We have become an authoritarian state, and our top newsrooms are in denial | Press Watch
By: Dan Froomkin (Press Watch)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The top story of the moment is the one story that our most influential newsrooms won't touch: That the United State has become an authoritarian state.
At some point, the evidence becomes overwhelming — and we have reached that point. The frog in the metaphorical pot of water has boiled to death.
Armed soldiers patrol the streets of the nation's capital, with more cities apparently to come. Immigrants who have done nobody any harm are abducted and disappeared by masked agents. The state is seizing stakes of national companies. Election integrity is under attack. Political opponents are targeted with criminal probes. Federal judges' orders are ignored. Educational institutions are extorted into obedience. Key functions of the government are politicized and degraded. Expertise and science are devalued. Trump speaks of serving an unconstitutional third term. Media organizations are paying tribute to the ruler.
Most significantly, perhaps, there are no guardrails anymore. No one inside the executive branch will tell Trump no. No one in in the ruling party in Congress will tell him no. The right-wing majority of the Supreme Court won't tell him no.
And our dominant media institutions won't call him out.
Rather, they obscure reality under a haze of incremental stories, each one presented as if what is going on is fairly normal. As if it's just politics.
Every outrage is just one more thing Trump has done, rather than the ever-mounting evidence of a corrupt dictatorship.
The coverage is a play-by-play as the burners click upward, rather than a check to see if the frog is still alive, which it is not.
The closest the New York Times newsroom will come to telling readers the truth, for instance, is to say that Trump is "promoting an aura of authoritarian nationalism," or that certain actions "increasingly remind scholars of the way authoritarian leaders in other countries" behave.
The Washington Post will quote critics accusing Trump of "authoritarian overreach," and protesters calling him "fascist," but leaves even the most obvious conclusions to the readers to make themselves.
The Associated Press sometimes levels with its audience. It has published some exemplary articles recently, including "Trump moves to use the levers of presidential power to help his party in the 2026 midterms" and "Trump ran on a promise of revenge. He's making good on it." But the day-to-day coverage gives no indication of the breakdown of democracy.
Outside these newsrooms, the cries of "authoritarian" and "fascist" have been numerous, some dating back to 2016. But now the chorus of voices is growing louder and more mainstream.
Historian Garrett Graff called it this morning. He wrote in his "Doomsday Scenario" newsletter:
The United States, just months before its 250th birthday as the world's leading democracy, has tipped over the edge into authoritarianism and fascism. In the end, faster than I imagined possible, it did happen here. The precise moment when and where in recent weeks America crossed that invisible line from democracy into authoritarianism can and will be debated by future historians, but it's clear that the line itself has been crossed.….
Everything else from here on out is just a matter of degree and wondering how bad it will get and how far it will go? Do we end up "merely" like Hungary or do we go all the way toward an "American Reich"? So far, after years of studying World War II, I fear that America's trajectory feels more like Berlin circa 1933 than it does Budapest circa 2015.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow called it on August 4:
We have crossed a line. We are in a place we did not want to be, but we are there. The thing we were all warning about for the last few years is not coming. It is here. We are in it…
We have a consolidating dictatorship in our country. And it sounds melodramatic to say it, I know, but just go with that for a minute, right? Think — think in melodramatic terms. Think in cinematic terms. Imagine the cartoon level caricature of what you think a dictatorship looks like.
I mean, it's secret police, right? A massive anonymous unbadged, literally masked, totally unaccountable internal police force ….
You would expect, right, that you'd have a scapegoated minority group blamed for all things, in our case, immigrants, right?….
In a cartoon caricature of an authoritarian country, displays of military might are not just for the country's external enemies. They're for the country's own people, right? Because in an authoritarian country, you turn military force inward toward the people of that country.
She had much more to say. It's worth watching.
MSNBC's Ali Velshi called it on Sunday, opening his show with a powerful monologue about the collapse of democracy:
Each new abuse is justified as temporary, necessary, even an emergency. Until one day it's not temporary at all. Until one day the justifications stop altogether because once power is absolute it no longer feels the need to explain itself. At best, each assault may seem like an outlier until the day you wake up and realize the system itself has become unrecognizable. Well that's where we are — right now. It's not where we're headed. It's where we are
The tragedy of what's unfolding and the danger of what's ahead will be compounded if American citizens an masse - all of us - do not recognize this moment for what it is.
Here's a transcript.
The question is when — if ever - our newsroom leaders will reach their tipping point.
For now, they will say that it's not their job to be the opposition - that's the job of the opposing party. And therefore, if leading Democrats aren't calling it authoritarianism, then they certainly won't.
But that excuse is becoming moot. Top Democrats are in fact becoming increasingly blunt - including the Democratic National Committee chair this morning, at the DNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis. "This is not politics as usual. This is authoritarianism. It's fascism dressed in a red tie," Ken Martin said. He also called Trump the "dictator-in-chief."
