Analysing modern authoritarianism - A case study of Donald Trump's USA
|
This lesson explains how authoritarian regimes come to power, consolidate power and use that power.
This webpage was first published in January 2025. I expect to be updating it in real time over the next four years. |
1. The emergence of authoritarian states
“History is the record of an encounter between character and circumstances.” — Donald Creighton, Canadian historian (1902-79).
A satisfactory (sociological) distinction can be made for the emergence of authoritarian states in dividing between between structural factors and the role of human agency.
A satisfactory (sociological) distinction can be made for the emergence of authoritarian states in dividing between between structural factors and the role of human agency.
|
|
|
Structural Factors
Structural factors refer to the context that makes the rise to power of an authoritarian state more likely. Put simply, authoritarian regimes are unusual in countries that are rich, socially stable and that have a tradition of constitutionally limited, civilian government. If they do emerge in these sorts of countries, it is usually the result of a crisis situation, brought about by external factors such as war or international economic crisis.
Are there structural factors that make the rise of authoritarianism possible in the USA today?
Politically, the U.S. faces a legitimation crisis, defined by declining public trust in institutions. Confidence in Congress, the judiciary, and the presidency has plummeted. Electoral integrity has been repeatedly challenged, especially after the 2020 election, with a significant portion of the population believing it was stolen. This erosion of legitimacy undermines the very idea of democratic authority. Economically, growing inequality and precarity have left large swathes of the population feeling abandoned. The richest 1 percent of Americans now has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. The only other country with similarly high levels of wealth concentration is Russia, another oligarchy. The collapse of union power, stagnating wages, and skyrocketing living costs have increased the appeal of populist rhetoric that blames globalism, immigrants, or elites. Such conditions historically favour the rise of leaders who promise order and protection from a failing system. Socially, the U.S. is now starkly divided along racial, religious, and urban-rural lines. The rise of political violence, hate crimes, and militia activity reflects the breakdown of a shared civic identity. When trust between groups erodes, citizens become more likely to accept authoritarian measures as necessary to “restore order.” Culturally, there has been a shift from a participant political culture—where citizens actively engage with democratic processes—to a more subject or parochial culture, marked by apathy, alienation, or blind loyalty. Social media and cable news have fragmented the public sphere, replacing informed discourse with echo chambers, conspiracy thinking and literally 'culture wars'. These trends align closely with historical cultural conditions that facilitated authoritarianism in the 20th century.
Conclusion - The U.S. does not entirely fit the structural model for authoritarian takeover. Traditional authoritarian regimes often emerge in failed or fragile states—poor, war-torn, or newly decolonized—with weak institutions and no democratic tradition. In contrast, the U.S. is wealthy, long-established, and has a strong constitutional framework. Its institutions—though under strain—still function: courts rule independently, elections continue, and civil society remains active. Structural factors like inequality and polarization exist, but without full state collapse or civil war. Unlike Weimar Germany or post-Tsarist Russia, the U.S. is not a failed state—it is a democracy under stress, not one in structural freefall.
Structural factors refer to the context that makes the rise to power of an authoritarian state more likely. Put simply, authoritarian regimes are unusual in countries that are rich, socially stable and that have a tradition of constitutionally limited, civilian government. If they do emerge in these sorts of countries, it is usually the result of a crisis situation, brought about by external factors such as war or international economic crisis.
Are there structural factors that make the rise of authoritarianism possible in the USA today?
Politically, the U.S. faces a legitimation crisis, defined by declining public trust in institutions. Confidence in Congress, the judiciary, and the presidency has plummeted. Electoral integrity has been repeatedly challenged, especially after the 2020 election, with a significant portion of the population believing it was stolen. This erosion of legitimacy undermines the very idea of democratic authority. Economically, growing inequality and precarity have left large swathes of the population feeling abandoned. The richest 1 percent of Americans now has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. The only other country with similarly high levels of wealth concentration is Russia, another oligarchy. The collapse of union power, stagnating wages, and skyrocketing living costs have increased the appeal of populist rhetoric that blames globalism, immigrants, or elites. Such conditions historically favour the rise of leaders who promise order and protection from a failing system. Socially, the U.S. is now starkly divided along racial, religious, and urban-rural lines. The rise of political violence, hate crimes, and militia activity reflects the breakdown of a shared civic identity. When trust between groups erodes, citizens become more likely to accept authoritarian measures as necessary to “restore order.” Culturally, there has been a shift from a participant political culture—where citizens actively engage with democratic processes—to a more subject or parochial culture, marked by apathy, alienation, or blind loyalty. Social media and cable news have fragmented the public sphere, replacing informed discourse with echo chambers, conspiracy thinking and literally 'culture wars'. These trends align closely with historical cultural conditions that facilitated authoritarianism in the 20th century.
Conclusion - The U.S. does not entirely fit the structural model for authoritarian takeover. Traditional authoritarian regimes often emerge in failed or fragile states—poor, war-torn, or newly decolonized—with weak institutions and no democratic tradition. In contrast, the U.S. is wealthy, long-established, and has a strong constitutional framework. Its institutions—though under strain—still function: courts rule independently, elections continue, and civil society remains active. Structural factors like inequality and polarization exist, but without full state collapse or civil war. Unlike Weimar Germany or post-Tsarist Russia, the U.S. is not a failed state—it is a democracy under stress, not one in structural freefall.
Legitimation crisis refers to a decline in the confidence of state institutions or leadership. People no longer feel that the state is capable doing what it is supposed to do: to protect and respect the interests of the citizens. As a consequence, the state loses is authority. The term was first introduced in 1973 by Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Example from history.
In the example of the Provisional Government in Russia in 1917 we have one of the best examples of a failed state. It not only lacked the legitimacy that might have been derived from popular election, it was also forced to share its authority with workers’ and soldiers’ councils (soviets) which did enjoy popular support and which under the leadership of the Bolsheviks brought the provisional state formation of Russia to an ignominious end in October 1917. What is essential to building a sustainable democracy is not so much a democratic tradition, but rather the mere existence of reliable governmental institutions themselves.
In the example of the Provisional Government in Russia in 1917 we have one of the best examples of a failed state. It not only lacked the legitimacy that might have been derived from popular election, it was also forced to share its authority with workers’ and soldiers’ councils (soviets) which did enjoy popular support and which under the leadership of the Bolsheviks brought the provisional state formation of Russia to an ignominious end in October 1917. What is essential to building a sustainable democracy is not so much a democratic tradition, but rather the mere existence of reliable governmental institutions themselves.
Human Agency - “Never let a good crisis go to waste” Machiavelli
Have Trump and his supporters come to power using methods that are typical of authoritarian states?
Have Trump and his supporters come to power using methods that are typical of authoritarian states?
|
This second theme encourages us to consider the methods employed by the historical participants in order to establish an authoritarian regime.
