As noted in a previous article, Trump is attempting to reshape the United States into a more centralized, economically protectionist, and socially conservative nation. On the international stage, he seeks to revise geopolitical balances unilaterally and aggressively, envisioning a world where the three major armed powers — the United States, China, and Russia — carve up strategic territories based on their national interests. His approach intensifies internal polarization, risking protests and clashes within institutions, and damages relations with traditional allies, leading to a more fragmented and unstable global landscape.

If Trump were to cut welfare while the economy slips into a recession and inflation results from his protectionist policies, the situation would worsen. This could potentially lead the United States into an unprecedented social and political crisis, as we discussed in another article.

Trump could seize the opportunity presented by the likely economic and social collapse to consolidate his power in an authoritarian manner. The probable scenario is that he would leverage social chaos, economic instability, and public insecurity to justify centralizing authority and shifting toward an authoritarian regime in the United States. The escalation of multiple crises — including welfare cuts, tariffs, inflation, layoffs, recession, and protests — could provide him with the perfect chance to expand presidential authority under the guise of protecting the nation from collapse.

The first step could be declaring a state of emergency

Trump might use mass protests, social unrest, and rising crime as reasons to declare a national emergency. This would give him the authority to bypass Congress and govern by executive orders. He could also temporarily suspend civil rights, such as the right to protest or freedom of the press, as happened with the Patriot Act after the 9/11 attacks.

The second step might involve militarizing society

Trump could send the National Guard and the Army into cities to quash protests and strikes. He could also use federal security agencies — such as the FBI, DOJ, and Homeland Security — to investigate, intimidate, or detain opposition leaders. Additionally, he could advocate for new laws that criminalize mass protests, making it easier to arrest activists and dissidents.

The third step might involve controlling the judicial system

Trump could appoint highly loyal judges to federal courts to secure his legal protection. He could discredit the Supreme Court or bypass it using executive orders, claiming it is part of the Deep State. He might also expand the DOJ’s authority to prosecute political opponents, journalists, and critics.

The fourth step might involve attacking the electoral system

Trump could influence elections by implementing new voting restrictions, closing polling stations in Democratic-leaning districts, and passing laws that make it harder for minorities and young people to vote. He could attempt to control the presidential electors, urging Republican states to appoint representatives favorable to him, even if he loses the popular vote, as he did in 2020. He might also declare the elections “rigged” and refuse to relinquish power in 2028.

The fifth step might involve using propaganda and censorship

Trump could target independent media, accusing them of spreading fake news, and promote only pro-Trump outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN. He could ramp up digital surveillance, justifying it as necessary for national security. He might also foster an atmosphere of constant fear, encouraging the population to support repressive measures to maintain stability.

What Could Prevent This Authoritarian Turn?

Despite the risks of an authoritarian shift, there are significant obstacles that could prevent Trump from becoming a true “strongman” in the style of Putin or Orbán.

First, the resistance from Democratic governors. States like California, New York, Illinois, and Washington could refuse to enforce federal repressive measures. Federal agencies might legally challenge the president’s executive orders. Governors could push for greater economic and political autonomy. All of this is already happening to some extent.

Some high-ranking military officials might oppose excessive use of the army to suppress protests. The FBI and CIA could be divided between pro-Trump agents and those who view his administration as a threat to the Constitution. However, if Trump manages to purge the hierarchies and replace leaders with loyalists, he could gain complete control of these agencies.

The population’s reaction also needs to be taken into account. Progressive movements, such as Black Lives Matter, the Democratic Socialists of America, and the Sunrise Movement, could organize large protests against the authoritarian shift. Workers and unions might lead waves of national strikes and boycotts against Trump’s policies. A potential radicalization of the left could lead to clashes between protesters and armed far-right groups.

Finally, the Supreme Court could serve as a “resistant” institution. Although the Court has a conservative majority, some justices might oppose an excessive power grab. Ultimately, a potential legal clash between the Supreme Court and the Presidency could lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

Three Possible Scenarios

Depending on how the population, Congress, and institutions respond, the future could unfold in various ways.

A primary and likely scenario involves soft authoritarianism.

Trump would strengthen his power via repressive laws, control of information, and electoral interference. Still, he would keep a formally democratic system, though it would increasingly favor the executive branch. His response to deep polarization could result in an illiberal democracy similar to Hungary’s.

A second scenario involves institutional response and impeachment.

This would occur if protests and political resistance are so intense that Congress or the Supreme Court can prevent the authoritarian crisis. Trump might be impeached or forced to step back, but the institutional damage would still be significant. The United States would remain unstable, with a clear divide between red and blue states.

A third scenario involves a complete political crisis and potential federal collapse.

If Democratic states openly rebelled against federal policies, a political divide could form between red and blue states. This could trigger an unprecedented constitutional crisis, with some states threatening their political or economic independence. Separatist movements might gain traction, pushing the U.S. toward a kind of “cold civil war” or even the breakup of the federal system.

In conclusion, Trump could potentially exploit chaos to consolidate his power and erode democratic institutions.

If he combined cuts to social programs with an economic crisis and the suppression of protests, he could create the conditions for an authoritarian shift in the United States. However, his success would depend on several factors. If Republicans in Congress supported him, his chances would increase. Conversely, if the protests grew large, his chances would decrease. Additionally, if senior military leaders and institutions supported him, American democracy would be at serious risk.

In any of the three scenarios, the United States might enter the most perilous phase of its modern history, facing a real risk of authoritarian shift or a major institutional crisis.

This would have a global impact, resulting in serious repercussions. There would be a decline in the already weakening U.S. dominance. If the United States were to experience a prolonged period of chaos, it might lose its status as a global superpower. China and Russia could capitalize on the chaos to expand their influence. Western allies may reduce their reliance on the U.S., accelerating the fragmentation of the Western bloc. Internal separatist tensions could rise, with states like California possibly pursuing economic independence or even secession, as I discussed in a previous article.

Bibliography

Applebaum, Anne. Twilight of Democracy. New York: Doubleday, 2020.

Benkler, Yochai, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts. Network Propaganda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Blanchard, Olivier. Macroeconomics. 8th ed. Pearson, 2021.

Brennan Center for Justice. “Emergency Powers” (overview, 2022); “Voting Laws Roundup” (2024).

Bown, Chad P. “The 2018–2019 Trade War.” Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper, 2020.

Daly, Tom. Democratic Decay: Constitutional Responses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. Review of Allegations of Politicized Activities, 2023.

Feaver, Peter. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Gellman, Barton. “Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun.” The Atlantic, December 2021.

Ginsburg, Tom, and Aziz Z. Huq. How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.

Goldsmith, Jack. “Executive Power and Its Limits.” Harvard Law Review 134, no. 2 (2021): 341–378.

Human Rights Watch. Protest Rights Under Threat in the US, 2023.

Ikenberry, G. John. A World Safe for Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020.

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018.

Marche, Stephen. The Next Civil War. New York: Avid Reader Press, 2022.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014.

National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1651.

USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107–56 (2001).

Urbinati, Nadia. Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019.

Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs, 2019.