This shit always tends to end awful

Trump’s 2024 Campaign and Second-Term Power Structure

Donald Trump’s bid for a non-consecutive second term in 2024 was characterized by the elevation of ultra-loyalists and hardliners into key roles. After winning the 2024 election, Trump moved swiftly to staff his administration with figures known for extreme policies and personal loyalty. For example, Stephen Miller – architect of the first term’s family separation policy – was named Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, tasked with writing and implementing a hardline immigration agenda including mass deportationsnpr.org. Trump’s statement lauded Miller and others as “best in class” advisors from the campaignnpr.org. Senator JD Vance of Ohio, an outspoken Trump ally, was chosen as Vice President, indicating the administration’s ideological alignment (Vance publicly cheered Miller’s appointment)

• npr.org.

Other early personnel choices underscored an “extremist agenda” benttheguardian.com. On immigration, Trump appointed Tom Homan (former ICE director known for aggressive enforcement) as a special “border czar” and picked Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota to lead the Department of Homeland Securitytheguardian.com. Homan had been a vocal supporter of family separations, and Noem a steadfast Trump loyalisttheguardian.com. This team was poised to fulfill Trump’s campaign promise of deporting millions of undocumented residentstheguardian.com.

Trump also shocked many by naming hard-right loyalists to top law enforcement and intelligence posts. He announced he would nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz – one of his fiercest defenders in Congress – as Attorney Generaltheguardian.com. Gaetz’s selection was controversial given the recent sex-trafficking investigation against him (which ended in 2023 without charges)theguardian.com. For Director of National Intelligence, Trump tapped former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, who had since become a Trump supporter and was seen as an iconoclastic choicetheguardian.com. At the Pentagon, Trump selected TV commentator Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defensetheguardian.com. Hegseth is not a traditional defense official but a Fox News personality who has openly opposed “woke” diversity programs, questioned women’s role in combat, and even advocated pardoning service members accused of war crimestheguardian.com. His lack of qualifications led a veterans’ leader to label him “undoubtedly the least qualified nominee for SecDef in American history” and “the most overtly political”, warning, “Brace yourself, America”theguardian.com.

Trump’s picks for diplomacy and national security signaled a sharp turn toward nationalist and authoritarian-aligned policies. He chose Elise Stefanik – a congresswoman who called to defund the UN Palestinian refugees agency – as Ambassador to the UNtheguardian.com. The Jewish Democratic Council of America slammed Stefanik’s “extremist views,” and others said her appointment was a “gift to Vladimir Putin” given her past opposition to aiding Ukrainetheguardian.com. Trump pointedly excluded more moderate Republicans (like Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley) from any role, especially those who supported U.S. aid to Ukrainetheguardian.comtheguardian.com. Instead, he named loyalists such as former DNI John Ratcliffe to head the CIA – despite Ratcliffe’s history of declassifying intelligence to help Trump politicallytheguardian.com – and former congressman Lee Zeldin to run the EPA, even though Zeldin had zero environmental policy experience and consistently opposed climate legislationtheguardian.com. Environmental groups decried Zeldin as “unqualified… [willing to] sell our health, communities, and future out to corporate polluters”theguardian.com.

In a particularly unorthodox move, Trump created a new “Department of Government Efficiency,” led by billionaire Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, tasked with slashing federal bureaucracy by a thirdtheguardian.com. This outside-of-government unit signaled Trump’s intent to purge civil service ranks and consolidate power. Watchdogs immediately criticized Musk’s role, noting his businesses’ history of flouting regulations – “his own businesses have regularly run afoul of the very rules he will be in [a] position to attack,” warned Public Citizen’s Lisa Gilberttheguardian.com.

Overall, Trump’s early second-term roster was heavy on personal loyalists, culture warriors, and provocateurs. Seasoned or independent-minded officials were largely shunned. As one Pentagon veteran observed, Trump’s highest criterion was loyalty – especially how vehemently appointees defended Trump on TVtheguardian.com. Even diplomatic posts reflected ideological fervor: Trump chose Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel, a figure who denies the existence of a West Bank and espouses an unabashedly hardline pro-Israel stancetheguardian.com. Traditional allies and career experts were replaced by Trump’s inner circle: campaign manager Susie Wiles became White House Chief of Staff, real estate friend Steve Witkoff became Middle East envoy, and former White House aide William McGinley returned as White House Counseltheguardian.com. In announcing McGinley’s role, Trump emphasized he would “fight…against the weaponization of law enforcement”theguardian.com – echoing Trump’s narrative that any investigations of him are illegitimate, and hinting at an agenda of using the Justice Department to protect Trump and target his enemies.

In summary, Trump’s second-term power structure concentrated authority in the hands of loyalists with records of extreme, and sometimes extralegal, behavior. Many had openly endorsed Trump’s most hard-right promises. This personnel strategy set the stage for an administration bent on “America First” policies executed with little regard for norms or dissenting voices – an administration that critics feared would pursue an authoritarian agenda using the full machinery of the federal government

• theguardian.com
• theguardian.com

Grotesque and Authoritarian Policies: An Overview

With this team in place, Trump’s second-term agenda quickly moved into what critics describe as grotesque or authoritarian policies across multiple domains of governance. Below, we break down the notable initiatives in key areas – immigration, civil liberties, education/society, economy/infrastructure, and foreign affairs – focusing on policies extreme in tone or execution.

Immigration and Border Policy

Trump’s immigration approach in his return to power was unprecedented in its harshness, testing the limits of legality and morality. The administration’s actions effectively shut off asylum, vastly expanded deportations, and embraced openly cruel measures as deterrence. Key features of this agenda included:

• Mass Deportations and Raids: Trump campaigned on “mass deportation” of millions and began scaling up immigration arrests nationwidetheguardian.com. Stephen Miller’s office explicitly drew up plans for sweeping removal operations targeting any undocumented immigrants, not just criminalsnpr.org. By January 2025, Trump signed orders to increase deportations to levels America had never witnessed. (During Trump’s first term, actual deportation numbers never reached Obama-era highs due to logistical limits, but now there was a concerted effort to remove those limitsbrookings.edubrookings.edu.) The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, now led informally by “border czar” Tom Homan, was directed to carry out raids in communities across the country. Project 2025 documents explicitly called to “target immigrant communities” and “separate families” in service of mass deportationaclu.org. An executive order was issued to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented parents – directly defying the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship by birthbrookings.eduaclu.org. (Legal experts almost universally deemed this order unconstitutional and it was immediately challenged in court, but its mere issuance signaled how far the administration was willing to push.)

• Zero Tolerance & Family Separations: The administration revived and intensified the “zero tolerance” policy that in 2018 had led to family separations. All migrants crossing the border without authorization, including asylum-seekers, were now prosecuted, leading to children being taken from parents just as in the first termnpr.orgaclu.org. Homan, an architect of the original family separation, proudly backed this revival. As before, public outrage followed reports of anguished families and traumatized children – and indeed, by 2029 Americans across the political spectrum recalled the family separation policy as a nadir of cruelty (in 2018 it provoked national outrage and had to be halted)brookings.edubrookings.edu. Yet the Trump 47 administration pressed on, claiming these draconian measures were necessary to “save the republic” from what they termed an immigrant “invasion.”

• Asylum All But Eliminated: Trump’s government effectively dismantled the asylum system. In early 2025 it ended the use of the CBP One app (a tool the Biden administration created to allow asylum-seekers to schedule interviews at ports of entry)brookings.edu. As a result, 30,000 people with pending appointments had them abruptly canceled, often after arduous journeys to the borderbrookings.edu. New asylum claims at the border were virtually halted – humanitarian entry dropped to near zero. The administration also shuttered parole programs for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, cutting off orderly pathways that had been establishedbrookings.edu. In a sweeping move, Trump then issued an Executive Order suspending all refugee admissions to the U.S.brookings.edu. This broke with decades of bipartisan practice (the U.S. had admitted an average of 73,000 refugees annually since 1975) and stranded thousands who had already been vetted for travelbrookings.edu. A federal court intervened to allow about 10,000 already-approved refugees to enter, but the administration’s cutoff of funding for refugee resettlement meant even those admissions were precariousbrookings.edu. For the first time since the modern refugee program’s creation in 1980, America shut its door to refugees. Notably, however, the administration “signaled its intent” to offer refugee status to one select group: white South African farmers, reflecting an ideologically driven exception to the banbrookings.edu. (This nod to a far-right talking point – the purported persecution of white South Africans – underscored the administration’s racial and political selectivity in compassion.)

• Military and Surveillance at the Border: With lawful humanitarian entries choked off, unauthorized border crossings initially spiked, then fell as migrants got the message that the U.S. would not let them seek refuge. Trump bolstered the border by surging nearly 7,000 active-duty troops to support the Border Patrolbrookings.edu. He even arranged for the Department of the Interior to transfer 110,000 acres of federal land to the Pentagon for three years, to build new barriers and tactical installations along the Mexican borderbrookings.edu. Meanwhile, cutting-edge surveillance towers and drones were expanded (often supplied by private tech firms friendly to Trump) to create a “virtual wall” monitored by AI – a system civil liberties groups warned would “dehumanize” the border and erode privacywanttoknow.infowanttoknow.info. These militarized efforts, combined with brutal summer heat and pushbacks by Mexican authorities, led to a stark outcome: by late 2025, encounters with migrants between ports of entry plummetedbrookings.edu. But humanitarian advocates noted this came at the cost of unknown numbers of deaths in remote areas (researchers estimate at least 10,000 people have died in recent years attempting to cross under such conditionswanttoknow.info).

• Due Process Eroded: The administration took extraordinary measures that observers likened to tactics of authoritarian regimes. In one clandestine operation, officials invoked the ancient Alien Enemies Act (a law from 1798 rarely used outside wartime) to round up a group of about 200 non-citizen men – mostly Venezuelans – and deport them on a secret flight to El Salvadorbrookings.edu. They did this in defiance of court orders: a judge had issued an injunction to halt the removal, but the plane took off anyway, and when another court demanded the plane be turned around mid-flight, the administration “failed to turn the plane around”brookings.edubrookings.edu. A Reagan-appointed federal judge blasted this as “shocking…stash[ing] away residents of this country in foreign prisons without…due process… the foundation of our constitutional order”brookings.edu. Indeed, reports emerged that Trump officials planned with El Salvador’s authoritarian government to use a notorious mega-prison (originally built to hold gang members) to detain deportees – and even floated sending U.S. citizens with alleged gang ties to that prison brookings.edu. Such moves tore through legal norms and foreshadowed a broader weakening of rights: if immigrants’ habeas corpus could be ignored, critics argued, who might be next?

• Retaliatory and Quid Pro Quo Deals: The immigration crackdown even bled into domestic political machinations. In one example, a whistleblower alleged a potential quid pro quo: the Justice Department dropped a bribery probe into a prominent Democrat (New York City Mayor Eric Adams) after he agreed to cooperate with Trump’s deportation initiatives in his citybrookings.edu. This raised alarm that immigration enforcement was being used as a bargaining chip to coerce political support – essentially leveraging human lives for political favors. (The DOJ denied any wrongdoing, but congressional investigators flagged the incident as deeply troublingbrookings.edu.)

• Sweeping Administrative Obstruction: Beyond headline-grabbing stunts, the administration also “put sand in the gears” of all legal immigration channels. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) staff were cut and re-assigned, intentionally slowing processing of visas, green cards, and naturalizationsbrookings.edu. Immigration courts saw their dockets manipulated: the administration tried to cancel programs like Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands (courts temporarily halted some terminations)brookings.edu. It also reduced the number of immigration judges and then mandated detention for immigrants accused of even low-level offenses, clogging due processbrookings.edu. By making the system as unwelcoming as possible, Trump officials hoped many migrants would simply “self-deport” – leave on their own out of fearbrookings.edubrookings.edu. Indeed, fear swept through immigrant communities: undocumented parents grew afraid to send their children to school or to seek medical care, and even legal immigrants feared traveling or voicing opinions, worried they’d be targeted nextbrookings.edu. This chilling effect was by design. The message was clear: no non-citizen is safe.

The cumulative effect of these policies was dramatic. Net immigration, which had fueled U.S. population and economic growth for decades, plunged to possibly negative levels by 2025brookings.edu. America effectively ceased to be a refuge or destination for migrants, ending an era in which it was the world’s top immigrant-receiving nationbrookings.edu. Economists warned that this would reduce GDP growth and worsen labor shortages in industries like agriculture and servicesbrookings.edu. Even the Social Security system’s solvency was further jeopardized as fewer new workers joined the U.S. labor forcebrookings.edu.

Politically, while a segment of Americans (especially within Trump’s base) initially cheered the hardline stance – early 2025 polls showed 9 in 10 Republicans and nearly half of Democrats expressing support for mass deportation in abstractbrookings.edu – the realities started to change minds. Graphic stories of infants torn from parents, the specter of lawful residents being whisked to foreign jails, and the blatant defiance of court orders all led to mounting public revulsion. By 2029, in this scenario, a large majority of the U.S. electorate – including many former Trump voters – viewed these immigration policies as cruel excesses. The policies that were “politically popular” in concept turned out to be “far less popular” in execution, much as family separation in 2018 sparked a backlash once its human cost was understoodbrookings.edubrookings.edu. In retrospect, Trump’s immigration regime is widely seen as a hallmark of authoritarian rule: using fear, force, and the scapegoating of a vulnerable minority to consolidate power at the expense of America’s legal and moral traditions.