It is past time for our most consequential news organizations to recognize that Trump is leading an authoritarian regime.
I think that would lead to a different kind of journalism, one that prominently and repeatedly explains what constitutes an authoritarian state, and which of those factors are present here.
This new journalism would contextualize incremental events as actions of an increasingly authoritarian state. It would more closely monitor the integrity of the election process. It would more actively cover the resistance to the authoritarian state. It would explore how other countries have rejected authoritarianism in the past.
On Sunday, Perry Bacon, the former Washington Post opinion columnist who is now a staff writer at the New Republic, fantasized about a media that connects the dots:
CNN and MSNBC with a constant "The Trump Dictatorship" chyron on-screen. How Democracies Die authors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt writing weekly columns in The New York Times, The Washington Post,or The Wall Street Journal. Reporters at major news outlets specifically assigned to cover authoritarianism, occasionally traveling abroad to study other autocrats and compare their moves to Trump's.
This new journalism would have a different tone. It would shift from "it's just politics as usual" to "we are in state of emergency."
And in so doing, it would serve a public that deserves better than it's getting, both from its government and from its media.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
388 visitors
The article speaks for itself.
Those who have allowed themselves to be scared into silence by Trump threats were likely cowards in the first place. Screw all who don't have the balls to stand up to this far right fascist monster.
And to hell with honest folk who resign rather than fighting Trump tooth and nail. Cowards.
When the evil that is Trump dies, I will find a way to piss on his grave. Even if it takes a pee filled balloon from a hang glider.
I agree with much of what the article says, but that should be of no surprise to anyone here. Other media outlets in other countries are not as circumspect as most American sources at calling it what it is, most likely because they are in other countries.
The media has badly let us down. The truth tellers are more on "independent" media like You Tube shows and podcasts. Trump doesnt respect any of them but at least they try. The major networks and newspapers have been almost worthless in the effort to stop or limit the damage Trump does.
From what I have seen, a whole lot more people who consume the traditional news sources are aware of the extent and the gravity of the situation. They are smart enough to see what is happening in its proper context.
Only the willingly myopic and blind cannot see what is happening.
Or they could be foolish, or complicit.
Myopia seems to come and go with some folks, depending on who is sitting in the White House.
Thankfully we still have Stewart and the Daily Show.
Am madly in love with Desi!
I am sure that there is a line.
I thought the mainstream media were all leftist? That's what I keep hearing
Unfortunately, far too many journalists fear what Trump can, and will, do to them. Just like Hitler.
[deleted] [✘] Now we've gone full "the sky has already fallen". I predict more denial of the issue. This seed is simply ridiculous and every immigrant from actual authoritarian regimes that lives here probably are wondering what the hell is wrong with us.
While these events are indeed occurring, there's no actual evidence provided that they are happening due to the reasons the author is implying. Take the federal judges, for example. The Supreme Court has already ruled repeatedly that some federal judges are operating outside their lanes, and it is, in fact, the judges who are ignoring Supreme Court ruling. What he describes as the state seizing stakes of national companies is arguably the government trying to reverse the situation where vital components necessary to the security of our country are outsourced to other countries. The government absolutely has the responsibility to correct this situation. That's just a couple of examples of why this article is nonsense.
If it were to combat say, white supremacy, they would be hunky dory with it.
The hypocrisy just drips off of some folks.
Doesn't even have to be that extreme. Cathy Hochul deployed National Guard troops to New York city subways and nobody seemed to mind. But Trump? Authoritarianism!!!
I know. One wonders if they really believe their positions or if it’s just another extension of the Trump resist movement.
“If it were to combat say, white supremacy, they would be hunky dory with it.”
👍
Kathy Hochul has that authority. Trump just sends them in against the civilian authorities wishes and without consult, for made up or self-made "emergency", all while promising more.
That is textbook authoritarian behavior.
One of the very first acts he took was to fire the inspectors general. That is textbook authoritarian.
He is in the process of making the country demonstrably weaker and less safe from enemies foreign and domestic because he does not realize how his actions are destabilizing and destroying our capability to monitor and effectively deal with real life situations. He thinks in terms of strength when he doesn't even know what strength is important. Trump is a 1930's Mafia Don dealing with 21st century problems. And he can't even get the brute force ones figured out.
Plese provide the argument why a sitting president does not.
By that argument, Biden was just as authoritarian. He fired Michael Pack, Peter Robb, Kathleen Kraninger and Sharon Gustafson, to name a few, who did not align with his political goals.
He only has the authority under certain circumstances. The emergency was not there in LA, nor did he have sufficient cause in DC.
But congress is just playing dead, the SCotUS basically handed him a get out of jail free card with a nod and a wink, so I guess that we have to just wait until he does what before you acknowledge that he is authoritarian?
