Trump as an Authoritarian Leader
Over the past century, authoritarian rule has taken many forms—from single-party dictatorships to today's electoral autocracies. Yet despite vastly different contexts and eras, a remarkably consistent psychological profile emerges when examining how these leaders operate. Historical records and firsthand observations reveal striking parallels in their understanding of authority, their self-perception, and their treatment of subordinates.
An early warning came in 1931 from Curzio Malaparte, an Italian Fascist journalist observing Adolf Hitler's rise. Malaparte predicted that Hitler's ascent to power would bring disaster for Germany itself, pointing to how he degraded even his most loyal followers:
This observation proved devastatingly prescient not only for Nazi Germany but for virtually every dictatorship that followed.
Recognizing these patterns allows us to anticipate authoritarian behavior, including what might be called "strongman surprises"—fabricated crises that justify repression, abrupt policy reversals, elimination of officials from their posts, saber-rattling, and similar tactics. Understanding their vulnerabilities and anxieties also provides crucial tools for effective resistance.
The Ruler's Proprietary Worldview
George Conway's characterization of Donald Trump's self-conception captures something fundamental about dictatorial thinking:
This framework applies across authoritarian leadership throughout modern history.
The distinction between public interest and personal benefit simply doesn't register in the autocratic mind. Concepts like institutional conflict of interest or democratic accountability appear meaningless—technicalities that bind lesser figures but not the supreme leader. Public service is a fool's errand; the proper relationship runs in the opposite direction, with institutions and citizens existing to advance the ruler's interests.
Every institution and social sector becomes instrumental to building the leader's fortune, expanding his wealth, and reinforcing the cult of personality that places him beyond legal reach. Courts exist to handle his legal troubles and facilitate revenge against adversaries. Security apparatus must intimidate critics and suppress demonstrations. Media gatekeepers must eliminate unfavorable stories while amplifying official narratives. Religious authorities must declare him divinely ordained. Each piece serves the whole.
This sense of ownership fuels endemic corruption. The head of state views the entire nation as personal property—from women's bodies to mineral deposits to economic enterprises to classified intelligence, which former KGB officer Vladimir Putin understands as the ultimate form of power. The absence of limits means that personal fixations and grudges directly determine national policy. Resources flow toward wars of vanity, campaigns of ethnic elimination and demographic manipulation, and massive construction projects that satisfy the compulsion to impose a permanent mark on the nation's landscape.
Building opulent residences and ceremonial halls at public expense while citizens sink into poverty poses no moral dilemma, as Mobutu demonstrated in Zaire and Trump has begun replicating. Once the welfare of ordinary people disappears as an objective, the officeholder can concentrate on what genuinely matters: tightening his grip on power, accumulating wealth, and degrading those who oppose him.
Disruption as Governing Philosophy
Despite promises of order and stability, authoritarian rulers depend on chaos and upheaval. Their specialty lies in the unexpected, the previously inconceivable—overturning established systems to advance their agenda and cement personal dominance.
Propaganda about strongman efficiency masks the turmoil created by impulsive decision-making and constant government reshuffles designed to prevent rivals from accumulating influence. Behind Hitler's omnipotent Führer image was an indecisive, insecure leader whose views often echoed whoever had spoken to him last. Mussolini kept his communications team scrambling as he proclaimed one position in the morning and reversed it by evening.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's erratic governance, exacerbated by surrounding himself with relatives and sycophants, follows a familiar pattern, as does his stubborn defense of economically questionable policies. Muammar Gaddafi pushed chaos to extremes, abolishing entire legal systems overnight. Keeping others off-balance provided energy, much as it did for Idi Amin and others who, in the assessment of Dr. David Barkham (Amin's personal physician), "have ideas of grandeur, think that they have the answer to complicated problems and in a sense lose touch with reality."
The comparison between Amin and Trump may seem strained given crucial differences. Amin seized power militarily and during his seven-year dictatorship orchestrated the deaths of hundreds of thousands, earning him the moniker "The Butcher of Uganda." Nevertheless, Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka, Ugandan communications scholar Geoffrey Ssenoga, and Ugandan journalist Charles Onyango-Obbo identify shared characteristics: grandiose self-regard, incoherent pronouncements, ritualized degradation of others, cruel mockery, and economic damage from rash decisions. In 1972, Amin abruptly expelled the South Asian community that formed the commercial foundation of Uganda's economy, triggering economic collapse.
This explains why journalist Riccardo Orizio, after interviewing Amin, determined he was cunningly strategic rather than genuinely mad—or as Orizio put it, both "sane and insane at the same time"—a characterization that may resonate uncomfortably.