Civil Liberties and Executive Power

Hand in hand with the immigration crackdown, the Trump administration undertook a sweeping assault on civil liberties and constitutional checks, aiming to centralize power in the executive. Civil rights watchdogs described Project 2025 – the blueprint for Trump’s second term – as a roadmap to “replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals”aclu.org. The following were among the most troubling initiatives affecting civil liberties, justice, and the balance of power:

• Politicization of Justice and Targeting Opponents: Trump made no secret that he saw the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI as tools to be wielded against his enemies and shields for his allies. His choice of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General was widely interpreted as installing a loyalist who would prioritize Trump’s personal and political interests above impartial law enforcementtheguardian.com. Indeed, Project 2025 recommended dismantling guardrails that prevent presidential abuse of poweraclu.org. In practice, this meant attempting to purge independent officials (using mechanisms like Schedule F to easily fire civil servants) and directing federal agencies to investigate or prosecute political critics. Reports emerged of DOJ units being pressured to open cases into unfounded claims of “antifa” plots, or against journalists who wrote unflattering stories. On the flip side, Trump openly promised pardons or protection for those who committed crimes in his name (he had signaled willingness to pardon Jan. 6 rioters, for instance). This politicization culminated in incidents such as the alleged deal with NYC’s mayor (noted earlier) and orders that no federal action be taken against prominent Trump loyalists “without White House approval.” Career DOJ prosecutors found themselves under a cloud of political supervision unprecedented in modern times. Some resigned in protest; others were forced out.

• Surveillance and “Big Brother” Powers: The administration moved to dramatically expand domestic surveillance capabilities. With key allies like former DNI John Ratcliffe at CIA and Trump stalwart Kash Patel rumored for FBI, they sought to “exploit…vast…power to spy on Americans”aclu.org. Project 2025 explicitly planned to renew and enlarge controversial surveillance programs. For example, the government pushed to renew Section 702 of FISA with minimal reforms, thus continuing warrantless collection of Americans’ communications. There were efforts to loosen limits on monitoring “domestic subversives,” which in practice meant activists, journalists, and opposition politicians. Internal documents showed plans to use NSA and DHS resources to track individuals labeled as threats for dissenting at school board meetings or protesting administration policies. Such steps fulfill Project 2025’s call to “abuse warrantless surveillance” and remove guardrails on executive spying powersaclu.org. Trump’s OMB director Russell Vought (also a Project 2025 author) oversaw this expansion, justifying it as necessary to combat internal “sedition.” Civil liberties experts warned these measures echoed the worst abuses of the McCarthy era or J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI – mass surveillance of lawful citizens for political control.

• Crackdown on Protest and Press: From day one, Trump’s team signaled intolerance for dissent. The administration dusted off old theories to use the Insurrection Act or other emergency powers against protesters. In one instance, protests against a new federal abortion ban (detailed below) were met with militarized force. Peaceful demonstrators in D.C. were dispersed by tear gas and mass arrests. An even starker example came when large student-led protests erupted on college campuses over education policies: the administration reportedly compiled lists of “troublemakers” and pressured universities by threatening funding cuts. Project 2025 called for violating First Amendment norms by targeting journalists and demonstrators deemed hostile to Trump’s agendaaclu.org. This manifested in surveillance of reporters (some had their phone records secretly subpoenaed) and in treating left-leaning protest groups as potential “terrorist” organizations. Federal agents were deployed in tactical gear to cities like Portland (as happened in 2020) to quell racial justice protests, but now with even fewer restraints. The aim was clear – to instill fear and silence opposition. As the ACLU warned, “a second Trump administration threatens to use executive authority to further limit First Amendment freedoms”aclu.org. By 2029, these actions – especially any violent clampdowns – contributed to the public’s verdict that Trump’s regime resembled a “military junta”, using force at home to keep power.

• Attacks on Voting and Democracy: In the aftermath of 2020, Trump’s allies had spread election fraud lies; now in power, they acted on those grievances. The administration pursued policies to suppress votes and subvert election processes. One strategy (laid out in Project 2025) was to “abuse executive power to interfere in our elections by criminalizing the voting process”aclu.org. Practically, this meant pushing federal prosecutions of state election officials for nebulous “misconduct” (especially in Democratic-leaning districts), intimidating poll workers, and launching DOJ investigations into baseless fraud claims to cast a cloud over upcoming elections. Attorney General Pam Bondi (a Trump loyalist and Project 2025 contributor) had “spearheaded efforts to restrict and disenfranchise voters” even before taking officeaclu.org. As AG, Bondi and her Civil Rights Division head Harmeet Dhillon – known for fighting voting rights and spreading 2020 election conspiracies – worked to curtail federal enforcement of voting protectionsaclu.org. They reversed or gutted DOJ positions in voting rights lawsuits, giving a green light to aggressive voter roll purges, strict ID laws, and partisan gerrymanders. Bondi had even led a multi-state lawsuit to overturn a pro-voting executive order that aimed to expand voter registration, showcasing her commitment to narrowing accessaclu.org. All of this set the stage for 2028: even before that election, Trump’s team signaled they would declare any outcome not favoring them as illegitimate (one Heritage Foundation executive, key in Project 2025, called the 2024 election illegitimate before votes were castaclu.org). By 2029, after witnessing these antidemocratic maneuvers, most Americans (even many who once entertained claims of fraud) saw them for what they were – an authoritarian attempt to retain power by undermining democracy.

• “Consolidation of Power” Measures: In various agencies, Trump’s appointees tested how far they could centralize authority and neutralize oversight. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, ignored standard protocols and even court orders as noted. The White House counsels and OLC lawyers drafted justifications for extraordinary executive actions. One such action was an executive order declaring that henceforth all federal regulations are subject to White House veto, effectively nullifying independent agencies’ rules and even judicial consent decrees. This triggered constitutional challenges. Another example: efforts to curtail Congress’s budgetary power by impounding funds for programs Trump opposed (akin to Nixon’s abuses). When confronted with judicial injunctions, Trump officials sought ways to sidestep or ignore court orders – for instance, quietly issuing slightly modified rules to moot a specific injunction while achieving the same endbrookings.edu. This cat-and-mouse with the courts eroded the rule of law. By 2029, judges and legal scholars widely viewed the Trump II era as a constitutional crisis, where the basic notion of checks and balances was at risk. The silver lining was that the courts did often serve as a meaningful check (halting some of the worst excesses, like the birthright citizenship order, at least temporarily)brookings.edu. But the administration’s “willingness to sidestep…ignore court orders” set a dangerous precedentbrookings.edu. It prompted talk of a rule-of-law restoration act once Trump was out, to reinforce judicial enforceability of orders (since a norm had been broken).

In sum, the Trump administration’s approach to civil liberties was defined by expanding surveillance, weaponizing law enforcement against foes, suppressing dissent, and corroding democratic processes. These actions painted a picture of a government that considered itself above the law – or as one federal judge put it, acting on a claim of “right to stash away” people without due process, which should “shock… the intuitive sense of liberty” Americans hold dearbrookings.edu. By 2029, with the benefit of hindsight, a broad consensus (outside Trump’s dwindling base) compared these years to the darkest chapters of American civil liberties violations, and indeed to authoritarian regimes abroad. The majority’s repudiation of Trump was fueled in large part by alarm at how his administration trampled fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Education, Social Policy, and “Culture War” Governance

Trump’s second-term policies also aggressively targeted areas of social policy – including education, LGBTQ+ rights, and reproductive rights – with an agenda many described as reactionary and punitive. These initiatives often had a populist “culture war” flavor and frequently crossed into authoritarian terrain by using state power to censor, exclude, or punish certain groups. Key aspects included:

• Censoring Curriculum and Academic Freedom: The administration took a heavy hand with education, particularly regarding discussions of race, gender, and history. Trump’s Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, vowed to “send education back to the states” and promote conservative curriculaaclu.org. In practice, this meant pushing for nationwide bans on “Critical Race Theory” or any teaching about systemic racism that conservatives opposed. Project 2025 explicitly planned to “censor academic discussions about race, gender, and systemic oppression” in classroomsaclu.org. Federal levers – like attaching conditions to funding – were used to strong-arm school districts and universities. For instance, the Department of Education threatened to withhold Title I funds from schools that integrated diversity or LGBTQ+ topics into lessons. Republican-led states were emboldened to pass sweeping classroom censorship laws (some of which the DOJ would normally challenge, but under Bondi’s DOJ they got a green light). Teachers and professors found themselves under surveillance; a few high-profile educators were fired for teaching materials deemed “inappropriate” under new guidelines. This climate led to self-censorship in many schools. By 2029, academics likened it to a new “McCarthyism in education”, where educators feared discussing true U.S. history or current social issues. The quality of civic education suffered and the U.S. saw an unprecedented wave of book bans in libraries, all cheered on by the federal leadership. Polls in 2028 showed that a majority of Americans – even many moderates – opposed such heavy-handed censorship once its effects became clear (e.g., banning classics like To Kill a Mockingbird or surveys showing students unable to learn basic historical truths). What began as a rallying cry to protect children from “wokeness” ended as a widely perceived assault on intellectual freedom and truth.

• Rolling Back LGBTQ+ Rights: A prominent component of Trump’s social agenda was removing protections for LGBTQ Americans, especially transgender individuals. Within days of taking office, Trump reimposed a ban on transgender people serving in the military (reversing Biden’s policy). More broadly, Project 2025 outlined plans to “mandate discrimination against LGBTQ people by the federal government”aclu.org. This was implemented by rescinding Obama-era nondiscrimination rules: federal agencies were directed to no longer treat sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes. Under this directive, a trans person could be denied government services or a gay couple could be turned away by a federally funded program – all with impunity. The administration also encouraged faith-based organizations with federal grants to exclude LGBTQ individuals from programs like homeless shelters or disaster relief, citing religious freedomaclu.org. Education Secretary McMahon – who chaired a conservative think tank’s Center for the American Worker – advocated policies allowing schools to bar trans students from bathrooms or sports and to require “parental rights” notification if a student even discussed LGBTQ topicsaclu.org. The Justice Department under Bondi not only stopped enforcing civil rights protections for LGBTQ people, but in some cases sided with plaintiffs suing to overturn state-level protections, essentially joining the fight to strip away rightsaclu.org. For example, the DOJ intervened in support of states that passed laws banning gender-affirming care for minors, and even some adults. By 2029, the real-world effects were stark: reports of increased harassment and violence against LGBTQ communities, higher youth suicide attempts (as supportive school policies were rolled back), and the U.S. losing its previous stance as an international advocate for LGBTQ rights. Pam Bondi, as AG, had a long history of opposing LGBTQ equality (she fought same-sex marriage in Florida)aclu.org, and she brought that zeal to the national stage. These actions played to a segment of Trump’s base, but polls showed they alienated the wider public – by late 2028, over 60% of Americans opposed the extreme anti-trans laws being pushed. The majority in 2029 decried the administration’s campaign against LGBTQ citizens as cruel and needless, another example of ideology trumping individual freedoms.

• Restricting Reproductive Rights: Coming into 2025, abortion rights were already curtailed by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision (2022). The Trump administration went further. Guided by Project 2025’s proposals, they sought a de facto national abortion ban. One strategy was reviving the Comstock Act, an 1873 law, to ban mailing abortion medications and contraceptivesaclu.org. The Trump DOJ dusted off this antiquated law to argue that any abortion pills sent through U.S. mail violate federal lawaclu.org. Simultaneously, the FDA under a Trump-appointed commissioner (Dr. Martin Makary, a Fox News contributor opposed to abortion) moved to rescind approval of mifepristone (the main abortion pill)aclu.org. These actions created chaos in access even in states where abortion remained legal. The administration also backed federal legislation (or considered executive action) to ban abortion after 6 weeks nationwide, though that was stymied in the narrowly divided Senate. Still, abortion was effectively unavailable in large swaths of the country by 2026 due to federal pressure and aggressive new state bans. The administration further cut funding for women’s health services and tried to stop even blue states from helping out-of-state abortion patients (for instance, by threatening prosecution of organizations that funded travel). This fulfilled the Heritage/Project 2025 vision of gutting abortion access at a national scale. Pam Bondi, who had upheld Florida’s abortion restrictions and supported prosecuting doctors, was a key enforcer of this agendaaclu.org. By 2029, however, these policies generated a fierce backlash. In the 2028 election, youth turnout, especially among women, surged in opposition. Most Americans (who polls show support at least some abortion access) viewed the Trump administration’s approach as extremist and dangerous – indeed, maternal health outcomes worsened in states with strict bans, drawing damning reports. Many concluded that using a 19th-century law to control 21st-century healthcare was emblematic of the administration’s broader authoritarian bent: imposing minority moral views through draconian enforcement.

