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 specific actions and rhetoric by Donald J. Trump have been cited as exhibiting authoritarian tendencies (e.g., attacks on the press, undermining elections) in 2016–2024?
Executive summary
Reporting and expert analyses from 2016–2025 catalog a pattern of rhetoric and actions by Donald J. Trump that critics and many scholars describe as exhibiting authoritarian tendencies: attacking the press and courts, undermining electoral legitimacy, threatening prosecution of rivals, and invoking or deploying security forces domestically (examples cited include threats to prosecute opponents, attacks on media, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and talk of using the military for domestic order) [1] [2] [3]. Coverage differs on whether these moves amount to full authoritarian rule; some pieces document specific acts and threats, while others note institutional checks and partisan divides in perception [4] [5].
1. Attacking and seeking to punish the press: patterns and examples
Multiple reports say Trump has repeatedly attacked media organizations and pursued legal action against outlets and publishers—targeting ABC News, CBS News, The Des Moines Register, and Simon & Schuster—and critics argue those suits and public denunciations fit an authoritarian playbook of punishing critical journalism [1]. Analysts note that those strategies can chill reporting and that, in at least one case reported, a settlement followed a defamation suit [1]. Advocacy and watchdog pieces similarly frame sustained dehumanizing rhetoric toward perceived opponents, including media, as part of a broader rhetorical groundwork for repression [6] [7].
2. Undermining electoral legitimacy and the 2020 aftermath
Coverage documents Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential results as a core instance cited by critics: reporting describes “a multipart conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election” and his apparent encouragement of supporters that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol [2]. Commentators and think tanks view the refusal to accept electoral defeat and repeated claims of fraud as classic signals that worry democracy scholars and feed concerns about competitive authoritarianism [8] [9].
3. Threats to prosecute, punish, or sideline political rivals
Multiple sources record frequent threats by Trump to “prosecute or punish perceived enemies” and explicit plans or pledges during his 2024 campaign to go after political opponents; NPR counted over 100 such threats in 2024 according to reporting cited by Carnegie analysts [3]. Foreign Affairs and other analyses report campaign pledges to prosecute rivals and suggestions to use federal power against critics—actions observers say mirror authoritarian tactics of weaponizing justice [1] [10].
4. Militarized rhetoric and domestic deployment of forces
Analysts report Trump signaled willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act or other wartime powers to deploy the military domestically; The Atlantic and policy groups reported statements about deploying the military to repress protest or deport people, and examples of calling up the National Guard or using Marines in U.S. cities are presented as concrete tests of norms against military use for civilian law enforcement [2] [7]. Nonprofit and policy reports describe these moves as central to an “authoritarian playbook” if they bypass legal limits or state officials [7] [10].
5. Executive actions, institutional capture, and “retribution” framing
Observers track a pattern of executive orders and personnel moves critics say aimed at consolidating power: firing agency heads, pledging to use pardons strategically, and promising to curtail prosecutorial independence are repeatedly raised in analyses as steps that could weaken checks and balances [4] [10] [11]. Commentators argue this fits a longer-term strategy of “salami slicing” institutions—incremental moves that cumulatively shift power—while noting courts and other institutions have sometimes pushed back [6] [9].
6. Rhetoric that dehumanizes and defines internal enemies
Several sources emphasize rhetoric that casts immigrants, political opponents, or “elites” as existential threats—language scholars say facilitates authoritarian consolidation by normalizing exceptional measures and dehumanization [6] [7] [12]. Reports cite the spread of conspiratorial narratives and “dangerous speech,” which researchers tie to an increased risk of violence and policymaking that targets groups [6].
7. Areas of disagreement and limits of available reporting
While many policy outlets, academic essays, and watchdog groups describe a consistent pattern of authoritarian-leaning acts and rhetoric, some journalists and analysts caution against using the authoritarian label too readily or note institutional resilience and partisan polarization in public perception [5] [4]. Available sources do not mention whether every cited threat was implemented or legally sustained; they document both rhetoric (threats, campaign pledges) and some concrete actions (lawsuits, deployments, firings), and they highlight ongoing debate about whether these amount to full authoritarian takeover versus democratic backsliding [1] [2] [8].
Conclusion: The publicly reported record from 2016–2025 repeatedly documents attacks on press and courts, efforts to delegitimize elections, threats to punish opponents, militarized domestic rhetoric, and executive maneuvers that critics argue are authoritarian in intent or effect; analysts diverge on how far these moves have progressed toward entrenched autocracy and frequently point to institutional checks, partisan splits, and ongoing legal and civic contests [1] [2] [8].