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
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.
Trump’s War on Dissent
By Katherine Walter
On June 8, 2025
In civil rights, Donald Trump
EDITORS NOTE: Graphic content / US Department of Homeland Security Police officers and members of the National Guard stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC, in downtown Los Angeles, California on June 8, 2025. Hundreds of National Guard troops took up positions in Los Angeles on June 8 on US President Donald Trump’s orders, a rare deployment against the state governor’s wishes after sometimes violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)
On June 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the California National Guard to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The move was prompted by days of civil unrest following aggressive ICE raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. While the official justification cited the need to restore order, the action fits within a broader historical pattern of Trump’s antagonism toward civil protest, particularly those that question his policies or leadership. The deployment is significant not only for its legal implications but also for the insight it offers into Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and his evolving use of federal power.
The protests began on June 6, when ICE agents conducted a coordinated series of raids on businesses in Los Angeles, including several clothing wholesalers and a Home Depot, reportedly detaining 44 undocumented workers (Associated Press, 2025a). Demonstrators gathered almost immediately in response, particularly in the communities of Paramount and Compton. Local news outlets and protest organizers described the raids as racially motivated and disproportionate. Over the next two days, confrontations between protesters and law enforcement escalated. Reports from the Los Angeles Times indicated the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades by federal agents (Vanity Fair, 2025). Protesters were accused of throwing rocks and concrete chunks, and by June 7, over 100 arrests had been made (Schneid, 2025).
On the morning of June 8, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard, ordering the immediate deployment of approximately 2,000 troops to the Los Angeles area (Associated Press, 2025a). The initial wave of around 300 soldiers was stationed outside federal immigration facilities, including detention centers in downtown Los Angeles. Department of Homeland Security personnel, joined by local law enforcement, used smoke and crowd-control tactics to clear demonstrators from the perimeter of these buildings (Vanity Fair, 2025). More troubling still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth placed active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert, stating that additional support would be mobilized if local resistance intensified (Wall Street Journal, 2025).
The legal basis for this intervention drew immediate scrutiny. Unlike the Insurrection Act—which has historically required consent from governors unless rebellion or national security threats are imminent—Title 10 allows the president to assume control of a state’s National Guard under more ambiguous circumstances. Trump’s use of this authority without consultation or approval from Governor Newsom represented a sharp departure from precedent (Washington Post, 2025). While prior instances of federal deployment have occurred—most notably during the civil rights era in 1965 and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots—those actions typically involved collaboration between state and federal governments. Trump’s unilateral order broke with this tradition and raised immediate constitutional concerns.
Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it “a political stunt masquerading as public safety” (Schneid, 2025). He emphasized that while some violence had occurred, local law enforcement had the situation under control. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly criticized the decision, asserting that federal interference had inflamed tensions rather than de-escalated them (Associated Press, 2025b). Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, filed emergency injunctions in federal court, arguing that the federalization of the Guard in this context violated the Tenth Amendment and constituted an overreach of executive authority (Reuters, 2025).
Trump, meanwhile, defended his decision by invoking the language of law and order. On his Truth Social account, he referred to the demonstrators as “Radical Left agitators” and accused them of trying to undermine ICE’s lawful operations. He further announced a new federal regulation banning the use of masks at protests, which critics argued would further chill lawful dissent (The Daily Beast, 2025). In a televised address, he declared that “these protests are not about immigration—they’re about chaos, and we will not allow our cities to be taken over by mobs” (Vanity Fair, 2025). The administration’s framing of the protests as a rebellion rather than protected expression marked a dramatic escalation in tone.
This pattern is not new. During the summer of 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Trump threatened to deploy active-duty troops to major cities under the Insurrection Act. At the time, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposed the idea, and the deployment was ultimately shelved in favor of National Guard assistance requested by governors (Baker et al., 2020). Still, the president’s language—especially his tweet that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—signaled an aversion to protest and a readiness to treat dissent as criminality. Twitter flagged the post for glorifying violence. Although he stopped short of federalizing troops in 2020, Trump’s second term has shown a greater willingness to follow through on such threats.
