Trump and the Dictators’ Playbook

The election is over and the worst has happened. Donald Trump will return to office. He has made it very clear what he intends. We must take Trump at his word when it comes to the danger he poses. 

One of the features of the U.S. political system is that there are more than two months between the presidential election and the Inauguration. This gives us time. The urgency may not always be clear. Much of our lives will outwardly seem to continue as normal over the next ten weeks, especially for those of us who are not public figures or members of vulnerable communities. It would be a mistake, however, not to use this time wisely– in part because we may not have the luxury of speaking as freely after Trump is inaugurated on January 20.

Aspiring dictators have a well-worn playbook, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe in How Democracies Die. First, authoritarians set out to “capture the referees.” In other words, they seek to undermine, delegitimize, threaten, and replace non-partisan government actors—such as judges, prosecutors, generals, scientists, ethics watchdogs, and intelligence officials—with people who will be personally loyal to them. 

Trump tried this previously when he was in office the first time, although he did not always succeed. This was a source of intense frustration for Trump, who has vowed that “We can’t let that happen again,” meaning he wants to ensure that administration officials this time are unflinching in their subservience to him. He is preparing to install loyalists who will, as he said ominously, “do his bidding,” for example, in the Department of Justice, which has control over federal criminal prosecutions.

There is no guarantee that this will succeed. Trump could make some of the same mistakes as before by selecting people whom he incorrectly believes will be reliably loyal in carrying out his orders. Even former Attorney General William Barr drew the line when it came to arresting Trump’s political rivals. But we cannot count on members of his new administration to exercise the same restraint, and we must prepare for the worst. Trump is already moving to install stooges in the Department of Justice (Matt Gaetz), Department of Defense (Fox News host Pete Hegseth), public health agencies (Robert Kennedy, Jr.), and elsewhere who are willing to do whatever he asks of them. One commentator described the initial Trump cabinet picks as “mostly ride-or-die Trumpers.” Trump will also benefit from judges he appointed during his first term in office, including three Supreme Court Justices as well as U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, each of whom helped deliver crucial rulings in Trump’s favor.

In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt describe the next step after capturing the referees as “knocking out star players.” This means delegitimizing, co-opting, threatening, and even imprisoning one’s political foes. In successful dictatorships, the consequences are grim. Consider the fate of Alexei Navalny who was poisoned and later imprisoned until his ultimate death under Vladimir Putin.

Trump admires Putin and has publicly declared his intention to apply tactics mirroring Putin’s—specifically, jailing his political opponents and critics as a means of exacting revenge. As Politico observed, “Now that he’s won, [Trump] has both a popular mandate—and the power—to begin implementing his platform of punishment.” 

Let us pause to digest that breathtaking normalization of a dictator’s agenda. No U.S. President should ever have permission to exact punishment through the legal system against their perceived political enemies. This goes against everything we believe about our system’s commitment to checks and balances on power. 

There is no guarantee that Trump’s efforts to punish his perceived enemies will succeed. It is one thing to investigate and arrest someone—it is another thing to gain their conviction before a judge and jury. However, we cannot assume that prosecutions would proceed in Constitutional forums. Trump has suggested using military tribunals instead of civilian courts. If used, this could be a way to circumvent core procedural protections under the Bill of Rights. For instance, the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to a civilian jury as well as the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and view evidence relied on by the government. Military tribunals might be seen as a way to evade these procedural protections. 

As Levitsky and Ziblatt explain, aspiring dictators also try to change the rules in order to increase the odds that they can stay in power. This may involve gerrymandering, voter suppression, and other measures designed to tilt the playing field in their favor. 

When Vladimir Putin realized that term limits under the Russian constitution would eventually force him to leave office, he changed the rules. Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori dissolved Peru’s Congress and suspended its constitution when it served his purposes to do so. 

My point is not to be a prophet of doom. There is no guarantee that any of these horrors—like Trump’s pledge to carry out mass deportations or to use the military against political opponents—will come to pass. But we cannot comfortably assume that traditional checks and balances will protect us against Trump’s ambitions. 

We cannot afford to stay one step behind as Trump moves to consolidate power. We must use the precious time we have now, before January 20, 2025, to come together, create and build solidarity, and plan what we can and will do to protect our democracy. It is time to once again ring the alarm bell. Taking action is urgently needed, right now.