We can use a Shakespearean metaphor to help us make sense of this distinction. If the structural factors are the stage, directions, costumes and script, then agency refers to the performance of the actors on that stage. In brief, a lot, but not everything maybe determined elsewhere, but people, real historical actors can and do make a difference. |
|
|
|
As Marx put it, 'men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.' The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852
Coercion, persuasion and consent is a model that is again useful here. When an authoritarian regime comes to power through coercion, it means that force has been used against those who oppose regime change. Persuasive methods refer to efforts made to influence public opinion in favour of the authoritarian regime. Consent simply means people want authoitarian rule.
|
While Trump’s rise was not initiated by violence, he normalized coercive rhetoric and tactics. As a candidate, he encouraged violence at rallies, praised dictators, and floated illegal policies (e.g., killing terrorists’ families). The most dramatic moment came on January 6, 2021, when Trump incited supporters to storm the Capitol—an unprecedented use of populist coercion against democratic institutions. Trump’s dominance was built on persuasion and a mastery of populist propaganda. He bypassed traditional media by using Twitter (now X) to create a direct, emotionally charged connection with supporters. His language was simple, divisive, and repetitive: “Fake news,” “America First,” “Witch hunt.” He reframed political conflict as a culture war, casting himself as the sole protector of “real Americans.” His use of rallies, memes, and slogans fused politics with entertainment, creating a charismatic identity cult. Trump also co-opted the Republican Party and reshaped right-wing media (Fox News) into an echo chamber. Many citizens consented explicitly, believing Trump would restore national pride, economic stability, or cultural dominance. Others offered implicit consent: tolerating Trump’s authoritarian tendencies in exchange for tax cuts, deregulation, or conservative judicial appointments (and a promise to end legal abortion). Even after his 2020 loss, Trump maintained influence over a vast base, many of whom now believe elections are rigged and democracy has failed. This consent is emotional, tribal, and identity-based—a powerful foundation for further authoritarian consolidation.
Conclusion - Trump’s rise does not fully match the classic agency model of authoritarianism. Unlike historical regimes with disciplined revolutionary parties and paramilitary arms (e.g., the Nazi SA), Trump lacked a centralized movement. Groups like the Proud Boys acted independently and without legal or military authority. His ascent came through elections, not violent overthrow, and his ideology is incoherent compared to Leninism or fascism. Crucially, U.S. institutions—courts, media, and state governments—continued to resist authoritarian drift. Trumpism reflects populist manipulation and democratic erosion, not a coordinated revolutionary seizure of power. It is authoritarianism through democracy, not authoritarianism by coup.
Conclusion - Trump’s rise does not fully match the classic agency model of authoritarianism. Unlike historical regimes with disciplined revolutionary parties and paramilitary arms (e.g., the Nazi SA), Trump lacked a centralized movement. Groups like the Proud Boys acted independently and without legal or military authority. His ascent came through elections, not violent overthrow, and his ideology is incoherent compared to Leninism or fascism. Crucially, U.S. institutions—courts, media, and state governments—continued to resist authoritarian drift. Trumpism reflects populist manipulation and democratic erosion, not a coordinated revolutionary seizure of power. It is authoritarianism through democracy, not authoritarianism by coup.
|
|
Example from history.
Mussolini’s rise to power shows the importance of agency in authoritarian takeovers. He exploited Italy’s post-WWI crisis through organized violence, using the Blackshirts to attack socialists and intimidate opponents. His propaganda portrayed fascism as a movement of national renewal, appealing to elites and the middle class. Crucially, Mussolini gained consent from the monarchy and political establishment, who feared socialism more than fascism and believed they could control him. The March on Rome was more theatrical than military, but Mussolini’s boldness forced the king’s hand. His rise was not structurally inevitable—it was achieved through deliberate, strategic human action.
Mussolini’s rise to power shows the importance of agency in authoritarian takeovers. He exploited Italy’s post-WWI crisis through organized violence, using the Blackshirts to attack socialists and intimidate opponents. His propaganda portrayed fascism as a movement of national renewal, appealing to elites and the middle class. Crucially, Mussolini gained consent from the monarchy and political establishment, who feared socialism more than fascism and believed they could control him. The March on Rome was more theatrical than military, but Mussolini’s boldness forced the king’s hand. His rise was not structurally inevitable—it was achieved through deliberate, strategic human action.
2. The consolidation and maintainenance of power in authoritarian states.
Having got into power, what does an authoritarian regime do next? The next two sections address this question in overlapping ways. This first section deals with how the state reinforces, extends and maintains its newly acquired power. The second section will deal with how and why this power is used to transform the country. It is important that from the beginning you appreciate how power and policy are interrelated. For example, as we saw in the earlier case of Lenin's Russia, an authoritarian regime may have an extensive system of police surveillance and prison camps (coercion), but it is still unlikely to stay in power for long if the policies it introduces are deeply unpopular or ineffective (importance of consent).
This section - written in May 2025 - is responding to events as they unfold. Whilst referring back to the first Trump administration it is much more concerned with how the second Trump administration is extending authoritarian control in ways that are unprecedented in American history.
This section - written in May 2025 - is responding to events as they unfold. Whilst referring back to the first Trump administration it is much more concerned with how the second Trump administration is extending authoritarian control in ways that are unprecedented in American history.
Coercion - Formal Social Control
Is Trump using authoritarian methods to consolidate his power?
Is Trump using authoritarian methods to consolidate his power?
|
a. Coercive Legal Methods - Important during consolidation ‘It has to look democratic, but we must have everything in our hands.’ Walter Ulbricht, later East-German Head of State, 1945. New authoritarian laws In a dictatorship there is no real separation of powers, no independent judiciary or Supreme Court which can strike down legislation as unconstitutional. |
|
Laws might effectively be imposed by decree or a semi-martial law might be imposed, and they are an important example of formal control. The right to express political opinions, to enjoy freedom of religion and the right to privacy are all curtailed in authoritarian regimes. But it is the absence of the rule of law that is the most significant characteristic of an authoritarian state. The individual might be arrested and held for an indefinite period of time, without access to a lawyer and without having enjoyed a fair trial. Habeas corpus is a legal principle that protects individuals from unlawful detention. It gives people the right to challenge their imprisonment before a judge. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants without due process and pushed for the suspension of habeas corpus. Executive orders have redefined gender rights and curtailed protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. A 2024 Supreme Court ruling granting presidential immunity further emboldened unilateral action. Other notable authoritarian legal tendencies can be seen in the attack on traditional media outlets and universities which traditionally act as independent check on the executive. The administration has targeted media outlets, restructuring Voice of America and cutting funding to NPR and PBS, raising concerns about press freedom. Academic institutions have faced federal threats over campus policies, putting academic freedom at risk.
|
|
|
|
New authoritarian institutions - the dual state
The process of consolidation varies from state to state, but in general terms, authoritarian consolidation means gradually replacing of the old ‘normative’ state with the new authoritarian ‘prerogative’ state. The new institutions of the prerogative state are defined by their extra-legal status, the fact that would lack any authority in a normative state. |
Ernst Fraenkel’s - Normative and prerogative state - The dual state
|
Since 2025, President Trump has taken steps that show a shift toward authoritarian control. Schedule F allows the president to fire many government workers and replace them with loyal supporters. This removes people who might say no to Trump's orders. DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), led by Elon Musk, has been cutting jobs and using new technology to control how government works—without any real public oversight. ICE, the immigration agency, has been given more power to arrest and deport people, and there are plans to take away their right to a fair trial. Taken together these changes weaken the rules that normally limit government power.
|
|
|
New authoritarian people - the power of patronage
As well changing the laws and the institutions that exercise power, the final aspect of the legal methods employed by authoritarian states is the ability to control the type of people who will exercise power in the state. This gradual process is true of both the normative and prerogative state and is one of the defining characteristics of all authoritarian regimes. Controlling who can exercise authority allows the state to reward loyalty and punish dissent. Individuals are not appointed or promoted because of their ability alone, but because of their ideological suitability. Individual appointments require loyalty to the state; judges, police commissioners and civil servants will on a daily basis reinforce the political and ideological prejudices of the regime. Once these suitable individuals are appointed, they have a profoundly vested interest in supporting the regime. Patronage, therefore, becomes a means of not only consolidating authoritarian rule, it also becomes essential to its long-term maintenance.
