Two weeks before Election Day, the U.S. is a coin flip vote away from returning to the White House a former president who has clearly stated his plans to rule this time as an autocrat, in transgression of the values and norms that have governed the nation for 250 years. Today, Newsmakers presents a detailed analysis by the Protect Democracy* project of how -- as a practical matter -- Donald Trump‘s strongman agenda could succeed. --JR.
By Amanda Carpenter
Protect Democracy
Since Donald Trump was voted out of office in 2020, he and his allies have spent their time out of power carefully planning what they would do in a second term.
Long story short: They’ve coalesced around ideas to consolidate and expand executive power and to gut our checks and balances to enact an authoritarian “retribution” agenda against their perceived enemies and further entrench themselves in office.
These are more than threats; they’re promises. And, yes, these plans could succeed.
Donald Trump has made six explicit promises that, if enacted, would radically transform our government from democracy to autocracy.
Don’t assume that mechanisms meant to restrain the president — Congress, the courts, the non-partisan civil service, and our ability to vote in free and fair elections — will hold the second time around.
It can happen here. As a practical matter, here are three keys to how:
I. Packing the government with henchmen.
“Fire every single mid-level bureaucrat… replace them with our people.”
That are the words of Trump’s vice presidential pick, JD Vance, speaking on a podcast in 2021, voicing a key objective for those hoping to staff a second Trump Administration.
Vance was likely referring to Schedule F, Trump’s plan to purge the civil service. which he attempted in October 2020 and plans to try again if he wins a second term.
The plan did not go through the first time because Trump lost the 2020 election, and President Biden rescinded the Schedule F executive order when he took office.
But, if resurrected as one of Trump’s Day One promises, Schedule F could jumpstart the replacement of 50,000 or more nonpartisan federal employees with Trump loyalists — and make it clear to any remaining civil servants that their jobs are on the line if they don’t exhibit a similar degree of loyalty to Trump as his appointees.
Beyond Schedule F, Trump plans to install his henchmen across the federal government to perform critical functions, many of which have long been understood to require insulation from political interference. Some illustrative examples:
During his first term, Trump asserted an “absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department” and sought “loyalty” from high-ranking officials. Going forward, veterans from his first administration have developed specific plans to intervene and direct prosecutorial decisions.
Trump has said he should “have a say” on Federal Reserve interest rate decisions, an escalation from previous threats he made to fire or demote Fed Chairman Jerome Powell as U.S. markets suffered over the COVID-19 pandemic. (Read more here.)
As reported by The New York Times, Trump also seeks direct control over the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, which would allow him to heavily influence our major media and trade markets.
Adding to these concerns is the fact that Trump has promised to continue and expand upon his first-term abuses of the pardon power by granting pardons to January 6 rioters, which sends the signal that those who break the law to advance his goals — whether in the course of their jobs or by committing political violence — will be protected.
Checks and balances crumbled. Although institutional guardrails were severely tested and weakened in his first term, some of Trump’s officials did resist his unlawful requests in pivotal ways, such as when it came to certifying the election results on January 6, refusing to endorse the use of the Insurrection Act to tamp down on Black Lives Matter protests or tamper with Department of Justice investigations.
However, people like Mike Pence, Mark Esper, and Jeff Sessions will not be there the next time. (Many of those former appointees have become staunch critics or are withholding support for him.)
What will also be different in a second Trump term is that the current Supreme Court has shown a remarkable deference to Trump’s sweeping views of executive power.
The 6-to-3 Supreme Court Trump immunity decision, decided on ideological lines, not only means (as my colleagues Kristy Parker and Conor Gaffey wrote) that Trump “may very well get a pass on the whole [January 6] prosecution” but more broadly, as Bloomberg Law reported, the decision “may have further emboldened him to leverage the Justice Department to exact revenge.”
And if you think Trump may face accountability from other courts, that’s not a sure thing, either. Trump also has friendly counsel from other perches in the federal judiciary — judges like Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed his classified documents case.
