Trump: Resistance is Possible
In the 1976 BBC adaptation of Robert Graves' I, Claudius, the elderly emperor reflects on a lifetime spent navigating the violent politics of imperial Rome. Throughout the series, various characters—Claudius himself, senators like Cassius Chaerea, republican diehards clinging to memory of Cicero—speak longingly of restoring the Republic. They imagine that removing one bad emperor, reforming certain practices, or appealing to ancient virtues might reverse Rome's transformation into autocracy. What they fail to grasp is that they stand not at the Republic's temporary eclipse but at the Empire's irreversible beginning. The constitutional settlement that had governed Rome for centuries has already dissolved; the social and economic forces that sustained republican government have vanished; the cultural consensus about legitimate authority has shattered. By the time Claudius writes his histories, restoration is not merely difficult—it is conceptually incoherent. The Republic exists only as nostalgia, a rhetorical device deployed by those who cannot accept that they inhabit a fundamentally different political order.
American political discourse since 2021 has exhibited precisely this confusion about historical location. The Biden presidency marketed itself explicitly as restoration—a "return to normalcy" that would reverse the aberrations of the Trump era and reestablish the pre-2016 constitutional equilibrium. This framing drew conscious parallels to Gerald Ford's post-Watergate presidency, which successfully contained the Nixon crisis through institutional repair, prosecutorial forbearance, and appeals to national healing. Biden's inaugural address echoed Ford's themes: institutional reverence, bipartisan cooperation, the essential decency of American democracy. The implicit promise was that Trump represented a temporary deviation—a Caligula or Nero whose removal would allow the Republic to resume its natural functioning.
This restoration project failed completely. Trump's return to power in 2025 marked not the final convulsion of a dying movement but rather the consolidation of a new political order. More critically, Trump's second administration demonstrates vastly greater transformational capacity than his first term. Where Trump-45 operated within existing institutional constraints, occasionally exceeding but never fundamentally replacing them, Trump-47 pursues systematic reconstruction of the American state apparatus. The comparison to Ford's post-Nixon restoration reveals why: Nixon's abuses, however serious, left basic institutional structures intact. Trump's movement reflects and accelerates structural transformations that make restoration impossible.
Defeatism masquerades as realism in contemporary American political analysis. Commentators survey Trump's return to power, his systematic demolition of civil service protections, his judicial capture, his deployment of federal forces to cities, his contempt for electoral legitimacy, and conclude that democratic restoration has become impossible. This analysis, however sophisticated in diagnosing pathologies, commits a fundamental error: confusing the severity of threats with their inevitability. History demonstrates repeatedly that authoritarian consolidation is neither automatic nor irreversible. Trump faces structural constraints, personal limitations, and historical forces that make sustained resistance not merely possible but necessary and potentially effective.
The case for pessimism rests on genuine concerns: profound structural transformations in American political economy, geographic polarization at historic levels, affective polarization that structures social relationships, institutional legitimacy collapse, and Trump's apparent willingness to disregard constitutional constraints. These diagnoses prove largely accurate. The error lies in treating these conditions as determinative rather than as obstacles that strategic resistance can overcome. Democratic backsliding, while serious and accelerating, remains a process rather than an accomplished fact. Windows for effective resistance remain open, and comparative evidence from recent democratic struggles worldwide demonstrates that even advanced authoritarian consolidation can be reversed through coordinated opposition strategies.
The Structural Limits of Trump's Power
Trump's second administration pursues more systematic transformation than his first term, but this very ambition creates vulnerabilities. Schedule F threatens to reclassify tens of thousands of civil servants into political appointees, yet implementation proves far more complex than executive decree. The federal bureaucracy comprises over two million employees distributed across thousands of offices nationwide. Mass exodus of experienced professionals produces immediate governance failures visible to ordinary citizens—delayed Social Security checks, passport processing backlogs, Veterans Administration healthcare collapse, infrastructure project abandonment. These failures generate political costs that even authoritarian leaders struggle to ignore.