Onyango-Obbo wrote in 2017: "The genius of Trump is that he understands what adept guerrilla leaders [like Amin] figured out ages ago – do that which the opponent thinks is impossible or so unthinkable, they have not planned how to defend it." Awareness of this proven "strongman surprise" approach matters immensely, as does understanding the authoritarian mindset toward governance and power itself.
Understanding Authoritarian Leadership
Political scientists define authoritarianism not simply as dictatorship, but as a spectrum of governance characterized by the concentration of power in the executive, erosion of institutional checks and balances, suppression of dissent, and manipulation of democratic processes. In the contemporary context, scholars have identified "competitive authoritarianism" as a distinct form where elections still occur but the playing field is systematically tilted in favor of the ruling party through manipulation of state institutions, media control, and strategic use of legal and extralegal pressure.1
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of "How Democracies Die," have articulated that the United States under Trump has transitioned from liberal democracy toward a form of authoritarianism, stating that while it remains "relatively mild compared to some others" and "certainly reversible," the nation is "no longer living in a liberal democracy."2 A survey of over 500 political scientists found that the vast majority believe the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward authoritarianism, with democracy ratings plummeting from 67 (on a 0-100 scale) after Trump's election to 55 within weeks of his second term taking office.3
Category 1: Attacks on Press Freedom and Media Independence
A hallmark of authoritarian governance is the systematic undermining of independent media through intimidation, regulatory harassment, selective access restrictions, and economic pressure. Trump's approach to press freedom represents one of the most comprehensive assaults on journalism in modern American history.
Regulatory Weaponization Against Media Outlets
The Federal Communications Commission under Trump appointee Brendan Carr, co-author of Project 2025, launched politically motivated investigations into every major broadcast network except Fox News, which maintains a pro-Trump editorial stance. The FCC opened inquiries into CBS, ABC parent company Disney, NBC parent company Comcast, NPR, and PBS, questioning editorial decisions such as how CBS edited a Kamala Harris interview and whether public broadcasters complied with regulations.4 FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez characterized this as a "campaign to censor and control."5
Trump threatened to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting, which costs Americans approximately $1.60 annually per person, framing it as a cost-cutting measure while systematically targeting outlets that provide independent journalism.6
Selective Access Restrictions and Press Pool Manipulation
The Associated Press, America's leading news agency, was indefinitely banned from White House press pool events and Oval Office access after refusing to adopt Trump's preferred terminology of "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico." This represented unprecedented retaliation against a news organization for maintaining editorial independence.7 Despite a federal court ruling that the government cannot exclude journalists based on viewpoint, AP reporters continued to face access restrictions.8
The Trump administration removed office space in the Pentagon from CNN, The Washington Post, The Hill, NBC News, The New York Times, NPR, and Politico, replacing them with predominantly conservative outlets including Newsmax, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, One America News Network, and Breitbart News.9 This systematic restructuring of press access mirrors tactics used by authoritarian leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán to tilt media coverage toward favorable outlets.
Threats, Lawsuits, and Intimidation Tactics
During his first 100 days in office, Trump threatened or intimidated journalists and media workers nearly every day, using both personal and official capacities to attack the credibility and sustainability of independent journalism.10 He characterized the press as "fake news," "the enemy of the people," "dishonest," "corrupt," and "human scum," with over 600 tweets targeting specific news organizations.11
Trump's legal strategy employs constant lawsuits designed not to win but to exhaust and intimidate newsrooms through costly litigation, forcing outlets into settlements that set dangerous precedents.12 Major corporations including Meta settled lawsuits with Trump, with Meta paying $25 million and ABC News agreeing to a $15 million settlement, demonstrating how large corporations capitulate under pressure from the incoming administration.13
When comedian Jimmy Kimmel made comments suggesting that the alleged killer of far-right activist Charlie Kirk was a Trump supporter, Trump's FCC chair publicly threatened action against ABC and Disney, leading ABC to temporarily suspend Kimmel's show before public backlash forced reversal.14
Pardoning Attacks on Journalists
Trump pardoned 13 individuals who had been convicted or charged with attacking journalists during the January 6, 2021 insurrection, sending a clear message that violence against the press committed in support of Trump would face no consequences.15
Reinstatement of Anti-Press Investigatory Powers
Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded protections that prevented federal investigators from secretly targeting journalists' records in leak investigations, claiming the previous safeguards struck "the wrong balance." The Department of Justice justified this by citing "growing concerns about federal government employees intentionally disseminating confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected information to the media."16 The Committee to Protect Journalists warned this would have "chilling effects on reporting on the government's activities and ultimately the public's right to know."17
The Department of Defense implemented new rules requiring reporters not to obtain or use unauthorized material even if unclassified, which virtually all major news organizations, including Fox News, refused to follow, calling the policy "without precedent" and a threat to "core journalistic protections."18
Dismantling of International Press Freedom Infrastructure
Trump signed an executive order directing the virtual demolition of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees congressionally funded but editorially independent outlets like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. This action endangered approximately 3,500 journalists and media workers, with at least 84 U.S.-based journalists on visas facing potential deportation, and 23 journalists at risk of arrest and imprisonment if forced to return to their home countries.19 State media in Russia and China celebrated this dismantling as it eliminated independent media broadcasting to their populations.20
Category 2: Abuse of Pardon Power and Undermining Rule of Law
The systematic use of presidential pardons to protect political allies and reward violence committed in the president's name represents a fundamental corruption of the justice system. Trump's January 6 pardons constitute one of the most extensive abuses of clemency power in American history.
