I have a soft-spot for silly conspiracy theories. I don't believe any — I'm not a moron — but I love the wackiness. Elvis being kidnapped by rock'n'roll loving aliens. Or the Flat-Earth Society being a bunch of scientists fooling around. Actually, I half believe that one.
Of course, there are some horrid conspiracy theories as well. Nefarious things in vaccines is a dangerous lie that costs lives. QAnon was, and is, a rallying call for the angrily insane. What about Donald Trump being a Russian asset? Vanishingly unlikely, even though his White House is a Kremlin-lite catastrophe.
Let's be clear, this administration's behaviour is beyond concerning. Ukraine has oscillated between being bullied and abandoned; economic and political warfare is directed against NATO allies; Greenland is under on-again, off-again threats of military annexation; poorly trained thugs are shooting Americans and calling it immigration control; the media is self-censoring for fear of the President's lawsuits; Congress appears perpetually blind sided. To paraphrase Hemingway, America appears to no longer be a country, but a man — Trump.
Russia is loving it. America's recent National Security Strategy — which derided Europe and called for America to shrink into a heavily armed Western Hemisphere goon — was lavishly praised by Moscow. His capitulations on Ukraine, even more so. Why does an American government appear so aligned with Vladimir Putin? More to the point, why is Moscow suddenly turning all of its efforts against Europe? Surely, the more powerful Americans should be a bigger concern?
Actually, back up. Why does Congress seem impotent in the face of Trump threatening military action against Americans? Why are non-military personnel conducting immigration raids as an army? Why is ICE earmarked a larger budget than the Israeli Defence Force? Why must America accept the release of violent pro-Trump insurrectionists? Everything about the founding of the United States, and its political development since, has been about curtailing the power of its leader. No tyrants, neither de jure nor de facto, that's the central idea. Why do the checks and balances seem so useless against Trump?
America is a representative democracy, meaning its people elect representatives and vest power in them. Once that power is conferred, the people then become subject to it — their representatives control the military, the police, and the tax collectors. This brings an inherent risk of tyranny. To reduce that risk to near zero, America has systems to ensure regular elections, prevent concentration of power, and keep fundamental principles alive. All representative democracies do. America's system starts with Congress and is backstopped by jurists having the power to strike down legislation. Britain takes a simpler approach — Parliament is sovereign and prime ministers are removed if they can't secure its agreement.*
During the Brexit turmoil, for instance, Britain went through prime ministers like tequila shots at an alcoholic's birthday party. This was precisely because the Prime Minister is responsible for parliamentary agreement. Think about it — if Parliament becomes so divided and dysfunctional that it can't agree on anything, the Prime Minister is blamed and removed. It is thus impossible for a would-be tyrant to exploit a divided legislature.
By design, America's Congress lacks this fail-safe. Ask yourself what happens to Britain if a majority of voters support a tyrant? Answer — they elect pro-tyrant representatives to Parliament** and the tyrant rules the country. There is an open question as to whether such an autocrat could abolish democracy. One argument is that since Parliament is sovereign, it can pass any legislation, including a law to abolish elections. The other side contends that democracy has become a principle of Britain’s unwritten constitution, forcing the Monarch to deny such a law. America’s system is clearer and better designed. America expressly seeks to prevent tyranny even if the American people want it, and even if they freely vote for it. No tyrants, neither de jure nor de facto, ever!
The mechanism is quite intuitive. The President holds as much power as is deemed necessary for an effective executive; the "will of the people" is expressed primarily through Congress; the Constitution mandates how (and that) American democracy must be maintained; and the courts can strike down legislation that fails to meet constitutional expectation. If a president steps out of line in ways the people dislike, Congress stands up for the people. If a president becomes autocratic in ways the people voted for, the courts prevent over-reach and ensure the survival of American democracy.
Theoretically, then, viable paths to autocracy are few and very narrow. Firstly, the courts must either be stacked in a would-be tyrant's favour, or effectively diminished in strength. Secondly, Congress must either be supportive of an autocratic president, or so paralysed by division that it can't act against him. Sadly, Congress is stubbornly divided.