In Trump’s second term, it’s much clearer that many top government jobs are going to people chosen for their loyalty to Trump rather than their experience or qualifications. This includes judges, advisors, department heads, and even intelligence officials. With Schedule F, thousands of civil servants who are meant to be neutral can now be fired and replaced with Trump loyalists. This creates a government that doesn’t just follow laws—it follows the president’s personal agenda (in Nazi Germany this was known as the Führerprinzip). When people in power are picked for loyalty instead of ability, it becomes harder for anyone inside the system to resist or challenge bad decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
b. Coercive Force - Important during consolidation and maintenance
“The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But we don’t ask for their love; only for their fear.” - Heinrich Himmler
“The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But we don’t ask for their love; only for their fear.” - Heinrich Himmler
This is what we most associate with authoritarian states. Secret police are covert agencies used by authoritarian regimes to silence political enemies. Famous examples include the Gestapo, KGB, and Stasi. These forces act outside the law, using surveillance, arrest, torture, and even murder—often without trials or real crimes. Surveillance is key to control. Privacy is essential to freedom—when people feel watched, they self-censor. In authoritarian states, privacy is treated like secrecy, and citizens are encouraged to spy on one another. Punishment in authoritarian regimes targets political threats, not just criminals. People can be jailed or tortured without breaking laws. Unlike democracies, human rights often don’t apply.
While the U.S. has no formal secret police, in 2020, Trump deployed federal agents in unmarked vehicles to detain protesters in Portland without clear identification or due process. These actions resembled secret police tactics, drawing widespread criticism for their lack of transparency or accountability. Trump repeatedly pushed for expanded surveillance powers, particularly targeting immigrants and protest groups. In his second term, AI surveillance tools have reportedly been introduced through DOGE, with little oversight. In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power. In June 2025, DOGE founder Elon Musk stepped down having achieved what he wanted re.surveillance, this New York Times June 2025 article explains all. Trump has also encouraged citizens to report alleged voter fraud or immigration violations, creating a culture of suspicion and self-surveillance. Trump called for investigations or arrests of opponents like Hillary Clinton (“Lock her up”), journalists, and even former officials like Anthony Fauci. In 2025, pardoning January 6 rioters while targeting officials investigating him shows a selective justice system, punishing critics and protecting allies.
While the U.S. has no formal secret police, in 2020, Trump deployed federal agents in unmarked vehicles to detain protesters in Portland without clear identification or due process. These actions resembled secret police tactics, drawing widespread criticism for their lack of transparency or accountability. Trump repeatedly pushed for expanded surveillance powers, particularly targeting immigrants and protest groups. In his second term, AI surveillance tools have reportedly been introduced through DOGE, with little oversight. In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power. In June 2025, DOGE founder Elon Musk stepped down having achieved what he wanted re.surveillance, this New York Times June 2025 article explains all. Trump has also encouraged citizens to report alleged voter fraud or immigration violations, creating a culture of suspicion and self-surveillance. Trump called for investigations or arrests of opponents like Hillary Clinton (“Lock her up”), journalists, and even former officials like Anthony Fauci. In 2025, pardoning January 6 rioters while targeting officials investigating him shows a selective justice system, punishing critics and protecting allies.
|
|
|
Conclusion
Trump’s use of formal social control—through laws, policing, courts, and executive power—reveals clear authoritarian tendencies, but does not yet match the scale or severity of fully authoritarian regimes. Coercion under Trump has largely been selective and symbolic, not total and systemic. Opponents are threatened with investigation (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Anthony Fauci), while allies (e.g. January 6 rioters) are pardoned or protected. This undermines the rule of law, but does not abolish it. Agencies like ICE and DOJ have been politicised, and protests have been suppressed with force (e.g. Portland 2020), yet such actions remain irregular and contested. Unlike in classic authoritarian states, there is no widespread use of political prisons, emergency tribunals, or systematic torture. Courts still operate, (The Supreme Court is still upholding constitutional rights in May 2025) journalists are not imprisoned en masse, and opposition parties remain legal.
To become fully authoritarian, courts would be staffed entirely with loyalists, becoming tools of the executive and dissenting judges would be removed or neutralised. Peaceful protest, criticism of the government, or support for opposition parties would be reclassified as threats to national security. The government would formalise the monitoring of citizens' political views, potentially aided by AI systems like those reported under DOGE. Secret tribunals, “national security” detentions without trial, or military involvement in domestic policing would replace due process. Regular arrests, workplace purges, and public punishments would become predictable tools of discipline, not isolated events.
Trump’s use of formal social control—through laws, policing, courts, and executive power—reveals clear authoritarian tendencies, but does not yet match the scale or severity of fully authoritarian regimes. Coercion under Trump has largely been selective and symbolic, not total and systemic. Opponents are threatened with investigation (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Anthony Fauci), while allies (e.g. January 6 rioters) are pardoned or protected. This undermines the rule of law, but does not abolish it. Agencies like ICE and DOJ have been politicised, and protests have been suppressed with force (e.g. Portland 2020), yet such actions remain irregular and contested. Unlike in classic authoritarian states, there is no widespread use of political prisons, emergency tribunals, or systematic torture. Courts still operate, (The Supreme Court is still upholding constitutional rights in May 2025) journalists are not imprisoned en masse, and opposition parties remain legal.
To become fully authoritarian, courts would be staffed entirely with loyalists, becoming tools of the executive and dissenting judges would be removed or neutralised. Peaceful protest, criticism of the government, or support for opposition parties would be reclassified as threats to national security. The government would formalise the monitoring of citizens' political views, potentially aided by AI systems like those reported under DOGE. Secret tribunals, “national security” detentions without trial, or military involvement in domestic policing would replace due process. Regular arrests, workplace purges, and public punishments would become predictable tools of discipline, not isolated events.
Example from history
In Nazi Germany, the regime’s use of coercive legal methods during the consolidation of power can be clearly separated from its use of physical force. The Nazi state first established control through three key legal mechanisms. First, it introduced new authoritarian laws, most notably the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and allowed for the detention of political opponents without trial. This was followed by the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler the power to pass laws without parliamentary consent, effectively dismantling the constitutional order. Second, the Nazis created new institutions outside of the traditional legal framework, such as the People’s Courts, which delivered politically motivated verdicts, and the Gestapo, which operated beyond judicial oversight. Third, the regime purged existing legal personnel and replaced them with ideologically loyal officials, ensuring that all legal enforcement served the Nazi agenda. These formal legal methods allowed the regime to eliminate opposition while maintaining a façade of legality. In contrast, the use of physical force, such as the street violence of the SA, the Night of the Long Knives, and later the SS-led terror, represented extrajudicial coercion. Together, these legal and violent tools worked in tandem, but it was the legal transformation of the state that legitimised repression and enabled totalitarian control.
In Nazi Germany, the regime’s use of coercive legal methods during the consolidation of power can be clearly separated from its use of physical force. The Nazi state first established control through three key legal mechanisms. First, it introduced new authoritarian laws, most notably the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and allowed for the detention of political opponents without trial. This was followed by the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler the power to pass laws without parliamentary consent, effectively dismantling the constitutional order. Second, the Nazis created new institutions outside of the traditional legal framework, such as the People’s Courts, which delivered politically motivated verdicts, and the Gestapo, which operated beyond judicial oversight. Third, the regime purged existing legal personnel and replaced them with ideologically loyal officials, ensuring that all legal enforcement served the Nazi agenda. These formal legal methods allowed the regime to eliminate opposition while maintaining a façade of legality. In contrast, the use of physical force, such as the street violence of the SA, the Night of the Long Knives, and later the SS-led terror, represented extrajudicial coercion. Together, these legal and violent tools worked in tandem, but it was the legal transformation of the state that legitimised repression and enabled totalitarian control.
Persuasion - Informal Social Control
Is Trump using authoritarian methods of informal social control in order to consolidate his power?