Mass Pardons for January 6 Insurrectionists
On his first day in office, Trump issued full pardons to approximately 1,500 individuals convicted of crimes related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and commuted sentences for 14 others.21 These pardons covered the entire spectrum of criminal conduct, from trespassing to seditious conspiracy, and included individuals convicted of brutal assaults on law enforcement officers.
Among those pardoned were over 300 people who had pleaded guilty to assaulting or obstructing law enforcement, including 69 who admitted to assaulting police with dangerous or deadly weapons.22 More than 140 police officers were injured during the seven-hour siege, in what represented one of the largest mass attacks on law enforcement in U.S. history.23
Pardoning Extremist Leaders and Seditious Conspiracy
Trump pardoned Enrique Tarrio, former chairman of the Proud Boys, who had been sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy. He also commuted the sentence of Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, who had been sentenced to 18 years after a judge determined he presented "an ongoing threat and peril to this country."24 Nearly 300 pardoned rioters had documented links to 46 far-right groups or movements.25
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, appointed by Ronald Reagan, stated he could never recall "such meritless justifications of criminal activity" during his time on the bench. Legal scholars characterized the pardons as "a president pardoning his allies for their participation in a violent coup d'etat" and warned they signal that "if they commit crimes on Trump's behalf there would be no accountability."26
Pardoning Individuals with Violent Criminal Histories
Many pardoned January 6 participants had extensive prior criminal records including rape, manslaughter, domestic violence, child sexual exploitation, and drug trafficking.27 Peter Schwartz, convicted of assaulting police officers during the riot, had a history including a 1994 case of throwing a lit cigarette at a victim near her eyes, a 2004 assault with a deadly weapon case, 2019 terroristic threats against police, and a 2020 case of assaulting his wife by biting her forehead and punching her multiple times. A federal judge stated "the only reliable method of protecting the community from Schwartz in the future is to remove him from the community for as long as possible," yet Trump pardoned him.28
Matthew Huttle, who had spanked his 3-year-old son so severely the child had bruises all over his backside and neck and could not sit for a week, received a pardon. Days after his release, he was shot and killed by law enforcement during a traffic stop in Indiana.29
Expanding Pardons Beyond January 6 Offenses
The Department of Justice under Trump expanded interpretation of the January 6 pardons to include separate gun and drug charges discovered during FBI searches of participants' residences. Daniel Ball, who had thrown explosive devices at officers during the riot, was found to possess firearms and ammunition despite two prior felony convictions prohibiting such possession. The Trump Justice Department moved to dismiss these separate federal gun charges, arguing the pardon extended to any offense sufficiently related to January 6.30 Similarly, Marc Costianes had four guns, cocaine, and testosterone discovered during his arrest; the Trump DOJ argued for dismissal of these charges as well.31
Dismantling Prosecution Infrastructure
Trump disbanded the Capitol Siege section within the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and directed the Justice Department to dismiss scores of pending January 6 cases. In June 2025, the Department fired two supervising attorneys who had overseen January 6 prosecutions and a line attorney who had prosecuted the cases.32 This systematic dismantling of the prosecution apparatus sent a clear message about consequences for pursuing cases against Trump supporters.
Category 3: Militarization and Abuse of Emergency Powers
The deployment of military forces for domestic political purposes represents a hallmark of authoritarian governance. Trump's use of federalized National Guard troops and invocation of emergency powers during peacetime demonstrates a pattern consistent with authoritarian consolidation of power.
