When Trump was elected in 2016, one thing that gave many comfort was the thought that the country's institutions would keep potential authoritarianism in check.
Not as many people seem to be convinced the second time around, given that he and his allies have now had years to prepare for this moment.
Far from reassuring voters that he would uphold democratic norms, during his 2024 campaign Trump indicated he would slash government institutions, warned of a bloodbath if he lost the election, and said that he would like to be dictator for a day, which many of his critics took to mean indefinitely, particularly after saying that after the election people wouldn't have to vote again.
Trump 2.0
The public response to a second Trump win could give some indication of how it happened and what can be expected in a second term. Instead of the mass protests that were seen in 2016, there appears to be more of a sense of acceptance of the election results, even if there is widespread disappointment.
The presidential win, complete with control of all three branches of government, feels for many like the final blow to democracy, or at least a new era of power that will be very difficult to check after a decade of a sustained Trump movement.
"The difference between the first and the second administration is that in the first he was unfamiliar with government. He appointed officials and hired advisers from the existing Republican Party who restrained or redirected his impulses," Chris Adolph, a political science professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, tells The New Arab. "He still did a lot of damage."
A second Trump administration, however, he says, "will be staffed by loyalists hired to carry out his agenda without question".
He expects Trump's presidential agenda to be focused on personal revenge as he seeks to expand his powers and subvert government institutions. Even what some people are hoping for in the way of dissent could be dampened by a fear of repercussions for stepping out of line. Republican senators, for example, could hold back on criticising Trump out of concern for losing his support in their own elections.
"Modern autocracies don't work like the autocracies of the early 20th century," he notes, pointing to Hungary's Viktor Orban, who has managed to dismantle his country's democracy for an illiberal democracy stacked with loyalists that holds nominal elections.
"Instead, authoritarians have found ways to undermine democratic institutions, leaving behind a facade of uncompetitive elections," he says.
|
|
Foreign policy
Foreign policy is where US presidents have the fewest checks and balances, as has been seen by multiple US-led wars in the Middle East and large-scale funding of foreign militaries.
"There have always been few guardrails in foreign policy," notes Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University.
"With Trump, we need to listen to what he's said. He'll end the war in Ukraine. What that means is making major concessions to Russia," he tells TNA.
"My other worry is Israel. He'll unleash [Benjamin] Netanyahu," adding that outgoing president Joe Biden might have been trying to restrain the Israeli prime minister in his more than a year-long military assault on Gaza, leading to the question of how much worse the situation could get.
"My worry is twofold moving forward. Netanyahu would really like to take over the West Bank, and there are people in his cabinet who are hawks in that regard," he says. "Then there's the real issue of what Netanyahu does about Iran."
He believes the only line Trump would hesitate to cross would be sending US forces to take part in wars, knowing it would be unpopular and against his mantra of being an anti-war president.
James Zogby, a veteran pollster and president of the Arab American Institute, who has long been a supporter of progressive Democrats, fears that Trump's win will be the worst possible scenario for Palestinians and the region.
"For those who thought a second term would be different, it is different. It's worse," he told TNA on Wednesday, shortly after learning of Trump's picks for Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, under investigation for sex trafficking, and Tulsi Gabbard, with ties to Hindu nationalism, as director of national intelligence.
"Those who think there will be an effort to resolve the Middle East, no. He wants peace, but it's the peace of the grave," says Zogby.
Domestic policy
Domestic policy is where there could be legal checks on Trump's power if he chooses to disregard the Constitution, but this would still require an organised opposition.
One of Trump's main plans that has raised alarms among Democrats, part of the notorious Project 25 agenda, is to replace non-partisan federal workers with loyalists, classifying them as appointees who can be dismissed at will.
If implemented, this would drain the federal government of skilled and impartial experts in fields ranging from medicine to economics. Though it might seem too vast to implement, the architects of Project 2025 have created an infrastructure to streamline the picking and hiring of these employees.
Once fully implemented, the newly loyal federal staff could have a profound impact on government research and public information.
The other major area of domestic concern is Trump's plans for a mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. This would mean expelling more than 15 million residents at a cost of more than $800 billion for only a fraction of the deportations, which would be subject to approval by the new Republican-controlled Congress.
Some who are concerned about the human rights implications of mass deportations are pointing to the high cost of the policy, which could be a temporary comfort until it is implemented in some form.
"It is a profoundly chilling thought that the barrier that holds Trump back from building detention camps for millions of people is that he'll need funding for that act," says Adolph from the University of Washington.
But it doesn't have to be a vast programme in the beginning. Richard Groper, a lecturer in political science at California State University in Los Angeles, believes that if Trump starts by deporting violent criminals, it could actually be a popular policy.
"How do they find them? Criminals have records. It could be very popular," he tells TNA.
Still, he says, in general, "If you're a non-citizen, you could be in big trouble. A lot of my students have relatives who are undocumented. Do they have to be nervous? Absolutely".
|
|
Trump has also said he would deport pro-Palestinian protesters on US college campuses, presumably students who are not US citizens. Though the act of protesting isn't illegal, it wouldn't be difficult to find a cause for arrest, such as trespassing or breaking curfew.
It is not just federal employees and immigrants, most of whom are largely behind the scenes, who have cause for concern over Trump's plans for them. He has already stated numerous times in speeches that he would seek retribution against his opponents, who include prominent politicians and members of the press. The conservative-majority Supreme Court has already ruled that the president enjoys the presumption of immunity and would be protected from prosecution from any official act.
Though Trump's potential policies are already a major cause for concern for many, it is also the fear of the unknown that can be just as effective for his authoritarian agenda, thus eliminating the need to break down institutional guardrails.
The chill of the unknown
"Authoritarians often succeed by getting people to concede their rights in advance. So even where Trump lacks the legal authority to exert his will, such as First Amendment protections on free speech, he may be able to tamp down some protest," says Adolph.
"If universities are worried about protests endangering federal funding under the Trump administration, they may pre-emptively curtail protests," he says.
Indirect coercion can take numerous forms, some more subtle than others. Whether it's a student protester who fears arrest or a wealthy public figure who fears repercussions for getting on the bad side of the leader, no one is safe under authoritarian rule.
"In some ways, it doesn't matter what he does. It matters what he threatens to do," says Beck from Ohio State. "It could have a chilling effect on ordinary people."
Pointing to Trump's threats to the media, he says, "If it leads people to think he will follow through, they will pull their punches. You saw Jeff Bezos with the Washington Post saying [he didn't make a presidential endorsement because] he didn't want to be seen as a polarising force. The real reason is he was afraid of Trump's retribution."
With all of Trump's threats of sending in the military to quell dissent, does he really need to use force when he has already generated fear?
"Trump can undermine free speech even without sending in the National Guard or banning newspapers or elections," says Adolph. "Like Orban, he has allies in the media, including Fox News and Elon Musk’s X, that can help flood the zone with supportive narratives in the hopes of drowning out opposition."
Brooke Anderson is The New Arab's correspondent in Washington DC, covering US and international politics, business and culture.
Follow her on Twitter: @Brookethenews