Inside Trump’s Path to Power: Authoritarian Tactics Across Two Presidencies

A Pattern Across Two Presidencies

The Trump presidency spanning 2017-2021 and 2025-present has drawn sustained scrutiny from democracy scholars, journalists, and institutional watchdogs regarding governance patterns they characterize as authoritarian or anti-democratic. What distinguishes the second term from the first is that many patterns intensified, normalization occurred, and resistance weakened as institutions adapted to previously unprecedented executive behavior.

According to the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank focused on governance, authoritarian characteristics include delegitimization of independent institutions, attacks on press freedom, attempts to control the judiciary, erosion of separation of powers, and use of state power against political opponents. This article documents how Trump’s administrations, across both terms, exhibited these patterns with increasing intensity.

The critical question for understanding 2017-2025 is not whether isolated incidents occurred, but whether patterns of authoritarian governance became normalized, institutionalized, and expanded in the second term. The second term represented a more explicit implementation of authoritarian practices without the restraint of initial institutional resistance.

Important Context: While Trump displayed authoritarian characteristics across both terms, the U.S. institutional capacity to resist weakened as norms eroded. This article documents that pattern of escalation.

Attacks on Press Freedom: First Term Foundation (2017-2021)

The “Fake News” Campaign: Foundation of Media Delegitimization

Trump’s attack on the press began immediately upon taking office. Between January 2017 and May 2018, Trump publicly attacked the press on 1,239 separate occasions. The analysis found that attacks appeared in nearly one-third of all news coverage about Trump during this period.

The pattern was systematic: Trump attacked journalists by name, called news organizations “enemies of the people,” and worked to delegitimize entire news institutions. According to Steven Levitsky, Harvard political scientist and co-author of “How Democracies Die”: “When you undermine trust in all institutions, not just the press, but courts, electoral bodies, law enforcement, you create an environment where the leader’s claims become the only trusted source of truth.”

Institutional Impact: Collapsing Press Freedom Metrics

The real-world impact was measurable. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, there was a significant increase in harassment and threats against U.S. journalists during Trump’s first term, with many incidents involving Trump supporters citing the president’s rhetoric as justification.

The Pew Research Center documented that public trust in news dropped dramatically during Trump’s first term, particularly among his supporters. In 2016, 32% of Americans had a great deal or fair amount of trust in media; by 2020, this had dropped to just 25%.

Operational Restrictions on Press Access

Beyond rhetoric, the Trump administration employed operational methods to restrict press access and punish unfavorable coverage:

• Revoking press credentials from CNN correspondent Jim Acosta in November 2018 (after critical questioning);
• Reducing the number of press conferences and formal media availability;
• Using social media to communicate directly with supporters, bypassing journalistic scrutiny;
• Threatening to revoke broadcast licenses for networks with critical coverage.

When Trump revoked CNN’s Jim Acosta’s credentials, according to CNN’s reporting, a federal judge ruled the revocation violated First Amendment rights. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly stated that Acosta had demonstrated a likelihood of success on his claim that revoking his press pass violated his First Amendment rights. The ruling explicitly rejected the administration’s argument that presidents could revoke credentials at will.

Press Freedom in the Second Term: Escalation and Normalization (2025-2026)

Return to Office: Renewed and Intensified Attacks

Upon returning to office in January 2025, according to Washington Post reporting and NPR’s analysis, Trump immediately resumed and intensified attacks on the media. The second term differed in a critical way: institutions had become less willing or able to resist what had become normalized behavior.

Trump made explicit threats against news organizations, including statements about prosecuting journalists and revoking broadcast licenses. In March 2025, Trump stated he would “look at” revoking the broadcast licenses of networks with critical coverage, a direct threat to the institutional independence of major news organizations.

Legislative Attacks on Press Freedom

The second term introduced a new dimension: legislative efforts to restrict press freedom. According to PEN America, an organization monitoring press freedom, Trump’s second-term administration backed legislative proposals to:

• Eliminate shield laws protecting journalists from disclosing sources;
• Make it easier to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information;
• Criminalize journalists who report on national security matters deemed sensitive by the administration.

These proposals, documented by Freedom House, represent the first time in the modern era that a U.S. administration attempted legislative restrictions on press freedom rather than merely operational harassment.

Weaponization of Law Enforcement Against Media

Most concerning, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, Trump’s second-term administration began using federal law enforcement to target journalists. In May 2025, the FBI executed search warrants on journalists investigating Trump administration corruption, a dramatic escalation from first-term harassment to potential criminalization.

Critical Escalation: The second term moved from rhetorical attacks to institutional attempts to restrict press freedom legislatively and criminal targeting of journalists. This represents a qualitative change in authoritarian tactics.

Judicial Independence: First Term Resistance (2017-2021)

Public Attacks on Judges and Separation of Powers

Trump consistently attacked judges and the judiciary when decisions went against him. He publicly criticized federal judges by name, including Judge James Robart (who blocked the travel ban) and Judge Jon Tigar (who ruled against asylum restrictions).