Federalizing National Guard Against State Opposition
Trump federalized National Guard troops and deployed them to cities including Los Angeles in express opposition to state governors' wishes, justified through baseless claims of rebellion and out-of-control crime. Political scientist Nicholas Grossman characterized this as an "especially authoritarian aspect" of Trump's second term and "classically fascist," noting that federalizing the Guard is supposed to occur only in "extraordinary circumstances" and that Trump was "lying" to justify the deployments.33
The deployed troops were not focused on combating crime but were instead seen performing tasks like landscaping duties in Washington D.C. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer noted in his ruling that Trump had deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles "ostensibly to quell a rebellion" despite no actual rebellion occurring.34
Invocation of Wartime Powers During Peacetime
Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime statute from 1798, to justify mass deportations and detention of immigrants. District Court Judge Fernandez Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, ruled that "allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch's authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute's scope."35
Declaration of "Invasion" for Expanded Executive Authority
Trump issued executive orders declaring a so-called "invasion" at the southern border as justification for the military to use "all available options" to police the border. This enabled the government to begin prosecuting asylum seekers for criminal trespass under declarations that converted borderlands into federal lands for military use, effectively circumventing legal restrictions against using military forces for civilian law enforcement.36
Category 4: Filling Institutions with Loyalists
Competitive authoritarian systems systematically replace professional civil servants and independent officials with personal loyalists who will execute the leader's directives without regard for institutional norms or legal constraints.
Appointment of Project 2025 Authors to Key Positions
Despite distancing himself from Project 2025 during the campaign, Trump appointed several authors of the document to lead key government departments. Brendan Carr, co-author of Project 2025, was appointed to chair the Federal Communications Commission, where he immediately launched politically motivated investigations into media organizations critical of Trump.37
Cabinet Composition Reflecting Authoritarian Vision
Trump's cabinet selections for his second term included figures associated with populism, climate denial, extreme nativism, and allegations of serious criminal conduct. Political scientists noted that by prioritizing ideological conformity, cultural grievance, and personal loyalty over expertise and institutional experience, Trump's appointments deepened the erosion of democratic norms and institutional credibility.38
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demonstrated this loyalty-over-law approach by inaccurately defining "habeas corpus" during Congressional testimony as "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights," fundamentally misrepresenting constitutional protections in service of expanding executive power.39
Threat to Appoint Loyalists Across Justice System
Trump's nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, has publicly threatened on far-right podcasts to "go after journalists," signaling intent to weaponize federal law enforcement against critics and the press.40 The explicit commitment to using law enforcement for political retribution represents a fundamental corruption of the justice system's independence.
Category 5: Attacks on Democratic Institutions and Election Integrity
Undermining public confidence in elections and democratic processes while refusing to accept electoral defeat represents a direct assault on democratic legitimacy.
False Claims of Election Fraud and Refusal to Accept Results
Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was "rigged" against him directly incited the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. Thousands attacked the Capitol to prevent certification of election results, spurred by Trump's repeated lies about electoral fraud despite losing 60 court cases challenging the results.41
Attempted Revocation of Birthright Citizenship
In a Day One executive order, Trump attempted to rewrite the U.S. Constitution by executive fiat to end birthright citizenship. U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour wrote in his decision enjoining the order that "the rule of law is, according to [the President], something to navigate around or something ignored, whether that be for political or personal gain."42
Category 6: Consolidation of Executive Power
Authoritarian leaders systematically expand executive authority while weakening institutional checks and balances, concentrating power in the presidency at the expense of other branches of government.
Asserting Control Over Independent Agencies
The Trump White House asserted sweeping power over the Federal Communications Commission and other federal agencies that Congress designed to have independence from direct presidential control. This centralization of authority in the executive branch mirrors patterns in competitive authoritarian systems where independent regulatory bodies become tools of presidential power.43
Directing Investigations and Prosecutions
Trump and his allies made explicit plans to eliminate the Department of Justice's traditional prosecutorial independence to give Trump greater personal control to direct law enforcement against perceived opponents. Retribution became the dominant theme of his 2024 campaign, with explicit commitments to weaponize federal regulatory power to reward political loyalty and punish critics.44
Category 7: Manipulation of Information and Democratic Discourse
Authoritarian systems systematically distort public information, spread disinformation, and create parallel information ecosystems that insulate supporters from factual scrutiny.
