Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What actions by Donald Trump are cited as authoritarian between 2016 and 2024?
Executive summary
Donald Trump from 2016–2024 is cited across multiple expert reports and analyses for a pattern of actions and statements that critics and many scholars label authoritarian: efforts to overturn and delegitimize election results, plans to weaponize federal agencies against opponents, threats to purge civil service professionals and replace them with loyalists, repeated attacks on the independent press, and repeated assertions that he might use the military or extraordinary prosecutorial powers to suppress dissent. These claims are grounded in documented events and public promises across his first term, the post-2020 period, and his 2024 campaign rhetoric, and are reflected in both advocacy reports and academic assessments that warn of competitive authoritarianism or patrimonial governance if such practices are normalized [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The Election Crisis and the Claim of Blocking Transfers — How serious was the 2020 aftermath?
Multiple analyses point to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 result and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power as the clearest hallmark of authoritarian behavior. Scholars and analysts document public refusals to accept results, encouragement of legal and extra-legal pressure on state officials, and the events surrounding January 6 as evidence that he sought to delegitimize electoral outcomes rather than abide by them; these acts are repeatedly cited as central to arguments that his behavior transcended normal political contestation and entered the realm of anti-democratic practice [1]. Reports emphasize that such efforts to subvert election outcomes are a canonical first step in democratic erosion because they undermine the foundational mechanism of peaceful leadership change and erode public trust in institutions charged with certifying results [1] [5].
2. Weaponizing the State — Purges, prosecutions, and regulatory retribution
Analysts document a pattern of promises and activities aimed at turning federal institutions into instruments of partisan control. Advocates and watchdogs cite Trump's public vows to appoint loyalists, remove career civil servants, and use agencies — from the Justice Department and tax authorities to regulators — to investigate and punish political enemies as evidence of an intent to institutionalize loyalty and weaken independent checks [1] [2] [3]. Reports from 2024 argued that allied plans to erode DOJ independence and to use federal power for political reward or retribution would deepen that trend if implemented; the emphasis is that structural capture of the bureaucracy is a salient authoritarian tactic because it channels state resources against rivals while insulating the executive from institutional constraints [2] [3].
3. Militarized responses and domestic deployment — Threats to civil-military norms
Multiple sources flagged Trump’s repeated invocation of the Insurrection Act and rhetoric about deploying the military on U.S. soil as a dangerous break with longstanding democratic civil‑military boundaries. Critics emphasize that talk of using the armed forces to repress protests, combined with promises to forcibly remove migrants or to use extraordinary power against dissenters, risks normalizing military involvement in domestic politics and degrading civil liberties [3] [5]. Reports written during 2024 warned that concrete plans to expand domestic deployment would not only heighten the risk of violent enforcement against political opponents and protesters but would also strain the professional norms that keep militaries apolitical in democracies [3] [1].
4. Attacks on media and democratic norms — From lawsuits to threats against outlets
Observers trace a sustained campaign against independent media as central to authoritarian playbooks: threats to revoke broadcast licenses, filing strategic lawsuits, and cultivating a hostile environment toward journalists are documented as part of Trump’s approach to silence or delegitimize critical coverage. Commentators draw explicit comparisons to other leaders who consolidated control by shrinking independent media space, arguing that efforts to punish outlets and influence private platforms constitute a front in broader efforts to reshape public information flows and weaken public accountability [6] [5]. This pattern is presented as more than rhetorical: concrete actions and public threats against outlets raise alarms about erosion of press freedom and the information ecosystem necessary for democratic deliberation [6] [7].
5. Bigger picture — Competitive authoritarianism and patrimonial tendencies
Analyses converge on two related diagnoses: one frames Trump-era patterns as competitive authoritarianism, where formal democratic processes persist but incumbents tilt rules to their advantage; the other frames them as patrimonialism, where state resources are treated as personal instruments of a leader. Authors argue that the combination of delegitimizing elections, capturing institutions, weaponizing law enforcement, and targeting opponents fits established models of democratic erosion, and that if entrenched, these behaviors would materially reduce the United States’ conformity to liberal-democratic standards [1] [4]. Surveyed political scientists and institutional reports from 2024–2025 recorded declining confidence in U.S. democratic health and warned that persistent implementation of these tactics could transform competitive politics into entrenched authoritarian governance [7] [2].