Additionally, while Congress should ultimately act as a meaningful check on executive power abuses, the reality is that the Republican caucus is more subservient to Trump than it’s ever been. Republicans who have spoken out against him, most notably those who supported his impeachment and investigations into the January 6 insurrection, by and large, have been purged from the party or opted to resign.
The leadership of the party has made it clear those who object will be targeted for retaliation. As long as Trump’s allies in Congress are able to block oversight over Trump’s executive branch, Congress will not be in a place to act as a check on it.
Chaos and endless politicization. So, what would happen when these plans turn into action?
A lot of chaos, for starters. Any attempt to fire and replace tens (or hundreds) of thousands of federal employees is going to be a messy project. (Even if Project 2025 has legions of people vetted and trained ready to go on Day One.)
With such an abrupt staffing break, many government services will likely be disrupted. Critical functions, including national security, could be badly interrupted, leaving our systems needlessly vulnerable.
And, remember, the planned end-game for Trump and his allies is a federal government rife with politicization. That’s the goal. The purpose of funneling so many new loyalists into positions of power is to do what Trump has promised.
What does this look like? Some scenarios:
Interest rates are slashed or hiked for maximum political advantage. Think: rate cuts before elections even if harmful to the economy, or increased blame on political opponents.
FDA approvals and regulations are approved or denied based on conspiracy theories and niche, unscientifically-proven ideas. (Remember hydroxychloroquine?)
Natural disaster funding is approved only for states and cities that voted to support the president. (Flashback.)
Schools and universities are defunded for vaccination policies.
Colleges and universities are investigated and fined because, according to Trump’s official campaign, they are controlled by “radical Left and Marxist maniacs.”
In short, every policy decision made by the federal government becomes subject to abuse and becomes a means to a political end.
This is how autocracy starts: by taking over the federal government and installing loyalists who are ready, willing, and eager to use all government levers to maximize political power.
II. Using the tools of autocracy.
Modern autocrats don’t typically assume power by using brute force. Instead, they usually campaign and win democratically-run elections. Then, once in office, they begin using “salami tactics” to slice away at democratic institutions and wield government resources against their people. We’ve seen this happen in Russia, Venezuela, Hungary, the Philippines, Poland, Nicaragua, India, and Turkey.
And now, an authoritarian movement in America is eyeing three vast categories of federal resources to do that here at home: regulations, military and law enforcement, and spending powers.
Playing politics with regulations. Trump pushed for ways to punish his critics his first term — like threatening to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner because CNN was “wildly anti-Trump.” But his rhetoric and promises since losing the 2020 election have become even more adversarial.
Today, he and his allies are forthright about their desire to expand government power to reward loyalists and punish critics.
“If I win and somebody wants to run against me, I call my attorney general. I say, listen, indict him. ‘Well, he hasn’t done anything wrong that we know of’ — I don’t know, indict him on income tax evasion, you’ll figure it out.”
Trump’s defenders say we shouldn’t take his threats seriously because, for one, he didn’t prosecute his 2016 campaign opponent Hillary Clinton, despite all the chants to “lock her up.”
But abuses to target critics and dissenters can encompass more than prosecution.
Federal agencies have a range of tools to carry out the work of government and run the country — in addition to criminal investigation and prosecution. These administrative and regulatory authorities make sure protections like safety and environmental laws are enforced. Federal law helps to provide relief in disasters, administers grants and loans, and enables the purchase of critical national security infrastructure.
Trump sees these authorities as a potential means to coerce loyalty and curb dissent, making government aid, contracts, licenses, merger approvals, tax benefits, permits, civil penalties, relief aid, grants, and regulatory waivers contingent on showing him personal fidelity.
For instance, here’s Trump questioning, in a 2023 Truth Social post, why certain media companies, which he deemed to be “fake news,” should be permitted to stay on the air.
“I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events. Why should NBC, or any other of the corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE? They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!”
To this end, Trump released a policy video saying he would put the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission “under presidential authority.”