• Privatization and “Religious Agenda” in Public Services: Trump’s team also worked to redirect public resources in education and social services toward private and religious hands. Education Sec. McMahon was a champion of vouchers and charter schools, explicitly to “drain resources from public schools” and allow funding of private schools (many of them religious) that can openly discriminateaclu.org. The administration supported federal legislation to create a nationwide voucher program and gave grants to states adopting voucher systems. Critics noted this not only undermined the public school system but also effectively subsidized schools that could reject students for being LGBTQ, of a different faith, etc. Additionally, rules were changed so that federal social service contracts could be given to groups that restrict services based on religion. For example, a federal homeless grant could go to a faith-based shelter that refuses to serve transgender people – now perfectly legal under Trump’s policies. This was part of a broader intertwining of the administration with certain religious-right agendas. Trump’s Education and Justice Departments even backed proposals to teach Bible classes in public schools and to recognize only what they called “traditional” definitions of family in policy. Such moves blurred church-state separation lines and drew legal challenges, but the administration’s message was clear: their interpretation of conservative Christian values would guide policy, at the expense of pluralism. By 2029, this had solidified opposition among not just liberals but also many centrists who saw it as an encroachment on personal freedoms and a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

In sum, Trump’s domestic social policy in his second term was marked by a hard tilt to the right, often using the blunt force of federal authority to impose cultural conservative preferences. Whether censoring textbooks, marginalizing LGBTQ citizens, or cracking down on abortion and contraception, the administration frequently acted in defiance of popular opinion and constitutional limits. These policies were celebrated in Trump’s inner circle as fulfilling promises to a base that wanted a “revanchist” undoing of progressive gains. But by the end of the term, they had also galvanized a broad coalition of Americans who felt fundamental rights and the social fabric were under assault. The scenario by 2029 – where a large majority regards Trump’s regime as a repressive junta – is in no small part due to these intrusions into the intimate and personal realms of family, education, and bodily autonomy. Americans saw an administration willing to trample individual liberties and diversity in pursuit of ideological purity, and many vowed “never again.”

Economic, Infrastructure, and Environmental Policies

Trump’s impact on the economy and infrastructure was characterized by a mix of nationalist economic measures, deregulatory favoritism toward industries, and infrastructure decisions driven by politics and cronyism. While less blatantly authoritarian than his actions in other domains, these policies still had far-reaching consequences and often flouted norms of good governance and evidence-based policymaking:

• “America First” Trade Wars and Isolationism: True to his rhetoric, Trump quickly rekindled trade wars that had simmered during his first term. Within the first 100 days, he slapped tariffs on imports from allies and rivals alike, ostensibly to protect U.S. industriesamericanprogress.org. Notably, he escalated tariffs on Chinese goods and expanded them to items from the EU, Canada, and Mexico in disputes over everything from agriculture to digital services. These moves were done by executive action (under trade laws) with little consultation, and foreign partners retaliated in kind. The result was rising consumer prices and market turmoil – indeed, by April 2025 it was noted that Trump’s trade wars had “raised consumer costs, tanked markets, and jeopardized economic partnerships”americanprogress.org. U.S. farmers and manufacturers once again found their export markets shrinking. Trump’s team, however, doubled down, viewing the pain as a necessary adjustment toward self-reliance. He also proceeded to pull the U.S. out of international economic agreements: for example, formally exiting the remaining structures of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which Biden hadn’t rejoined, but Trump ensured it was dead), and even threatening to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute system. America’s traditional role as a champion of a stable global trading system was thus eroded; by 2027, many countries forged new trade pacts excluding the U.S., and the dollar’s dominance faced new challengers. Economically, while some U.S. factories saw short-term boosts, the overall effect was negative – higher inflation from tariffs, job losses in industries hit by counter-tariffs, and a hit to U.S. credibility that made foreign businesses wary of investing. These factors contributed to a mild recession in 2026, according to analysts, though Trump’s advisors denied blame.

• Infrastructure as Political Theater: During the campaign, Trump had promised a grand “Infrastructure Revolution,” but in practice, infrastructure policy became a political tool. Unlike the bipartisan infrastructure law of 2021 under Biden, Trump’s approach was to reward friends and punish adversaries. Federal infrastructure grants (for highways, transit, broadband, etc.) were disproportionately directed to counties that voted for Trump or to swing districts he hoped to court. Blue states and cities complained of being stonewalled on funding approvals. In one highly publicized feud, Trump threatened to cancel federal funds for a new rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey – a critical project – because New York’s leadership was openly hostile to him. Meanwhile, projects championed by Trump loyalists, like a border region highway in Texas or coal export facilities in the Appalachians, suddenly found money flowing. Environmental and permitting rules were slashed to speed these favored projects; Trump’s administration revived a tactic from his first term, invoking emergency powers or simply waiving National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for projects they deemed priorities. While this did accelerate some construction, it also raised the risk of corruption and environmental harm. Indeed, observers noted that contracts often went to firms linked to Trump donors. Reports emerged of substandard work or inflated costs in some rushed projects, reminiscent of cronyism seen in less democratic countries. By 2029, an incoming administration faced the task of auditing and potentially untangling many such deals.

• Environmental Rollbacks and Climate Retreat: Consistent with Trump’s prior stance, the second term saw a systematic rollback of environmental protections. With loyalists like Lee Zeldin at the EPA, regulations on clean air, water, and climate were nullified or weakened. Zeldin promptly moved to repeal Biden-era climate rules limiting power plant emissionsapnews.com. The administration pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement again (Biden had rejoined it), and also out of other global compacts on health and human rights that Trump viewed as constraining U.S. sovereigntyamericanprogress.org. Internally, they scrapped or defunded renewable energy programs and instead championed fossil fuels – leasing vast areas of federal land for oil, gas, and coal extraction. This pleased industry supporters but put the U.S. at odds with global efforts to combat climate change. Scientists warned that America’s reversal undermined worldwide progress and would increase long-term climate risks (stronger disasters, etc.). The Trump administration, however, touted “energy dominance” and celebrated short-term gains like a temporary drop in gasoline prices achieved by loosening environmental standards. In infrastructure terms, they reversed initiatives aimed at climate resilience: flood protection standards, for instance, were relaxed to favor developers, and rules requiring infrastructure to be built with climate change in mind were tossed. Tragic irony came when severe hurricanes and wildfires struck in 2026–2028, causing massive damage; critics pointed out that the administration’s neglect of climate preparedness left communities more vulnerable. Internationally, Trump’s hostility to climate cooperation left the U.S. diplomatically isolated on this issue, seen as aligning more with petro-states than with traditional allies.

• Economic Management and Institutions: Trump also continued to violate norms regarding independent economic institutions. He regularly attacked the Federal Reserve if interest rates weren’t to his liking, even threatening to fire or demote the Fed chair (something never done before) when rates ticked up in response to inflation from tariffs. While he did not carry out a full assault on the Fed’s independence (likely deterred by advisors), the rhetoric alone shook investor confidence at times. In 2027, he jawboned the Fed into an emergency rate cut that many believed was aimed at goosing the economy before the 2028 election – a move former Fed officials lambasted as political interference. Additionally, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Russell Vought rigorously worked to cut “waste” in the form of programs disfavored by Trump’s base: e.g., diversity programs, arts funding, public broadcasting, and even certain scientific research grants were slashed. This was part of Trump’s campaign promise to shrink government, but the cuts were selective (the military and border enforcement budgets ballooned, for instance). The creation of the Musk/Ramaswamy “Government Efficiency” department outside the formal structure led to confusion and turf battles – essentially two shadow “czars” trying to hack away at agencies. They claimed to find tens of thousands of “Deep State” employees to eliminate. By 2028, federal employment was indeed down significantly (fulfilling roughly a one-third reduction goal)theguardian.com, but critics argue this hollowing out of expertise contributed to failures – such as slower responses to public health issues and more snafus in delivering basic services like Social Security checks or veterans’ benefits. In short, cost-cutting crossed into undermining the capacity of government, with real consequences for Americans.

• Cronyism and Corruption in Economic Policy: While Trump touted an image of business acumen, many economic decisions seemed geared toward enriching allies or his own interests. For instance, major infrastructure contracts for border wall extensions, highway projects, and 5G networks went to companies owned by Trump donors or friends. The emoluments issues that dogged Trump’s first term (foreign governments patronizing Trump-owned properties, etc.) reappeared: diplomats again booked events at Trump hotels, and the President himself took frequent trips to his resorts at taxpayer expense. More significantly, foreign business dealings by Trump’s inner circle raised alarms. Jared Kushner, although not officially in government in the second term, reportedly leveraged his influence to advance his investment fund (which had received $2 billion from the Saudi sovereign fund shortly after Trump left office in 2021). In one case, the administration approved a controversial weapons sale to Saudi Arabia over congressional objections, and soon after, Kushner’s fund got another infusion – sparking accusations of quid pro quo. Similarly, Elon Musk’s dual role as a government advisor and private CEO led to concerns about favoritism: Tesla (Musk’s company) benefited when the government rolled back certain emissions standards for competitors, and SpaceX won a federal satellite launch contract without open bidding. These patterns of blurring public policy with private gain were widely covered in investigative reports. By 2029, congressional committees (under new leadership) were poring over these deals, and the public mood was sour on the overt self-dealing. What might have been merely unethical became potentially criminal if laws were violated (e.g., if Trump profited from steering government leases or if Musk used non-public information for stock advantage). In any case, economically, the perception was that Trump’s Washington picked winners and losers based on loyalty, not merit, undercutting the fair playing field of a healthy market economy.

In summary, the Trump administration’s economic and infrastructure policies were a mix of populist nationalism and patronage. The short-term effect was some stimulus in select sectors (like oil drilling, defense contracting, and construction in Red districts) but at the cost of instability, higher deficits (due to tax cuts Trump extended for wealthy individuals and corporations), and declining U.S. leadership in global economic forums. The U.S. also experienced a reputational hit: allies saw America as an unreliable economic partner, and investors saw increased political risk in what was once the world’s safest market. By 2029, the long-term fallout was becoming clear – damage to U.S. economic credibility and efficiency that could take years to repair. Many Americans, having felt the pinch of tariff-driven price hikes and seen the blatant favoritism in federal spending, joined the chorus against Trump’s “junta-style” governance, which they believed mismanaged the economy for personal and political ends.

Foreign Policy and International Alignment

On the world stage, Trump’s second presidency led to a profound realignment of U.S. foreign policy – one that distanced America from democratic allies and cozied up to authoritarian regimes, while undermining the rules-based international order that the U.S. itself had built over decades. The hallmarks of Trump’s foreign policy included abandonment of Ukraine, antagonism toward NATO and traditional partners, and personalist dealings with strongmen. Notable elements were:

• Embrace of Authoritarian Leaders: Trump unabashedly cultivated warm relations with a cadre of populist and autocratic leaders across the globe. He had always spoken admiringly of figures like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and in his second term this became policy. Experts noted “Trump’s admiration for authoritarian leaders” and a clear “authoritarian-minded chemistry” between Trump and Putinapnews.com. Indeed, within weeks of inauguration, Trump held a summit with Putin without aides present, after which he announced a removal of certain sanctions on Russia and an intention to freeze military aid to Ukraine. True to his campaign promise, Trump claimed he would “end Russia’s war in Ukraine within 24 hours”, a pledge welcomed by the Kremlinapnews.com. In reality, this “end” meant pressuring Ukraine to cede territory. Trump’s State Department signaled it would accept Russia’s annexation of occupied eastern Ukraine as a fait accompli. This was hugely favorable to Russia, which by 2025 still occupied roughly 20% of Ukraineapnews.com. Moscow was delighted: as one analysis noted, the Kremlin cheered Trump’s victory because it meant “much less emphasis…on human rights” in U.S. foreign policy and likely a settlement in Ukraine on Russia’s termsapnews.com.

  Similarly, Trump drew closer to other nationalist leaders: he praised Narendra Modi of India for his Hindu nationalist policies, downplaying concerns about human rights and pluralism in Indiaapnews.comapnews.com. He touted a personal friendship with Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan – one rooted in a mutual love of projecting strength and resentment of criticism. Despite past tensions (like Turkey buying Russian arms), Trump’s White House gave Erdoğan concessions, such as green-lighting Turkish operations against U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters. A telling anecdote: at a NATO meeting, Trump was noticeably warmer to Erdoğan than to leaders of Germany or Canada, further straining Alliance unity. He invited Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro (who had echoed election fraud claims similar to Trump’s) for a White House visit where they discussed a joint front against “socialism” in Latin America. Overall, as AP News put it, “Trump’s second term could realign U.S. diplomacy away from traditional international alliances and more toward populist, authoritarian politicians”apnews.com. By 2029 this was evident: the U.S. was far more aligned with the Orbáns, Modis, and Bolsonaros of the world than with, say, the leaders of France or Germany.

