Muslim World Report

America's Struggle Against Authoritarianism in Trump's Wake

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 17, 2025 10:27 AM | 8 min read | 1566 words

TL;DR: America stands at a critical juncture as it grapples with authoritarian tendencies that emerged during Trump’s presidency. This post explores two potential futures: one where authoritarianism deepens, potentially leading to surveillance and suppression, and another where resistance to these trends fosters a revival of democratic values. The implications extend globally, impacting alliances, human rights, and civil liberties.

America at a Crossroads: The Authoritarian Shift Under Trump’s Legacy

In recent years, the United States has found itself at a pivotal moment, grappling with the implications of governance that strays dangerously close to authoritarianism. Under former President Donald Trump, several detrimental policies and rhetoric emerged, threatening to erode civil liberties and undermine democratic institutions. Key characteristics of Trump’s tenure include:

  • Aggressive immigration policies
  • Diminished press freedom
  • Systematic demonization of dissenting voices

Analysts argue that these elements have laid the groundwork for a potential “police state” (Foa & Mounk, 2017; Waldner & Lust, 2018).

The implications of this shift extend beyond domestic policies. For instance, the recent arrest of a U.S. citizen in El Salvador, as referenced by President Nayib Bukele, reveals broader ramifications. Bukele’s comments on deportation reflect an unsettling normalization of aggressive law enforcement tactics, resonating with Trump’s immigration agenda. Reports indicate:

  • Bukele labeled the situation regarding the deported individual as “preposterous.”
  • Such incidents highlight the troubling consequences of U.S. policies prioritizing punitive measures over human rights.

These events ignite debates about civil liberties and trust in governmental authority (Ahmad & Mehmood, 2017; Mearsheimer, 2019).

Internationally, America’s shift towards authoritarianism sets a dangerous precedent, emboldening autocratic regimes while undermining democratic movements. Countries navigating their own struggles for freedom may face increased pressure from both domestic and foreign adversaries as the U.S. positions itself as an exemplar of repressive governance. This trend could have specific ramifications for the Muslim world, exacerbating existing tensions and fueling anti-American sentiment (Inglehart & Norris, 2017).

What If Authoritarianism Deepens?

Should the trends toward authoritarianism in the United States continue unchecked, we might witness:

  • Normalization of surveillance
  • Suppression of dissent
  • Further militarization of law enforcement

Such developments would fundamentally alter the domestic landscape and reshape America’s global engagements. A more authoritarian U.S. might aggressively pursue policies that fortify national security at the considerable expense of civil liberties, leading to:

  • Intensified scrutiny of minority communities and immigrant populations
  • Disproportionate resource allocation to maintaining order over addressing social inequities
  • Legal frameworks designed to protect individual rights being reinterpreted or eliminated altogether (Davenport, 2007; Zedner, 2006)

The implications of deepening authoritarianism extend beyond the domestic sphere. Notably, the U.S. may embolden other authoritarian regimes to adopt similar tactics to suppress dissent and undermine democratic institutions. In countries like Hungary and Brazil, a pattern emerges:

  • Populist leaders exploit democratic channels to consolidate power
  • Checks and balances that sustain democratic governance may be effectively erased (McCoy, Rahman, & Somer, 2018)

This environment could create new flashpoints for conflict, particularly in regions where civil society is already fragile. Moreover, the rise of authoritarianism within the U.S. could foster conditions ripe for civil unrest and destabilization, not just domestically, but also globally, where democratic movements might find themselves quashed under increasing global authoritarianism (Svolik, 2019; Jost, 2017).

What If Resistance Gains Momentum?

Conversely, if resistance to authoritarianism in the U.S. gains momentum, the outcomes could be profoundly different. If civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and political leaders effectively mobilize against Trump’s legacy, we could witness:

  • A reawakening of democratic principles
  • Increased civil engagement across the nation

This scenario would involve coordinated efforts to challenge oppressive policies, advocating for reforms prioritizing civil liberties and human rights (Gould, 2002; Helms & Levitsky, 2004). Public pushback might manifest in various forms, including:

  • Protests
  • Legal challenges
  • Advocacy for new legislation that fortifies protections against government overreach

A groundswell of resistance could unite diverse coalitions, bringing together progressives, civil rights advocates, and concerned citizens under a common banner of defending democracy. This momentum could lead to critical electoral shifts, resulting in leadership focused on restoring civil liberties and re-establishing trust in democratic institutions (Ahmad & Mehmood, 2017; Schmidt, 2012).

This scenario also holds significant international implications. A revitalized U.S. commitment to democratic values may inspire similar movements in authoritarian contexts, providing a counter-narrative to oppressive regimes. It could foster open dialogues on governance and human rights, positioning the U.S. as an ally to emerging democratic movements. However, this possibility hinges on the collective actions of citizens and organizations willing to confront and dismantle the structures of oppression that have taken root (Mooki, 1997).

What If Global Relations Transform in Response?

What if the evolving authoritarian landscape in the U.S. prompts a transformation in global relations? As the international community assesses the implications of Trump’s policies, other nations may recalibrate their engagements with Washington, leading to significant shifts in alliances and partnerships.