Unlike the British Parliament, Congress does not gain power over the executive through political division. Quite the opposite. If a split Congress struggles to agree on anything, the President is expected to fill the power vacuum, albeit informally. There are limits on how he can do this — he cannot create law, nor violate the Constitution — and these limits apply in all circumstances. Those baffling (to a Brit) government shutdowns*** are perhaps the most visceral example. Only Congress has the constitutional authority to appropriate money, so when Congress can't agree, government agencies are restricted or shut down altogether. The President is expected to step in and resolve the situation through a combination of negotiation, strong-arming, and backtracking. The disorder and harm caused in the meantime is considered (rightly) the price of America's long-term democratic health. Under Trump, shutdowns have totalled a massive eighty-one days.
Do not, even for a second, think that indicates Trump's incompetence. Instead, realize that he's playing to a different set of rules. When political division paralyses Congress, it creates a public narrative of emergency. Government shutdowns are a big narrative, but a president with a large base can create other exploitable opportunities. Whip up the threat of foreign adversaries, and a divided Congress looks weak on national security. Claim your neighbours are sending fatal narcotics, and Congress appears too hollowed out to ensure drug enforcement. Brazenly state that illegal immigrants are assaulting, raping, and killing Americans, and Congress seems unable to ensure border security. Make a few ostentatious moves and noises under the guise of tackling these problems — Greenland (national security), Venezuela (narcotics), a massive new ICE budget (immigration) — and not only might you achieve your true aims (respectively: resource colonialism, resource colonialism, and the deployment of a growing pro-Trump militia on American streets), but you'll send a message to the people — Congress is broken, the President gets things done.
What about the courts? America's judiciary is exceptionally robust and resistant to meddling. Trump's three nominees on the Supreme Court, for instance, are less of an issue than left-wing opinion panics about. This is partly because although the court is stacked 6:3 conservative, it is overwhelmingly pro-constitution and anti-autocracy. It might seem hostile to progressive public policy, but the Supreme Court will push back where it sees presidential over-reach. It is also less needed as a check and balance than people assume. The real strength of America's judiciary is in the vast network of lower courts, which are simply too numerous for a would-be autocrat to even dream of stacking in his favour. No modern president has had more executive actions blocked than Donald J. Trump.
However, Trump is a seasoned professional at exploiting America's legal system. He was unusually litigious as a private businessman, filling thousands of lawsuits, often as a pressure tactic, and often frivolous. No matter. If you can outspend your opponent, you can swamp them in legal issues until they give up, even if you have to face consequences later. Winning or losing becomes irrelevant, the real victory is forcing your opponent to submit before the verdict is even read. What if your opponent is the courts themselves? And what if you don't have to file suit, but can simply pick up a pen?
Trump has already signed more executive orders than any president since World War Two, and his rate is increasing. Just one year into his second term, he has signed more than he did during the entirety of his first. The courts have an over-burdened few years ahead. More worryingly, Trump can achieve three things between the signings and the verdicts: 1) actions can be taken on the authority of executive orders as soon as they're signed; 2) if they're not snuffed out before any action, they can set precedents vis-a-vis presidential authority in Washington; 3) they can set public expectations as to how a president should deal with a stagnant legislature. Congress is broken, the President gets things done.
A paralysed Congress, a dysfunctional White House, over-burdened courts, and an autocratically minded president. America is indeed on a narrow path to autocracy. Trump is already the singular voice in American foreign policy, his salvos spilling directly into Truth Social posts and "putting facts on the ground" before anyone in Washington can provide expertise. America's still brilliant diplomatic machine is reduced to dealing with these "facts", and so are every other nation's diplomats. Frankly, we're all sick of it. Domestically, while the President is facing meaningful resistance, the media is browbeaten by lawsuits, and the people are learning that Trump's thugs are becoming trigger-happy.