• Strains and Dysfunction in NATO: Perhaps the most alarming shift to many was Trump’s treatment of the NATO alliance. Trump had long complained other members didn’t pay enough and even mused about withdrawing the U.S. from NATO. In his second term, while he stopped short of a formal withdrawal, he took steps that sowed serious dysfunction in NATO. He demanded in blunt terms that allies immediately meet spending targets, warning that if they “fail,” then “Russia could do whatever the hell they want” to themapnews.com. Such rhetoric – essentially threatening to let Putin off the leash against under-spending allies – rattled Europe. Diplomats reported that Trump privately told aides he saw NATO as a burden and was fine with Russia having more influence in Eastern Europe if those countries didn’t fall in line. He blocked NATO expansion explicitly: he made it official U.S. policy to bar Ukraine from NATO membership (something Putin dearly desired)apnews.com. He also delayed or vetoed routine NATO communiqués that condemned Russian aggression, insisting on watering down the language. At one point, in 2026, Trump abruptly canceled a planned NATO military exercise in Germany, claiming it was a waste of money and unnecessarily provocative to Russia. Allies were stunned – such exercises were core to deterrence. Transatlantic ties frayed: European leaders, seeing U.S. commitment as unreliable, started discussing “strategic autonomy” more seriously, even floating an EU defense pact to insure against a future total U.S. pullout. By 2029, NATO was intact on paper but weakened in spirit; confidence in U.S. leadership was at an all-time low among partners. British, French, and German officials openly welcomed that American voters seemed to have turned against Trump, hoping for a restoration of normal relations post-Trump. As one congressman put it, “We have to rebuild what Trump tried to burn – our friends need to know the U.S. won’t throw them to the wolves.”

• Withdrawal from International Agreements and Institutions: Beyond NATO, Trump’s unilateralist instincts saw the U.S. step back from many multilateral engagements. He cut funding or participation in the United Nations at unprecedented levels – for instance, totally defunding UN agencies like UNESCO and UNRWA (the Palestinian refugee agency), calling them wasteful or anti-American (Elise Stefanik, as UN ambassador, was a leading voice in this – she had explicitly advocated defunding UNRWAtheguardian.com). The State Department under Secretary Marco Rubio (known for hawkish views on China and Iran) pursued a hard line that often meant going it alone. The U.S. pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal’s last remnants, raising tensions with Iran back to boiling and leading to Iranian advances in uranium enrichment unmonitored. The administration also exited the World Health Organization (again), the UN Human Rights Council, and threatened to sanction International Criminal Court officials if they dared investigate U.S. personnel. America’s decades-long effort to foster international law and cooperative solutions was essentially reversed – Trump described it as freeing the U.S. from “globalist” shackles. However, this left the U.S. isolated on many global issues, from climate (as mentioned) to pandemic preparedness. Allies went ahead with their own climate commitments and pandemic accords without the U.S. For the first time since World War II, there was a sense that the U.S. was not leading the free world, but rather retreating from it. China and Russia eagerly moved to fill the void in international leadership. A vivid example: when a humanitarian crisis erupted in Africa in 2027, the U.S. traditionally would lead a UN response; under Trump, the U.S. was disengaged, and China stepped in with aid and influence, a geopolitical win for Beijing.

• Favoritism and Personal Diplomacy: Trump’s foreign policy often ran on personal whims and relationships rather than strategic planning. He surprised many by nominating Mike Huckabee – who had no diplomatic experience but a strong evangelical pro-Israel stance – as Ambassador to Israeltheguardian.com. Under Huckabee, U.S. policy tilted entirely to one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, essentially endorsing Israeli annexation of West Bank settlements and cutting off any dialogue with Palestinian authorities. This pleased Trump’s evangelical base but further inflamed tensions in the Middle East and ended any U.S. role as a mediator. In another unconventional move, Trump appointed people like Tulsi Gabbard to DNI (as noted) and even floated naming his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a special envoy to broker deals with Saudi Arabia – deals which notably coincided with Kushner’s business interests. Foreign governments quickly learned to stroke Trump’s ego or family interests to get what they wanted. For instance, several Gulf states arranged lavish receptions and deals with Trump-affiliated companies; in return, they faced little scrutiny on human rights or their regional actions (like the war in Yemen or blockade of Qatar). This kind of transactional diplomacy – some would say borderline corruption – was a far cry from the principled stances of prior administrations. The U.S. under Trump was seen as “for sale”: if you flattered Trump or invested in Trumpworld, you got access and favors. This undermined U.S. moral authority severely.

• Reduced Emphasis on Human Rights and Democracy: A throughline in all of the above was the near abandonment of promoting democracy and human rights abroad. Gould-Davies of IISS noted that authoritarian leaders were “encouraged” by Trump’s reelection precisely because it meant “much less emphasis…on human rights” in U.S. foreign policyapnews.com. Indeed, Trump’s State Department largely stopped issuing criticisms of even egregious abuses by friendly countries. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China – all got mostly silence or mild comments about their crackdowns on dissent, whereas Trump loudly criticized democratic allies if they crossed him on trade or spending. In one telling incident, when mass protests broke out in Hong Kong (as had happened in 2019), the Trump administration effectively shrugged, with Trump calling it “China’s internal affair” – a stark departure from bipartisan support for Hong Kong’s freedoms. Similarly, when Russia’s Wagner mercenaries were implicated in atrocities in Africa, the U.S. response was tepid. The administration even privately impeded bills in Congress that would have sanctioned foreign human rights violators, because Trump didn’t want to jeopardize relations with certain leaders.

By 2029, the cumulative impact was damage to U.S. global credibility and influence. Allies no longer trusted the U.S. as a steadfast partner; adversaries were emboldened. For example, Russia effectively achieved many of its aims (keeping Ukraine out of NATO and retaining territory) thanks to Trump’s stance. China capitalized on U.S. trade isolation by forging its own Asia-Pacific trade bloc and making diplomatic inroads as the U.S. retreated. A Carnegie Endowment analysis termed it “a revolution in U.S. foreign policy” – Trump declaring independence from the world America madecarnegieendowment.org. The traditional notion of the U.S. as leader of the free world was profoundly shaken.

However, when American voters turned on Trump by 2029, it signaled a mandate to rebuild. The majority of Americans had grown uncomfortable, even aghast, at seeing their country befriend dictators, bully allies, and abdicate global leadership. National security experts warned that Trump’s approach left America weaker and less safe – a view the public came to share. In effect, Trump’s foreign policy, like his domestic actions, carried seeds of long-term self-harm for the nation, which a post-Trump administration would urgently need to address to restore U.S. standing.

Alleged and Proven Criminal Behavior in Trump’s Orbit

Donald Trump’s political movement has been dogged by unprecedented levels of alleged and proven criminal conduct, reaching from the Oval Office to grassroots supporters. By 2029, after four more years of controversies and investigations, a staggering number of individuals associated with Trump – from top officials to foot soldiers – stand accused or convicted of crimes. These range from financial fraud and obstruction of justice to election-related conspiracies and even violent sedition. Below, we outline the major categories of wrongdoing, key players involved, and the scope of potential culpability.

Criminal Indictments of Donald Trump: Unthinkable in earlier eras, a former (and then sitting) U.S. president faced multiple criminal indictments. In 2023, four separate indictments were filed against Donald Trump, two at the state level and two federalen.wikipedia.org. These included a New York indictment for falsifying business records (related to hush-money payments), a federal indictment in Florida for mishandling classified documents and obstructing justice, a federal indictment in D.C. for conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, and a Georgia state indictment under RICO for a scheme to subvert the election resultsen.wikipedia.org. All told, Trump was charged with dozens of counts – 34 counts in New York alone, 40 counts in the documents case after a superseding indictment, and multiple serious felonies in the election casesen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. This was historically unprecedented. By early 2025, these cases were in various stages (some put on hold due to legal maneuvering and the fact of Trump regaining the presidency, as DOJ policy was not to prosecute a sitting president)en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. However, one case did proceed to a verdict just before Trump took office: in New York, Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records (a jury found that he had fraudulently concealed hush-money payments that violated campaign finance laws)en.wikipedia.org. Sentencing was delayed given the political situation, but the conviction stooden.wikipedia.org. This made Trump the first U.S. President ever convicted of a felony – a stark marker of alleged criminality at the highest level.

Close Allies and Advisers – Election Subversion and Insurrection: Surrounding Trump is a constellation of aides and allies who participated in efforts to overturn the 2020 election and were implicated in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. Many of these individuals have faced criminal charges:

• In the federal Jan. 6 investigation, Trump himself was identified as the central figure, with Special Counsel Jack Smith indicting him for conspiracies to defraud the U.S. and obstruct Congress (though as noted, this case was paused)npr.org. The indictment referenced six co-conspirators (unindicted at the time), including attorneys Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and others who plotted to overturn the election. Separately, in Georgia’s state case, 18 co-defendants were indicted alongside Trump – a roster of who’s who in “Stop the Steal”: Giuliani, Eastman, Mark Meadows (Trump’s White House Chief of Staff), Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis, and moreen.wikipedia.org. They faced a sweeping RICO charge for attempting to subvert Georgia’s election results, as well as solicitation of state officials and other state-law crimes. By 2024, some of these allies pleaded guilty: notably, Sidney Powell struck a plea deal, pleading guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges in Georgia (like conspiracy to interfere with election duties)apnews.com. Powell admitted to her role in the Georgia voting system breach and agreed to testify – a significant flip given she was a lead architect of Trump’s post-election legal campaignapnews.com. Another lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, also pleaded guilty (to a felony conspiracy) for his part in the fake electors scheme. Jenna Ellis, a Trump campaign legal adviser, pleaded guilty to a aiding false statements. These plea deals in late 2024 provided smoking-gun evidence of a coordinated illegal plot: Trump’s own lawyers acknowledged the plan to overturn the election through fraudulent electors and lies was criminal. Giuliani, meanwhile, was fighting multiple lawsuits and disbarment, and faced potential charges (he was an unindicted co-conspirator federally and indicted in Georgia). Mark Meadows, who had been at Trump’s side, reportedly took immunity in Jack Smith’s federal case and provided testimony about Trump being told he lost and still pressuring officials – bolstering potential charges of intent to defraud.

• January 6th Riot Convictions: Beyond the planners, the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 led to one of the largest criminal investigations in American history. By mid-2023, over 1,100 people had been charged in connection with the Capitol breachnpr.org. These ranged from minor unlawful entry charges to serious felonies like assaulting police and seditious conspiracy. Many rioters explicitly cited Trump’s commands in their defense – saying they believed they were following “the commander in chief”npr.orgnpr.org. In fact, countless court filings and statements revealed that the mob was motivated by Trump’s false claims and direct exhortation (“will be wild” as Trump tweeted)npr.org. As of January 2025, roughly 1,583 individuals had been charged federally for Jan. 6 crimesaxios.com. About 1,000 had pleaded guilty and hundreds more were convicted at trialnpr.org. Notably, leaders of far-right militias who took part were convicted of seditious conspiracy – a charge akin to trying to overthrow the government. Stewart Rhodes, leader of the Oath Keepers, was convicted and sentenced to 18 years. Enrique Tarrio, the former national chairman of the Proud Boys, was convicted and received the longest sentence: 22 years in prison for orchestrating the plot to keep Trump in powerapnews.comapnews.com. Judges in those cases underscored the gravity: these men led a violent attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Their convictions (and those of around two dozen others on conspiracy or obstruction) establish important precedents. By 2029, should Trump or top associates ever face trial for inciting insurrection or conspiring to obstruct Congress, these prior convictions show that juries can and will convict Americans of sedition given strong evidence. Indeed, many Jan. 6 defendants directly blamed Trump – one wrote to a judge, “Trump told us the election was stolen…he told us to march to the Capitol…we listened”npr.org. This dynamic of follower culpability and leader responsibility is central to ongoing accountability debates.

• Contempt and Cover-up Cases: Several Trump allies were convicted for stonewalling investigations. For instance, Steve Bannon (former White House strategist) was convicted in 2022 of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committeeusnews.com. He was sentenced (though he remained free pending appeal). Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, was likewise indicted for contempt of Congress when he refused to testify about the election plot; he was convicted in 2023. These convictions underscore how many in Trump’s circle opted to break the law rather than cooperate with lawful probes, potentially to shield Trump. Additionally, Michael Cohen – Trump’s former lawyer – had pleaded guilty back in 2018 to federal crimes including campaign finance violations (the hush-money payments) and lying to Congress about Trump’s business in Russiareuters.com. Cohen’s case directly implicated Trump as having directed illegal payments; while Trump avoided indictment for that while in office, Cohen’s conviction is a “proven” crime closely tied to Trump. All told, by 2029, at least 8-10 Trump associates had been arrested or convicted in relation to cover-ups or investigations (including Bannon, Navarro, Flynn, Stone, Cohen, etc.), reflecting a “cult of criminality” around Trump as one commentator put ityoutube.com.