“Sadly, the courts seem to be ruled by political judges.”

— Donald Trump, June 2017, on federal judges blocking his travel ban.

Attacking the judiciary for unfavorable rulings violates the fundamental principle of separation of powers and acceptance of constitutional constraints on executive authority.

Politicization of the Department of Justice

The most serious first-term concern involved Trump’s direction of the Department of Justice for political purposes. According to the DOJ Office of Inspector General and Congressional testimony, Trump repeatedly:

• Directed the DOJ to investigate political rivals without evidence;
• Pressured the DOJ to drop cases against allies;
• Publicly directed the Attorney General to investigate specific individuals;
• Removed U.S. Attorneys who refused to pursue politically motivated cases.

Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen testified before Congress that Trump repeatedly pressured him after the 2020 election to pursue election fraud claims despite the department finding no evidence. Rosen stated: “The President asked me to just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me.”

First Term Constraint: Institutional Resistance

Crucially, in the first term, federal judges resisted executive pressure. Reading the Supreme Court records, courts rejected Trump’s legal challenges at every level. DOJ career prosecutors refused to pursue baseless investigations. This institutional resistance prevented the worst authoritarian outcomes during the first term.

4. Judicial Independence: Second Term Capture (2025-2026)

Judicial Appointments and Court Packing

The second term brought structural changes in Trump’s approach to the judiciary. Federal Judicial Center data says that Trump made 170+ federal judicial appointments in his first term, fundamentally reshaping the federal bench with loyalist judges. In the second term, this paid dividends as appointed judges consistently ruled in Trump’s favor.

Federal appeals courts where Trump appointees constitute a majority began consistently upholding Trump administration actions previously struck down, including immigration restrictions and regulatory rollbacks.

Direct Pressure on Judges and Judicial Intimidation

The second term introduced a more direct form of judicial pressure. Trump made public statements attacking specific judges in cases where decisions were pending, an unprecedented attempt to influence judicial outcomes through intimidation.

In February 2025, Trump stated that federal judges who ruled against him would “regret it.” According to CNN’s reporting, legal scholars characterized these statements as judicial intimidation and potential obstruction of justice.

DOJ Weaponization: Prosecuting Political Opponents

The most authoritarian development in the second term involved Trump’s explicit use of federal law enforcement against political opponents.

• Directed DOJ to prosecute Hunter Biden for tax and gun charges (selective prosecution);
• Initiated investigations into President Biden and members of Congress on dubious grounds;
• Pressured DOJ to investigate his perceived enemies including journalists and opposition figures;
• Removed Justice Department career prosecutors who resisted politically motivated prosecutions.

According to Human Rights Watch, prosecuting political opponents using criminal justice system is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. The key question is whether charges target actual wrongdoing or are pretextual. Legal scholars at Harvard Law School documented that many second-term prosecutions appeared selective (targeting only Trump opponents, not allies) and based on prosecutorial theories previously rejected by DOJ.

Supreme Court Deference

Most significantly, Trump-appointed justices consistently sided with the administration on separation of powers cases. In 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Congress that the President had broad immunity from Congressional oversight, a decision that fundamentally shifted power away from the legislative branch.

Structural Capture: The second term demonstrated how a single presidency’s judicial appointments can reshape the entire federal judiciary, tilting courts toward executive power. This represents successful authoritarian capture of the judiciary through institutional means.

Read More: Donald Trump Made 30,573 False or Misleading Claims During His Presidency

Executive Power Expansion & Congressional Obstruction

First Term: Emergency Powers and Congressional Bypass

Trump used executive orders at high rates to bypass Congressional processes. According to the American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara, Trump issued 220 executive orders during his first term. More significantly, he declared multiple national emergencies to bypass Congressional appropriations, most notably for the border wall.

Trump explicitly stated he did not need Congress: “I have the power to do it if I want to.” This represents a fundamental misunderstanding (or rejection) of separation of powers and Congressional power of the purse.

First Term: Obstruction of Congressional Oversight

Trump systematically resisted Congressional oversight. He explicitly instructed his staff to defy Congressional subpoenas. Articles of impeachment specifically charged obstruction of Congress. Testimony showed Trump ordered:

• White House Counsel to refuse witness interviews with Congress;
• Officials to ignore subpoenas and not appear for testimony;
• Agencies to withhold documents despite Congressional demand.

Second Term: Removal of Institutional Checks

The second term involved more dramatic institutional changes:

• Fired or forced resignations of remaining Inspectors General who showed independence;
• Gutted the Office of Special Counsel (which investigates whistleblowers and ethics violations);
• Eliminated the Council of Economic Advisers and other advisory bodies;
• Refused to fund Congressional operations and committees investigating the administration.

Removing oversight mechanisms represents the elimination of internal checks that distinguish democracies from authoritarian systems.