How unconstitutionally does he have to act to get you to consider that he just may be authoritarian? How many more times does he get to throw away everything that we have carefully built as a nation before you admit that he is the proverbial bull in the China shop, trampling on knowledge because he doesn't know any better or even because he is stupid enough to not respect knowledge?
He's building a group of police who think that their allegiance lies with him and not the constitution. Talk about riff-raff.
Don't worry. It'll all be ok after the next election. Do I need a sarcasm tag on that?
According to whom or what?
Once again, according to whom or what? This is a serious question you need to ask yourself. Not everyone sees the world the way you do. Why should they?
And still, according to whom or what? The very existence of a government is, by nature, authoritarian, if it has any authority at all. An example of one that may not is Somalia and if so, one can hardly consider it an actual government. It controls little and can enforce little. It may as well simply not exist in any relevant meaning. Those that do pass laws and have the power to enforce them.
The point, Thomas, is that the government, whether under Biden or Trump, Obama or Romney, is run by people with a particular ideology. A particular vision. Under our form of government, that is what democracy means. It is not democracy to insist that only one's own vision is acceptable. That's totalitarianism.
How long will you refuse to acknowledge that this is only your point of view? To an extent, I agree that Trump is a bull in a China shop. The problem is that you don't seem to consider that this must always be a bad thing. In fact, it argues for the status quo. The status quo had America paying the lion's share of NATO, for instance. That is now changing and needed to and it was due to Trump's bullish actions.
Example?
Trumps ideology is lying as much as he has to get what he wants, conducting crony and shady economic activity on his familys behalf, and demanding personal loyalty from people whose loyalty is supposed to be to the Constitution.
Trump has as much as said he is a dictator. He has specifically said since he is president he gets to do whatever he wants. In his mind there is no limit to what he can order American people to do, and only reverts from that stance when he is forced to by the courts.
There is no doubt he is an authoritarian piece of human refuse, spreading chaos and anxiety on a daily basis. Why? Because he likes it.
Is this what the president of the United States is supposed to be? Thats not what I learned growing up, in or out of school.
2025's version of Black Shirts
There has to be an emergency. Emergencies are not whenever he says they are but when something happens that truly deserves the term emergency, otherwise the word has no meaning whatsoever. Dire circumstances that actually require the presence of armed troops in the streets, not a situation totally and intentionally created by his actions and overreach.
Not one person has successfully defended the use of masks by ICE personnel in the performance of their duties. If they are proud of what they are doing, let them show their faces. They are public servants, not criminals. Or are they? Most of the actions that I have seen have been questionable at best. They overuse force and they go beyond constitutionally allowed behaviors. "Here's your $50k bonus, Proud Boys. Thanks for being a fucking asshole. Oh, by the way, nice try on January 6th. I told you I had your back. Great things to come!"
Your godamned straight its my point of view. Never said any different. But from my observations, it is the point of view of a growing majority of Americans, also. So you can just sit back and applaud the consolidation of power in the hands of one person, watch as he grows his masked forces and sets them up with little to no responsibility towards the laws of the USA and say, "It can't happen here," while the evidence that it has and is heaps itself before the unwilling to see eyes of the maybe 30% of the population who actually voted for this ruination of our country.
So...we're not allowed to share our point of views anymore?
Pshaw
I was told that my opinion was unfounded...so? I see many unfounded opinions sputtered around here every day
I agree with this. Here's the thing, though. Take Chicago, for instance. Here's what I asked ChatGPT and what it returned. I will assume the figures are reasonably close. Any highlighting other than my question, which I highlighted in red, is due to ChatGPT.
Concerning these statistics, the overwhelming majority of these are committed by black people and, again, the overwhelming majority of the victims are black people. This has been going on for years. Why? Is this a case of the frog slowly being boiled to death in a cookpot and we're so used to it nobody cares? Or is it that the powers that be simply see this as not a problem because they see black people self-culling themselves to be a net positive? Or is it that the powers that be want this for political capital?
Whatever the answer may be, what I want to ask you is just how friggin terrible do things have to be before you think this situation is an actual emergency?
Really? According to what standard? Your opinion? Half the country's opinion? What if that half of the country disapproves because it denies them the chance to dox or threaten ICE officers families? What if it's only one percent who want to dox or threaten ICE officers families?
Good to know. You had me convinced you thought you were presenting facts or something.
So, more opinion. Get back to me when they make Trump "president for life". Get back to me when they change the Constitution. Get back to me when the courts stop holding Trump accountable.
Was someone saying they couldn't??? Let me know and I'll get after them.
So you are just going to sit there and let it happen. Good to know who one cannot count on.
So... if you think your opinion is worth being heard, shouldn't it be founded on something other than your opinion? If not, why should anyone care?
And I would assume that you give such opinions no more credit than anyone would afford your unfounded opinion. That seems fair, doesn't it?
People probably consider me long winded but I am so precisely because I try my best to found my opinion on something. I try to explain why I hold the opinion that I do.
Is this supposed to be a counterargument?
