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.
Have other US presidents been accused of authoritarianism?
Executive summary
Historically, scholars and commentators have identified multiple U.S. presidents whose actions or rhetoric were described as having “authoritarian tendencies,” with recent emphatic attention on Donald Trump and historical treatments of figures like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and earlier leaders [1] [2] [3]. Contemporary analysts warn that Trump’s campaigns and two terms (and his behavior after 2024–25) exhibit patterns — threats to courts, press attacks, use of loyalists in key posts, and threats to deploy the military against protesters — that many regard as textbook authoritarian moves [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Presidents past: “Authoritarian tendencies” as a recurring charge
Scholars and policy groups emphasize that charges of authoritarianism are not unique to one era: the Brennan Center notes that presidents from both parties have taken steps we would now label authoritarian — for example, FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson used the FBI to surveil political opponents, and Richard Nixon pursued confrontations with the bureaucracy that tested legal bounds [1]. Academic work argues FDR in particular met criteria used by modern authoritarian-studies scholars, illustrating how crisis powers and institutional expansion invite such labels [2].
2. How historians and journalists frame the charge differently
Some academics situate “authoritarian” as a continuum: strong executive action, norm-bending, and power consolidation can look like authoritarianism depending on context and motive [2] [3]. Journalists and commentators often reserve the term for more sustained campaigns to delegitimize rivals and weaken checks — a distinction driving debate over whether past presidents were “authoritarian-leaning” or actually threatening democratic structures [3] [8].
3. Why Donald Trump dominates current debates
Recent and repeated examples in reporting and analysis place Trump at the center of contemporary authoritarian concern: commentators say he ran an openly authoritarian campaign pledging to prosecute rivals, punish critical media, and use the military against protesters, and that institutions sometimes failed to check him during his earlier term [4]. Long-form coverage claims his second term saw aggressive moves against courts, media, and civil institutions, with journalists and legal observers calling the pattern indicative of authoritarian governance [5] [6] [7].
4. Concrete behaviors that prompt the label
Analysts point to a set of behaviors that trigger the “authoritarian” descriptor: rhetorical delegitimization of courts and media, firing or replacing civil servants who produce inconvenient facts, nominating loyalists over experts for key posts, and public calls to use force against domestic opponents — all are cited in current reporting about the Trump administration and contrasted with historical episodes [7] [9] [4] [1].
5. Institutional resilience and the counterargument
Observers emphasize that U.S. institutional structures (judicial independence, Senate confirmations, tenure rules) provide guardrails that historically limited durable authoritarian takeover, a point used to argue that past excesses did not produce full authoritarian rule and that current systems still matter [4]. At the same time, the Brennan Center’s simulations found that an executive intent on evading norms holds structural advantages, suggesting institutions are necessary but not always sufficient to prevent abuse [1].
6. Historical examples often invoked — and their limits
Discussion commonly invokes FDR (use of emergency powers and norm-stretching), LBJ (surveillance of opponents), and Nixon (legal tests and abuses) to show precedents [2] [1]. But the sources also show disagreement about equivalence: some treat these as authoritarian tendencies within a constitutional system that ultimately reasserted itself; others see them as warning signs that can, under different conditions, lead to deeper subversion [3] [1].
7. Why labels matter — and why debate persists
Writers argue labeling matters because calling a leader “authoritarian” focuses public attention on institutional defenses and can mobilize resistance; critics worry premature labeling can normalize alarmism or obscure nuance [8] [3]. Current reporting about Trump presses both points: many scholars now say his actions match scholarly indicators of authoritarianism, while journalistic hesitancy to deploy the term has itself been criticized as normalizing dangerous behavior [8] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers
Available reporting shows that accusations of authoritarianism have been made about multiple U.S. presidents across history, but the intensity and implications of those accusations vary: some episodes are framed as problematic “tendencies” within functioning checks, while current analysts and journalists increasingly argue Donald Trump’s more recent conduct represents a more sustained authoritarian threat [1] [2] [5] [4]. Readers should weigh both the historical precedents and the specific, repeated actions and institutional responses recounted in contemporary sources when assessing the claim [3] [7].