the Weimar Republic. Following World War I and the Great Depression, Germany faced hyperinflation, unemployment, and social unrest, creating fertile ground for radical ideologies. Hitler promised national rejuvenation, identifying scapegoats such as Jews, communists, and LGBTQ individuals to unify public sentiment (Kershaw, 2001). His appointment as Chancellor in 1933 and subsequent consolidation of power marked the beginning of a regime built on suppression and violence.

Similarly, Donald Trump’s political emergence leveraged economic disparities and cultural anxieties in the United States. Amid increasing political polarization, racial tensions, and growing distrust in government institutions, Trump’s rhetoric resonated with voters seeking a return to perceived traditional values and national greatness. His 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” evoked nostalgia for an idealized past, while his outsider status appealed to those disillusioned with the political establishment (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). Despite losing the 2020 election, Trump’s influence persisted, leading to his return to the presidency in 2024. This resurgence has reignited debates over democratic backsliding and human rights, particularly regarding LGBTQ individuals.

Political Tactics

Propaganda and Media Manipulation

Both Hitler and Trump adeptly used media to shape public perception and consolidate power. Hitler’s regime, with the assistance of Joseph Goebbels, tightly controlled mass media to propagate Nazi ideology and suppress dissent. The Nazi Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda ensured that newspapers, radio broadcasts, and films aligned with the regime’s message, fostering an atmosphere of fear and conformity (Evans, 2005).

In contrast, Trump leveraged modern technology, particularly social media, to directly engage with his supporters. Platforms like Twitter and Truth Social allowed Trump to bypass traditional media, spreading his unfiltered messages to millions of followers. His use of inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, and attacks on the press as the “enemy of the people” created an environment where facts were often overshadowed by political narratives (Benkler et al., 2018). This strategy continued during his second term, with Trump’s administration further aligning with conservative media outlets to shape public discourse.

Scapegoating and Targeting Marginalized Communities

A critical tactic shared by both leaders is the scapegoating of minority groups to foster national unity and distract from systemic issues. In Nazi Germany, Jews, LGBTQ individuals, communists, and other marginalized groups were blamed for the nation’s economic and social problems. The persecution of these communities was not merely a byproduct of Nazi ideology but a deliberate strategy to consolidate power by creating a common enemy (Plant, 1986).

Similarly, Trump has consistently targeted immigrants, people of color, and LGBTQ individuals to galvanize his base. His administration’s immigration policies, including family separations and travel bans, were justified through rhetoric portraying immigrants as threats to national security and economic stability. Moreover, Trump’s alignment with conservative religious groups has fueled efforts to restrict LGBTQ rights under the guise of protecting religious freedom (Stern, 2018).

In 2025, Trump’s administration intensified these efforts, signing executive orders defining gender strictly as male or female. This policy effectively erased federal recognition of transgender and non-binary identities, stripping individuals of protections in healthcare, education, and employment (Reuters, 2025). Additionally, federal agencies were instructed to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, further marginalizing LGBTQ individuals and other minority groups. These actions mirror the Nazi regime’s criminalization of homosexuality and persecution of LGBTQ individuals, highlighting the dangers of using state power to enforce social conformity.

Nationalism and the Pursuit of ‘Greatness’

Nationalism was central to both Hitler’s and Trump’s political ideologies. Hitler’s concept of Lebensraum sought to expand Germany’s territory to provide living space for the Aryan race, reflecting a belief in racial superiority and the need for national dominance (Kershaw, 2001). This ideology justified both internal persecution and external aggression, leading to the Holocaust and World War II.

Trump’s “America First” doctrine similarly prioritizes national interests above international cooperation, often aligning with nativist and white nationalist sentiments. His rhetoric portrays immigrants and foreign influences as threats to American identity, fostering a sense of cultural and economic insecurity among his supporters (Snyder, 2017). This nationalist agenda has led to policies that restrict immigration, limit global engagement, and promote a vision of America defined by traditional values and cultural homogeneity.

Parallels in Persecution

The persecution of LGBTQ individuals represents a notable parallel between Nazi Germany and the Trump administration’s political climate. Under Hitler, LGBTQ individuals, particularly gay men, were criminalized and subjected to brutal treatment. Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code, which prohibited male homosexuality, was strictly enforced, leading to the arrest and imprisonment of thousands. Many were sent to concentration camps, where they faced extreme abuse and death. The pink triangle, used to identify LGBTQ prisoners, has since become a symbol of both persecution and resilience (Plant, 1986).

While the Trump administration has not engaged in physical persecution, its policies have systematically undermined LGBTQ rights. During Trump’s first term, initiatives such as the transgender military ban and the rollback of protections for transgender students signaled a broader effort to restrict the rights of LGBTQ individuals. These actions were often justified by appeals to religious freedom, aligning with conservative groups that oppose LGBTQ equality (Stern, 2018).

