Fact check: The Biden administration was authoritarian, but no one worried about Biden being a King

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a complex picture regarding the original statement. Evidence supporting claims of Biden administration authoritarianism comes from recently released documents showing the administration labeled Americans who opposed COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as "Domestic Violent Extremists" ^[1]. This labeling of rational criticism of state policy as domestic terrorism has been characterized as heading down a totalitarian path ^[2] and described as an abuse of government power ^[3].

However, the "king" comparison aspect of the statement finds limited direct support. Only one source metaphorically describes Joe Biden as a "temporary king" and later as the "Rex Nemorensis," implying a precarious and feared position of power ^[4]. Interestingly, the analyses reveal more discussion about Donald Trump's authoritarian tendencies and monarchical aspirations, with sources describing Trump's actions as testing the limits of power, defying court orders, and using the military for personal gain ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial pieces of context:

• Curtis Yarvin's influence on monarchical governance ideas - The analyses reveal that Curtis Yarvin, a proponent of replacing American democracy with a monarchy-like system led by a "CEO," has influenced some members of the Trump administration and Silicon Valley figures ^[6]. This suggests that actual monarchical aspirations exist within certain political circles, but not necessarily connected to Biden.
• Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories about Biden - Multiple sources document Trump sharing conspiracy theories that Biden was executed in 2020 and replaced with a clone ^{[7] [8]}, and claiming the Biden administration was "illegal" due to Biden's alleged incapacitation ^[9]. These actions could themselves be viewed as authoritarian behavior.
• The specific nature of the "Domestic Violent Extremists" labeling - The analyses show this wasn't general opposition but specifically targeted those opposing COVID-19 mandates, providing important context about the scope of the alleged authoritarian behavior.

Powerful individuals and organizations who would benefit from promoting the narrative that Biden was authoritarian but not "kingly" include political opponents seeking to delegitimize COVID-19 policies while avoiding direct comparisons to more extreme authoritarian figures.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement contains selective framing that may mislead readers:

• False equivalency - By stating "no one worried about Biden being a King," the statement ignores documented concerns about authoritarian overreach, even if not framed in monarchical terms. The analyses show there were indeed concerns about abuse of government power ^[3].
• Omission of comparative context - The statement fails to acknowledge that during the same period, there were documented concerns about Trump's own authoritarian tendencies and actual fantasies about being king ^[5].
• Temporal bias - The statement treats the lack of "king" concerns as definitive, but the analyses show this may reflect different framing rather than absence of authoritarian concerns altogether.

The statement appears to minimize legitimate concerns about government overreach during COVID-19 policies while simultaneously suggesting that worries about authoritarian leadership were uniquely absent during the Biden administration, which the evidence does not fully support.