Which tracks, because, as examples of authoritarianism worldwide show us, we can expect that a lot of regulatory retaliation will be directed at the corporate sector and independent media. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán — Trump’s self-professed role model — has ruthlessly used state power to coerce most media outlets and private enterprises into serving his political goals.
Abuse of military and law enforcement power. Under the broad umbrella of cracking down on disorder or crime — or carrying out his mass deportation agenda — Trump will balloon federal law enforcement resources to police Americans in ways that would make our country unrecognizable.
At the 2023 California Republican Party Convention, he explicitly called for combative policing in ways that glorify violence and reject our constitutionally protected rights to due process:
“I will use every power at my disposal ... I will use everything I can, every single power at my disposal including sending as many federal law enforcement assets as required to restore safety and peace ... Very simply, if you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store. Shot! ... The word that they shoot you will get out within minutes and our nation, in one day, will be an entirely different place.”
To “restore safety and peace,” Trump and his allies are prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act — an emergency power the president should only use in extreme cases of civil unrest — to deploy the military to police our streets.
And, to accomplish his stated goal of conducting the “largest deportation operation in history,” Trump is planning to inflate resources at the Department of Homeland Security, deploy National Guard troops across state lines — from “red” states like Texas to “blue” states like California — and deputize local law enforcement.
These maneuvers will be used under the guise of fighting crime, with wide-scale arrests and mass deportation camps. And it won’t likely end there. History tells us that when autocrats scapegoat vulnerable communities to harness new police powers, that’s usually just the beginning.
Blocking Congress’s spending power. Finally, Trump aims to interfere with spending Congress has approved through something called “impoundment” — the term for withholding congressionally-approved dollars to block federal funding to people who don’t sufficiently support him and to programs he doesn’t like.
Funding the government becomes another tool for coercion when abused like this.
Imagine the following scenarios:
A blue-state governor criticizes Trump’s environmental policies — until the White House threatens to block funds to repair the state’s bridges and roads to punish her for expressing her views.
A teachers' union endorses a slate of congressional candidates challenging Trump’s preferred picks, and his administration withholds federal education grants for their state until they stand down.
Trump freezes grants to nonprofits and charities whose missions he opposes, putting the work of groups that provide medical aid or stand up for senior citizens at risk.
A culture of silence, fear, and intimidation. We can’t predict how every scenario will pan out, exactly. But the warped use of these tools will be harmful, and that’s especially true for the most vulnerable in our society.
And those who speak out first will likely be hit hardest.
When autocrats abuse power to target challengers, they do it, in large part, to create a climate of fear. To send the message that bad things will happen to those who don’t fall in line. And even though courageous individuals may resist the pressure, many are unwilling or unable to take those risks and comply in advance to try and avoid becoming a target.
Silence snowballs.
The result is that our civil society and democratic institutions, which serve as checks on executive power, degrade. The cycle repeats, grinding over both the public and private sector, becoming ingrained in the culture. As time goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.
III. Refusing to give up power.
Once this authoritarian movement consolidates power, as promised, and wields it against its critics and enemies, would it easily give that power up? In the 2028 election? Or in the contests beyond that?
If they follow the model other autocrats have established, the answer is “no.”
Especially considering the extreme measures Trump and his allies took to stay in power after losing in 2020, which started with conspiracy theories about a “stolen election,” calls to state officials to “find the votes,” dozens of unsuccessful legal challenges, a scheme to present fraudulent electors to Congress, requests for the Department of Justice to investigate the alleged “fraud,” a behind-the-scenes pressure campaign against then-Vice President Mike Pence, and finally, the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th that resulted in the assault of more than 140 members of law enforcement.
Trump keeps hinting, as he did at a 2020 campaign rally, about staying in the White House beyond the two terms limited by the 22nd Amendment:
“We are going to win four more years. ... And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.”
In May of this year, he reprised the threat, in a speech to the National Rifle Association:
“You know, FDR 16 years — almost 16 years — he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?”