As Thomas suggested, the authority of the PotUS is limited and conditional. Primarily his authority draws from the Insurrection Act.
I asked ChatGPT to summarize the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act as they apply to a PotUS deploying the national guard against the wishes of the Mayor of the City and those of the Governor of the state.
Here is the response:
Seems obvious that this law was intended for extreme circumstances. Trump is using it as an excuse to wield power for political reasons.
Also, ChatGPT produced this list of highest murder rates per capita: Chicago is not even on the list.
So let's hear your argument for why a PotUS has the authority to deploy the National Guard to Chicago in 2025.
Note this super summary from ChatGPT:
A reasonable request. Here's the answer...
Chicago experiences some of the worst gun violence in America. Is there anything in the Constitution or other laws that would allow a president to deploy federal troops in order to resolve the problem, even if the state or city in which they were to be deployed didn't want them?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, under certain legal and constitutional authorities, a U.S. president can deploy federal troops to a state or city even without the consent of local or state officials—though this is rare and controversial.
Here's how it works:
🔹 1. The Insurrection Act (1807)
The Insurrection Act is the main legal authority a president could use to deploy federal troops domestically without state approval.
It allows the president to deploy active-duty military or federalize the National Guard to suppress:
Key Provisions:
So yes—if gun violence in a place like Chicago were considered to reach the level of widespread lawlessness that prevents the enforcement of federal law or denies civil rights, the president could theoretically invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops.
🔹 2. Limitations and Challenges
Even if it's legally possible, there are major practical and political challenges:
🔹 3. Other Federal Options Short of Troops
Instead of troops, the federal government could:
✅ Summary
Yes, the Insurrection Act gives a president the authority to deploy troops to address severe violence like gun violence, even if a state or city objects. But using it would be extraordinary, potentially unconstitutional in some interpretations, and politically explosive.
Would you like to look at specific times this has happened historically for comparison?
You said:
Concerning the subject at hand, what constitutes domestic violence?
ChatGPT said:
Great question—because in the context of federal law and presidential authority (like the Insurrection Act), the term “domestic violence” does not mean what it typically does in everyday language (e.g. abuse within a household or intimate relationship).
🔹 Legal Definition: “Domestic Violence” under the Constitution and Federal Law
In the Insurrection Act and U.S. Constitution, “domestic violence” refers to:
Widespread internal unrest, disorder, or armed conflict within the U.S. that threatens public safety, civil order, or the execution of laws.
🔹 Constitutional Context: Article IV, Section 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Here, “domestic Violence” refers to:
🔹 Example: The use of troops during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 or Little Rock school desegregation in 1957 were justified under this broader interpretation—not because of household abuse, but because the violence threatened civil order and federal authority.
🔹 In the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255)
The phrase is used in the same sense. The Act empowers the president to act when:
So, “domestic violence” in this context could include:
🔹 Would Gun Violence in a City Qualify?
Possibly—but it would depend on:
In most cases, even high levels of gang or gun violence are treated as a local criminal justice issue, not “domestic violence” under the Insurrection Act—unless it escalates into a more organized or chaotic breakdown of law and order.
✅ Summary
“Domestic violence” under the Constitution and Insurrection Act means large-scale civil unrest, not interpersonal or household abuse. It refers to situations where law and order break down to the point where federal intervention may be justified.
So this (as my post already had established) boils down to the judgment that Chicago, our example city, is under such dire emergency conditions that the PotUS must use a rare exception to deploy the National Guard to address it.
What are these dire emergency conditions in Chicago that justify the Federal government's engagement in police activity against the judgment of both the Mayor and the Governor?
First, I take your question as admission that there is legal precedence for troops. Second, did you not read my previous posts? Even though gun violence has been decreasing, there's still more than 2,000 annually in Chicago. What constitutes an emergency to you? Or are you suggesting that because we've been treating it as "usual" it doesn't constitute an emergency? Or, put another way, does Chicago represent an emergency or simply apathy? As I asked Thomas, how many deaths or gun violence occurrences would constitute an emergency to you? How many news stories about innocent people caught in the crossfire, many of them children, does it take before you think federal involvement on the scale of troops would be justified?
Please note that I've, so far, not advocated for or against troops. I'm simply stating that stating the president does not have constitutional authority in matters such as this is erroneous.
I need not admit something that I have never denied. It is a historical fact that this law was used in the past. That is the very definition of legal precedent. That established, note the circumstances (and durations) of when this has been applied in the past.
A very good question that should help resolve this. If you think that the situation in Chicago defines the 'bar' intended by the Insurrection act, then clearly you must also believe that a PotUS can deploy the national guard against the wishes of the mayor and governor of any city in the USA whose crime situation is as bad or worse than Chicago's.
Is that honestly what you think is the intent of this law?