Is Trump using authoritarian methods of informal social control in order to consolidate his power?
|
Censorship Censorship is when the state suppresses information or opinions that challenge those in power. Direct censorship involves blocking or approving content before it’s published, often by state-appointed censors. Indirect censorship, or self-censorship, is more powerful: media outlets avoid controversial topics out of fear or habit, following “unwritten rules” to avoid offending authority. This leads to safer, more conservative content and limits public debate without obvious state control. |
|
In Trump’s America, censorship has taken subtle and indirect forms, aligning more with authoritarian evasion than total control. While the First Amendment prevents outright state censorship, Trump has used public pressure, funding threats, and institutional reshaping to suppress dissenting voices. In his second inaugural address in January 2025, Trump declared that his administration would “restore free speech in America”, portraying the First Amendment as under siege by leftist ideology in universities (Harvard May 2025), government agencies, and the media. This claim formed a central pillar of his cultural agenda—but it sharply contradicts the real policies and practices his administration has advanced. (see video Trump 2.0 below) Crucially, much of the “censorship” he attacks consisted of fact-checking and content moderation—including the removal of false claims about election fraud, COVID-19, and vaccine safety. Platforms and institutions were often not suppressing opinion, but limiting the spread of demonstrable falsehoods.
In addition, the administration prioritises sympathetic outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, giving them exclusive access and influence. At the same time, critical outlets—such as CNN, NPR, and The New York Times—have been excluded from briefings, denied interviews, or attacked publicly as “fake news.” In Trump’s second term, censorship in education has focused on banning books and restricting school content on race, gender, and identity. Federal pressure and state-level laws discourage teaching “divisive” topics, promoting “patriotic history education” instead (See Matu 1 - Colonising America from earlier this term). Teachers are likely to self-censor to avoid backlash or job loss. This creates a climate where certain ideas are quietly excluded—not through total control, but through fear and political pressure, a hallmark of modern authoritarianism. See Robert Reich's June 2025 account that draws the historical parallels.
In addition, the administration prioritises sympathetic outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, giving them exclusive access and influence. At the same time, critical outlets—such as CNN, NPR, and The New York Times—have been excluded from briefings, denied interviews, or attacked publicly as “fake news.” In Trump’s second term, censorship in education has focused on banning books and restricting school content on race, gender, and identity. Federal pressure and state-level laws discourage teaching “divisive” topics, promoting “patriotic history education” instead (See Matu 1 - Colonising America from earlier this term). Teachers are likely to self-censor to avoid backlash or job loss. This creates a climate where certain ideas are quietly excluded—not through total control, but through fear and political pressure, a hallmark of modern authoritarianism. See Robert Reich's June 2025 account that draws the historical parallels.
|
|
|
|
Propaganda
Propaganda is a conscious attempt to influence the opinions of an audience (and indirectly their actions) in a way that is designed to serve the interests of those who create and spread the propaganda. Although propaganda is a cultural phenomenon - it concerned with thoughts, ideas and beliefs expressed through newspapers and radio, posters and film - propaganda is also designed to impact on political and social life, albeit indirectly.
Propaganda is a conscious attempt to influence the opinions of an audience (and indirectly their actions) in a way that is designed to serve the interests of those who create and spread the propaganda. Although propaganda is a cultural phenomenon - it concerned with thoughts, ideas and beliefs expressed through newspapers and radio, posters and film - propaganda is also designed to impact on political and social life, albeit indirectly.
In Trump’s America, propaganda functions less through state-run media and more through repetition, emotion, and identity politics. Trump uses slogans like “Make America Great Again,” “Fake News,” and “America First” to create a simple, emotional narrative that defines loyalty and frames opponents as enemies. His rallies, social media posts, and direct communications bypass traditional filters, reinforcing a personal version of reality. Pro-Trump media outlets (e.g., Fox News, OANN, Newsmax) serve as unofficial propaganda arms, echoing these messages and discrediting critics. Unlike totalitarian propaganda, which aims to transform society, Trumpist propaganda is often about evasion and distraction—keeping supporters emotionally engaged, outraged, and loyal. It promotes social division, not ideological unity, and helps sustain a movement more through identity and repetition than persuasion. This is modern, soft propaganda: less about convincing, more about mobilising and polarising.
|
In Trump’s second term, high-profile press conferences with foreign leaders have increasingly served as propaganda performances, aimed at reinforcing his domestic political narrative rather than conducting genuine diplomacy. These events are tightly controlled, with hand-picked media, symbolic staging, and foreign heads of state used to validate Trump’s worldview. In February 2025, President Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a tense Oval Office encounter that underscored a major shift in U.S. foreign policy. During the meeting, Trump publicly pressured Zelenskyy to accept a peace deal favourable to Russia, warning that the U.S. would pause military aid until Ukraine showed a willingness to “negotiate responsibly.” In May 2025, during a visit by President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, President Donald Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with unfounded claims of a "white genocide" occurring in South Africa. Trump presented videos and articles alleging systematic killings of white farmers and land seizures . However, these claims were widely debunked.
|
@Amazon.com
|
|
|
|
Charismatic leadership
|
The key concept shared with many modern authoritarian states is their tendency to encourage the growth of personality cults around ‘charismatic’ leaders. Personality cults were certainly not new in the 20th century, but the development of the mass media of popular newspapers, radio and newsreel, at the same time as the arrival of modern authoritarian states, created new opportunities for a cult of authoritarian leaders to be widely disseminated for propaganda purposes. As such, a personality cult is an example of ‘informal social control’.
The sociologist Weber wrote about the importance of 'charismatic' leadership, in 1922, the same year as Mussolini’s March on Rome brought the first example of an authoritarian charismatic leader to power. |
|
This has always been one of the most distinctive features of Trumpism. Rather than gaining legitimacy through law or tradition, Trump draws power from his personal appeal, outsider status, and ability to speak directly to the frustrations of his supporters. His style is emotional, performative, and polarising. Through rallies, social media, and populist rhetoric, he presents himself as a saviour figure—the only one who can “fix” America.
This personal connection fosters deep loyalty: supporters trust Trump more than institutions, including courts, Congress, or the media. Like past authoritarian leaders, Trump uses charisma to blur the line between himself and the state. Challenges to his authority are framed as attacks on the nation itself. This form of leadership simplifies politics into loyalty vs. betrayal, making democratic accountability harder and increasing the risk of authoritarian rule. |
Trump portrait alongside Lincoln at USDA, Washington DC. May 2025
|
Conclusion
Unlike in fully authoritarian states—where all media is state-controlled and dissent is criminalised—Trump’s censorship is indirect and selective. Public broadcasters like NPR and PBS have faced funding cuts, critical journalists are excluded from access, and there is growing pressure on schools and libraries to ban books or restrict controversial topics. In totalitarian regimes (e.g. Nazi Germany, USSR, China), censorship is comprehensive, enforced by law, and includes strict surveillance and imprisonment for dissent. In Trump’s America, resistance is still legal—but increasingly discouraged, defunded, or discredited. To become fully authoritarian, censorship in the U.S. would need to move from soft pressure to legal enforcement: formal bans on media outlets, criminalisation of dissent, and direct state control over curriculum, publications, and broadcasts.
Trump’s propaganda is modern and diffuse—spread through social media, cable networks, and cultural warfare, rather than a centralised ministry. It relies on emotional slogans, us-versus-them narratives, and symbolic performances (e.g. MAGA rallies) to reinforce loyalty. Rather than transforming ideology, it aims to polarise and dominate the narrative, turning truth into a partisan concept. In historical authoritarian regimes, propaganda sought to reshape national identity through every aspect of life—education, art, science, and the press. Trump’s propaganda stops short of this, but its speed, repetition, and identity focus show clear authoritarian traits. For the U.S. to cross into full authoritarian propaganda, it would require state coordination of media content, suppression of alternative viewpoints, and compulsory ideological education. Trump’s educational agenda (e.g. banning “woke” content and pushing patriotic history) is a step in this direction—but not yet total.
