The governance style of the Trump administration, characterized by a persistent pattern of power plays, has sparked a recurring debate over whether these actions demonstrate genuine strength or underlying desperation. From attempts to influence the Supreme Court regarding midterm elections to the dissemination of false narratives about voter fraud, the president’s methods often appear designed to consolidate autocratic control. However, it is essential to consider that these same strategies may simultaneously introduce significant vulnerabilities into the regime.
In the 21st century, aspiring autocrats operate differently than their 20th-century counterparts. While past leaders relied on overt violence and human rights abuses, modern figures often attempt to maintain a facade of democracy and rule of law to appease domestic and international observers. This approach, which social scientists Serguei Guriev and Daniel Treisman identify as "spin dictatorships," contrasts with "fear dictatorships" by reducing visible violence. Yet, as seen with Vladimir Putin in 2022, the threat of violence remains a latent tool that can be deployed when the mask of democratic legitimacy is no longer deemed necessary.
It is crucial to understand how Trump differs from these patterns: unlike Orbán, for instance, he was never constrained by international institutions and other powerful capitals (let alone “international public opinion” – even mentioning the term in as self-centered a country as the US seems faintly ridiculous). What’s more, his own modus operandi, from his early days as a New York real estate investor onwards, has always been to simply do things that everyone can see are illegal – the point is to create facts on the ground (think of the demolition of the East Wing) and hope that the other side will settle out of court or just live with a fait accompli.
A core element of the current administration’s strategy is "flooding the zone" with scandals. This method of illegality—and hope for impunity—now characterizes almost the entire administration. By generating a high volume of controversies, the administration prevents the public from focusing on any single event. However, this approach carries risks. A single, high-profile failure—such as the recent reflecting pool disaster, which highlighted both incompetence and corruption—could capture public attention and serve as a potent symbol of regime-wide decay, much like how a pardon scandal involving an Orbán ally became a defining symbol of his rule.
Furthermore, the administration’s focus on absolute loyalty over competence creates its own set of challenges. While demanding total devotion and requiring public displays of election denial can unify the base, it inevitably leads to poor outcomes when unqualified individuals are placed in critical roles. This systemic incompetence, if highlighted by an effective opposition, remains a distinct liability.
Finally, the lack of a coherent system for self-enrichment distinguishes the current administration from other kleptocratic models. Again, the shamelessness might easily generate a sense of hopelessness on the part of Americans watching unprecedented acts of malfeasance. But, unlike with other aspiring autocrats, the Trumpists are not really creating a coherent system of self-enrichment. Under Trump, everyone just grabs whatever they can as quickly as they can. That inability to build a system is ultimately a sign of weakness; the Trumpists themselves do not really seem to believe that their rule will last, and what Mike Johnson, in a revealing moment, called the Republicans’ “protection program” – the majority in Congress – might be gone this year. Self-confident creators of autocratic kleptocracy would have stayed silent on the point – and been smarter in their approach altogether. To be sure, that is no consolation for victims of cruelty.
The pattern is by now all too familiar: with every power grab Trump tries – from a fraudulent speech about voter fraud to appeals to his supreme court to let him rig the midterms – a debate kicks off about whether these moves are signs of strength or of desperation. Maybe we keep getting caught in this debate because the question is badly posed. So much of what is distinctive about Trump’s governance during his second term can serve the consolidation of an autocratic regime and at the same time create particular vulnerabilities for the regime. We have to become better at identifying these weaknesses, as opposed to being shellshocked by Trump’s brazenness every single time.
Aspiring autocrats operate differently in the 21st century; in previous eras, they had little hesitation about unleashing violence and committing massive human rights violations. Today, they try to fool both domestic and international audiences into thinking that democracy and the rule of law still exist. The recently deposed Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, was a master of this technique; he spent many years performing what he called “the peacock dance” to convince the European Commission (and Chancellor Angela Merkel) that he wasn’t creating a kleptocratic autocracy.
Related Articles
Md. Kazi Bijoy is a dedicated tech enthusiast and content creator with a passion for digital innovation. With years of experience in the tech industry, he specializes in breaking down complex topics into easy-to-understand guides. When he isn’t writing, he explores the latest gadgets and researches emerging trends in the digital world.