To make the point more sharply, ChatGPT has provided the US cities whose crime stats are as bad or worse than Chicago's:
So if Trump violated the wishes of the mayor (and governor) of these cities and deployed the National Guard in all these cities, would you consider this following the intent (and rational interpretation) of the Insurrection act?
Finally, to illustrate that Chicago is not in an emergency situation (by any reasonable interpretation) we have this from ChatGPT:
I am not putting forth the idea that Chicago is the bar. It is an example. I do believe the president not only can, but may have a duty to deploy the National Guard, even against the wishes of, or in spite of, local politicians for the purpose of restoring domestic tranquility. That, after all, is one of the purposes of government.
Yes, I would consider it as following the intent, depending on specific intent of deployment. Nor would it be the first time. Which would be more justified, deploying federalized troops to force integration into school systems or to decrease the number of citizens from murdering or terrorizing their fellow citizens?
Dunno. What do you consider a rational interpretation of the insurrection act?
As you point out, there are many cities in America , including some big ones , that have a higher crime rate than Chicago. So why Chicago ? Because it is where Obama came from, the governor "talks back" to Trump (that is NEVER allowed to go unpunished) and Chicago votes Democratic, pretty much exclusively. In 2024 Trump carried only one of Chicago's fifty wards.
Trumps defense in this matter, by himself and his obedient followers, seems to be "he has a right to".
So why Chicago?
becuase there are more murders There than anywhere else.
Crime rates are determined per capita. If we only went by raw numbers New York City would be among the worst for murders every year, instead their murder rate is one of the best.
If Chicago is an example of a situation where you believe that a PotUS can invoke the Insurrection Act then it will serve as an example bar.
Thus my question applies.
Do you truly believe that the Insurrection Act can be legitimately interpreted to authorize a PotUS to deploy the national guard against the wishes of the mayor and governor of any city in the USA whose crime situation is as bad or worse than Chicago's?
Apparently you (somehow) read this authority in the act by an extremely liberal definition of the word 'emergency'. And (somehow) you believe that the legislature intended for a PotUS to have such power even though this flies in the face of our federated form of government and the principles of limited power in the foundation of our CotUS.
Exactly. Because that is the rational way to determine risk.
If the risk of murder were the key (and that itself is not a justification for the Insurrection Act) then Trump should be targeting St. Louis City.
Neither is an emergency. An emergency is typified by a violent riot where emotions are out of control and the state is unable or unwilling to stop it. An emergency is an extreme situation. It is not an emergency to go into Chicago where crime and murder per capita do not even hit the top 20 cities. Again, if Chicago is an emergency then we have at least 20 other cities whose 'emergencies' are more acute.
Should be obvious that this is yet another political stunt by Trump trying to expand his power.
I gave your question to ChatGPT too:
The event-oriented emergency conditions are not present in Chicago.
See 3.1.28
In 3.1.27 you say...
...by showing statistics that say shootings and homicides are decreasing in Chicago. There's no reason to question those statistics. Yet, the simple fact that they are falling doesn't by itself mean the situation is not an emergency. The figure for those who were shot in Chicago in 2024 alone is over 2,700. Over 20,000 over the past ten years. Pretty sure it would be considered an emergency if it were white people shooting all those black people. I wonder why it isn't because it's black people shooting black people, for the most part?
So, what would you consider an emergency that would allow a president to act under the insurrection act?
Somehow? So far, I've spoken only in terms of gun violence. Add in to that the drug problem, food deserts due to shoplifting and violence, gang activity and whatever else that has been going on for quite a while now, one wonders why people don't think this is an emergency. Does it really not seem to you we've become the frog in the pot on this subject? That it's just normal everyday stuff?
I can think of one, immediately beneficial way that federal troops can make an immediate difference. Local businesses, combined with federal assistance, bring back grocery stores, guarded by National Guard troops so they aren't shoplifted out of existence. People would have real food to eat rather than having to live on convenience store crap. Troops guarding businesses so they aren't robbed out of existence. Troops involved with public transportation. Troops don't necessarily have to kick down doors or do the heavy police work. They can take up the roles I just mentioned so that the police can do the heavy lifting.
And just because you think that my view is an extremely liberal view of the word "emergency" or even of the insurrection act doesn't mean it is. It's not as if it is even unprecedented.
And, at this point, I have to ask you if you even know what my argument is?
So you recognize that Chicago crime stats continue to get better, you realize that Chicago is not even in the top 20 worst cities in terms of crime stats, yet you insist this is an emergency that would justify the invocation of the Insurrection Act?
Look at your examples. These are all events involving riots / rebellions / domestic terrorism / widespread looting. The usage was to stop a violent uprising ... to quell civil unrest.
Where is the Chicago riot, rebellion, etc. taking place that justifies the use of the Insurrection act?
You are making several points, Drakk. For example, you suggest that we have incrementally moved to a situation that has crossed the line, and that federal action is required. I am not interested in diluting the initial question: we started with the question of whether Trump has the legal authority to supersede the mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to 'fight crime'.