Example from history.
A key example of censorship and propaganda in the consolidation of authoritarian power is Lenin’s Russia in the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. From the outset, Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw control of information as essential to safeguarding their fragile revolutionary regime. The Decree on the Press (1917) shut down opposition newspapers, beginning a campaign of systematic censorship. By the early 1920s, all non-Bolshevik media had been eliminated, and the Glavlit, created in 1922, formally regulated all published content. At the same time, the regime developed a powerful propaganda machine known as agitprop (a contraction of “agitation” and “propaganda”). Agitprop combined mass communication with ideological education to mobilise the population in support of the Bolsheviks. It included political posters, pamphlets, theatre, film, slogans, and state-controlled newspapers like Pravda. Trains and boats known as agit-trains and agit-steamers travelled across the country distributing materials and staging performances to indoctrinate illiterate or rural populations. Propaganda focused on portraying the party as the vanguard of history and its enemies as counter-revolutionary saboteurs.
Together, censorship and agitprop eliminated alternative voices and created a revolutionary worldview. This information control laid the groundwork for a one-party state, and served as a model for later totalitarian regimes.
Unlike in fully authoritarian states—where all media is state-controlled and dissent is criminalised—Trump’s censorship is indirect and selective. Public broadcasters like NPR and PBS have faced funding cuts, critical journalists are excluded from access, and there is growing pressure on schools and libraries to ban books or restrict controversial topics. In totalitarian regimes (e.g. Nazi Germany, USSR, China), censorship is comprehensive, enforced by law, and includes strict surveillance and imprisonment for dissent. In Trump’s America, resistance is still legal—but increasingly discouraged, defunded, or discredited. To become fully authoritarian, censorship in the U.S. would need to move from soft pressure to legal enforcement: formal bans on media outlets, criminalisation of dissent, and direct state control over curriculum, publications, and broadcasts.
Trump’s propaganda is modern and diffuse—spread through social media, cable networks, and cultural warfare, rather than a centralised ministry. It relies on emotional slogans, us-versus-them narratives, and symbolic performances (e.g. MAGA rallies) to reinforce loyalty. Rather than transforming ideology, it aims to polarise and dominate the narrative, turning truth into a partisan concept. In historical authoritarian regimes, propaganda sought to reshape national identity through every aspect of life—education, art, science, and the press. Trump’s propaganda stops short of this, but its speed, repetition, and identity focus show clear authoritarian traits. For the U.S. to cross into full authoritarian propaganda, it would require state coordination of media content, suppression of alternative viewpoints, and compulsory ideological education. Trump’s educational agenda (e.g. banning “woke” content and pushing patriotic history) is a step in this direction—but not yet total.
Example from history.
A key example of censorship and propaganda in the consolidation of authoritarian power is Lenin’s Russia in the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. From the outset, Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw control of information as essential to safeguarding their fragile revolutionary regime. The Decree on the Press (1917) shut down opposition newspapers, beginning a campaign of systematic censorship. By the early 1920s, all non-Bolshevik media had been eliminated, and the Glavlit, created in 1922, formally regulated all published content. At the same time, the regime developed a powerful propaganda machine known as agitprop (a contraction of “agitation” and “propaganda”). Agitprop combined mass communication with ideological education to mobilise the population in support of the Bolsheviks. It included political posters, pamphlets, theatre, film, slogans, and state-controlled newspapers like Pravda. Trains and boats known as agit-trains and agit-steamers travelled across the country distributing materials and staging performances to indoctrinate illiterate or rural populations. Propaganda focused on portraying the party as the vanguard of history and its enemies as counter-revolutionary saboteurs.
Together, censorship and agitprop eliminated alternative voices and created a revolutionary worldview. This information control laid the groundwork for a one-party state, and served as a model for later totalitarian regimes.
3. Consent: Aims and Results of Policies in Authoritarian States.
So far, the focus has been on the authoritarian state exercising power: ‘formal’ control through coercion and force and ‘informal’ control through persuasion and propaganda. But what about when the authoritarian regime doesn’t exercise power against the public, but rather is empowered by the public to act of their behalf? This is called the consent of the governed, and as we saw earlier, it constitutes one of the three ways through which the state maintains its control over the individual. It is therefore very important when evaluating the reasons why the authoritarian state is able to maintain power that in addition to coercion and persuasion students also consider the reasons why some people may have supported the regime
Consent in authoritarian regimes
A citizen’s support for a regime (consent) can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit consent means that citizens actively support the regime through social and political participation. Implicit consent suggests a more passive role, in which citizens ‘put-up’ with the regime or lack the will to actively oppose the regime. If the regime is to be long-lasting consent in either form or both, is essential.
A citizen’s support for a regime (consent) can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit consent means that citizens actively support the regime through social and political participation. Implicit consent suggests a more passive role, in which citizens ‘put-up’ with the regime or lack the will to actively oppose the regime. If the regime is to be long-lasting consent in either form or both, is essential.
|
|
Explicit consent
Explicit consent can be generated in four ways:
|
3. Social mobility - A related means of generating explicit consent in an authoritarian regime, as in all regimes, is through encouraging social mobility. The successful authoritarian state must provide a degree of social mobility in which the powerless can move up into positions of responsibility, in return for their loyalty and support of the regime.
4. Ideological commitment. Finally, we must consider the importance of ideological incentive. These are not people who are passive victims of propaganda and indoctrination, but genuine believers.
4. Ideological commitment. Finally, we must consider the importance of ideological incentive. These are not people who are passive victims of propaganda and indoctrination, but genuine believers.
Explicit consent in Trump’s America can be seen through these four key channels. First, political engagement: Trump’s mass rallies, high voter turnout, and the ongoing energy of the MAGA movement reveal active, loyal support. For many, this is not traditional politics—it is a cause. More than one-third of registered voters identified themselves as MAGA supporters in a March 2025 NBC News poll, including 71% of Republicans.
Second, co-optation: Trump has effectively taken over the Republican Party, forcing out dissenters like Liz Cheney and rewarding loyalty with influence. Even sceptical party figures now echo his rhetoric to maintain relevance. Third, social mobility: loyalty to Trump opens doors. Media allies, conspiracy theorists, and businessmen have been elevated to powerful roles. Finally, ideological commitment: for many, MAGA is a deeply held belief, rooted not only in nationalism but in a white, Christian, nativist identity. Trump is seen as defending a “real” America under threat from immigration, secularism, and multiculturalism. This worldview fuses race, religion, and resentment into a potent loyalty, blurring the line between political support and cult-like devotion, and reinforcing Trump's personal hold on both party and nation.
|
|
|
The most important reason people accept authoritarian leadership is apathy—but this is rooted not in laziness, but in a growing sense of powerlessness and disorientation. The overwhelming speed of policy change in Trump’s second term—executive orders, civil service purges, legal crackdowns, and culture war directives—creates a sense of confusion and fatigue. In this fast-moving environment, many citizens feel unable to keep up or respond. This deliberate blitz of reform - 'flooding the zone' overwhelms attention and weakens resistance, encouraging many to tune out and withdraw. Apathy becomes a survival strategy in a system that appears unstoppable.
|
|
|
The second form of implicit consent is materialist, but not only in the economic sense. While some citizens support Trump because of tax cuts, deregulation, or job promises, many others feel that his cultural and social policies directly improve their lives. His attacks on “wokeness,” restrictions on gender and race education, and promotion of traditional values appeal to those who feel alienated by social change. For them, Trump’s authoritarian style is not a flaw but a necessary correction—a way to restore what they see as common sense, fairness, or cultural sanity. This sense of cultural reassurance translates into tolerance or support for authoritarian methods, especially when those methods target groups they perceive as privileged or dangerous
|
|
|
Finally, conformist consent emerges from social pressure. In pro-Trump communities, workplaces, and families, dissent can carry social costs—ostracism, argument, or even professional consequences. Many simply stay silent or outwardly conform to the dominant view. In this climate, the price of resistance is personal, while the reward for loyalty—or at least compliance—is peace and belonging. Over time, this pressure fosters a culture of silence and internalised obedience, even among those who privately disagree.