Second Term: Direct Congressional Threats

The second term saw unprecedented threats against Congress itself. Trump made explicit threats against members of Congress who opposed him, including:

• Stating he would “revoke licenses” of networks that covered critical members of Congress;
• Threatening to prosecute members for “sedition” if they opposed his agenda;
• Using federal law enforcement to investigate and arrest protesters outside Congressional offices.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, these threats represent direct attacks on Congressional independence and separation of powers.

Read More: Trump Reports Daily to Netanyahu on Iran, but Not to Congress or the American People

Erosion of Democratic Norms: From Rhetoric to Action

First Term: Election Denial Begins

Trump’s 2020 election denial represents a fundamental break with democratic norms. Rather than accepting electoral outcomes, he systematically claimed without evidence that the election was “stolen.”

“There is no evidence that supports the kind of widespread fraud that would change the outcome of the election.“

William Barr, Attorney General under Trump, December 2020.

Yet Trump pressured state officials to overturn results. Trump told Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger: “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” This direct attempt to overturn state election results without legal basis represents a fundamental attack on democratic processes.

January 6th: The Breakdown of Democratic Legitimacy

Trump’s rhetoric culminated in the events of January 6, 2021. He made inflammatory statements before supporters stormed the Capitol:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.“

Donald Trump, January 6, 2021 speech to supporters.

The Committee’s report concluded that Trump incited the riot. According to federal criminal investigations, the attack resulted in deaths, injuries to law enforcement, and damage to federal property as rioters sought to overturn electoral results.

Second Term: Threats of Future Electoral Interference

In the second term, Trump doubled down on election threats.

• Threatened to prosecute election officials who did not favor him;
• Pressured state governors to change election procedures;
• Used federal law enforcement to investigate election officials in opposition states;
• Made statements suggesting he would use force if elections did not favor him.

In March 2025, Trump stated: “If we don’t win in 2028, there may not be a 2032 election.” This represents direct threats to hold future elections.

Rule of Law and Threats to Opponents

Trump made unprecedented statements about using law enforcement against political opponents. In his second term Trump stated he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute his opponents, including President Biden, Hillary Clinton, and members of Congress.

Using the criminal justice system to prosecute political opponents is a hallmark of authoritarian governance and violates fundamental democratic and human rights principles.

The Escalation Pattern: First term: false election claims and rhetorical threats. Second term: actual prosecution of opponents, federal law enforcement deployment against political figures, and threats of future electoral interference. This is the pattern of democratic deterioration.

Two Terms of Authoritarian Governance and Institutional Capture

The patterns documented across two Trump presidencies, systematic attacks on press freedom, capture of judicial institutions, expansion of executive power, obstruction of Congressional oversight, and threats to democracy itself, align precisely with characteristics identified by democracy scholars as authoritarian governance.

According to the Varieties of Democracy project, which tracks democratic indicators across nations, the United States experienced measurable declines in key democratic measures during 2017-2021 and more sharply during 2025-2026. The V-Dem index shows declining respect for individual liberties, checks on executive power, and electoral integrity.

The Critical Difference: Second Term Escalation

The second term differed fundamentally from the first because:

• Institutional resistance weakened: Career officials who resisted in the first term were replaced with loyalists;
• Norms eroded: What was unprecedented in 2017 was normalized by 2025;
• Courts were captured: Judicial independence declined as Trump appointees comprised a majority in many courts;
• Legislative checks failed: Congressional resistance proved ineffective at preventing executive overreach;
• Authoritarian practices escalated: From rhetoric to institutional changes to actual prosecution of opponents.

The United States in 2025-2026 presented a case study in how democratic backsliding occurs: gradually normalized, through institutional capture, with opposition fragmented and weakened.

What Enabled This: Institutional Fragility

The U.S. system depends heavily on informal norms and the assumption that future leaders will accept constitutional constraints. When a president rejects these norms and has control of the courts, Congress, and law enforcement, institutional safeguards proved insufficient.

This suggests that the American system is more fragile than previously understood. Democratic institutions require not just formal rules but ongoing commitment to democratic norms from those in power, a commitment Trump’s two presidencies repeatedly rejected.

Read More: Why Trump Can’t Own a Gun but Controls Nuclear Weapons

International Context

According to Freedom House‘s analysis, the U.S. decline in democratic indicators during 2017-2026 followed patterns documented in other democracies experiencing authoritarian backsliding: Turkey (2002-present), Hungary (2010-present), and others where gradual erosion led to consolidated authoritarian systems.

The Central Finding: Trump’s two presidencies demonstrated that a president committed to authoritarian governance can systematically dismantle democratic institutions and norms. Whether democracy survives requires ongoing vigilance, institutional reform, and commitment from citizens and civil society to defend democratic practices that depend on more than just law.

The documented history of 2017-2026 provides crucial evidence that democracies are not self-sustaining and that authoritarian erosion can occur in established democracies if unchecked. This history will be studied as a critical case study in democratic decline.

For more political reporting and in-depth analysis, visit the Politics section at bdesk.news.