That is the question I am focused on and have no desire to dilute/deflect from this with ancillary (albeit valid) questions such as "are US cities out of control to the point where the Federal government must intercede and override state and city authority?".
I have to be amused at people who say they are not defenders of Trump, then defend him at every turn.
Not quite.
The issue is whether or not what Trump is doing now makes the US an authoritarian state, as claimed in the article. Whether Trump has the authority to send federal troops to an area is a subset of that argument, not the argument itself. According to ChatGPT, technically, Trump does have the authority to send troops if a broader interpretation of the law is applied. You know, like the ridiculously broad interpretation of the law that had never been applied to anyone before or after Trump that resulted in 34 felony convictions.
Admittedly, Trump deploying federal troops would be a somewhat broader application of the insurrection act but that's hardly new concerning the historical application of the act (take the Commerce clause, for instance). They were deployed for the LA riots. Chicago and other cities like it, are just having a slow-motion riot. Over 20,000 people shot in Chicago alone over a ten-year period. Would it make a difference to you if that had been compressed into 20,000 in one year? If so, why would spreading it out over ten make it more acceptable?
The question remains, though. Even if Trump were to deploy troops, would that then make the US an authoritarian state? I would argue yes, it would be, IF those troops were sent to take over the governance of the city. If they are there to help fight the crime that is causing so much damage to communities, not so much, although a legitimate argument of government overreach can, or more likely, would be made if the governor opposes it.
And for the record, my position concerning the deployment of federal troops to places like Chicago, which I have not previously stated, is that I would be fine with using the Insurrection Act in those places, if they were welcomed by the Governors and Mayors of those cities. Deploying them would not work (if it would at all) without local cooperation. For that reason, I do not think Trump will carry through with the idea, as I think he knows what a disaster not having local support would be.
Getting better at the moment. If you look at the figures over the last ten years, it appears to go up and down. In any case, Chicago is an example. One chosen because it already has national attention for its gun violence. I did not claim it was the worst. And yes, I consider any community in which more than 2,700 people got shot in the year an emergency, even if everyone else views it with apathy.
Again, I would consider more than 2,700 people in a year (one year had over 4,000) eminently qualified as civil unrest. Plus, many of the worst affected areas don't have things like grocery stores anymore because of widespread looting. And that's just grocery stores. It doesn't include all the other commercial interests that leave because of looting.
Already told you. You apparently dismiss it because it's happening in slow motion. Plus, an argument can be made from Mexican cartels being designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO's). In my opinion, every distributor and dealer should be considered one as well, by association. That is, aiding and abetting such FTOs could (or should) be considered insurrection. So far, policing efforts have prevented such FTOs from establishing the sort of control over local governments and territory such as they do in Mexico, but they would if they could.
It's #22.
I see the local Chicago news everyday. There are no stories about looting grocery stores or any other stores that qualify as an emergency.
Why dont you admit that the only thing about all this that interests you is defending Donald Trumps decisions.?
Is something that happened two years ago an emergency?
As I have repeatedly noted, and detailed, one must expand the meaning of the word 'emergency' to the point where it basically becomes meaningless. The language of the Insurrection Act and its precedent usages clearly show that this law applies when we have civil unrest. When an event occurs, such as a riot, that cannot be (or will not be) contained by local law enforcement in the city and state.
It does not, in any way, authorize a PotUS to simply take over crime management.
ChatGPT does NOT state that Trump has the authority under these circumstances. For example, I asked ChatGPT if the current situation in Chicago legally allows Trump to employ the Insurrection Act:
Prompt :
Response :
So where do you get the idea that ChatGPT supports Trump's intent to send the Guard to Chicago to fight crime?
I did not even suggest you made that claim. Note that I said that if you think Chicago is an example of a situation where a PotUS could properly invoke the Insurrection Act then that would mean there are plenty of other cities that are as bad or worse than Chicago. So why is Trump targeting Chicago?
I doubt you will find much legal support for your view. ChatGPT offers this in response to your point:
It does not meet the criteria. Quite simply, and plain as day.
Obviously there is no point continuing given you are holding firm to the idea that YOU would call the situation in Chicago an emergency in civil unrest that meets the intent of the Insurrection Act. Even though the language does not support your view and the precedence does not support your view.
Note that a situation where the Insurrection Act did clearly apply was Jan 6, 2021.
Guess it depends on the question one asks. It told me that yes, technically he did, but would likely face fierce opposition.
So now what?
I don't know what Trump would say the reason is. I already said what I thought the reason was. It has had more exposure in the media to the problems identified than almost any other city so, naturally, any politician would consider it a place to start.
Probably right.
Read the qualifications ChatGPT gave you. It is being quite consistent. You do not seem to recognize this.
Conditions that have not been met (my point!)
