How can democracy prevail with this president
Executive summary
Democracy can prevail under a president whose actions stress democratic norms, but doing so will require coordinated defense of elections, the rule of law, and institutional independence combined with political mobilization and legal pushback; scholars and institutions warn that those three pillars are already under strain in the current administration [1] [2] [3]. Success will rest on reinforcing checks and balances through courts and Congress, protecting free and fair elections at state and local levels, cultivating cross-ideological coalitions committed to constitutional norms, and sustaining civil society and an independent press to hold power accountable [4] [5] [6].
1. Diagnose the threats clearly and focus on the pillars that matter
The most effective defense begins by naming where democracy is under pressure: scholars and policy centers identify attacks on free elections, executive aggrandizement that undermines separation of powers, and efforts to weaken anti‑corruption and independent institutions as the core threats under this president [1] [2] [3], and thinking strategically about each pillar avoids scattering scarce political capital across every grievance [7].
2. Use the courts and legal institutions to enforce limits — but don’t rely on them alone
Legal challenges have already been the first line of defense against unilateral executive moves and novel claims of presidential authority, and organizations like the Brennan Center and Campaign Legal Center are mounting suits and briefs to block overreach such as asserted unilateral powers or attempts to control independent agencies [4] [5]; however, history and experts warn that courts are necessary but insufficient because erosion often comes in incremental steps that outpace litigation [3] [2].
3. Lights on: a free press, civil society, and academia as early warning systems
Independent media, universities, and NGOs are being targeted in this administration’s playbook and their survival matters because they surface abuses, mobilize public opinion, and document wrongdoing that courts and Congress can use [6] [1]; defending press freedom and scholarly independence is therefore a strategic necessity, not simply a cultural argument [6].
4. State and local governments are the front line for protecting elections
If the federal center is hostile or compromised, the preservation of free, fair, and transparent elections will fall to secretaries of state, local election officials, and state courts — a reality emphasized by democracy advocates who caution that control over electoral administration is the most immediate bulwark against attempts to tilt outcomes [1] [4]; investing in and protecting these officials, and ensuring resources for secure administration, is a practical defense.
5. Build cross‑ideological coalitions and reforge political norms
Scholars of democratic erosion argue that durable defense requires activists, moderate politicians, civil servants, business leaders, and faith communities who uphold mutual toleration and forbearance; political actors who publicly break with anti‑constitutional tactics create deterrence, but partisan incentives complicate this, as past GOP defections were punished and many lawmakers chose accommodation [8] [2], so contemporary defenders must design incentives and reputational costs for norm‑breaking across the political spectrum.
6. Prepare for long games: institutional reform, civic renewal, and accountability
Beyond immediate pushback, experts urge structural reforms — stronger ethics and anti‑corruption rules, campaign‑finance and voting‑access reforms, and clearer statutory limits on emergency and unilateral powers — alongside civic renewal to reduce polarization and economic grievances that feed populist upswings [7] [9]; democratic resilience comes from reforming the system so it is harder to capture, and from persistent mobilization so abuses are neither normalized nor irreversible [3].
7. Honest trade‑offs, risks, and the role of proportional responses
Defenders must weigh risks: aggressive extra‑institutional resistance can backfire, while passive reliance on elections risks slow erosion; comparative scholarship shows some strategies that worked abroad and others that failed, so U.S. actors should prioritize legal, institutional, and nonviolent civic tools that preserve legitimacy while challenging anti‑democratic moves [10] [3].