Research on administrative state resilience demonstrates that bureaucratic institutions possess surprising defensive capacity. Career civil servants during Trump's first term largely maintained professional standards despite political pressure, with resistance cohering around institutional and professional imperatives rather than partisan opposition. Mass firings accelerate this dynamic rather than eliminating it, as remaining professionals recognize that compliance with illegal orders threatens personal liability. The administrative state proves harder to dismantle than to construct precisely because its functions serve constituencies with political power—veterans, Social Security recipients, Medicare beneficiaries, agricultural interests, infrastructure contractors—whose protests matter electorally.
Judicial capture, while advancing through Supreme Court appointments, faces limits. Federal district and appeals courts retain substantial independence, and litigation strategies can exploit jurisdictional complexity to block or delay authoritarian measures. State courts operating under state constitutions provide alternative venues for rights enforcement. Even captured Supreme Courts rarely grant unlimited executive authority; institutional self-preservation creates incentives for maintaining some check-and-balance functions. The Court's conservative majority, while deferential to executive power, includes justices with genuine commitments to textualism and originalism that constrain rubber-stamp approval of blatant constitutional violations.
Trump's deployment of federal forces to cities encounters practical and legal obstacles. The Posse Comitatus Act restricts military involvement in law enforcement. National Guard federalization triggers state resistance, as governors possess concurrent authority and strong political incentives to protect state prerogatives. Military leadership, while generally apolitical, balances between civilian control and constitutional oath. Large-scale domestic troop deployment against civilian protesters risks military fragmentation, as service members confront orders to suppress fellow citizens exercising constitutional rights. Historical precedents—Kent State, Bonus Army, Little Rock—demonstrate that domestic military deployment generates backlash that constrains future use.
Electoral manipulation faces geographic and institutional distribution of power. While Republicans control many state governments, competitive states remain genuinely competitive. Democrats control governorships and secretaries of state positions in critical states. Local election officials, even in Republican jurisdictions, often possess professional commitment to electoral integrity. Attempts to seat illegitimate Congress members or exclude duly elected Democrats trigger immediate federal court challenges, state government resistance, and international delegitimization. The scenario requires coordinated action across multiple jurisdictions by officials who risk criminal prosecution and historical infamy.
Trump's Personal Limitations and Temporal Constraints
Trump's political effectiveness derives from unique personal characteristics—charisma, media manipulation skill, instinctive connection to populist sentiment, shamelessness that enables norm-breaking—but these same traits create vulnerabilities. Trump consistently backs down when faced with sufficient organized resistance. His first-term record demonstrates this pattern repeatedly: the Muslim ban softened after massive protests and legal challenges; family separation policy reversed under pressure; government shutdown ended without wall funding; efforts to overturn 2020 election ultimately failed when institutional actors refused cooperation.
Trump operates as transactional dealmaker rather than ideological zealot. His commitment to specific policies fluctuates with political convenience and personal benefit. This creates opportunities for tactical resistance: imposing costs on Trump personally—through litigation, financial pressure, reputational damage—can induce policy retreats that principled authoritarians would resist. Trump's need for validation and fear of being perceived as "loser" make him susceptible to strategic humiliation that undermines authoritarian persona.
Trump's mortality and age impose hard temporal limits. At seventy-nine years old in 2025, Trump faces actuarial constraints that differ fundamentally from historical authoritarians who consolidated power in their forties or fifties. A third presidential term remains constitutionally impossible absent amendment requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states—a threshold effectively insurmountable given opposition party control of sufficient states. Trump's political dominance extends through 2028 at maximum, likely less given health uncertainties.
Trump's potential successors lack his distinctive combination of skills. JD Vance possesses intellectual coherence but lacks Trump's charismatic connection to working-class voters. Vance's patrician background, venture capital career, and ideological rigidity make him unelectable in constituencies Trump carried. Other potential Republican inheritors—DeSantis, Haley, Rubio—proved unable to compete against Trump and show little capacity to inherit his coalition. Charisma as legitimation strategy does not transfer; Weber's observations on charismatic authority remain valid. Post-charismatic succession typically involves either routinization into traditional authority structures (incompatible with Trumpist disruption) or fragmentation into competing claimants.