Maybe Moscow no longer fears the United States because it sees a nation hurtling towards internal crises? Maybe Putin sees America's limp Congress, and quite likes it having a thin-skinned president assuming more power? Above all, though, I think the Kremlin sees America as a nation heading into regional isolationism. Autocrats want to rule by diktat, not negotiation, and that makes cooperating with international partners virtually impossible. To a tyrannical mind, it is preferable to stay within a sphere of influence, to dominate his own nation and those near enough to be easily bullied. The intervention in Venezuela, snipes against Canada, threats towards Panama, Cuba, Colombia.
No, America isn't aligning with Russia. But Trump is looking a lot more like Putin.
Autocrats tend to resemble each other. And so long as their spheres of influence don't overlap too much, they tend to like each other as well. Just peek at the founding members of Trump's "Board of Peace" to see America's new best friends smiling and shaking hands. And if you think autocracies like these are destined to tear each other apart, consider that the world's most powerful established autocracies — Beijing, Moscow, and Riyadh — have managed to keep enough distance to get along for quite some time. Washington has a "beautiful ocean of separation" from these new peers. Or rather, they have an ocean between them and the once democracy-spreading United States. Of course Putin likes the new world order.
America is more autocratic now than it was a year ago. It will be more autocratic in six months than it is now. Questions, however, remain. The most immediate are 'how long might America's path to autocracy be?' And 'how far has it travelled already?' In terms of America's position on the world stage, I think America effectively is an autocracy. Presidents who want to seriously engage with international partners require Congress to approve "real" treaties — i.e. those that a future administration can't easily reverse. Presidents who want to dominate a sphere of influence simply need more military capability than their neighbours, and America has plenty. Globally, America is Trump, and Trump is America.
Domestically, there is a way to go. Trump is exploiting a divided Congress and sneaking things past the courts with a flurry of executive orders. That's eroding America's checks and balances, but it isn't dismantling them. To do that, Trump will need to control Congress, which looks highly unlikely, or somehow invalidate it. Polling, prediction markets, and sensible opinion suggest Congress will remain divided after the midterms. It will continue to slowly leak power to the executive, but it won't be a sea of Trumpists handing it to him on a platter. History tells us Trump's next move. He still contests the results of the 2020 presidential election, and he is highly likely to contest the results of unfavourable midterms. "The vote was rigged, it lacks constitutional authority, the House and Senate are full of Democrat usurpers, they stole the midterms, they're crooked, stop the steal. Congress is broken, the President gets things done."
Will that shatter America's divided Congress and win the President an ability to centralize power? Almost certainly not. Turning America into an autocracy for everyone else is very different to turning her into an autocracy over Americans. Everyone else can — and are — quietly replacing America's importance to their economies and security. The American people, however, are stuck. If Trump pushes too hard, they'll eventually push back, and events in Minneapolis are a taste of this. Trump was climbing down from his initially combative stance as I wrote these words.
One way or another, Trump becomes a lame duck on 7th November 2028. I doubt that’s long enough for America to become Trump’s autocracy. But Trumpism is a young movement. Who runs for the Republicans at the next presidential election — Vance? Hegseth? One of Trump's kids? Would any of them be better? Rather, would any of them be less able to steer America towards autocracy than the current President is proving to be? Because tyranny, even a little of it, doesn't end when the tyrant goes away. It hangs around for the next guy, and the one after that, and so on, always tightening its grip. Already, the media fears saying too many of the wrong things; big businesses have eagerly fallen into Trump’s orbit; Trumpism is surfacing its heirs apparent; opposing politicians are accused of insurrection; and pro-Trump thugs are wearing federal uniforms and firing weapons. Trump will have a successor.
No tyrants, neither de jure nor de facto. Until the first lays railroad for the second.
*This does not happen automatically, as some assume, nor via any expressed will of the Monarch (who is constitutionally subordinate to Parliament). Instead, parliamentary procedures are available that allow those in disagreement with the government to force a general election. These are normally unnecessary, however — a confident prime minister will call an election to seek a public mandate, a beaten one will usually resign.
**Technically, Parliament includes the unelected House of Lords, but the elected House of Commons holds primacy. Lords are much weaker than American justices, principally they can no longer strike down legislation.
***If Parliament can't pass a budget, it is considered a confidence issue, meaning an unacceptable level of political division. If no resolution can be found quickly, the government falls and an election is held.
