Will Donald Trump's second presidency move the US toward authoritarianism, or will it be just another conservative administration? With the past eight years having provided ample evidence of the president-elect's contempt for the rule of law and democratic institutions, no question is more important.
BERKELEY – America’s democratic institutions withstood, if only barely, Donald Trump’s first presidency, but will they do so again? During the 2024 election campaign, Trump promised mass deportations and detainment camps, reprisals against his political foes, a crackdown on “the enemy within,” and a dramatic reduction of civil-service protections for federal workers. To see such policies through, he says he will be a “dictator” at least on the first day, and he continues to express admiration for authoritarian leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
So, the stark question facing the United States is whether there will be adequate mechanisms that can prevent Trump’s worst impulses from becoming government policy. Will the checks and balances that have protected American democracy since 1787 be enough?
While we have no way of knowing yet, focusing on this question from the outset is imperative. Will a Republican-controlled Congress provide any checks at all? Trump certainly doesn’t have to worry about impeachment, which happened twice with a Democratic-controlled House during his first presidency. Instead, this Congress will likely see Trump’s decisive victory as a mandate. It is hard to imagine Republican members opposing his desire to launch aggressive deportations, gut environmental protections, or weaken civil-service protections.
Moreover, the filibuster (which is problematic in many ways) is the only tool that Senate Democrats have to hamper Trump’s most extreme legislative efforts. But that being the case, there is good reason to fear that Senate Republicans will change the rules to eliminate this mechanism – which effectively requires a three-fifths majority for all legislation – and enact the full Trumpian agenda. The filibuster is not part of the Constitution or even a federal statute. It is governed by Senate rules, which can be changed by a simple majority. The rules were already revised in 2013 to eliminate the filibuster for appointments of federal judges and cabinet officials.
Worse, while Trump’s first administration had many high-level officials who curbed some of his worst impulses, this one will be different. Many former top advisers publicly opposed Trump’s re-election, including Mark Esper, who served as secretary of defense, John Kelly, who was White House chief of staff, and H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, who each served as national security adviser. Such figures (the full list includes dozens) will not be around this time. Trump will surround himself with staunch loyalists – the kinds of people who will enable, rather than restrain, him.
Nonetheless, we must hope that those who hold top positions – the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the attorney general, and others – will take their oaths of office seriously and push back when necessary. Ultimately, though, it will fall to the courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, to enforce the law and check Trump. Will they do so? With six conservative Republican justices, the Supreme Court’s willingness to stand up to him is very much in question. During his first term, it often failed to do so.
Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025
Our annual flagship magazine, PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025, has arrived. To gain digital access to all of the magazine’s content, and receive your print copy, subscribe to PS Digital Plus now.
Subscribe Now
One of Trump’s worst abuses was his “Muslim ban,” an executive order barring entry to nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries. This policy was meant to fulfill his campaign promise of stopping all immigration by Muslims to the US, and in a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Trump, stressing the need to defer to the president in the area of immigration policy.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United Statesthis past summer casts further doubt on the justices’ willingness to serve as a meaningful check on a wayward executive. In that case, they accorded the president complete immunity from criminal prosecution for any official action using a constitutional or statutory power of the presidency. Thus, Trump will take office knowing that he cannot be criminally prosecuted, or even held civilly liable, for anything done using the powers of the presidency.
In the end, the most important check on the Trump administration may come from America’s free press, and then from the electorate in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump certainly has expressed a desire to limit press freedom and to go after his enemies in the media. But freedom of speech and freedom of the press are deeply entrenched American principles. Silencing his critics would require Trump to demolish them, and if he goes much further than the majority of Americans want, it is only two years until Democrats can take back the House and the Senate.
Such a lack of accountability for the president should be troubling no matter who is in office. But it is even more concerning with a man who has shown no compunction about breaking the law. Trump has been found by juries to have sexually abused the advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, and then defamed her about it. A jury in New York convicted him of 34 felony counts in authorizing hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and then falsifying business records to hide the payments during his 2016 presidential campaign. A state court judge has fined Trump and his business $450 million for repeatedly engaging in fraudulent business practices.
And then there are the pending indictments against Trump. He faces trial in Georgia state court for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election there, including by pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the roughly 11,000 votes he needed to win. He was indicted in Florida for taking highly classified documents in clear violation of federal law, and then attempting to cover up the crime. And he was indicted in federal court in Washington for crimes relating to his effort to subvert the 2020 election. The latter two federal cases are sure to be dismissed once Trump takes office, since he will order his Justice Department to end them.