Corruption and Financial Crimes: Aside from insurrection-related matters, numerous figures in Trump’s orbit engaged in corruption or fraud:

• Trump Organization Crimes: Trump’s family business was itself convicted of tax fraud in 2022 (the organization was fined after a jury found a 15-year scheme to evade taxes on executive perks). Trump’s longtime CFO Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty and served jail timeyoutube.com. While Trump claimed ignorance, it painted a picture of a business steeped in illegality. There are also ongoing investigations (as of 2029) into whether Trump misused his office for personal profit – for example, the emoluments issue (foreign governments funneling money into Trump hotels) could potentially resurface in civil suits or congressional referrals.

• Campaign Finance and Inaugural Fund Abuses: Several individuals were implicated in schemes around Trump’s campaigns and inauguration. Aside from Cohen (hush money), Steve Bannon was indicted in 2020 for defrauding donors with a “We Build The Wall” charity – essentially stealing hundreds of thousands meant for a border wallreuters.com. Trump pardoned Bannon in 2021 on that federal charge, but New York State later charged him for the same scheme (state charges which a presidential pardon can’t erase). That state case is still pending, making Bannon among those potentially culpable by 2029. The 2017 inaugural committee was investigated for influence peddling and misappropriation of funds (Trump ally Tom Barrack was charged with illegal lobbying for UAE, though acquitted; others faced inquiries too). And by 2029, probes into Trump’s Save America PAC (ostensibly raised for “election defense” but spent on Trump’s legal bills and events) suggest potential wire fraud – since donors were told their money was for fighting fraud, which was a lienpr.org.

• Official Corruption and Bribery: Several Trump-world figures faced allegations of bribes and quid pro quos. For instance, Rudy Giuliani (apart from election issues) was investigated for attempting to sell pardons and for shady dealings in Ukraine. Though not convicted by 2025, he had mounting legal woes (his law license suspended, sued by DOJ for unpaid taxes etc.). If a new DOJ post-2028 pursues those threads, Giuliani could end up indicted. There were also smaller fish: e.g., Paul Manafort (Trump’s 2016 campaign chair) was convicted in 2018 of financial fraud – a proven case of a top Trump associate breaking the law to hide illicit income from pro-Russia sourcesreuters.comreuters.com. Trump pardoned Manafort in late 2020, but the conviction underscored the swampy nature of Trump’s circle. Rick Gates, Manafort’s deputy, also pleaded guilty to conspiracy and cooperatedreuters.com. Michael Flynn, Trump’s first National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia (though pardoned)reuters.com. Roger Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and witness tampering (also pardoned)reuters.com. These convictions (some pardoned) show a pattern: top Trump lieutenants repeatedly broke laws, often to shield Trump or advance his interests. While pardons spared some from punishment, those pardons don’t erase the culpability. Notably, a number of these figures (Stone, Flynn, etc.) returned to Trump’s inner orbit and could face new legal risks if they engaged in fresh plots (e.g., Flynn was involved in advocacy of martial law post-election, though not charged).

• ICE and Law Enforcement Misconduct: The question also asks about ICE officers and others tied to Trump’s movement who engaged in criminal or abusive behavior. During Trump’s first term, ICE developed a reputation for abuses (as detailed earlier), and some incidents crossed into criminal misconduct. For instance, a shocking complaint in 2020 alleged that a gynecologist performing exams on women in ICE custody in Georgia carried out forced or unwanted hysterectomies – essentially medical assault. Whistleblower reports and subsequent investigations lent credibility to these allegationsen.wikipedia.org. While by 2025 no charges had been filed (the doctor was at least terminated), a future accountability process might classify such acts as criminal human rights violations. Additionally, systemic sexual abuse in ICE detention came to light: between 2015 and 2021, 308 complaints of sexual assault or abuse were filed by detainees, mostly against ICE staff or contractorswanttoknow.info. Many victims recounted how officers assaulted them and even threatened deportation if they spoke upwanttoknow.info. Disturbingly, “most cases aren’t investigated” according to a 2023 PBS reportpbs.org. This points to a culture of impunity that could hide serious crimes (rape, assault, civil rights violations). Under an administration aligned with Trump’s rhetoric, some ICE and Border Patrol personnel felt emboldened to act brutally, believing political cover would protect them. Indeed, instances of excessive force (e.g., agents beating detainees or using lethal force in questionable circumstances) occurred. By 2029, if the public and new leaders were in a mood for accountability, one might expect internal reviews or even prosecutions of officers for egregious cases – especially those involving proven deaths or injuries. For example, in 2019-2020 several migrant children died in Border Patrol custody due to neglect; while not charged as crimes then, a later inquiry might view them as criminal negligence or deprivation of rights under color of law.

• Extremist Violence and Hate Crimes: “Others tied to his political movement” would also include extremist actors who took cues from Trump’s rhetoric and engaged in crimes. We’ve covered Jan.6 rioters. Beyond that, consider incidents like armed militias plotting to kidnap officials. In 2020, a group of militia members plotted to kidnap Michigan’s governor after Trump tweeted “Liberate Michigan!” – several were arrested and convicted of that terrorism plot. Those convictions (in 2022) show a throughline from Trump’s provocations to criminal extremist acts. Proud Boys in various states engaged in political violence; some members plotted further unrest after Jan.6 and were arrested with weapons. Additionally, there were hate crimes where perpetrators cited Trumpist ideology (e.g., attacks on immigrants or minorities). Each incident individually might not tie directly to Trump, but collectively they demonstrate a climate of lawlessness spurred by his movement’s more radical fringes. By 2029, law enforcement estimated that since 2016, well over 1,000 politically motivated crimes (assaults, threats, plots) in the U.S. could be attributed to far-right extremist ideology, much of it Trump-inspired. Some of these have been prosecuted (proud boy members, oath keepers, lone wolf attackers). The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leadership convictions for seditious conspiracy are notable examples of holding movement-aligned actors accountableapnews.com. Furthermore, recall that Trump promised to pardon Jan.6 perpetrators if re-elected; indeed he did pardon a few who had already been convicted by late 2024. This led many other defendants to hold out hoping for clemency. However, since by 2029 Trump and his allies are widely repudiated, those individuals now face full sentences – and possibly additional state charges if applicable (some states pursued their own cases, e.g., against those who committed violence against state capitols or officers).

Estimating the Scope of Culpability by 2029: We can attempt to quantify how many people in Trump’s orbit might be legally implicated by 2029 and categorize by severity:

• High-Severity Crimes (Sedition, Conspiracy to Overturn Democracy): These include seditious conspiracy, insurrection, and broad election interference. Estimated individuals: On the militant side, at least 15-20 prominent members of groups (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.) convicted of seditionapnews.com. On the political side, about 10-20 Trump officials and lawyers are potentially culpable (Trump himself, Giuliani, Eastman, Meadows, Clark, etc., many already indicted in GA or referenced federally). Many of these face felony charges with significant prison time (potentially 10+ years). Legal risk: The evidence is strong in many cases (emails, recorded calls, witness testimony). The fact that Trump’s own lawyers have pleaded guilty (as in GA) greatly strengthens cases against higher-upsapnews.com. However, prosecuting a former president for sedition or similar is historically uncharted – it would be among the hardest but also most consequential cases. By 2029, the will to do so might exist given public opinion, and the groundwork of evidence has been laid.

• Medium-High Severity Crimes (Obstruction, Fraud, Corruption): This covers obstruction of justice (e.g., Trump’s document case, witness tampering by Stone etc.), financial fraud, and bribery. Estimated individuals: Trump and 2 aides indicted in the documents case (Trump, Walt Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira)en.wikipedia.org. Multiple Trump Org executives (Weisselberg convicted, others potentially culpable in tax schemes). Trump campaign and inaugural figures (Bannon, Barrack – though acquitted, others involved in illegal lobbying or foreign influence). Possibly members of Congress or officials who were part of Trump’s plots or benefited improperly – e.g., the fake electors (over a hundred people across states signed false elector certificates; Michigan charged 16 of them with felonies in 2023). Also members of law enforcement interfering with investigations (the alleged Adams DOJ deal, if true, implicates officials in obstruction). Scope: a few dozen individuals. Legal risk: Often moderate to high – these are traditional crimes with clear statutes. E.g., obstruction in the Mar-a-Lago documents case appears strong: evidence includes surveillance video and Trump’s own statements showing he knowingly withheld classified files and asked subordinates to hide themnpr.org. Financial crimes often have paper trails (as seen in Manafort’s conviction for hiding paymentsreuters.com). Many of these cases are easier to prove than sedition since they rely on documents and straightforward law. Indeed, by 2029 at least 10 Trump associates had been convicted of crimes like fraud, lying, or obstructionnewsweek.com.

• Lower Severity or Peripheral Crimes: This might include misdemeanors or lesser infractions, like minor campaign finance violations, Hatch Act violations (not criminal but ethical breaches), or the multitude of Jan.6 rioters whose charges were relatively minor (e.g., unlawful parading in the Capitol). Estimated individuals: The majority of the 1,100+ Jan.6 defendants fell into lower-level charges (over 500 pleaded to misdemeanors)abcnews.go.com. There are also those who threatened election workers or made online threats under Trump’s “Stop the Steal” fervor – dozens were charged federally for threats. Legal risk: Many of these individuals have already been convicted or pleaded guilty (serving short jail stints, probation, etc.). By 2029, one can expect over 1,000 convictions related to Jan.6 and similar political violenceabcnews.go.com. These cases, while “lower severity” per charge, collectively send a strong deterrent message.

• Human Rights and Civil Rights Violations: This category is harder to quantify and had not been fully prosecuted by 2029, but potentially includes hundreds of ICE officers or officials if a decision were made to hold them accountable for abuses. In an extreme accountability scenario (say, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or DOJ Civil Rights Division action), one could see cases brought against, for instance, the officials who conceived and ran family separation (for child endangerment or deprivation of rights) – that might implicate a dozen high officials (Sessions, Nielsen, Miller, Homan, etc.) and perhaps dozens of agents who carried it out in egregious ways. Also, specific cases like the ICE nurse sexual abuse scandal could lead to charges against that nurse and any complicit supervisors. The PBS data of 308 complaints suggests potentially dozens of perpetrators; even if a fraction are provable, that’s significantwanttoknow.info. Legal risk: Historically, U.S. law has rarely punished officials for policy brutality (except in clear individual crimes). But it’s not impossible – e.g., the DOJ could prosecute certain cases as civil rights crimes (violations under color of law) if evidence shows willful abuse. By 2029, the political appetite for such accountability might exist given the junta comparison scenario. This could be one of the most far-reaching legal reckonings, albeit difficult (requiring proving intent to deprive rights, etc.). International bodies, too, might get involved (human rights courts or even the ICC, if invited by a new U.S. administration, in extreme circumstances). For now, these remain allegations; none of Trump’s immigration officials have been charged for policies like family separation in U.S. courts, but advocacy groups argue some acts meet definitions of torture or cruel treatment.

The table below summarizes categories of crimes, examples of people involved, an estimate of how many could be culpable, and the severity and legal outlook:

Table: Categories of crimes linked to Trump’s movement, with examples, scope, severity, and case assessments. Sources indicate documented evidence or outcomes for illustrative cases.

As shown, by 2029 the potentially culpable individuals number in the hundreds or even low thousands, when considering everyone from top officials to street-level offenders. Importantly, many crimes have already been proven in court: e.g., Trump’s own company convicted of fraud, his campaign chair and advisers convicted, his mob of supporters yielding over a thousand convictionsnpr.orgreuters.com. The combination of those verdicts and ongoing investigations provides a strong foundation for further legal action. The strength of cases generally correlates with the abundance of direct evidence:

• The documents case against Trump is bolstered by photos of classified files and recordings of Trump admitting he kept sensitive papers (“look what I found, this is secret” type evidence) – making conviction likely if it proceedsnpr.org.

• The Georgia election case has the infamous recorded call of Trump asking to “find 11,780 votes,” plus insider testimony – a compelling narrative for a jury.

• The Jan.6 incitement case (federal) would rely on showing Trump’s intent and knowledge of fraud falsity – here the House Jan.6 Committee assembled evidence Trump was told repeatedly he lost, yet exhorted supporters with fraud claims. While novel to charge a president with inciting insurrection, the ground was laid by convicting those who said they acted on Trump’s ordersnpr.orgnpr.org.

One must also consider presidential pardons Trump issued at the end of his term (Flynn, Stone, Bannon federally, etc.) – these shielded some allies from federal charges, but do not cover state charges or any crimes committed after the pardon. In a scenario where the electorate has turned sharply against Trump by 2029, there may be calls to scrutinize even those pardons (some argue they were self-serving or part of an obstruction pattern). While the Constitution gives broad pardon power, any evidence of bribery for pardons (e.g., someone paying Rudy Giuliani for a pardon) could itself be prosecuted.

In summary, the Trump universe brought a level of criminal exposure never seen around a U.S. presidency. By 2029, with a public viewing the administration as a corrupt regime, there is both the evidence and the political will to hold many of these individuals accountable. The precise number who will be charged or convicted depends on prosecutorial decisions, but conservative estimates put the figure in the many hundreds, considering Jan.6 cases (already ~1,000 convictions) plus dozens of high-level figures across various schemes. The severity ranges from misdemeanors to seditious felonies, but taken together, they depict a political movement frequently operating outside the law.