Note:
All prior events ⇡ were in response to events and outbreaks of violence. Events, Drakk, spontaneous activities (the hallmark of 'emergency') that one might label an 'insurrection'; not going into a city to take over crime fighting and law enforcement.
No. It is an expression of frustration that you will not be convinced that it is happening until it has happened.
Up and down this page you see the listing of unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful acts that the president and his administration have taken that are unprecedented in scale and scope. Yet you cling to the, "What? Me worry?" tagline of a cartoon.
My opinions are based on my knowledge of the Constitution, the laws of the country, and a lifetime of experience and observation. In other words, I did not just pull them out of nowhere as you seem to allude.
Sad that you are now a far-right wing fascist.
I think you mean your opinion.
Eisenhower's actions were not a reaction to spontaneous events concerning the Little Rock 9 event, TiG. It was a culmination between federal will vs state will.
Sad that your accusation is merely emotional appeal.
The conditions of the law are not my opinion and neither are the facts regarding Chicago crime vs other cities. The analysis by ChatGPT is not my opinion either. My posts have reflected the law and the precedents. Your posts, in contrast, have been trying to find some way to justify Trump's threatened action on Chicago.
Trying to mask your failure to make a sound case for Trump's actions by claiming my collective posts were mere opinion is intellectual dishonesty.
You dramatically oversimplify to the point of stating a falsehood. This was also dealing with an event and mitigating violence per that event. This was NOT, in any way shape or form, the PotUS sending in the National Guard to a city to take over law enforcement for the city. It was a response to an emergency event.
Here’s a detailed list of authoritarian-style actions taken by Donald Trump, particularly during his second term (2025–2029), as documented by legal scholars, journalists, and watchdog groups. These actions reflect efforts to centralize power, undermine democratic norms, and suppress dissent, though interpretations vary depending on political perspective.
🛑 Executive Overreach & Power Consolidation
Federal takeover of Washington, D.C. police: Trump invoked emergency powers to assume control of D.C.’s police force for 30 days, citing crime rates that had actually declined.
Deployment of National Guard and Marines to U.S. cities: Used military forces in cities like Los Angeles and D.C. without clear justification, raising concerns about militarization of domestic law enforcement.
Firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook: Removed a sitting Fed official appointed by Biden, citing mortgage fraud allegations. Legal scholars called it unprecedented and possibly unconstitutional.
Dismissal of Bureau of Labor Statistics chief: Fired the agency head over a jobs report he disliked, then replaced him with a political loyalist.
🧾 Suppression of Dissent & Legal Retaliation
Mass pardon of January 6 participants: Issued clemency to over 1,500 individuals convicted in connection with the Capitol attack, signaling tolerance for political violence.
Reinstatement of Schedule F (renamed “Schedule Policy/Career”): Reclassified thousands of civil servants as at-will employees, enabling politically motivated firings.
Targeting attorneys who sue the government: Directed disciplinary boards to penalize lawyers filing “frivolous” lawsuits against federal agencies.
🧠 Politicization of Data & Institutions
Manipulation of economic data: Replaced career statisticians with loyalists in key agencies like BLS and Census Bureau, undermining trust in official data.
Investigations into universities and DEI programs: Launched probes into institutions like Duke University, pressuring them to abandon diversity initiatives in exchange for federal funding.
🌍 Aggressive Foreign Policy & Deportation Tactics
Quasi-summary deportations: Accelerated removals to countries with poor human rights records, including mistaken deportations like the case of Kilmar Abrego García.
Expanded Section 232 tariffs: Imposed sweeping duties on steel and aluminum imports, including allies like Canada and the EU, triggering trade tensions.
🧩 Symbolic & Rhetorical Moves
Declared intent to be “a dictator on day one”: Publicly stated he would act as an autocrat upon returning to office, reinforcing concerns about authoritarian ambitions.
Threats to prosecute political opponents: Increased investigations into critics and former officials, raising alarms about weaponized justice.
If you’d like, I can map these actions against historical authoritarian regimes or show how democratic institutions have responded to resist or adapt.
www.cnn.com /2025/08/13/politics/authoritarian-moves-trump-analysis
Trump’s 7 most authoritarian moves so far
1. Putting military on US soil
If there’s one Trump inclination that most concerned top military and defense officials in his first term, it might have been his desire to dispatch troops on US soil.
And Trump is increasingly making it a reality. He has not only deployed the guard in DC, but he deployed both the guard and the Marines to Los Angeles two months ago in another extraordinary way (given the lack of widespread violence).
Trump is also increasingly talking about ramping up these efforts. He’s spoken this week about also deploying active-duty military in DC and expanding his approach to other cities in a way that would militarize the US homeland like never before. And he’s suggested he can expand the effort in ways that appear to go beyond his legal authority , by declaring emergencies.
Those top officials from Trump’s first term worried about him politicizing the military, using it to target American citizens, and possibly even using it to hold on to power.