While Trump often flirts with these ideas, he hasn’t floated any concrete plans about how he might stay in office beyond two terms. But that doesn’t mean his allies wouldn’t find the means to make this rhetoric a reality.
Fanciful legal arguments. For example, Trump has already shown an ability to get the courts to not only entertain but accept legal theories that were widely considered outlandish before his presidency.
When Trump asked the Supreme Court for “absolute immunity” from prosecution related to the January 6th insurrection, many legal experts expected the Supreme Court to reject the argument. Instead, a Supreme Court majority granted Trump immunity for “official” acts, creating a new protective bubble of criminal immunity for the presidency and immediately delaying his criminal proceedings against him past the 2024 election.
The takeaway is that uncompelling arguments and inventive legal maneuvering that may seem implausible can take hold. And quickly, too.
For this reason, his 2022 Truth Social post speculating the Constitution could be “terminated” to have a “new election” is one of those wild musings that shouldn’t be dismissed:
Trump has also floated the idea that the first two years of his first term were “stolen” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into his 2016 campaign’s connections with Russia. That notion had support. At the time, a prominent ally stated, “Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as payback for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup.”
False emergencies and investigations. Conversely, he may simply attempt to circumvent the Constitution’s two-term presidential term limit by ginning up phony investigations or emergencies to indefinitely delay elections or the certification of the rightful winner.
To be clear, these tactics are illegal. And, while they may seem absurd from where we sit today, remember, he’s made promises and has plans to pack the government with henchmen and neutralize the remaining people and institutions that could oppose him. Unlike his first term, Trump and his allies are planning to surround him with staff willing to do whatever he requests.
There is another telling callback to his first term.
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, an executive order was drafted, although never issued, to direct the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines. Politico reported that “the draft order would have given the defense secretary 60 days to write an assessment of the 2020 election.
That suggests it could have been a gambit to keep Trump in power until at least mid-February of 2021.” We should not expect such actions would be blocked by federal appointees and officials next time.
GOP vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance, in an interview with ABC News last July, has already signaled he would have gone along with schemes to obstruct or delay the certification of the winner of the presidential election to look at “problems.”
“If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020. I think that's what we should have done."
We should also anticipate the legal terrain will be friendlier to Trump at the end of a second Trump Administration; Trump would have spent four years appointing judges and justices potentially willing to bless such brazen maneuvers.
Why it could succeed. Regardless of how the autocratic movement would try to stay in power, a free and fair election in 2028 isn’t guaranteed. Some trouble spots ahead we’re thinking about:
By 2028, the Trump administration would have had four years to lay the groundwork to undermine future elections through federal legislation and administrative action.
State and local activists could pass legislation aimed at corrupting and subverting elections. (A robust effort to undermine non-partisan election administration has been underway since 2020.)
Blessed by the Supreme Court, efforts to gerrymander elections, mass-disqualify voters, undermine voting rights, and intimidate voters could escalate.
Continued disinformation efforts as Trump and his allies may keep spreading lies.
Is this truly plausible? Could 2024 be our last meaningful election? What would it really look like if our democracy were transformed into an autocracy – one where elections are held but are not free and fair?
In the modern era, autocrats systematically slice away at democracy, step-by-step.
We’ve seen this incremental erosion for the last eight years. Given the reality of the events that have occurred during this time, anyone who thinks that the democratic backsliding would only go so far in a second Trump Administration and then magically stop out of respect for something like term limits should reconsider.
The only way it happens here is if we believe that it can’t.
*Amanda Carpenter, a conservative Republican and political analyst for CNN, is a writer and editor for Protect Democracy.
Project Democracy is a Washington-based, cross-ideological, nonprofit organization, "dedicated to defeating the authoritarian threat, building more resilient democratic institutions, and protecting our freedom and liberal democracy" via litigation, legislation, research and analysis in support of free and fair elections and the rule of law.
Images: Trump speaks at recent rally (CNN); Amanda Carpenter (HarperCollins).
“could jumpstart the replacement of 50,000 or more nonpartisan federal employees”
That’s where you lose me.