Creating Alternative Media Infrastructure
The White House Press Secretary announced a new media chair for podcasters and content creators, with over 7,000 applications received. Unlike traditional news organizations with editorial standards, UNESCO reported that 62 percent of news and commentary creators do not verify information before sharing it. This deliberate cultivation of an alternative media ecosystem with lower standards mirrors authoritarian information control strategies.45
Forcing Corporate Submission
Trump claimed that Meta dropped its fact-checking program partly because of his threats, which included threats to jail founder Mark Zuckerberg. Major media owners including Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post, whose companies have significant government contracts, killed editorial endorsements of Democratic candidates and, like Meta, donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration, demonstrating how economic pressure and threats force corporate capitulation.46
Category 8: Targeting of Marginalized Groups
Authoritarian populism characteristically scapegoats marginalized groups, using dehumanization and demagoguery to consolidate power and justify extraordinary measures.
Dehumanization Campaign Against Immigrants
From his first presidential campaign through his second term, Trump orchestrated a years-long campaign of dehumanization and demagoguery against immigrants. Establishing a particular group as "the other" is a standard tool of those seeking to consolidate power and establish authoritarian rule. Trump has used immigration enforcement as the vehicle to test and expand executive powers, deploying military forces, invoking emergency authorities, and undermining judicial oversight.47
Comparative Context: Global Patterns
Trump's actions closely parallel authoritarian consolidation patterns observed globally. Hungary's Viktor Orbán has built "a true media empire subject to his party's orders" through allies' acquisitions of newspapers and broadcasters, giving his Fidesz party control of approximately 80 percent of Hungary's media market. In 2018, Orbán's allies donated nearly 500 news outlets to a government-controlled conglomerate. Opposition parties receive just five minutes of airtime on public TV during elections while state broadcasters amplify government talking points and smear opponents.48
Similarly, in Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan exploited a 2016 coup attempt to declare a state of emergency and carry out sweeping arrests, using emergency powers to purge the state, jail opponents, silence the press, and rewrite the constitution. Trump's 2025 military deployments and emergency declarations follow this pattern of manufacturing crises to justify extraordinary executive actions.49
In Russia, President Vladimir Putin consolidated control over national television early in his rule and expanded restrictions on civil society and independent journalism. After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, new laws criminalized criticism of the war and forced many journalists into exile. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has arrested comedians and performers for jokes critical of the ruling party.50 These international patterns demonstrate how Trump's actions fit within a global trend of democratic backsliding.
Scholarly Consensus on Democratic Decline
The classification of Trump as an authoritarian leader is not merely a political characterization but reflects broad scholarly consensus. John Kelly, Trump's longest-serving chief of staff during his first term, called Trump "certainly an authoritarian" during the 2024 campaign.51 A Bright Line Watch survey of political scientists showed democracy ratings plummeting from 67 to 55 on a 0-100 scale within weeks of Trump's second term, representing what Professor John Carey called "a precipitous drop."52
Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton, who spent years tracking Hungary's democratic decline, stated Americans are "on a very fast slide" into competitive authoritarianism.53 The assessment is not that the United States has become a consolidated authoritarian system like Russia or China, but rather that it has transitioned from liberal democracy into what scholars classify as competitive authoritarianism or illiberal democracy—systems where elections occur but are no longer fully free and fair due to systematic manipulation of institutions, media, and legal processes.54
Conclusion
The evidence presented across eight categories demonstrates that Donald Trump's leadership exhibits systematic patterns consistent with authoritarian governance as defined by political scientists. His actions have targeted fundamental pillars of liberal democracy: independent media, impartial justice, institutional checks and balances, electoral integrity, and protection of minorities. While the United States retains democratic forms—elections still occur, courts continue to function, opposition exists—the systematic tilting of the playing field through institutional manipulation, selective law enforcement, media intimidation, and loyalty-based appointments represents the characteristic pattern of competitive authoritarianism.
The trajectory is not irreversible. Political scientists emphasize that the current situation, while serious, differs from consolidated authoritarian systems. Institutional resistance persists, courts have blocked some executive overreach, media organizations continue to report critically despite intimidation, and civil society mobilization provides countervailing pressure. However, the velocity and comprehensiveness of democratic erosion during Trump's second term represents an escalation from his first, suggesting that without sustained resistance from institutions, civil society, and citizens committed to democratic norms, the slide toward consolidated authoritarianism will continue.
Understanding Trump as an authoritarian leader is not a partisan assessment but an empirical observation based on comparative analysis of governance patterns worldwide. The question facing American democracy is not whether these authoritarian patterns exist—the scholarly consensus and documentary evidence are clear—but rather whether American institutions and citizens will mount sufficient resistance to reverse the trajectory before the damage becomes permanent.
Endnotes
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