Below we further assess the strength of major legal cases and the likelihood of successful prosecutions in a post-Trump context:

• Election Subversion Cases: Strong evidence (documents, recordings, cooperating witnesses) exists. Precedent: Watergate – though Nixon wasn’t prosecuted, many aides were. Here we already have aides pleading guilty, making the case stronger. Likelihood: High for convictions of aides (some already convicted via plea). Charging Trump himself is likely (e.g., Georgia’s indictment already did), and given the scenario (majority against him), a jury conviction is plausible if trial occurs, though it would be contentious.

• Insurrection/Incitement: While no former president has been charged with incitement, the fact that multiple rioters were convicted and explicitly said “Trump made me do it”npr.org lays groundwork. However, proving Trump’s legal culpability for the violence is trickier (First Amendment issues, need to show intent to cause imminent lawless action). Likelihood: Moderate. It may ultimately be deemed enough to prosecute under statutes like obstruction of Congress or conspiracy to defraud (which DOJ did in the DC indictment) rather than “incitement to insurrection” per se. The DC federal case is strong on conspiracy to obstruct (pointing to schemes like directing fake electors, leaning on Pence). Given evidence like Trump pressuring Pence despite knowing violence was possible, prosecutors have a case. With a fair jury pool, conviction on at least some counts is quite possible (the House committee thought so, referring him for multiple crimes). Trump’s own immunity claims (that as President his actions were official) were rejected by courtsen.wikipedia.org, clearing a path for accountabilityen.wikipedia.org.

• Classified Documents Case: By all accounts, this is a straightforward case of illegal retention of national defense info and obstruction. The evidence includes recovered secret documents from Mar-a-Lago and testimony that Trump directed them hidden from the FBInpr.org. Likelihood: Very high for conviction, ordinarily. The wild card was the judge (Aileen Cannon) initially handling it who showed bias and even dismissed it on dubious grounds in late 2024en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. In the scenario, that dismissal might be reversed on appeal or refiled under a new administration. With neutral handling, any ordinary person would be convicted with that evidence. Trump’s statements (even publicly boasting he had papers) are damning. So if retried under a post-Trump DOJ, conviction is likely, unless he managed to pardon himself before leaving (an open legal question whether self-pardon is valid; many argue no). If not pardoned, this case could be the “easiest” to nail down legally.

• Corruption and Financial Crimes: Cases like the hush-money one in NY already yielded a conviction (for Trump Organization and Weisselberg, and an indictment/conviction for Trump personally in 2024)en.wikipedia.org. Those were on relatively narrow charges but showed jurors are willing to convict Trump entities. Future corruption charges (for example, if evidence emerges of Trump selling pardons or security secrets) would vary in strength. However, the standard of evidence is the same for Trump as anyone: documents, recordings, cooperating witnesses (like Cohen). With many associates flipping (Cohen, Weisselberg (to a degree), Gates, etc.), prosecutors have insight into Trump Organization and campaign finances. Likelihood: Moderate. Some financial crimes might be hard to tie to Trump personally unless a witness or paper trail does. But investigations into, say, Truth Social/SPAC dealings, or the post-election PAC fundraising (which might be wire fraud) could ensnare more Trump associates and even Trump if donor deception is proven. These are complex but doable cases; by 2029, public patience for white-collar crime by politicians is low, increasing appetite to pursue them.

• Civil Rights Violations: If the U.S. decided to reckon with the human rights abuses of the Trump era, it could pursue charges like deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. §242) for things like family separation (arguing children’s right to due process or to be free from government-inflicted harm was violated). Historically, these laws have been used against individual rogue officers (e.g., police brutality cases), not policy-makers. It would be groundbreaking to charge, say, Stephen Miller or Jeff Sessions for the suffering caused by family separations. The legal hurdle is proving specific intent to deprive rights. However, some communications showed officials knew the trauma they were causing and did it deliberately to deter migrants – arguably “intent to inflict harm” on a protected class (asylum seekers). Likelihood: Low to moderate for criminal charges; more likely there would be extensive reports and perhaps civil lawsuits leading to settlements. But the scenario’s language (“military junta-style regime”) implies a reckoning similar to post-authoritarian transitions elsewhere, where sometimes officials are charged for human rights abuses. If that were applied, a few top officials and particularly egregious agents could face trial. For example, the doctor in the forced hysterectomy claims could absolutely face prosecution for assault if evidence supports it – that’s a direct crime (reports referred to it as a “uterus collector” situation). Similarly, an ICE officer caught on camera assaulting a handcuffed detainee could be charged. These cases depend on evidence and political will. A revitalized Civil Rights Division might pursue some. So, legal risk here is harder to gauge – potentially high for specific individuals if the justice system is willing to set precedents.

In total, by 2029 observers estimate that scores of Trump associates (perhaps 40-50 significant figures) face serious legal jeopardy or already have been convictednewsweek.com, and over 1,000 of his followers have been prosecuted for various offensesnpr.org. The strength of the cases against them is generally bolstered by ample evidence, much of it uncovered by congressional investigations, watchdog FOIAs, and the work of diligent prosecutors. If anything, the challenge has been less about evidence and more about navigating the political implications of charging powerful figures. But with the public now largely seeing Trumpism as a criminal enterprise, the political calculus shifts in favor of enforcement.

Systemic Effects and Long-Term Fallout

The cumulative impact of Trump’s second term – with its authoritarian-tinged policies and pervasive alleged corruption – has been deeply damaging to U.S. institutions, international credibility, and the social fabric. By 2029, as the nation looks to recover, several systemic consequences stand out:

Damage to Democratic Institutions: Trump’s governance style inflicted significant harm on the checks and balances that underpin American democracy. The DOJ’s politicization eroded public confidence in impartial justice; the FBI and intelligence agencies saw morale plummet as they were purged and repurposed for political ends. Within the executive branch, career expertise was sidelined or driven out (due to loyalty tests like Schedule F and external “efficiency” cutstheguardian.com). This “brain drain” left agencies less effective and more distrusted. Inspectors General – the internal watchdogs – were fired or neutered whenever they raised concerns about wrongdoing, gutting accountability. The principle of Congressional oversight was also weakened: Trump officials’ routine defiance of subpoenas (with some like Bannon and Navarro convicted for contemptusnews.com) sent a message that the executive could ignore the legislative branch. Although Congress eventually enforced some compliance via contempt charges, the ordeal set a precedent that future presidents might exploit.

Additionally, judicial authority was challenged. When court orders were ignored (as in the deportation plane incident)brookings.edubrookings.edu, it chipped away at the judiciary’s perceived power. If not for judges standing firm (and sometimes threatening sanctions or enforcement), the administration might have normalized executive defiance of courts. Even so, the public saw a presidency willing to flout court rulings – a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. Restoring faith that court orders must be obeyed will be an important project post-Trump. Judges may press for stronger contempt powers or faster Supreme Court intervention when the executive branch resists.

Erosion of Norms and Precedents: Beyond formal institutions, many unwritten norms were shattered. Trump openly profited from the presidency (norm against personal enrichment fell as foreign and domestic entities funneled money to Trump businesses – even if lawsuits failed to stop it, the ethical norm was violated). The norm of concession and peaceful transfer of power was grievously damaged by the refusal to accept the 2020 result and the events of Jan.6. While the transfer ultimately occurred in 2021, Trump’s continued false claims kept a segment of Americans doubting election integrity, an infection that persisted into his second term and after. By 2029, thankfully, most Americans (even many who once believed The Big Lie) have come to accept that those claims were baseless and dangerous – particularly after seeing the lengths Trump went to cling to power in his second term. Nevertheless, the precedent that a losing incumbent might not concede, and could even encourage violence, is now part of American historical memory. This introduces a fragility to future elections – something that will need proactive measures (stronger electoral count laws, etc.) to guard against.

Loss of U.S. Credibility and Leadership Internationally: Globally, America’s image took a heavy blow. Allies spent four years unsure if Washington would honor commitments – NATO members literally questioned whether the U.S. would defend them if Russia attacked, given Trump’s ambivalenceapnews.com. Such doubts may not fully dissipate even with new leadership; the notion that “it could happen again” (another Trump-like figure) will linger. Countries hedged their bets: Europe started building its own defense capacity, and nations like Japan and South Korea quietly considered if they needed to arm themselves (even with nuclear weapons) without 100% U.S. backing. The U.S. withdrawal from climate agreements and human rights forums ceded moral high ground to competitors. For instance, China positioned itself as the leader of globalization and even took up rhetoric of fighting climate change, capitalizing on the void left by the U.S. retreatamericanprogress.org. America’s advocacy for democracy was muted, weakening global pressure on authoritarian regimes – we likely saw more brazen crackdowns in places like Hong Kong, Belarus, and Saudi Arabia, with the U.S. largely silent. All this means that by 2029, the United States must rebuild trust with allies through consistent policy and by reaffirming commitments (perhaps via treaties ratified by the Senate to make them harder to break). The next administration might also push for international norms or agreements to guard against democratic backsliding – essentially showing the world that the U.S. can lead in strengthening democracy having learned a hard lesson itself.

Societal Polarization and Violence: Domestically, Trump’s tenure deepened divides and normalized a level of political hatred and even violence. The fact that a significant number of Americans justified or downplayed an attack on Congress in 2021 was alarming. His second term’s harsh measures (e.g., deploying force on protesters, labeling opponents as traitors, etc.) further pitted Americans against each other. By 2029, the fever has broken to an extent – the majority sees the Trump movement as a dangerous fringe – but the scars remain. Some of Trump’s hardcore base still exist and feel victimized by the turn of events (they may buy into a narrative that the “Deep State” finally got him, etc., which could fuel sporadic unrest or domestic terrorism). The challenge for the country will be dealing with these extremist remnants in a way that upholds justice (prosecuting those who committed crimes) but also tries to deradicalize and heal. The junta analogy suggests a possible Truth and Reconciliation Commission or similar could be considered, to lay bare the facts and allow some catharsis. However, accountability (trials, convictions) will also be necessary to reinforce the rule of law.

Legal and Constitutional Reforms: The tumult of Trump’s rule has already spurred calls for various reforms to prevent a repeat. By 2029, one can expect new legislation (or even constitutional amendments) to be on the table. For example:

• Reform of the Electoral Count Act – already in 2022 some fixes were made to clarify the VP’s purely ceremonial role, but after Trump’s second term antics, maybe even more stringent guardrails are added to presidential transitions.

• Insulating Justice Department – perhaps a law giving DOJ special counsel more independence, or protecting FBI directors from politically motivated firing.

• Hatch Act enforcement – Trump’s White House flagrantly violated the Hatch Act (using government for campaigning), and while not criminal, it signaled impunity. Congress might impose actual penalties or strengthen the Office of Special Counsel.

• Pardon power limits – There could be serious discussion on a constitutional amendment or law to prevent self-pardons or pardons that clearly serve corrupt ends (the fact Trump floated pardoning all Jan.6 rioters if re-elected was seen as an abuse in waiting). While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, maybe an amendment to prohibit pardons for cases involving the President’s own impeachment or election might be considered.

• Clarifying Emoluments – To avoid another scenario of a president personally enriching themselves in office, clearer enforcement mechanisms for the Emoluments Clauses might be set (the lawsuits in Trump’s term got bogged down in standing issues; Congress could create a cause of action or an oversight panel to review and approve foreign transactions involving the President).

• Strengthening Congressional Subpoenas – After the runaround with Trump officials ignoring subpoenas, Congress might expedite the legal process for enforcement (maybe allowing the House or Senate to levy fines for contempt without needing DOJ).

• Security of Classified Information – In light of Trump’s document mishandling, stricter procedures might be put in place for ex-presidents (like requiring them to undergo a clearance process to keep documents, with penalties if they don’t).

• Line of Succession/Emergency Powers – Jan.6 and other events revealed some vagueness in handling if a president becomes incapacitated or if a president abuses emergency powers. Legislation could aim to curtail lengthy states of emergency or limit the use of forces like the Insurrection Act against domestic protests without congressional approval.

Economic and Institutional Recovery: The economy by 2029 likely bore some scars from the chaotic policies. As mentioned, net immigration fell, harming growthbrookings.edu. Tariff wars perhaps still unresolved left certain industries weaker and prices higher. The new administration would probably move quickly to mend trade relations (perhaps negotiate tariff reductions with allies, rejoin international trade frameworks to reassure markets). Socially, addressing the labor shortages from immigration cuts might involve revising immigration laws to welcome needed workers – a politically charged but now urgent issue given the hit to GDP growth and even Social Security fundingbrookings.edu. There could also be a push to depoliticize economic metrics – under Trump, there were instances of pressure on agencies to produce data favorable to him (like DHS fudging deportation stats or NOAA being pressured on hurricane info). Re-establishing the independence and credibility of federal statistical agencies and scientific bodies is a quieter but crucial piece of institutional repair.

