The January 6th Capitol riot, with its chilling imagery of a mob chanting for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence, police officers pursued through corridors, and lawmakers fleeing in terror, has become the defining image of Donald Trump’s assault on democracy following the 2020 election. This blatant physical attempt by the losing candidate to cling to power understandably captured the world’s attention. However, while shocking, the insurrection itself wasn’t the most dangerous element of Trump’s strategy to subvert the election. The real threat lay in the insidious process he orchestrated in the months leading up to January 6th.
From Election Day onward, Trump relentlessly pressured institutions and individuals to overturn the legitimate outcome. He directed the Department of Justice to investigate baseless claims of election fraud, coerced state officials and election authorities to alter results, and ultimately demanded that Vice President Pence invalidate the electoral votes. While a last-minute rejection of Joe Biden’s victory by Congress or Pence on January 6th would have been immediately recognized as illegitimate, prompting intervention from the judiciary, military, and law enforcement, Trump’s earlier actions were shrouded in a veneer of legality. These actions, taken before the climactic events of January 6th, claimed to operate within the Constitutional framework, making them harder to combat and potentially legitimized by a biased court, as hinted by the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling on some of Trump’s actions.
The classic image of a coup often involves the violent seizure of government buildings, somber generals in dark glasses, or perhaps a dramatic declaration of martial law. However, the dismantling of democracies by leaders like Hugo Chávez, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Viktor Orbán followed a different, more insidious path. These leaders systematically eroded democratic norms and institutions through seemingly legal means, gradually consolidating power and silencing dissent. Trump’s actions mirror this pattern, raising concerns that his goal wasn’t merely to challenge the 2020 election results, but to establish a blueprint for future power grabs.
The question of whether the United States could follow the path of Hungary under a returning Trump presidency was posed by Harvard professor Steven Levitsky, co-author of "How Democracies Die." Initially, Levitsky expressed doubt, not because Trump lacked ambition or American institutions were inherently stronger, but due to the strength of potential resistance. Unlike in Hungary, the US opposition remained united and competitive, bolstered by a diverse media landscape and a business sector willing to support both parties. However, recent events have cast a shadow over this optimistic outlook.
Developments since those initial assessments paint a more concerning picture. Major newspapers like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, breaking with tradition, declined to endorse a candidate in recent elections due to ownership intervention. A major television network settled a lawsuit with Trump, issuing an apology that further emboldened him. The influence of powerful figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, aligning themselves with Trump and modifying their platforms to favor his narrative, further tilts the playing field. Even the corporate world has begun purging diversity initiatives and climate commitments, bowing to pressure from the right. This rapid acquiescence within supposed bastions of resistance raises serious concerns about the erosion of checks and balances.
Levitsky and Ziblatt have highlighted that Trump’s rhetoric and actions, including his attacks on opponents, serve not only as punishment but as a chilling message to potential dissenters. This, coupled with the increasing politicization of the judiciary and other state apparatus, creates a strong incentive for Trump to retain control, as losing power could expose him to legal repercussions from opponents empowered by a restored rule of law. This raises critical questions about Trump’s willingness to relinquish power in the future. While a third presidential term is constitutionally barred, and rewriting the Constitution is unlikely in the US context, the possibility of other power-retaining maneuvers, like a vice-presidential run followed by the president’s resignation, cannot be dismissed. History offers examples of leaders like Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland and Vladimir Putin in Russia who exerted control without holding the top office, raising the specter of similar tactics being employed by Trump through a handpicked successor. The question isn’t whether Trump would attempt such maneuvers, but rather if anyone can confidently say he wouldn’t, especially given his past actions. The need to remain vigilant and to call out anti-democratic behavior for what it is becomes paramount, as the dismantling of American democracy would likely occur under the guise of legality, not through a dramatic storming of Congress.
