What were the criticisms of Trump's authoritarian tendencies during his presidency?

1. Undermining electoral legitimacy and democratic rules

A central criticism held that Trump habitually rejected electoral norms by questioning the validity of elections he lost and promoting narratives of fraud that delegitimized opponents and the electoral process; scholars Levitsky and Ziblatt are cited for identifying such behavior as a core indicator of authoritarian drift ^{[1] [6]}. Commentators and legal analysts also flagged attempts to exert federal control over state election processes and to overturn results as unprecedented among recent presidents and therefore symptomatic of an authoritarian playbook ^{[7] [1]}.

2. Delegitimizing dissent, whipping up loyalty, and rewarding cronies

Observers pointed to rhetoric demanding personal loyalty, public threats against critics, and promises of retribution for perceived enemies as classic strongman tactics that concentrate power by sidelining institutional restraints and creating patronage networks ^{[8] [9]}. Academics and journalists noted that calls for loyalty and talk of punishing opponents—combined with high-profile nominations and rewards to allies—fostered a political climate where dissent within governing circles and the bureaucracy was discouraged ^{[8] [9]}.

3. Attacks on the press, information environment, and propagation of disinformation

Multiple sources argued that sustained delegitimization of mainstream media and the proliferation of disinformation function to manufacture consent and stifle independent scrutiny, a dynamic critics link to authoritarian consolidation ^{[2] [10]}. Analysts warned that a media ecosystem favorable to the president, together with governmental efforts to rewrite events like January 6, contributed to an information environment that privileged the executive narrative over independent fact-finding ^{[10] [2]}.

4. Weaponizing enforcement, the military, and irregular tactics against groups

Critics documented deployments of federal forces, the use of masked or unmarked immigration agents, and threats to use the military against U.S. cities as examples of turning state coercive power toward political ends—measures framed as frighteningly evocative of authoritarian regimes by experts and reporters ^{[3] [4] [11]}. Legal challenges and judges publicly criticized certain deportation and campus-targeting efforts as unlawful, with at least one federal judge labeling aspects of the administration’s conduct “authoritarian” ^{[12] [3]}.

5. Eroding institutional checks: courts, agencies, and norms

A repeated critique held that appointments, pressure on independent agencies, and efforts to expand emergency or wartime powers threatened the separation of powers that constrains executive overreach; commentators contrasted these tactics with prior administrations that respected election results and institutional independence ^{[7] [4]}. Senate and civic warnings—such as “ten rules” frameworks advanced by critics—framed incremental encroachments on norms as a deliberate playbook for centralizing authority ^{[5] [7]}.

6. Debate, dissent, and limits of the label “authoritarian”

While many scholars, former officials and advocacy groups described these behaviors as fitting authoritarian patterns, others cautioned about terminology: some scholars reject labels like “fascist” while still describing Trump as authoritarian or populist, and media scholars have noted reluctance among journalists to apply the authoritarian label for normative and evidentiary reasons ^{[6] [1]}. Sources also record alternative interpretations that emphasize voter grievances, political polarization, or long-term institutional resilience, underscoring ongoing debate over whether actions constituted entrenched authoritarian rule or alarming but reversible norm erosion ^{[9] [1]}.