Countries historically aligned with the U.S. based on shared democratic values might reconsider their affiliations if authoritarianism results in broader destabilization of human rights. Nations may choose to distance themselves from U.S. influence or actively seek alternatives to American leadership in international forums, resulting in a:

  • Multipolar world with shifting global power dynamics
  • Emergence of new alliances based on shared governance principles (Tucker et al., 2018)

Furthermore, if authoritarianism persists within the U.S., countries grappling with their challenges might experience rising anti-American sentiments, complicating diplomatic relations. Many countries in the Muslim world, already affected by U.S. foreign policy, may opt to forge stronger regional alliances or engage with non-Western powers to protect their interests (Kieffer, 1983; Peffley et al., 2001).

In this context, the U.S. could find itself isolated on the global stage, facing repercussions for its internal policies that contradict its professed values. Traditional strategies relying on military might and economic sanctions may become less effective as other nations pursue multilateral approaches to governance and foster collaborative frameworks based on mutual respect and shared democratic ideals.

Strategic Maneuvers: The Path Ahead for All Players

As the United States navigates this unsettling terrain, various stakeholders must adopt strategic maneuvers to influence the future landscape:

  • Civil society & grassroots movements:

    • Amplify mobilization and advocacy efforts.
    • Build coalitions across ideological lines.
    • Engage in community outreach and provide education on civil rights (Yosso, 2005; Kumashiro, 2000).

  • Policymakers & political leaders:

    • Recognize the urgency of addressing civil liberties alongside national security.
    • Craft legislation to emphasize accountability and transparency within law enforcement agencies.
    • Explore reform avenues prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment to dismantle the culture of fear surrounding national security (Dorado, 2005; Healey, 2003).

  • Global stage:

    • Evolve diplomatic relations to reflect a commitment to human rights and democratic values.
    • Engage actively with international partners to develop collaborative frameworks that defend democracy.
    • Support grassroots movements advocating for change worldwide to enhance credibility and foster engagement with nations striving for their democratic aspirations (Abu-Lughod, 2002; Seligson, 2002).

The trajectory of the United States in the face of potential authoritarianism necessitates proactive engagement from all involved. A concerted effort to defend democracy and civil liberties can help navigate this critical juncture, not just for the U.S. but for the global community, especially in the Muslim world facing its own struggles against repressive governance. The choices made today will indelibly shape the legacy of governance for generations to come.

References

  • Abu-Lughod, L. (2002). Do Muslim Women Need Saving? Harvard University Press.
  • Ahmad, A., & Mehmood, A. (2017). “U.S. Policy and the Muslim World: The Dynamics of Global Relations.” Journal of International Relations.
  • Davenport, C. (2007). State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge University Press.
  • Dorado, L. (2005). “Rehabilitation and Community Reintegration: Examining the Impact of Correctional Policies.” Criminal Justice Review.
  • Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2017). “The Signs of Deconsolidation.” Journal of Democracy, 28(3), 5-15.
  • Gould, M. (2002). “The Role of Civil Society in Democratic Movements.” Political Studies.
  • Healey, J. (2003). “Policing and Civil Liberties: A Historical Perspective.” Law & Society Review.
  • Helms, L., & Levitsky, S. (2004). “The Resurgence of the Left: Comparative Perspectives.” Comparative Politics.
  • Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2017). “Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash.” Harvard Kennedy School.
  • Jost, J. T. (2017). “The End of Reason: The Unity of Psychological Resistance to Change.” Psychological Science.
  • Kieffer, C. (1983). “American Foreign Policy and the Global Strategy: A Review.” International Studies Quarterly.
  • Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). “Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education.” Review of Educational Research.
  • Levy, J. S. (2020). “The International Effects of Domestic Political Change.” World Politics.
  • McCoy, J. L., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). “Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy.” Journal of Democracy.
  • Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities.” Yale University Press.
  • Mooki, R. (1997). “The United States and Human Rights: The Need for Consistency in Policy.” Human Rights Quarterly.
  • Peffley, M., et al. (2001). “Public Opinion on Foreign Policy: The Role of Media and the Internet.” Journal of Politics.
  • Schmidt, V. A. (2012). “The Future of Democracy: Globalization, Populism, and the Role of Women.” Political Studies Review.
  • Seligson, M. A. (2002). “The Political Culture of Democracy in Costa Rica.” Latin American Politics and Society.
  • Svolik, M. W. (2019). “Polarization versus Democracy.” Journal of Politics.
  • Tucker, J. A., et al. (2018). “The Global Rise of Authoritarianism.” International Politics.
  • Waldner, L., & Lust, E. (2018). “Unwelcome Change: The Dangers of Authoritarianism.” Democratization.
  • Yosso, T. J. (2005). “A Critical Race Theory of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race Ethnicity and Education.
  • Zedner, L. (2006). “Pre-Crime and Post-Crime: The Ethical Implications of Surveillance.” Criminology & Criminal Justice.
← Prev Next →