Jimmy Kimmel’s recent suspension, triggered by an alarming threat from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke network licenses airing his show, serves as a stark reminder of how authoritarianism can seep into American governance. This incident highlights the troubling potential for the executive branch to use power against dissenting voices and the press, echoing patterns observed in other democracies, particularly in Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
The threats made by FCC Chair Brendan Carr regarding “news distortion” reveal the ease with which vaguely defined regulations can be weaponized against political opponents. Such tactics can also be employed to help allies, securing regulatory benefits like merger approvals for those who adhere to the administration’s narrative. This troubling reality begs the question: how far down the path to authoritarianism has the United States already traveled, and what does the future hold?
Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. has been inching toward a more consolidated authoritarian regime, with recent developments suggesting a more credible pathway to power consolidation could emerge before the 2028 elections. A future under a Trump-led government could unfold in four significant phases.
First, the administration may leverage hiring and firing powers to eliminate career civil servants from key agencies, such as the Justice Department. This tactic is designed to dismantle the traditional barriers that protect law enforcement and regulatory decisions from undue political influence. The recent appointment of political allies to influential positions and efforts to dismiss prosecutors who refuse to follow political orders illustrate this unsettling trend.
Second, utilizing these newly aligned agencies, the administration might intensify its crackdown on dissent within civil society. The ongoing assaults on prominent institutions, particularly Ivy League universities, signal a broadening of attacks aimed at stifling opposition voices. This could include pursuing racketeering charges against liberal non-profits and targeting critics in the media, similar to the threats levied against Kimmel.
Third, the administration could engage in bullying tactics against major corporations, coercing them into compliance through economic power. This trend is already visible, as seen in Trump’s preferential treatment of certain businesses through tariff exemptions and threats of antitrust actions. In an authoritarian landscape, this politicization of economic relationships would deepen, creating an environment where any corporation that opposes the administration risks severe financial repercussions.
Fourth, the accumulated power would be directed toward the political opposition, manipulating elections to create the illusion of fairness while erecting significant barriers for Democrats. Already, we’ve witnessed attempts at mid-cycle redistricting and investigations into Democratic fundraising platforms like ActBlue, which could lead to criminal charges against political rivals.
While the Trump administration has only made significant progress in the first phase thus far, recent events, particularly following the death of Charlie Kirk, indicate an alarming shift toward more aggressive actions in the second and third phases. If these efforts succeed, the potential for elections in America to become fundamentally unfair looms large.
However, there remains an opportunity to avert this future. The response from Congress, the judiciary, civil society, and even corporate America will be crucial in countering these authoritarian impulses before the midterms. There is still time to challenge the trajectory toward authoritarianism, but the urgency is palpable.
The emergence of what political scientists term “competitive authoritarianism” in the U.S. does not hinge on the outright criminalization of the opposition or the imposition of martial law. Instead, it relies on the gradual erosion of democratic norms through legal manipulation, creating a landscape where the opposition struggles to compete fairly in elections.
The potential for a “Frankenstate”—a government formed by misusing democratic institutions to suppress dissent—threatens the very foundation of American democracy. This could manifest through burdensome audits, dubious investigations, and uneven enforcement of campaign finance rules, effectively stifling the opposition’s ability to operate.
In this grim scenario, corporations may find themselves beholden to the whims of the administration, fearing retribution for crossing the political line. The press could fall under the control of regime-favored oligarchs, limiting the diversity of viewpoints accessible to the public. Independent media and liberal activists could face harassment that drains their resources, further marginalizing dissenting voices.
While this vision of a potential future may seem far-fetched, recent actions taken by the Trump administration underscore the seriousness of the threat. A recent deal to spin off TikTok USA, giving significant control to Trump-aligned billionaires, exemplifies the administration’s encroachment on media control. The consolidation of media power among allies of the regime poses risks for the overall information landscape, potentially skewing public perception and impacting electoral outcomes.
Democrats and progressive activists may attempt to counterbalance this by mobilizing resources and activism, but the administration’s intent to target liberal organizations could severely undermine these efforts. The ongoing investigation into ActBlue and the threats against prominent foundations like Open Society illustrate a systematic assault on the infrastructure that supports political opposition.
The potential for strategic victories through legal harassment looms large. Even the mere act of imposing litigation costs on liberal organizations could effectively weaken their influence, forcing them into defensive postures that sap their resources and energy.
As we stand on the precipice of a possible authoritarian shift, it’s crucial to remember that the fight for democracy is not over. The current political landscape, dominated by a conservative Supreme Court and a Republican-controlled Congress, does not signify an inevitable decline into authoritarianism. Instead, it highlights the critical need for collective action and defiance against individual encroachments on liberty.
The power of coordinated resistance—by members of Congress, the media, the business sector, and ordinary citizens—can disrupt the momentum of authoritarian consolidation. This is not just a battle for the future of American democracy; it’s a call to action for all who believe in the fundamental principles of freedom and justice.
To safeguard democracy, we must amplify voices that advocate for fair governance, challenge anti-democratic policies, and support the organizations that stand against authoritarianism. The stakes are too high for complacency; we are at a crossroads, and our collective action will determine the future of our democracy.