In 2025, the administration escalated these efforts, issuing executive orders that redefine gender as strictly binary, eliminating federal recognition of transgender and non-binary identities. This policy affects access to healthcare, legal protections, and participation in public life, exacerbating the marginalization of transgender individuals (Reuters, 2025). Additionally, the rollback of DEI programs in federal agencies has reduced support for LGBTQ employees, reinforcing systemic discrimination.

The Trump administration’s actions have been influenced by Project 2025, a comprehensive conservative agenda developed by organizations like the Heritage Foundation. This plan aims to reshape federal governance, promoting traditional gender roles and restricting LGBTQ rights under the banner of protecting religious freedom and national identity (GLAAD, 2024). These policies, while not as extreme as the Nazis’ persecution, reflect a similar use of state power to enforce social conformity and suppress diversity.

Authoritarian Tendencies and Democratic Erosion

Despite ascending to power through democratic means, both leaders exhibited authoritarian tendencies that undermined democratic institutions. Hitler’s manipulation of the Reichstag fire in 1933 provided a pretext for the Enabling Act, which granted him dictatorial powers and dismantled Germany’s democratic framework (Evans, 2005). Through censorship, propaganda, and violence, the Nazi regime eliminated political opposition and established totalitarian control.

While Trump’s actions have not reached the same extreme, his disregard for democratic norms has raised concerns about democratic erosion in the United States. During his first term, Trump repeatedly attacked the legitimacy of elections, the judiciary, and the media, undermining public trust in democratic institutions (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). His false claims of election fraud following the 2020 election culminated in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, highlighting the potential for political rhetoric to incite violence.

In 2025, Trump’s administration has continued to challenge democratic principles, implementing policies that restrict voting rights and limit dissent. The rollback of DEI initiatives has reduced institutional support for marginalized communities, weakening their political influence. Additionally, efforts to redefine gender and limit LGBTQ rights reflect a broader strategy of using state power to enforce ideological conformity. These actions, while not as overtly repressive as those of the Nazi regime, contribute to an environment where dissent is increasingly marginalized and social divisions are exacerbated.

The Future of American Politics: A Cautionary Reflection

The Trump administration’s recent policies, particularly those influenced by Project 2025, represent a significant shift toward authoritarian governance. By targeting LGBTQ individuals and other marginalized groups, these policies not only undermine human rights but also create a climate of fear and exclusion. The erosion of democratic norms and the normalization of authoritarian rhetoric raise concerns about the future trajectory of American politics.

History demonstrates that democratic backsliding often occurs gradually, through the erosion of institutional norms and the normalization of exclusionary policies. The parallels between Trump’s tactics and those of historical autocrats like Hitler serve as a warning against complacency. Safeguarding democracy requires vigilance, civic engagement, and a commitment to upholding the rights of all individuals, regardless of their identity.

The targeting of LGBTQ individuals is particularly concerning, as it reflects a broader trend of using social divisions to consolidate political power. Just as the Nazi regime sought to create a homogeneous society through persecution, the Trump administration’s policies aim to enforce traditional gender roles and suppress diversity. While the United States remains a democracy, the increasing alignment of political power with socially conservative ideologies raises questions about the future of civil liberties and social inclusion.

Conclusion

The rise of Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler illustrates how leaders can exploit societal unrest and scapegoat marginalized communities to gain and maintain power. Although the historical contexts and outcomes differ, the parallels in their use of propaganda, nationalism, and authoritarian tactics highlight the vulnerabilities of democratic systems. The Trump administration’s recent policies targeting LGBTQ individuals exemplify the potential dangers of these strategies, underscoring the importance of protecting human rights and maintaining democratic institutions.

As the United States grapples with political polarization and threats to democratic norms, reflecting on these historical parallels can help prevent the repetition of past mistakes. Upholding the principles of equality, inclusion, and freedom is essential to ensuring that democracy remains resilient in the face of authoritarian challenges. The experiences of Nazi Germany and contemporary America serve as a reminder that the erosion of human rights and democratic norms can occur gradually, making it essential to remain vigilant in defending the rights and dignity of all individuals.

References

Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press.

Evans, R. J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939. Penguin Books.

GLAAD. (2024). Project 2025 Exposed. Retrieved from https://glaad.org/project-2025

Kershaw, I. (2001). Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris. W. W. Norton & Company.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing Group.

Plant, R. (1986). The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Reuters. (2025, January 20). Trump curtails protections around diversity, LGBTQ rights. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com

Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books.

Stern, M. J. (2018). The Trump administration’s war on LGBTQ people. Slate.

Tag: democratic participation

Unheard and Unrepresented: The TikTok Ban and America’s Youth

A Militarized Spectacle and a Day of Defiance

The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism in America Under Trump’s Second Term

Parallels Between Trump’s America and Hitler’s Germany

Historical Context and Rise to Power

Political Tactics

Propaganda and Media Manipulation

Scapegoating and Targeting Marginalized Communities

Nationalism and the Pursuit of ‘Greatness’

Parallels in Persecution

Authoritarian Tendencies and Democratic Erosion

The Future of American Politics: A Cautionary Reflection

Conclusion

References