Conclusion
In Trump’s America, both explicit and implicit consent play crucial roles in sustaining authoritarian tendencies, but implicit consent may be the more powerful and enduring force. Explicit consent—through rallies, MAGA loyalty, and public displays of support—is highly visible and often dramatic. It legitimises Trump’s authority, fuels the cult of personality, and co-opts institutions like the Republican Party. However, it represents only a segment of the population: the most vocal and committed. Implicit consent, by contrast, is wider and quieter. It includes millions who may not fully support Trump, but who tolerate his rule out of exhaustion, perceived cultural or material benefit, or fear of social consequences. This passive acceptance allows authoritarian practices to expand beneath the surface of democratic form. As long as people feel confused, resigned, or culturally reassured, they are unlikely to resist—even when democratic norms are clearly under threat.
Conclusion
In Trump’s America, both explicit and implicit consent play crucial roles in sustaining authoritarian tendencies, but implicit consent may be the more powerful and enduring force. Explicit consent—through rallies, MAGA loyalty, and public displays of support—is highly visible and often dramatic. It legitimises Trump’s authority, fuels the cult of personality, and co-opts institutions like the Republican Party. However, it represents only a segment of the population: the most vocal and committed. Implicit consent, by contrast, is wider and quieter. It includes millions who may not fully support Trump, but who tolerate his rule out of exhaustion, perceived cultural or material benefit, or fear of social consequences. This passive acceptance allows authoritarian practices to expand beneath the surface of democratic form. As long as people feel confused, resigned, or culturally reassured, they are unlikely to resist—even when democratic norms are clearly under threat.
|
Implicit consent
We can identify three different types of passive or implicit consent: the apathetic, the materialist and the conformist. The most important reason why people accept authoritarian regimes is political ignorance and apathy. The second reason why people accept authoritarian government is because the regime is materially benefitting their lives. Some authoritarian regimes successfully address the social and political problems that brought them to power. A final way of explaining implicit consent requires a reference to sociology and social psychology. Social conformity results in individuals being reluctant to act or express views that are not consistent with group norms. The tendency to conform might be influenced by subtle, unconscious adoption of dominant group behaviour or by overt social and political pressure brought about by the regime itself. |
Conformity ‘Conformity can be defined as yielding to group pressures, something which nearly all of us do some of the time. Suppose, for example, you go with friends to see a film. You didn't think the film was very good, but all your friends thought that it was absolutely brilliant. You might be tempted to conform by pretending to agree with their verdict on the film rather than being the odd one out.’ (Eysenck, Psychology: An International Perspective, 2004) |
|
|
Economic Policies
As we saw earlier, economic factors are often fundamental causes in the rise of authoritarianism, because they help accentuate or trigger other causes such as underlying social or ethnic divisions. Consequently, resolving the economic problems which gave rise to the authoritarian state, is often a policy priority and an essential basis for generating levels of support amongst the public. Right-wing authoritarian regimes will be sympathetic to the private big business community. Their rise to power may well have been supported and funded by wealthy business elites who hope for policies that weaken organized labour and the influence of socialist parties. |
Trump’s economic agenda has consistently benefited wealthy elites, corporate backers, and key voter blocs, whilst apprwaling to small business owners and white working-class communities. This reflects a classic authoritarian strategy: material reward for loyalty. “America First” economic rhetoric underpins trade protectionism, industrial policy, and resistance to globalisation. These policies are designed not just to change trade balances but to define who belongs—which workers, industries, and communities are worth protecting. Deregulation is framed as economic freedom, but it also serves to weaken regulatory agencies that might challenge executive power or corporate allies.
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017): Delivered massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. Though passed in Trump’s first term, it set the tone for a broader economic vision of trickle-down authoritarianism: reward the powerful, and claim indirect benefit for the rest. Led by Elon Musk, DOGE has slashed federal jobs under the guise of AI-driven “efficiency.” Critics argue it targets liberal-leaning departments and agencies, creating political inequality within the federal workforce and centralising control. Ongoing trade conflicts with China and the EU, paired with state subsidies for favoured industries (e.g. fossil fuels, defence), reflect economic nationalism. These policies often hurt consumers but serve symbolic political goals. Union protections have been rolled back further. Anti-union laws in MAGA-aligned states are encouraged, reinforcing an individualised, loyalist workforce over collective bargaining or workplace democracy.
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017): Delivered massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. Though passed in Trump’s first term, it set the tone for a broader economic vision of trickle-down authoritarianism: reward the powerful, and claim indirect benefit for the rest. Led by Elon Musk, DOGE has slashed federal jobs under the guise of AI-driven “efficiency.” Critics argue it targets liberal-leaning departments and agencies, creating political inequality within the federal workforce and centralising control. Ongoing trade conflicts with China and the EU, paired with state subsidies for favoured industries (e.g. fossil fuels, defence), reflect economic nationalism. These policies often hurt consumers but serve symbolic political goals. Union protections have been rolled back further. Anti-union laws in MAGA-aligned states are encouraged, reinforcing an individualised, loyalist workforce over collective bargaining or workplace democracy.
|
|
|
Example from history
A clear historical example of economic policy used to consolidate authoritarian rule is Nazi Germany under Hitler, particularly between 1933 and 1939. Facing mass unemployment and economic collapse, the regime introduced large-scale public works like the Autobahn, banned independent trade unions, and replaced them with the German Labour Front, which eliminated workers’ rights while promoting loyalty to the regime. Programmes like Strength Through Joy provided subsidised holidays and leisure to depoliticise the workforce and reward conformity. In 1936, Hitler launched the Four Year Plan, placing Hermann Göring in charge of preparing Germany’s economy for war through state control, massive rearmament, and a drive for economic autarky (self-sufficiency). Industries that cooperated with Nazi goals received lucrative contracts, while Jewish businesses were excluded or seized. These policies not only revived the economy but bound economic life to the party’s military and ideological goals, tying prosperity to obedience. Economic recovery helped secure explicit public consent, while reinforcing the regime’s control over every aspect of German life.
A clear historical example of economic policy used to consolidate authoritarian rule is Nazi Germany under Hitler, particularly between 1933 and 1939. Facing mass unemployment and economic collapse, the regime introduced large-scale public works like the Autobahn, banned independent trade unions, and replaced them with the German Labour Front, which eliminated workers’ rights while promoting loyalty to the regime. Programmes like Strength Through Joy provided subsidised holidays and leisure to depoliticise the workforce and reward conformity. In 1936, Hitler launched the Four Year Plan, placing Hermann Göring in charge of preparing Germany’s economy for war through state control, massive rearmament, and a drive for economic autarky (self-sufficiency). Industries that cooperated with Nazi goals received lucrative contracts, while Jewish businesses were excluded or seized. These policies not only revived the economy but bound economic life to the party’s military and ideological goals, tying prosperity to obedience. Economic recovery helped secure explicit public consent, while reinforcing the regime’s control over every aspect of German life.
Social Policies
Social policies are deliberate attempts by a government to manage or solve perceived societal problems. Many social policies are influenced by economics and attempt to resolve social problems that have an economic root. For example, social welfare policies attempt to deal with unemployment, poor housing or lack of access to health care. Alternatively, we can distinguish social policies by the various social groups they focus on, for example, ethic or religious groups, women, sexual or gender minorities and the young.