What has changed between 2020 and 2025 is both the legal assertiveness and the composition of Trump’s inner circle. Pete Hegseth, a conservative media personality and military veteran, now heads the Department of Defense and has shown no hesitation in using federal power to advance Trump’s agenda (Wall Street Journal, 2025). The administration no longer faces internal resistance to military deployments within U.S. borders, and Hegseth’s public statements indicate an expansive view of executive authority over domestic security.
The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is troubling not only for its immediate impact but also for the precedent it sets. Legal scholars argue that the president’s invocation of Title 10 without compelling justification stretches the intent of the statute and undermines the balance of power between federal and state governments (Washington Post, 2025). By reframing peaceful protest as rebellion, the Trump administration expands the conditions under which future presidents might justify similar interventions. The deployment also serves to delegitimize public dissent and normalize military presence in response to constitutionally protected speech.
Politically, the move appears calibrated to energize Trump’s base. By portraying the protests as violent and anarchic, Trump crafts a narrative of national chaos that only he can control. This strategy, first evident in 2016 and refined in 2020, has become more explicit in his second term. Commentators have described the Los Angeles deployment as a “dress rehearsal” for federal crackdowns in other cities, particularly those governed by Democratic officials (The Daily Beast, 2025).
Civil liberties advocates warn that this could lead to an erosion of protest rights nationwide. If the federal government can override local control whenever political opposition manifests in the streets, then public assembly may become subject to partisan suppression. Already, activists report increased surveillance, aggressive policing, and prosecutions under federal statutes that were rarely used in past administrations (Reuters, 2025).
Perhaps most ominous is the symbolic weight of military deployment in a democratic society. The sight of uniformed troops in American cities sends a chilling message about the limits of dissent. It transforms the public square into a battleground and reduces the space for political disagreement. As historians have pointed out, democracy depends not only on laws and elections but also on norms of restraint and mutual respect. The willingness to call out troops against fellow citizens erodes those norms and creates a political culture of fear and coercion.
Trump’s aversion to civil protest is not merely personal—it is ideological. He views opposition as illegitimate and protest as rebellion. This worldview has shaped his policies and informed his rhetoric from the beginning of his political career. The events of June 8, 2025, are not an anomaly but the logical conclusion of a long-standing approach to governance—one that prioritizes control over compromise and sees federal power as a tool to crush dissent rather than uphold democratic rights.
As Americans reflect on this moment, the stakes are clear. The deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles raises profound questions about the future of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the health of our democratic institutions. It challenges us to consider whether protest will remain a protected right or become a pretext for martial intervention. And it forces us to ask what kind of country we want to be: one where dissent is respected, or one where it is suppressed at the point of a gun.
References
Associated Press. (2025a, June 8). What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests. https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-trump-los-angeles-protests-2025
Associated Press. (2025b, June 8). California governor calls Trump’s move “inflammatory” as Guard arrives in L.A. https://apnews.com/article/newsom-trump-national-guard-2025
Baker, P., Shear, M. D., & Schmitt, E. (2020, June 3). Trump’s authority to send troops into states, explained. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/trump-military-authority.html
Reuters. (2025, June 7). White House aide calls Los Angeles anti-ICE protests an insurrection. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-declares-los-angeles-protests-insurrection-2025
Schneid, R. (2025, June 8). Trump sparks backlash as National Guard arrives in L.A. on his orders. TIME. https://time.com/trump-national-guard-backlash-los-angeles-2025
The Daily Beast. (2025, June 8). It’s summer in Trump’s America and fascism is in bloom. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-has-a-bad-case-of-premature-despotism
Vanity Fair. (2025, June 8). National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles after Trump signs orders. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/national-guard-arrive-in-los-angeles-after-trump-signs-orders
Wall Street Journal. (2025, June 8). Trump advisers once opposed using active-duty troops at protests. Not anymore. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-advisers-once-opposed-using-active-duty-troops-at-protests-not-anymore-96afb208
Washington Post. (2025, June 8). Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/08/trump-national-guard-la-protests-law