The 2026 midterm elections provide crucial inflection point. Historical patterns show first-term presidents routinely lose Congressional seats in midterms; Trump's second-term status magnifies this tendency. Republican House majority remains narrow, vulnerable to losses in competitive districts. Senate map offers Democrats pickup opportunities. Even modest opposition gains constrain Trump's legislative capacity and provide oversight mechanisms. Successful midterm performance would position Democrats to block worst authoritarian measures and investigate abuses.
The Proven Effectiveness of Nonviolent Resistance
The most systematic research on resistance to authoritarianism demonstrates that nonviolent civil resistance succeeds at dramatically higher rates than violent opposition. Analysis of 323 violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 found that nonviolent campaigns succeeded over fifty percent of the time, compared to twenty-five percent for violent insurgencies. Countries experiencing nonviolent campaigns proved ten times likelier to transition to democracy within five years compared to countries with violent campaigns, regardless of whether campaigns succeeded or failed in the short term.
Nonviolent resistance succeeds through four primary mechanisms. First, it enables mass participation across demographic groups, generating movements too large and diverse for regimes to suppress without massive costs. Violent resistance restricts participation to those willing and able to fight, limiting movement size and diversity. Second, nonviolent movements more effectively cause defections among elites and security forces, creating political crises for power-holders. Third, nonviolent campaigns deploy wider tactical repertoires—strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, occupations, parallel institutions—providing flexibility that armed resistance lacks. Fourth, nonviolent campaigns maintain discipline under repression more effectively than violent movements, deterring worst state violence and preserving moral authority.
The American context offers particular advantages for nonviolent resistance compared to closed authoritarian systems. Constitutional protections for speech, assembly, and press, while threatened, remain partially intact. Federal system creates multiple resistance venues—state governments, local officials, private institutions. Civil society density and organizational capacity exceed most countries experiencing backsliding. Digital communication enables rapid mobilization despite media capture. Economic interdependence makes sustained mass strikes devastating to regime stability.
The 2017 Women's March and subsequent resistance mobilizations demonstrated American capacity for mass nonviolent action. Between six and nine million Americans participated in anti-Trump protests in 2017 alone—between 1.8 and 2.8 percent of the population. Sustained mobilization at this scale, coordinated with institutional resistance and international pressure, creates conditions where authoritarian consolidation becomes prohibitively costly.
Comparative Lessons: Successful Democratic Defense and Recovery
Recent cases demonstrate that even severe democratic backsliding can be reversed through effective opposition strategies. Poland experienced significant democratic erosion under Law and Justice Party control from 2015 to 2023, including judicial capture, media restrictions, and civil society suppression. Opposition forces unified around democratic defense, setting aside policy differences to form broad coalition. Sustained protests, international pressure, and strategic electoral mobilization produced 2023 opposition victory and reversal of antidemocratic measures. Poland demonstrates that timing matters critically—early resistance proves more effective than belated opposition—but even advanced backsliding remains reversible.
Brazil confronted democratic threats under Jair Bolsonaro's presidency, culminating in attempted coup following his 2022 electoral defeat. Brazilian institutions—particularly judiciary—held firm, prosecuting coup plotters and sentencing Bolsonaro to over twenty-seven years in prison. Brazilian civil society maintained mobilization pressure, preventing normalization of antidemocratic behavior. Democratic resilience required coordination across multiple pillars: independent courts, opposition parties, civil society organizations, and crucially, military leadership rejecting coup participation.
South Korea's December 2024 response to President Yoon Suk Yeol's martial law declaration exemplifies rapid, effective resistance. When Yoon attempted authoritarian power grab, National Assembly members, citizens, and journalists immediately mobilized resistance. Parliamentary action to rescind martial law, combined with mass street protests and military refusal to suppress civilians, reversed attempted coup within hours. South Korea demonstrates that swift, coordinated, multi-institutional resistance can prevent authoritarian consolidation even when executive attempts sudden power seizure.
These cases reveal common patterns. Successful resistance requires opposition unity around democratic defense, transcending partisan and policy disagreements. Civil society mobilization must be sustained rather than episodic. International support and delegitimization of authoritarian measures impose costs on regime leaders. Crucially, successful resistance exploits divisions within authoritarian coalitions, particularly security forces and business elites whose support proves conditional on regime stability and legitimacy.