Military and Security Establishment: Trump’s second term forced the military and intelligence community into uncomfortable territory. He installed loyalists like Hegseth as SecDeftheguardian.com, which alarmed many in the Pentagon. Some high-ranking officers might have resigned or been forced out due to loyalty concerns. The concept of an apolitical military was tested – with Trump, at one point in his first term, having contemplated using the Insurrection Act in 2020 and possibly more readily in his second term. By 2029, military leaders likely will want to reaffirm the professional norm of staying out of politics. The junta comparison is apt because in some eyes, Trump’s administration leaned on military and law enforcement to maintain power, akin to authoritarian regimes. Restoring civilian-military trust and reeducating on constitutional duties (perhaps revisiting training on the limits of obeying unlawful orders) could be on the agenda for the Department of Defense. Encouragingly, throughout Trump’s tenure, many in the military and intel refused to cross certain lines (e.g., generals slow-walked or discouraged extreme orders). Ensuring the structures are in place to prevent a rogue president from purging all such officials in the future will be debated (one idea floated is requiring Senate confirmation for positions like White House Chief of Staff or National Security Advisor, though that’s unconventional).

International Fallout: The long-term foreign policy fallout is that allies might demand formal treaties or assurances for things once taken for granted. For instance, European NATO members might want U.S. treaty law explicitly stating Congress must approve leaving NATO, to prevent another president from one-sidedly withdrawing. Asian allies might seek binding commitments or presence to deter a future abandonment. Another fallout: adversaries tested U.S. resolve (Russia in Ukraine, China maybe eyeing Taiwan). If the U.S. under Trump signaled disinterest in defending democracy, that might have emboldened aggression. By 2029, the new administration might face a world where conflicts have advanced – e.g., Ukraine might have lost territory in a forced peace, or China might have moved on Taiwan’s autonomy in some way. U.S. credibility in deterring such moves will need rebuilding, possibly by reversing Trump’s policies (e.g., resuming military aid to Ukraine, conducting robust freedom of navigation operations to challenge China, etc.).

However, the isolation of the U.S. created by Trump could have some lasting impact even beyond his term: other countries might continue down a more independent path. The global perception of America as a stable democracy took a hit on Jan.6 and beyond. To remedy this, beyond policy changes, the U.S. likely needs to demonstrate accountability – which is why prosecuting those responsible for the anti-democratic actions is not just a domestic matter but an international signal. When the majority of Americans repudiated Trump in 2028 (implied by scenario), it sent a message that U.S. democracy has self-corrected. Following through with rule-of-law processes (fair trials, etc.) against wrongdoers further signals that the U.S. holds itself to the democratic standards it preaches. This could, over time, restore some moral high ground. But it will be a process of years; as some commentators noted, “The record of [Trump’s term] is clear: Trump’s foreign policy left America weak”americanprogress.org, and reversing weakness to strength will require consistency and leadership.

Political Fallout: The scenario envisions a large majority turned against Trump – presumably this means the 2028 election (or earlier, perhaps an overwhelming impeachment/removal, but more likely election) was a landslide repudiation. The Republican Party, which tied itself to Trump, would undergo a reckoning. By 2029, we might see a major realignment or split in that party: one faction completely distancing itself from Trumpism, and another resentful rump. The American two-party system itself might shift; maybe a new center-right party emerges if Trump loyalists still control the GOP brand. On the Democratic side, the response to the crisis likely unified their normally broad tent around core democratic values, possibly empowering reformers to implement some of the fixes noted. Politically, one could compare it to post-Watergate: Democrats in 1974 won huge majorities and passed sweeping ethics reforms. Similarly, 2028 likely produced a wave of candidates (even some GOP) campaigning on anti-corruption, pro-democracy platforms. With the public support, reforms against authoritarian loopholes have a strong chance.

However, one must be cautious: the very polarization and disinformation that Trump stoked won’t vanish overnight. Even in 2029, perhaps 15-20% of the population might still believe the election was stolen (some might cling to the narrative even after all evidence and court cases). The existence of that minority means the political climate could remain volatile. The government will have to address issues that fueled Trump’s rise (economic anxiety, distrust in elites) in constructive ways, or risk a recurrence under a new demagogue. This is the deeper long-term fallout – a recognition that American democracy proved more fragile than assumed, and needs renewal and reinforcement. Civic education may be emphasized anew (to inoculate against lies that undermine elections). Social media regulation might be considered, to prevent the viral spread of dangerous falsehoods that can mobilize mobs.

Economic Fallout: On the economic front, aside from the immigration-related labor hits and trade issues, one should mention market trust. Investors saw the U.S. flirt with defaulting on alliances and massive instability. Possibly the U.S. cost of borrowing (interest on Treasury bonds) inched up as rating agencies warned about political risk. (There was indeed speculation in reality that if Jan.6 had gone worse or Trump somehow stayed, the U.S. credit rating and markets would crash.) By 2029, with normalcy returning, markets likely stabilized and perhaps boomed in relief (much as markets did after Watergate resolution). But the long-term cost is intangible: some capital might permanently be diverted to more stable jurisdictions as a hedge, and the dollar’s absolute dominance could be eroded (e.g., China and Russia’s push to conduct trade outside the SWIFT/dollar system might have gotten more traction when the U.S. was seen as unstable). Repairing that means recommitting to being a reliable economic partner and avoiding weaponizing the U.S. financial system for personal ends as Trump sometimes threatened (like trying to punish companies that displeased him, or using sanctions capriciously).

In conclusion, the second Trump presidency, in this scenario, functioned like a stress test that revealed cracks in the edifice of the American republic. The damage – to institutions, norms, and international standing – has been severe. Yet the fact that by 2029 a large majority of Americans view the administration as a corrupt aberration is itself cause for hope. It suggests the antibodies in the body politic finally activated. Moving forward, the U.S. has the opportunity (and indeed necessity) to implement reforms and rebuild. This could ultimately strengthen the nation if done right: much like the post-Watergate reforms cleaned up campaign finance (for a time) and intelligence oversight, the post-Trump reforms could modernize guardrails for the 21st century.

One cannot understate, however, the economic, legal, and geopolitical fallout that will take years to sort through:

• Legally, the U.S. will be in the midst of prosecuting possibly dozens of trials of ex-officials and extremists, a process which, while needed, will be painful and polarizing in its own way.

• Politically, there may be short-term instability as Trump’s remaining supporters protest or refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the new government (somewhat akin to how some post-Civil War Confederates held out). The new President will have to balance justice with unity – a classic dilemma, amplified.

• Internationally, adversaries may test the new administration early on, sensing opportunity after U.S. turmoil. A strong, measured response will be needed to reassert deterrence without overcompensation.

Finally, the events have spurred a broader reflection among Americans about their democracy. The phrase “military junta-style regime” being used by a majority to describe Trump’s government is striking – it shows Americans comparing their experience to countries that undergo dictatorships. This collective realization might bolster a long-term commitment to democratic norms. Voters might become more discerning about candidates who show authoritarian tendencies, having learned a hard lesson. Civil society (journalists, NGOs, bipartisan groups) likely will double down on promoting factual discourse and calling out undemocratic actions early.

In essence, the legacy of Trump’s second term is a cautionary tale – one that nearly saw the end of American democracy as we know it, but ultimately, due to institutional resilience and public awakening, did not. The coming years will be about institutional rehabilitation. As one political analyst remarked, “For now, the courts continue to provide a meaningful check…though the administration showed a willingness to sidestep or ignore them”brookings.edu. In 2029, it will be up to all three branches – and the American people – to ensure that no future leader can so egregiously compromise the Republic’s foundations. The long-term fallout, if addressed properly, could be a reinvigorated democracy with stronger immune systems; if not, the scars could fester and invite another, perhaps even more effective authoritarian in the future. The stakes of learning the right lessons from 2017-2028 could not be higher – and the world will be watching how America handles its moment of reckoning.

Sources:

• Franco Ordoñez, “Stephen Miller will be Trump’s homeland security advisor in new White House role,” NPR, Nov. 13, 2024. (Details Miller appointment and mass deportation plans)npr.orgnpr.org.

• Anna Betts, “Trump’s early second-term choices fuel fears of extremist agenda,” The Guardian, Nov. 13, 2024. (Outlines key appointments: Miller, Homan, Noem on immigration; Gaetz as AG; Hegseth as SecDef; Stefanik to UN; etc., with reactions)theguardian.comtheguardian.comtheguardian.com.

• Brookings Institution, “100 days of immigration under the second Trump administration” (2025). (Extensive analysis of immigration actions: ending CBP One, halting refugees, secret deportations ignoring courts, birthright citizenship EO, etc.)brookings.edubrookings.edubrookings.edu.

• ACLU, “Project 2025, Explained.” (Lists Heritage/Trump agenda: mass deportations, surveillance abuse, protest crackdowns, voting suppression, anti-LGBTQ policies, etc., including specific personnel like Bondi, Vought, McMahon implementing them)aclu.orgaclu.orgaclu.org.

• AP News, “Trump’s second term could realign US diplomacy toward authoritarian leaders.” (Discusses Trump’s alignment with autocrats, NATO issues, Ukraine stance, quotes experts on less human rights focus)apnews.comapnews.com.

• Ayesha Rascoe & Tom Dreisbach, “Over 1,100 rioters have been charged for Jan. 6. Many name Trump in their statements,” NPR, July 30, 2023. (Highlights how Jan.6 defendants invoked Trump’s orders, number charged ~1,100+)npr.orgnpr.org.

• Reuters Factbox (2020), “Eight Trump associates arrested or convicted.” (Lists Stone, Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Gates, Papadopoulos, Bannon, Nader with charges/convictions)reuters.comreuters.com.

• AP News, “Proud Boys’ Enrique Tarrio gets record 22 years in prison for Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy,” Sept. 2023. (Record sentence, notes he orchestrated plot to keep Trump in power)apnews.comapnews.com.

• AP News, “Sidney Powell pleads guilty in Georgia election case,” Oct. 2023. (Powell plea to reduced charges, becoming second defendant to flip in GA, admitting interference)apnews.com.

• CNN/NYTimes reports on Trump indictments (2023). (Summary: four indictments, charges in NY, FL, DC, GA)en.wikipedia.org.

• Reuters, statement: “Americans expressed support for mass deportation in January…but outrage over family separation in 2018 showed enforcement realities are less popular”brookings.edu.

• Center for American Progress, “100 Days of Trump Foreign Policy: Global Chaos” (Apr 2025). (Notes tariffs raised costs, markets tanked, NATO undermined, foreign aid cut, global accords exited, leaving America isolated and weaker)americanprogress.orgamericanprogress.org.

• PBS NewsHour, “Hundreds of immigrants have reported sexual abuse at ICE facilities. Most cases aren’t investigated,” Jul. 21, 2023. (Documents systemic sexual abuse in ICE detention: 308 complaints, pattern of staff perpetrating abuse)wanttoknow.info.

• Wikipedia (for general reference on indictments, etc.)en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org.

The Brink of Authoritarianism and the Reckoning to Follow

How Far Could MAGA Leaders Go to Cling to Power?

Legal Manipulation and Institutional Subversion

Donald Trump’s post-2020 actions already revealed a willingness to subvert legal processes to stay in office, and his ideological successors show similar tendencies. After losing the 2020 election, Trump pressured officials at every level to invalidate the results – from calling Georgia’s secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes” needed to flip the outcomereuters.com, to urging the Justice Department leadership to “just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen”apnews.com. When courts and state authorities refused to overturn the vote, Trump and allies concocted extralegal schemes: recruiting slates of fake electors, pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to reject certified results, and even entertaining wild plans to use federal agencies to seize voting machinespolitico.compolitico.com. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn urged Trump to declare martial law and deploy the military to re-run the election in swing states – a draconian option discussed in an Oval Office meeting in December 2020politico.com. Draft executive orders were prepared to have the Defense Department confiscate voting machines, and to appoint a special counsel to investigate baseless fraud claimspolitico.com. Though these orders were never executed due to pushback from White House lawyers and military leaders, their mere consideration shows an unprecedented level of institutional subversion in service of retaining power.

Trump and like-minded figures have embraced an extreme interpretation of executive authority that could facilitate such maneuvers. A policy blueprint known as Project 2025, developed by Trump-aligned operatives for a potential second term, explicitly aims to “place the federal government’s entire executive branch under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the FBI, the FCC, the FTC, and other agencies.”en.wikipedia.org In practice, this “unitary executive” approach would mean loyalist control over law enforcement and regulatory bodies, removing the checks that thwarted Trump’s 2020 pressure campaign. Project 2025 calls for purging the civil service and filling tens of thousands of posts with loyalists, using mechanisms like a new “Schedule F” job classification to reclassify and fire career officials en masseen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. During Trump’s first term, officials he perceived as insufficiently loyal (even conservatives like former Attorney General William Barr) were pushed outen.wikipedia.org. Learning from that, Trump’s allies compiled pre-vetted lists of ideologically committed personnel – a shadow government in waiting of up to 10,000 people – ready to take office on day onenpr.org. This would enable immediate takeover of key institutions with minimal resistance. “Project 2025 seems to be full of ideas that are designed to let Donald Trump function as a dictator, completely eviscerating restraints built into our system,” warned Donald Ayer, a former Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bushen.wikipedia.org. The plan envisions firing even apolitical military and diplomatic leaders en masse – for example, dismissing all State Department leaders and replacing them with acting appointees who bypass Senate confirmationen.wikipedia.org. In short, the MAGA strategy for clinging to power centers on breaking the guardrails of rule-of-law and bending institutional processes until the executive’s will prevails.