In Trump’s America, social policy has increasingly attempted to reshape national values, enforce cultural conformity, and marginalise dissenting identities. While the state does not yet control society in the way totalitarian regimes have, Trump’s second term has seen a clear trend towards ideological intervention in education, family life, and identity politics. One major focus has been education. The administration has pushed for “patriotic education,” dismantling diversity initiatives and banning the teaching of topics like critical race theory and gender identity in federally funded schools. This effort seeks to control historical narratives and cultivate loyalty to a narrowly defined national identity. Teachers and institutions face growing pressure to self-censor, especially in conservative states where anti-“woke” legislation has expanded. On issues of gender and sexuality, the administration has rolled back protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, banned gender-affirming care for minors, and removed non-binary options from federal documents. These measures are framed as protecting “traditional values,” but functionally serve to exclude and discipline minority identities. At the same time, Trump’s alignment with Christian nationalism has blurred the line between religion and state, elevating one moral worldview as the basis for public policy. These policies do not yet constitute total control—but they are clearly designed to reshape culture by narrowing what is acceptable, visible, and valued in public life.
Social policies are deliberate attempts by a government to manage or solve perceived societal problems. Many social policies are influenced by economics and attempt to resolve social problems that have an economic root. For example, social welfare policies attempt to deal with unemployment, poor housing or lack of access to health care. Alternatively, we can distinguish social policies by the various social groups they focus on, for example, ethic or religious groups, women, sexual or gender minorities and the young.
In Trump’s America, social policy has increasingly attempted to reshape national values, enforce cultural conformity, and marginalise dissenting identities. While the state does not yet control society in the way totalitarian regimes have, Trump’s second term has seen a clear trend towards ideological intervention in education, family life, and identity politics. One major focus has been education. The administration has pushed for “patriotic education,” dismantling diversity initiatives and banning the teaching of topics like critical race theory and gender identity in federally funded schools. This effort seeks to control historical narratives and cultivate loyalty to a narrowly defined national identity. Teachers and institutions face growing pressure to self-censor, especially in conservative states where anti-“woke” legislation has expanded. On issues of gender and sexuality, the administration has rolled back protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, banned gender-affirming care for minors, and removed non-binary options from federal documents. These measures are framed as protecting “traditional values,” but functionally serve to exclude and discipline minority identities. At the same time, Trump’s alignment with Christian nationalism has blurred the line between religion and state, elevating one moral worldview as the basis for public policy. These policies do not yet constitute total control—but they are clearly designed to reshape culture by narrowing what is acceptable, visible, and valued in public life.
|
|
|
Example from history
In Fascist Italy under Mussolini (1922–1943), social policies were central to building a loyal, obedient, and ideologically uniform society. The regime aimed to create a strong Fascist national identity, rooted in discipline, tradition, and loyalty to the state. Education was tightly controlled: textbooks were rewritten to glorify Mussolini, and teachers had to swear loyalty to the regime. Children were enrolled in Fascist youth groups like the Balilla and Avanguardisti, which trained boys for war and girls for motherhood, emphasising physical fitness and obedience over critical thought. Mussolini also promoted a traditional family model to boost Italy’s population and reinforce gender roles. The state introduced financial incentives for large families and discouraged women from working, urging them to focus on childbirth and domestic duties. The Battle for Births campaign rewarded prolific mothers with medals and imposed taxes on bachelors to pressure men into marrying and fathering children. While the Fascist regime never achieved total control over the Church, it signed the Lateran Treaty (1929) with the Vatican, recognising Catholicism as the state religion in exchange for Church support. These social policies were designed not only to shape daily life but to create a disciplined, conformist population, loyal to Il Duce and the Fascist vision of national revival.
In Fascist Italy under Mussolini (1922–1943), social policies were central to building a loyal, obedient, and ideologically uniform society. The regime aimed to create a strong Fascist national identity, rooted in discipline, tradition, and loyalty to the state. Education was tightly controlled: textbooks were rewritten to glorify Mussolini, and teachers had to swear loyalty to the regime. Children were enrolled in Fascist youth groups like the Balilla and Avanguardisti, which trained boys for war and girls for motherhood, emphasising physical fitness and obedience over critical thought. Mussolini also promoted a traditional family model to boost Italy’s population and reinforce gender roles. The state introduced financial incentives for large families and discouraged women from working, urging them to focus on childbirth and domestic duties. The Battle for Births campaign rewarded prolific mothers with medals and imposed taxes on bachelors to pressure men into marrying and fathering children. While the Fascist regime never achieved total control over the Church, it signed the Lateran Treaty (1929) with the Vatican, recognising Catholicism as the state religion in exchange for Church support. These social policies were designed not only to shape daily life but to create a disciplined, conformist population, loyal to Il Duce and the Fascist vision of national revival.
Cultural Policies
In authoritarian regimes, cultural policy is used not just to manage artistic or intellectual life, but to shape identity, define loyalty, and control meaning. Unlike mere authoritarian states, which focus on obedience and order, totalitarian regimes go further—they seek to remake the culture itself, ensuring that only one worldview is visible, celebrated, or even thinkable. Cultural policies become tools of ideological domination, aiming to eliminate pluralism and embed the regime’s values in everyday life.
In Trump’s America, while cultural control is not yet total, his policies reflect clear authoritarian intent. Through initiatives like the revived 1776 Commission, the administration seeks to replace critical or inclusive histories with simplified, nationalist narratives that glorify America’s past and suppress discussions of slavery or systemic racism. Books such as The Bluest Eye and Gender Queer have been banned from schools under vague claims of obscenity, targeting authors whose work challenges racial, sexual, or cultural norms. In April 2025, the United States Naval Academy removed 381 books from its library, including works by Maya Angelou and other authors addressing topics like racism, gender, and sexuality. (See the Fox News celebration below) Trump also has a long tradition of defending Confederate monuments, presenting them as symbols of “heritage” and pushing back against local efforts to remove them. Public spaces are increasingly dominated by Christian and nationalist iconography, while alternative symbols—like Pride flags or Indigenous land acknowledgements—are discouraged or removed. Meanwhile, public broadcasters such as NPR and PBS have faced funding cuts, and Voice of America has been reshaped to reflect pro-Trump messaging
In authoritarian regimes, cultural policy is used not just to manage artistic or intellectual life, but to shape identity, define loyalty, and control meaning. Unlike mere authoritarian states, which focus on obedience and order, totalitarian regimes go further—they seek to remake the culture itself, ensuring that only one worldview is visible, celebrated, or even thinkable. Cultural policies become tools of ideological domination, aiming to eliminate pluralism and embed the regime’s values in everyday life.
In Trump’s America, while cultural control is not yet total, his policies reflect clear authoritarian intent. Through initiatives like the revived 1776 Commission, the administration seeks to replace critical or inclusive histories with simplified, nationalist narratives that glorify America’s past and suppress discussions of slavery or systemic racism. Books such as The Bluest Eye and Gender Queer have been banned from schools under vague claims of obscenity, targeting authors whose work challenges racial, sexual, or cultural norms. In April 2025, the United States Naval Academy removed 381 books from its library, including works by Maya Angelou and other authors addressing topics like racism, gender, and sexuality. (See the Fox News celebration below) Trump also has a long tradition of defending Confederate monuments, presenting them as symbols of “heritage” and pushing back against local efforts to remove them. Public spaces are increasingly dominated by Christian and nationalist iconography, while alternative symbols—like Pride flags or Indigenous land acknowledgements—are discouraged or removed. Meanwhile, public broadcasters such as NPR and PBS have faced funding cuts, and Voice of America has been reshaped to reflect pro-Trump messaging
|
|
|
Example from history
In Stalin’s Russia (1924–1953), cultural policy was central to the regime’s totalitarian control. The Soviet state sought to reshape all forms of cultural life—literature, music, art, theatre, film, and education—into instruments of Communist ideology and personal loyalty to Stalin. Creativity was allowed only if it served the political and ideological goals of the state.