Strategic Framework: The Democracy Playbook
Systematic analysis of democratic defense identifies seven pillars essential to resisting backsliding. First, rule of law protection through vigorous judicial resistance to authoritarian measures. Courts serve as crucial bulwark, requiring aggressive litigation strategies, judge protection from political retaliation, and legal community mobilization. American legal infrastructure—large bar associations, public interest law firms, law school clinics, pro bono representation—provides resources that autocracies typically lack.
Second, election protection through defending voting access, preventing manipulation, and ensuring legitimate vote counting. This requires mobilizing election officials, training poll workers and observers, preparing legal challenges to suppression measures, and creating redundant verification systems. Decentralization of American election administration complicates authoritarian capture but requires coordinated defense across thousands of jurisdictions.
Third, corruption exposure through investigating financial malfeasance, publicizing conflicts of interest, and prosecuting criminal conduct. Trump's business empire and family enrichment create abundant corruption vectors. Strategic investigations, whistleblower protections, and media exposure impose reputational and legal costs that constrain authoritarian behavior.
Fourth, civic and media space defense through protecting journalists, supporting independent media, and maintaining nonprofit organizational capacity. Digital platforms, while problematic, enable information distribution that authoritarian-captured traditional media cannot fully suppress. International journalism partnerships provide additional resilience.
Fifth, civil society mobilization through sustained protest, strategic litigation, community organizing, and mutual aid networks. Nonviolent resistance requires organization, planning, and tactical diversity rather than spontaneous reaction. Movement infrastructure—training programs, legal support networks, communication systems—enables sustained resistance rather than episodic outbursts.
Sixth, business and economic resistance through corporate opposition to authoritarian measures, investor pressure, and strategic boycotts. Economic elites' conditional support for authoritarianism creates leverage; business interests in stability, international markets, and talent retention can be mobilized against measures threatening these priorities.
Seventh, international pressure through diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and alliance formation with democratic governments. American exceptionalism runs both ways: the United States' centrality to global economy and security architecture means democratic backsliding threatens international interests, generating external opposition that domestic authoritarians cannot ignore.
Tactical Imperatives for the 2026-2028 Period
The baseline scenario for 2026 anticipates escalation: more assertions of presidential immunity from law, additional National Guard deployments to Democrat-controlled cities, intensified gerrymandering to rig Congressional elections, Trump contesting any election his candidates lose while claiming fraud, attempts to seat stooge Congress by excluding duly elected Democrats, Employment of National Guard and potentially Insurrection Act deployment of regular troops to suppress protests, assumption that regular military will not intervene. Each element requires specific countermeasures.
Presidential immunity claims require relentless litigation in state and federal courts, distinguishing official from unofficial acts, pursuing criminal prosecutions in state courts beyond federal pardon power, and maintaining public pressure through investigative journalism and congressional inquiry. Trump's immunity claims fail when confronted with specific criminal acts unrelated to legitimate presidential functions—personal business fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud United States.
National Guard deployments trigger state resistance from governors and National Guard leadership, federal court challenges to illegal deployment orders, community organizing to document and publicize violence against civilians, international media coverage, and congressional investigation and funding restrictions. Posse Comitatus Act violations provide clear legal grounds for challenging military law enforcement activity.
Gerrymandering and election manipulation demand state-level litigation under state constitutions, independent redistricting commission initiatives, voter registration and turnout mobilization to overcome manipulation, poll observer training and election official protection, prepared rapid-response legal teams for election day challenges, and international election monitoring to document fraud.
Contesting legitimate election results requires pre-positioned legal strategies, election official training to resist pressure, state government commitment to certifying actual results, immediate federal court intervention when certification refused, and mass mobilization to defend democratic outcomes. January 6th precedent demonstrates need for advance preparation and security coordination to prevent violent disruption.
Attempts to seat illegitimate Congress face constitutional provisions for each chamber judging qualifications of its members, federal court jurisdiction over civil rights violations, international delegitimization of illegitimate government, and practical impossibility of governing with contested legitimacy. Alternative Congress sessions, parallel committee structures, and international recognition of legitimate members provide resistance mechanisms.
