Fact check: What specific actions has Trump taken that critics say are authoritarian?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, critics have identified several specific authoritarian actions taken by Trump:

Military Deployment Without State Consent:

• Deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles without the approval of California Governor Gavin Newsom ^{[1] [2] [3]}
• This action prompted Senator Lisa Murkowski to question Trump's motivations and express concern about the balance of power between executive and legislative branches ^[2]

Threats Against State Officials:

• Endorsement of the arrest of California Governor Gavin Newsom, which Newsom himself characterized as actions of a "dictator" and "an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism" ^{[1] [4]}

Immigration and Constitutional Actions:

• Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act ^[5]
• Attempted revocation of birthright citizenship ^[5]

Attacks on Educational Institutions:

• Revoking Harvard University's ability to enroll international students, which is viewed as an authoritarian tactic to suppress dissent and limit the influence of cultural institutions ^[6]

Symbolic Displays of Power:

• Planned military parade in Washington, D.C. as a symbol of Trump's arrogation of power ^[3]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal that hundreds of scholars believe the U.S. is heading toward authoritarianism due to Trump's attempts to expand executive power ^[7], providing academic credibility to these concerns. However, the sources primarily present critical perspectives without substantial representation of supportive viewpoints.

Key stakeholders who benefit from these narratives include:

• Democratic politicians like Gavin Newsom who gain political capital by positioning themselves as defenders of democracy against authoritarianism
• Academic institutions and scholars who maintain relevance and funding by positioning themselves as democracy watchdogs
• Media organizations that benefit from increased engagement through coverage of constitutional crises

The analyses lack perspectives from Trump supporters or constitutional scholars who might argue these actions fall within legitimate executive powers, particularly regarding federal authority over immigration enforcement or military deployment during emergencies.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual in seeking specific examples rather than making claims. However, the framing implicitly accepts the premise that Trump's actions are authoritarian by asking what "critics say" rather than examining whether these criticisms have merit.

The analyses show a consistent pattern across multiple sources from different time periods (ranging from May 2025 to June 2025), suggesting these are not isolated claims but sustained criticism. The sources include mainstream outlets like CNN and The Washington Post, as well as advocacy organizations, which may have inherent bias toward portraying Trump's actions in the most negative light possible.

One analysis notes that a source "does not provide any relevant information" as it was about Financial Times subscription plans rather than Trump's actions ^[8], indicating some sources may have been incorrectly categorized or analyzed.