All these examples show what seems obvious: Trump has no compunction about violating the law. That is why the issue of guardrails is so urgent. No democracy lasts forever. There are many countries that were once democracies, but no longer are. Will the Trump presidency move the US toward authoritarianism, or will it be just another conservative administration? No question is more pressing in the years ahead.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
BERKELEY – America’s democratic institutions withstood, if only barely, Donald Trump’s first presidency, but will they do so again? During the 2024 election campaign, Trump promised mass deportations and detainment camps, reprisals against his political foes, a crackdown on “the enemy within,” and a dramatic reduction of civil-service protections for federal workers. To see such policies through, he says he will be a “dictator” at least on the first day, and he continues to express admiration for authoritarian leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
So, the stark question facing the United States is whether there will be adequate mechanisms that can prevent Trump’s worst impulses from becoming government policy. Will the checks and balances that have protected American democracy since 1787 be enough?
While we have no way of knowing yet, focusing on this question from the outset is imperative. Will a Republican-controlled Congress provide any checks at all? Trump certainly doesn’t have to worry about impeachment, which happened twice with a Democratic-controlled House during his first presidency. Instead, this Congress will likely see Trump’s decisive victory as a mandate. It is hard to imagine Republican members opposing his desire to launch aggressive deportations, gut environmental protections, or weaken civil-service protections.
Moreover, the filibuster (which is problematic in many ways) is the only tool that Senate Democrats have to hamper Trump’s most extreme legislative efforts. But that being the case, there is good reason to fear that Senate Republicans will change the rules to eliminate this mechanism – which effectively requires a three-fifths majority for all legislation – and enact the full Trumpian agenda. The filibuster is not part of the Constitution or even a federal statute. It is governed by Senate rules, which can be changed by a simple majority. The rules were already revised in 2013 to eliminate the filibuster for appointments of federal judges and cabinet officials.
Worse, while Trump’s first administration had many high-level officials who curbed some of his worst impulses, this one will be different. Many former top advisers publicly opposed Trump’s re-election, including Mark Esper, who served as secretary of defense, John Kelly, who was White House chief of staff, and H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, who each served as national security adviser. Such figures (the full list includes dozens) will not be around this time. Trump will surround himself with staunch loyalists – the kinds of people who will enable, rather than restrain, him.
Nonetheless, we must hope that those who hold top positions – the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the attorney general, and others – will take their oaths of office seriously and push back when necessary. Ultimately, though, it will fall to the courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, to enforce the law and check Trump. Will they do so? With six conservative Republican justices, the Supreme Court’s willingness to stand up to him is very much in question. During his first term, it often failed to do so.
Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025
Our annual flagship magazine, PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2025, has arrived. To gain digital access to all of the magazine’s content, and receive your print copy, subscribe to PS Digital Plus now.
Subscribe Now
One of Trump’s worst abuses was his “Muslim ban,” an executive order barring entry to nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries. This policy was meant to fulfill his campaign promise of stopping all immigration by Muslims to the US, and in a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Trump, stressing the need to defer to the president in the area of immigration policy.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States this past summer casts further doubt on the justices’ willingness to serve as a meaningful check on a wayward executive. In that case, they accorded the president complete immunity from criminal prosecution for any official action using a constitutional or statutory power of the presidency. Thus, Trump will take office knowing that he cannot be criminally prosecuted, or even held civilly liable, for anything done using the powers of the presidency.
In the end, the most important check on the Trump administration may come from America’s free press, and then from the electorate in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump certainly has expressed a desire to limit press freedom and to go after his enemies in the media. But freedom of speech and freedom of the press are deeply entrenched American principles. Silencing his critics would require Trump to demolish them, and if he goes much further than the majority of Americans want, it is only two years until Democrats can take back the House and the Senate.
Such a lack of accountability for the president should be troubling no matter who is in office. But it is even more concerning with a man who has shown no compunction about breaking the law. Trump has been found by juries to have sexually abused the advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, and then defamed her about it. A jury in New York convicted him of 34 felony counts in authorizing hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and then falsifying business records to hide the payments during his 2016 presidential campaign. A state court judge has fined Trump and his business $450 million for repeatedly engaging in fraudulent business practices.
And then there are the pending indictments against Trump. He faces trial in Georgia state court for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election there, including by pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” the roughly 11,000 votes he needed to win. He was indicted in Florida for taking highly classified documents in clear violation of federal law, and then attempting to cover up the crime. And he was indicted in federal court in Washington for crimes relating to his effort to subvert the 2020 election. The latter two federal cases are sure to be dismissed once Trump takes office, since he will order his Justice Department to end them.
All these examples show what seems obvious: Trump has no compunction about violating the law. That is why the issue of guardrails is so urgent. No democracy lasts forever. There are many countries that were once democracies, but no longer are. Will the Trump presidency move the US toward authoritarianism, or will it be just another conservative administration? No question is more pressing in the years ahead.