Insurrection Act deployment represents most serious threat, requiring military leadership assertion of constitutional authority, state government resistance, massive civil disobedience to demonstrate deployment's illegitimacy, international pressure and potential sanctions, and congressional action to restrict or rescind authorization. Military refusal to fire on peaceful protesters remains most likely outcome given institutional culture and legal constraints.
Building Resistant Infrastructure Now
Effective resistance requires advance preparation rather than reactive scrambling. Opposition forces should immediately establish several institutional capacities. Legal defense networks coordinating across jurisdictions, sharing strategies, pre-positioning challenges, and providing rapid-response capacity. These networks should include criminal defense for arrested protesters, civil rights litigation against rights violations, administrative law challenges to illegal regulations, and strategic impact litigation targeting systemic abuses.
Communication infrastructure resistant to censorship or suppression. While social media platforms face capture or manipulation, distributed alternatives—encrypted messaging, independent servers, international partnerships—provide resilience. Local and community media deserve investment as national media prove vulnerable to either capture or intimidation.
Mutual aid networks providing material support for resistance participants. Sustained mobilization requires addressing participants' practical needs—childcare, transportation, housing, medical care, legal support, employment protection. Historical movements succeeded when infrastructure enabled working-class participation despite economic constraints.
International solidarity networks publicizing American democratic crisis, imposing reputational costs on collaborators with authoritarianism, maintaining foreign investment in American democracy, and preparing sanctions or other pressures should domestic resistance prove insufficient. Democratic allies possess interests in American democratic stability that can be mobilized for pressure on authoritarian measures.
Political organizing infrastructure preparing for 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Voter registration, particularly in contested jurisdictions. Candidate recruitment and training. Fundraising networks independent of corporate capture. Field operations capable of sustained voter contact. Opposition research documenting Trump administration failures, corruption, and unpopular policies.
Issue-specific coalitions uniting around particular threats. Healthcare professionals mobilizing against Medicare/Medicaid cuts. Education communities resisting Department of Education elimination. Environmental organizations documenting regulatory rollback consequences. Labor unions protecting worker rights and organizing strikes. Civil rights organizations litigating discrimination. Faith communities asserting moral authority against cruelty and injustice. Each constituency brings resources, expertise, and legitimacy that broad pro-democracy movement alone cannot provide.
The Psychology of Resistance: Overcoming Learned Helplessness
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to effective resistance is psychological rather than structural. Defeatism, disguised as sophisticated analysis, saps mobilization energy. Commentators cataloging Trump's advantages while ignoring his vulnerabilities produce learned helplessness among would-be resisters. This serves authoritarian interests more effectively than direct suppression; populations that believe resistance is futile do not resist.
Historical perspective provides antidote to defeatism. Every major democratic advance—abolition, suffrage, civil rights, labor rights—faced predictions of impossibility from sophisticated observers citing structural barriers. Abolitionists confronted constitutional protections for slavery, Supreme Court decisions endorsing property rights in human beings, and economic arguments about cotton economy dependence. Suffragists faced centuries of patriarchal political theory, religious doctrine subordinating women, and practical political opposition from entrenched male interests. Civil rights activists confronted Jim Crow legal architecture, violent white supremacist resistance, and federal government complicity. Labor organizers faced private armies, judicial injunctions, and state violence. Each movement succeeded despite structural obstacles through sustained organizing, strategic action, and refusal to accept defeat as inevitable.
Contemporary resistance to authoritarianism globally demonstrates that populations facing far greater repression than Americans currently experience nevertheless mount effective opposition. Hong Kong protesters confronting Chinese Communist Party apparatus. Iranian women resisting theocratic dictatorship. Russian opposition to Putin regime. Myanmar resistance to military coup. Venezuelan opposition to Maduro. These movements operate under conditions of surveillance, imprisonment, torture, and extrajudicial killing that far exceed American circumstances. Their persistence—even when unsuccessful in immediate terms—demonstrates human capacity for resistance under conditions vastly more hostile than those Americans face.