The official artistic doctrine of Socialist Realism, imposed in the 1930s, demanded that all cultural works portray an idealised vision of Soviet life. Artists were expected to glorify industrial progress, collective labour, and Stalin’s leadership. Any deviation from this vision was treated as political subversion. Shostakovich was publicly criticised, placing his life and career in danger. He responded with his Fifth Symphony, subtitled “A Soviet artist’s reply to just criticism,” - an example of the complex survival strategies artists employed under Stalin. Beyond the arts, education was purged of dissenting voices, history was rewritten to elevate Stalin, and religion was suppressed, with churches closed and clergy arrested. Intellectuals, writers, and artists who resisted or failed to conform—such as Osip Mandelstam or Anna Akhmatova—faced censorship, exile, or execution.
In Stalin’s Russia (1924–1953), cultural policy was central to the regime’s totalitarian control. The Soviet state sought to reshape all forms of cultural life—literature, music, art, theatre, film, and education—into instruments of Communist ideology and personal loyalty to Stalin. Creativity was allowed only if it served the political and ideological goals of the state.
The official artistic doctrine of Socialist Realism, imposed in the 1930s, demanded that all cultural works portray an idealised vision of Soviet life. Artists were expected to glorify industrial progress, collective labour, and Stalin’s leadership. Any deviation from this vision was treated as political subversion. Shostakovich was publicly criticised, placing his life and career in danger. He responded with his Fifth Symphony, subtitled “A Soviet artist’s reply to just criticism,” - an example of the complex survival strategies artists employed under Stalin. Beyond the arts, education was purged of dissenting voices, history was rewritten to elevate Stalin, and religion was suppressed, with churches closed and clergy arrested. Intellectuals, writers, and artists who resisted or failed to conform—such as Osip Mandelstam or Anna Akhmatova—faced censorship, exile, or execution.
Foreign Policies
The von Clausewitz aphorism that ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’, is certainly more applicable to authoritarian states than democracies. In his 1795 essay, ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’ the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that accountable governments will not go to war against each other, because neither state will vote to make the necessary sacrifices. The political scientist Rudolph Rummel has calculated that 353 pairs of nations fought wars between 1816-1991 and not one war was between two democracies. In contrast, authoritarian regimes are more likely to use war or the threat of war as an instrument of foreign policy. As we have seen, authoritarian states are inherently more militaristic, and the army is likely to play a central role in society. But most importantly, the lack of democratic accountability and the absence of a free press, mean that authoritarian states can act abroad with relative impunity, unconcerned about domestic opinion.
The von Clausewitz aphorism that ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’, is certainly more applicable to authoritarian states than democracies. In his 1795 essay, ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’ the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that accountable governments will not go to war against each other, because neither state will vote to make the necessary sacrifices. The political scientist Rudolph Rummel has calculated that 353 pairs of nations fought wars between 1816-1991 and not one war was between two democracies. In contrast, authoritarian regimes are more likely to use war or the threat of war as an instrument of foreign policy. As we have seen, authoritarian states are inherently more militaristic, and the army is likely to play a central role in society. But most importantly, the lack of democratic accountability and the absence of a free press, mean that authoritarian states can act abroad with relative impunity, unconcerned about domestic opinion.
Authoritarian states can also use militarism and war to help advance domestic policy goals. At the most basic level, international success plays well domestically and can help an authoritarian regime consolidate and maintain power. War can even be manufactured as a way of distracting the public from domestic concerns. A so called ‘diversionary war’ is fought to provide the state with a rallying point to unite the nation, ‘rally ‘round the flag syndrome’ and a justification to suppress any ongoing internal dissent. Trump’s foreign policy, particularly in his second term, follows this logic: it is isolationist, performative, and designed to sustain a narrative of American greatness under siege.
In 2018, Trump launched a trade war with China, imposing tariffs on over $250 billion in goods, later expanding to include steel and aluminium tariffs on traditional allies like Canada and the EU, citing national security. In 2024, revived the idea of making Canada the 51st state, drawing international backlash and reinforcing his image as a disruptive nationalist. In 2019, Trump floated the idea of purchasing Greenland from Denmark, calling it a “strategic opportunity.” In 2025, a new wave of trade conflicts has erupted. On April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day," announcing sweeping tariffs. Meanwhile, Trump’s admiration for strongmen continues. He has deepened diplomatic ties with Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, and Mohammed bin Salman, praising their leadership and inviting them for bilateral summits. In contrast, his relationships with democratic allies have cooled. NATO commitments have been further weakened, with the U.S. stepping back from joint operations, and G7 summits have been reduced to private trade negotiations.
Domestically, Trump’s foreign policy serves to mobilise fear, legitimise executive action, and portray America as under constant threat. In 2025, he signed an executive order authorising military operations inside Mexico to combat drug cartels. The expanded travel ban now includes Venezuela, Nigeria, and Palestine, reinforcing a narrative of national security and cultural purity. Trump’s foreign policy is not grounded in long-term strategy—it is a performance of strength, loyalty, and grievance. It isolates the U.S., empowers authoritarian allies, and transforms global politics into a tool for consolidating domestic authoritarian control.
Domestically, Trump’s foreign policy serves to mobilise fear, legitimise executive action, and portray America as under constant threat. In 2025, he signed an executive order authorising military operations inside Mexico to combat drug cartels. The expanded travel ban now includes Venezuela, Nigeria, and Palestine, reinforcing a narrative of national security and cultural purity. Trump’s foreign policy is not grounded in long-term strategy—it is a performance of strength, loyalty, and grievance. It isolates the U.S., empowers authoritarian allies, and transforms global politics into a tool for consolidating domestic authoritarian control.
|
|
|
Example from history
Mussolini used foreign policy as a tool to consolidate his authoritarian rule by projecting strength, fuelling nationalism, and distracting from domestic shortcomings. His invasion of Abyssinia in 1935–36 defied the League of Nations and was framed as the rebirth of the Roman Empire, boosting his popularity despite economic costs. The annexation of Albania in 1939 and intervention in the Spanish Civil War further reinforced the image of fascist Italy as an expanding power. Alliances with Nazi Germany, including the Rome–Berlin Axis (1936) and Pact of Steel (1939), elevated Mussolini’s status but ultimately led Italy into disastrous war. These foreign ventures were less about strategic gain and more about myth-making, militarism, and internal control, transforming foreign aggression into a symbol of fascist destiny.
Mussolini used foreign policy as a tool to consolidate his authoritarian rule by projecting strength, fuelling nationalism, and distracting from domestic shortcomings. His invasion of Abyssinia in 1935–36 defied the League of Nations and was framed as the rebirth of the Roman Empire, boosting his popularity despite economic costs. The annexation of Albania in 1939 and intervention in the Spanish Civil War further reinforced the image of fascist Italy as an expanding power. Alliances with Nazi Germany, including the Rome–Berlin Axis (1936) and Pact of Steel (1939), elevated Mussolini’s status but ultimately led Italy into disastrous war. These foreign ventures were less about strategic gain and more about myth-making, militarism, and internal control, transforming foreign aggression into a symbol of fascist destiny.
Authoritarianism and the extent to which control is achieved.
|
|
An authoritarian state that exercises most control is a totalitarian state. There are four characteristics that distinguish totalitarianism:
Does Trump's USA fit on the diagram? |