Not every Trump move is authoritarian — focus on the real threats

Each day brings a new wave of controversy from the Trump White House, sparking dramatic headlines and deep alarm from some commentators. 

The normally restrained Associated Press warns that the president’s actions are “shaking the foundations of U.S. democracy” while the U.K.-based Guardian has even declared that “U.S. Democracy has Died.”

There are real reasons for concern — both in policy and respect for the rule of law — but the failure to distinguish routine governance from authoritarianism poses its own threat. If every action of Trump’s administration is labeled authoritarian, it becomes harder to recognize true dangers. For those who are troubled by his presidency or who want to assess the administration fairly, it is crucial to make distinctions between policy disagreements, norm violations and outright illegalities in order to know how to respond best in each case.

First, many of Trump’s policies are simply standard Republican policy ideas. School vouchers, tax cuts, conservative interpretations of the law in the courts, a more limited federal role in education, light-touch regulation of new technologies and increased fossil fuel production are all longstanding Republican priorities.

Even trade protectionism — a policy we both soundly reject — has significant support across the political spectrum. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with policies like these, but, with the exception of trade, they are roughly those that any other Republican elected in modern times would have enacted.

Second, some of Trump’s policies represent a break from recent Republican orthodoxy or political norms, but are still clearly within the law. His takeover of the Kennedy Center, for example, is clearly within his legal authority, thanks in large part to a court decision regarding former President Joe Biden’s (D) sacking of Trump-appointee Sean Spicer from another board. While there are many reasons to watch what Trump does with respect to the military, picking his own person to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff is likewise the president’s prerogative as commander-in-chief.

Trump’s efforts to slash the federal workforce may be unevenly executed, slapdash, and on a historic scale, but buyouts and layoffs of probationary employees have been done before. They do not necessary imply a sinister plot. 

Mischaracterizing these actions as authoritarianism rather than just potentially bad policy weakens the credibility of those who would challenge Trump if he actually crosses the line. Few of the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump will be moved to sharply reconsider their opinion on a truly egregious presidential act if, day in and day out, they are bombarded by breathless critics claiming every one of his acts means “the end of democracy.” 

That said, Trump has committed real violations of law and democratic norms that deserve strong opposition. Trump did not have the power to unilaterally halt federal payments, and courts have rightly delayed this with a temporary stay. His firings of inspectors general certainly violated laws designed to protect oversight. Likewise, the allegations against Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team’s handling of classified materials, if proven, would constitute a serious breach of national security laws that courts and prosecutors have taken seriously. These actions represent huge problems. 

Even when a president violates laws or norms, however, it does not invalidate the entire administration. Executive overreach is not new — presidents of both parties have pushed legal boundaries. Former President Barack Obama acted unilaterally to implement many of his immigration proposals when Congress wouldn’t, and Biden spent hundreds of billions of dollars on student loan forgiveness without the required congressional approval. 

Trump could well do worse if he, for example, decides to blatantly violate a court decision or issues illegal orders to the military. But it undermines the power of democracy to declare that U.S. democracy is dying because of policy disagreements or even questionable individual executive actions. If Trump is to be rendered ineffective, as some of his most vocal detractors insist, it must be through elections or legal challenges.

And there are ways to make a difference now. Narrow congressional majorities give individual lawmakers, particularly in the House, leverage to demand concessions and shape policy. While Trump will not embrace any progressive priorities, there are key areas where bipartisan cooperation could check his administration’s worst impulses. For example, scores of Democrats already voted for crime legislation supported by the administration.

Further, a party with any claim to support the working class should do everything it can to avoid the $1,500 tax hike that middle income earners will face if Trump’s first-term tax cuts expire. Similarly, expanding high-skill immigration could be an area for real negotiation. And the list could go on. 

There are real reasons to oppose Trump’s policies and overreach. But if every action is labeled authoritarian and no common ground is ever sought, Trump’s opponents may bring about the very democratic decline they fear. 

Pete Sepp is president of the National Taxpayers Union and Eli Lehrer is president of the R Street Institute.