American advantages for resistance—constitutional protections, federal system, civil society density, economic power, international scrutiny—exceed those available to most populations resisting authoritarianism. The defeatist posture among American commentators reflects privilege rather than realism; populations with far less to work with nevertheless resist. American failure to mount effective resistance would represent choice rather than impossibility.
The Moral Imperative of Resistance
Beyond strategic calculation of success probability lies moral obligation to resist authoritarianism regardless of outcome certainty. Democratic citizenship entails responsibility for collective self-governance. Passive acceptance of authoritarian rule, even when resistance seems difficult, abandons this responsibility. Historical judgment falls harshly on populations that acquiesced to authoritarian consolidation without sustained opposition.
German intellectuals and professionals who accommodated Nazi regime, rationalizing that resistance would prove futile and accommodation would preserve influence, face historical condemnation even when their pessimistic strategic assessments proved accurate. French collaboration during Vichy period—often justified through sophisticated arguments about preserving French sovereignty and culture—stains reputations permanently. Eastern European intellectuals who made peace with Communist regimes, however understandable given circumstances, bear moral taint that active resisters, even unsuccessful ones, escaped.
Resistance possesses intrinsic value beyond instrumental success. It maintains human dignity, preserves memory of freedom for future generations, provides historical record of opposition, and imposes moral costs on authoritarians that pure acquiescence does not. Populations that resist, even unsuccessfully, demonstrate to future generations that freedom was valued and fought for. This matters for eventual democratic recovery, whenever it comes.
Moreover, resistance outcomes remain genuinely uncertain. Authoritarian consolidation appears inevitable only in retrospect; contemporaries face radical uncertainty about future possibilities. Strategic pessimism, while intellectually sophisticated, often proves wrong. Movements that "should" fail sometimes succeed; regimes that appear invincible collapse suddenly. Political scientists remain poor at predicting discontinuous change—revolutions, democratic transitions, regime collapse. Given this irreducible uncertainty, moral obligation to resist provides surer guide than strategic calculation of probability.
Conclusion: Between Optimism and Defeatism
This analysis does not counsel naïve optimism that resistance will easily succeed or that Trump's authoritarian project will simply collapse. Democratic backsliding in America has proceeded further than most observers acknowledged, structural obstacles to restoration remain formidable, and Trump's second administration pursues systematic transformation more dangerous than first-term chaos. Pretending otherwise serves no one.
But defeatism equally distorts reality. Trump faces genuine constraints: institutional resistance, popular opposition, personal limitations, temporal bounds, successor inadequacy, and international pressure. Historical and comparative evidence demonstrates that even advanced authoritarian consolidation can be reversed through strategic resistance. Nonviolent civil resistance succeeds at rates far higher than conventional pessimism suggests. Recent democratic recoveries in Poland, Brazil, and South Korea demonstrate that backsliding, while serious, remains reversible.
The question is not whether resistance is possible—it demonstrably is—but whether Americans will mount the sustained, strategic, coordinated opposition required. This requires moving beyond reactive protest to build durable resistance infrastructure: legal networks, communication systems, mutual aid, international solidarity, issue coalitions, and political organizing. It requires opposition unity around democratic defense, setting aside policy disagreements to focus on existential threat. It requires learning from successful resistance movements globally while adapting strategies to American context.
Most fundamentally, it requires rejecting learned helplessness disguised as realism. The barriers to effective resistance are real but not insurmountable. Trump's weaknesses—his cowardice when confronted, his mortality, his inability to transfer charisma, his transactional rather than ideological orientation—create opportunities for strategic exploitation. The 2026 midterms provide concrete inflection point. The 2028 presidential election offers definitive democratic decision point.
Between now and 2028, every day matters. Courts need litigators mounting challenges. Streets need protesters maintaining pressure. Communities need organizers building power. Workers need unions protecting rights. Voters need registration and mobilization. The stakes could not be higher: the continued existence of American democracy as meaningful form of self-governance. History will judge this generation by whether it rose to defend what was inherited or acquiesced to its destruction. The choice remains open. Resistance is possible. The question is whether it will be attempted with the seriousness, strategic sophistication, and sustained commitment that success requires. The answer remains to be written.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