2. Tariffs
While the tariffs saga now feels like just a reality of our daily political life, it’s also a major power play.
After all, this is the president claiming emergency powers over a prerogative that the Constitution gives to Congress, and constantly shifting the terms in an effort to bargain with other countries. He’s in effect wielding an ever-changing level of taxation on American businesses and consumers.
The courts are still sorting through whether he’s exceeded his authority , with the US Court of International Trade initially ruling that he had. But perhaps more than any other issue, this is the one on which Trump has neutered Congress and run the country like an all-powerful executive.
Lawmakers have the power to rein him in. And Republicans traditionally don’t like tariffs. But the GOP-controlled Congress apparently wants no part of stopping their party’s standard bearer.
3. Investigations of his opponents
The Trump administration has already launched investigations or taken investigative steps against key figures in four high-profile efforts to scrutinize Trump : the Russia investigation, his first impeachment, the January 6, 2021, investigations and his personal criminal and civil cases.
The retributive nature of these efforts is only reinforced by the fact that Trump has personally pushed for many of these probes – a break with longstanding practice. Early in his term, he even signed an executive order explicitly calling for investigations of two critics .
It remains to be seen if any of these probes will amount to anything. The GOP’s attempts to impeach then-President Joe Biden never did, and we haven’t seen substantial evidence in these investigations.
But even if they don’t lead anywhere, a message will be sent to anyone else who might blow the whistle on or investigate Trump: If you scrutinize him, we’ll go after you. That’s a recipe for people keeping quiet.
4. MAGA-fying the government’s independent functions
While it might seem relatively small-bore, Trump’s maneuvers with BLS could have large-scale implications.
Again, it’s about the message it sends to others who might deliver bad news for Trump. And by nominating a loyalist in Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni for the new BLS commissioner, Trump is further eroding the expectation of independence from such officials. (Indeed, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick just this week called the notion of the independence of federal statistics “nonsense.” )
It’s a lot like Trump’s longstanding efforts to fire nonpartisan government officials and watchdogs, and to lean on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates by repeatedly threatening to fire or investigate him. This is quite simply something that presidents don’t do, because it adds the specter of political pressure in apolitical government functions.
Trump increasingly appears to have no qualms about looking like he has his thumbs on the scale – even in circumstances where that could seemingly come back to bite him, like BLS and the Fed.
5. His coercion of the media, universities and law firms
Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to use his bully pulpit and executive powers to demonstrate his dominance over these powerful institutions , with plenty of success.
These institutions, which have made remarkable concessions to his administration, seem to be making the calculation that it’s simply best not to be on Trump’s bad side. That can’t help but set new precedents that could impact other institutions and embolden him.
And the president has been happy to gloat.
“You see what we’re doing with the colleges, and they’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much. We appreciate it,’” he said at the White House in March. “Nobody can believe it, including law firms that have been so horrible, law firms that, nobody would believe this, just saying, ‘Where do I sign? Where do I sign?’”
6. Ignoring Congress/TikTok
Nothing encapsulates Trump’s disregard for the legislative branch – and its acquiescence – like TikTok.
Congress passed a bill with huge bipartisan majorities requiring the social media platform to divest from its Chinese ownership or be banned, with lawmakers citing urgent national security concerns. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that law. But Trump just keeps ignoring that and giving TikTok extensions , even as it’s pretty evident he doesn’t have the authority under the law.
There are practical reasons he’s been allowed to do that. Democrats, for example, don’t want to be the bad guys in following through on banning an app that is so popular. And it’s not clear who would have legal standing to sue Trump over this.
But just because those practical problems exist doesn’t mean this isn’t a power play. It’s a president effectively choosing to disregard the law, because he can. And he’s doing so despite those supposedly very urgent national security concerns about the Chinese government mining Americans’ sensitive data – concerns Trump once expressed himself.
Its also of-a-piece with Trump’s repeated efforts to simply disregard congressionally appropriated spending .
7. Skirting due process and the rule of law on deportations
Trump’s efforts to ramp up deportations have included a number of power grabs. Most notably, that’s taken the form of flouting due process and the rule of law.
Trump invoked what has traditionally been a wartime authority – the Alien Enemies Act – to try and quickly deport undocumented immigrants. His efforts have led to a number of wrongful deportations and attempted deportations that have been blocked by the courts. At one point, the administration clearly ignored a court order to turn around airplanes holding migrants.
Many of Trump’s allies have argued these migrants aren’t entitled to legal protections. And this has put Democrats in the politically uncomfortable position of standing up for those migrants’ rights.
Perhaps nothing has so called into question the authority of the rule of law and the courts, with plenty of poking and prodding by Trump and his administration to force the issue.
This has been one area where the courts have stepped up and seemed to check Trump . But that’s surely not the end of the power struggle.
At least I can still call him a demented asshole
Everybody with a bit of intelligence can call Trump whatever they want. Trump is the worst scumbag on the planet.