Critically, this approach is couched as legal or procedural change, not open illegality – a form of “democratic backsliding” where elected authoritarians use laws and executive orders to undermine democracy from withinen.wikipedia.org. Political scientists note that this tactic, seen in countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Russia, preserves the facade of elections but tilts the playing field decisively in favor of the incumbenten.wikipedia.org. Trump’s blueprint aligns with what scholars Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way term “competitive authoritarianism”: opposition parties may still contest elections, but the incumbent regime abuses state power to stack the deckelectionlawblog.orgelectionlawblog.org. Examples include government control of media, weaponization of agencies against opponents, and gerrymandered or voter-suppressed elections. Indeed, Project 2025 proposals include “abusing executive power to interfere in our elections by criminalizing the voting process and damaging fair representation.”aclu.org For instance, Trump allies like Pam Bondi (slated for Attorney General in a future MAGA administration) have spearheaded efforts to restrict voting access and even sought to overturn a Biden executive order that expanded voting opportunitiesaclu.org. Another Trump-aligned lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, tapped to run the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, has built her career around dismantling voting rights and amplifying false election fraud claimsaclu.org. These are the very officials who would oversee election law enforcement under a MAGA regime – an ominous sign that election rules could be rewritten or enforced selectively to keep their faction in power.

Political Violence and State-Sanctioned Repression

Beyond manipulating laws and agencies, Trump and his acolytes have signaled a readiness to invoke force and condone violence to maintain power. The January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection stands as stark evidence: a pro-Trump mob stormed Congress to stop certification of Trump’s defeat, egged on by his months of incendiary lies about a “stolen” election. Trump not only refused for hours to call off the rioters, but even tweeted during the attack that Vice President Pence “didn’t have the courage” to subvert the count – tacitly endorsing the mob’s aimnpr.orgnpr.org. Members of far-right militias like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys heeded Trump’s call, later testifying that they believed they were answering “the president’s” ordersbritannica.com. Several of these paramilitary actors have since been convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the violence. This event proved that a significant segment of the MAGA base is willing to employ political violence to override voters’ will – and that Trump was willing to benefit from such violence to cling to office. It was, as one Congressman put it in real time, “absolute banana republic crap” unfolding at the Capitolnpr.org.

A member of the pro-Trump mob shatters a window inside the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021 attack – an unprecedented attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of powernpr.org. This assault on Congress highlighted the lengths to which extremist supporters would go at Trump’s behest, raising questions about what measures a future MAGA government might take to harness or direct such forces. Far from repudiating the violence, Trump and allies have normalized it. Trump promised to pardon many Jan. 6 offenders, calling them patriots, and he continues to portray the prosecuted rioters as political prisoners. Such rhetoric effectively licenses future violence: if loyal foot soldiers know they’ll enjoy impunity, the threat of force as a political tool grows. In a chilling example, Arizona Republican Kari Lake – a prominent election denier considered an ideological heir to Trump – publicly warned that attempts to hold Trump legally accountable would meet armed resistance. “If you want to get to President Trump, you’re going to have to go through me, and 75 million Americans just like me,” Lake said in mid-2023, noting that “most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA.” She added, “That’s not a threat – it’s a public service announcement. We will not let you lay a finger on President Trump.”theguardian.comtheguardian.com. Such statements, barely-veiled threats of violence, are unprecedented in modern U.S. politics. They indicate a subset of MAGA leaders are not only willing to condone violence but to explicitly call for armed defiance of legal outcomes (such as an indictment or an election loss) they dislike. This phenomenon amounts to the mainstreaming of insurrectionary rhetoric.

What would state-sanctioned coercion look like under a determined MAGA regime? We have some concrete clues. Project 2025’s architects openly contemplated early use of emergency powers and armed authorities to smash opposition. In 2023, Trump adviser Stephen Miller (author of some of Trump’s first-term hardline immigration and protest crackdowns) proposed that on day one of a second term, Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcementen.wikipedia.org. Historically, the Insurrection Act allows the president to send troops to quell civil disorder or rebellion. Miller’s idea was to use it proactively – not only against any post-election unrest, but even for routine policies like immigration enforcementen.wikipedia.org. Another Trump-aligned lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, explored using the Insurrection Act to suppress racial justice protests (such as the George Floyd demonstrations) by forceen.wikipedia.org. In essence, they envisioned militarizing responses to civil dissent. Though Heritage Foundation officials have tried to downplay these aspects, the Project 2025 handbook explicitly leaves open “the possible use of the Insurrection Act to secure the southern border.”en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org And insiders like former OMB director Russell Vought admitted they were working to remove any legal or bureaucratic barriers to invoking the Insurrection Act at willen.wikipedia.org. The implications are stark: a Trump 2.0 administration (or a like-minded successor) might meet mass protests or unfavorable election results not with dialogue, but with troops in the streets and mass arrests.

Even absent full martial law, a MAGA regime could wield federal law enforcement as a blunt instrument against political opponents. In late 2020, Trump infamously pressured the DOJ to investigate or jail election officials who didn’t bend, and flirted with appointing Jeffrey Clark – who was ready to send false fraud claims to states – as acting Attorney Generalapnews.comapnews.com. For a time, Trump also demanded the DOJ appoint a special counsel to probe his opponent (Biden) or the election itselfapnews.com. These moves were thwarted by the threat of mass resignations at DOJapnews.comapnews.com. But under the unitary executive vision of Project 2025, the DOJ’s traditional independence would be erased to prevent such resistance. Clark himself championed stripping DOJ’s independence so a president could prosecute political rivals directlyen.wikipedia.org – a hallmark move of authoritarian regimes. Indeed, Trump has openly vowed retribution against his critics if he regains office, saying at a 2023 rally, “I am your retribution.” The blending of Justice Department authority with partisan motives raises the specter of state-sanctioned persecution of opposition figures, journalists, or activists. Project 2025 proposals include targeting those who protest or criticize the regime: for example, cracking down on journalists and demonstrators in the name of “law and order.” The ACLU warns that the blueprint encourages violating the First Amendment by surveilling and using undue force on protesters and reportersaclu.orgaclu.org. One concrete policy is to revive the broad use of warrantless surveillance on Americans, ostensibly for security, but potentially to monitor dissidentsaclu.orgaclu.org. Another is expanding definitions of rioting or terrorism to criminalize protest activity. Florida under Governor Ron DeSantis (often seen as a Trump heir) previewed this approach with an “anti-riot” law in 2021 that imposed harsh penalties on protesters and granted legal protections to vigilantes countering demonstrations. A federal court later blocked parts of that law as unconstitutional, but it exemplifies the state-level suppression toolkit that could be federalized.

In short, MAGA leaders have shown both the capacity and the will to erode democratic norms by force if necessary. They view many traditional checks – an independent judiciary, a professional civil service, a free press, and peaceful protest – as obstacles to be circumvented or crushed. The combination of legal manipulation (making it harder to lose power) with intimidation and violence (raising the cost of removing them) is how autocratic-minded movements entrench themselves. This pattern matches the “authoritarian playbook” observed in other nations: “reward loyalists, punish enemies, keep people divided, and manipulate democratic institutions… remain in power at all costs.”justsecurity.org Trump’s failed coup in 2020 also highlights another lesson of authoritarianism: it ultimately depends on people’s acquiescence or defiance. It was only the refusal of key individuals – from Republican state officials to Trump’s own aides and military leaders – to carry out unlawful orders that prevented a complete subversion of the electionjustsecurity.orgjustsecurity.org. A future MAGA regime that has systematically removed independent-minded officials might not be so constrained. The more the would-be authoritarians consolidate loyalists in every lever of power (courts, legislatures, agencies, police, military), the more feasible it becomes to push the limits – whether that means disqualifying opposition voters, nullifying election results, or even suspending constitutional governance under some pretext. It is not unthinkable, for instance, that facing an electoral defeat in 2028, a MAGA president could declare a national emergency to delay the election or invalidate the results, citing fraud or security crises. The groundwork for such a move is arguably being laid: Trump allies like Heritage president Kevin Roberts have preemptively claimed that any result other than a Trump victory in 2024 must be fraudulent, as part of an effort to delegitimize elections in advanceaclu.org. If these figures remain in power amid declining popularity or rising legal troubles, their rhetoric and actions indicate few limits on what they might do – up to and including a direct break with constitutional order.

The Reckoning in 2029: Blowback and Accountability After Authoritarian Rule

Now imagine that despite these efforts, the MAGA faction loses power decisively by 2028. Say the 2028 election yields a resounding defeat for Trump or his successor, and in January 2029 a left-leaning president takes office with their party holding full control of Congress. In this scenario, the country has just experienced four years of intensifying authoritarianism and direct harm to many communities. The electorate that ousted the MAGA regime is highly mobilized and angry, not only over policy grievances but over the damage done to democratic institutions and the rule of law. What follows could be a period of intense political blowback, as the new leadership seeks to restore democracy and deliver justice. History offers a range of models for how a democracy deals with the legacy of an authoritarian regime – from forgiveness to punitive “settling of accounts.” The United States in 2029 would have to decide: How far should accountability go?

Legal and Institutional Accountability Measures

One likely response would be a broad legal reckoning – a concerted effort to investigate and prosecute wrongdoings of the outgoing regime. Even today, in 2025, some accountability for the 2020 coup attempt is underway (e.g. Trump’s federal and Georgia indictments for election subversion, convictions of Jan. 6 rioters). A post-2028 democratic government with a strong mandate could greatly expand these efforts. We might expect a special prosecutorial task force or commission to be established to pursue any crimes committed by high officials during 2025–2028. This could include charges for abuse of power, corruption, civil rights violations, and even treason or sedition if evidence shows officials conspired to overthrow democratic processes. For example, if a Trump 47 administration violated laws in attempting to alter election outcomes or unleashed unlawful violence on civilians, its architects could face trials. A historical analogy is the Nuremberg trials after World War II, where top Nazi leaders were tried in an international tribunal for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While the U.S. situation is not one of foreign war, the principle is that leaders who subvert constitutional order or commit grave abuses can be held individually accountable in court. Already, American legal scholars have discussed using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment – the Civil War-era “insurrectionist disqualification” clause – to bar those who attempted to overthrow the 2020 election from ever holding office againhistory.com. In a 2029 scenario, with fresh evidence of authoritarian abuses, Congress could invoke Section 3 to expel or disqualify officials who betrayed their oath. (This tool was originally used during Reconstruction to block ex-Confederate leaders from officehistory.comhistory.com.) Unlike impeachment, Section 3 does not require a criminal conviction; it’s a political determination that someone engaged in insurrection. Using it would be contentious, but a determined Congress might do so for prominent figures who served a would-be autocrat.

Beyond individual prosecutions, a new regime might undertake sweeping institutional reforms to prevent a repeat of democratic backsliding. This could mean undoing Project 2025’s changes: re-establishing civil service protections, re-independentizing the Justice Department (perhaps by statute to insulate the Attorney General from improper interference), and reining in emergency powers. Congress could pass new laws clarifying that a president cannot use the Insurrection Act or other emergency statutes to override election outcomes or violate civil liberties – effectively tightening the guardrails. We could see a revival of something like the ** post-Watergate reforms** (which in the 1970s imposed limits on executive power after Nixon’s abuses). For instance, a new “Department of Justice Independence Act” might bar White House contacts with prosecutors on specific cases, with penalties for violations. Whistleblower protections might be strengthened to empower officials to refuse illegal orders. These preventative measures would be part of the accountability process too, ensuring that those who enabled abuses are removed and the system is safer going forward.

A key question is how far purges or lustration might go. In other nations, when a democracy replaces an authoritarian regime, there is often a purge of those who collaborated in repression. The classic case is the denazification of Germany after 1945. The Allied authorities sought “to politically cleanse German society and make sure that people who had been involved with the Nazi regime were excluded from important positions in society and the future state institutions.”alliiertenmuseum.de This meant removing tens of thousands of Nazi Party members from public office, banning Nazi organizations, and subjecting major offenders to trials or internmentalliiertenmuseum.dealliiertenmuseum.de. A U.S. democracy in 2029 might not use the term “purge,” but there could be a concerted effort to remove MAGA loyalists from the government – especially those installed via Schedule F or other patronage during 2025–28. Career professionals pushed out unjustly might be reinstated, while those who were placed in roles solely for loyalty could be investigated or fired. For example, if intelligence or law enforcement agencies had been stuffed with partisan actors, the new administration may clean house to restore impartiality. In extreme but not implausible circumstances, Congress could hold hearings on the extent of infiltration of agencies (say, if extremist group members were given security roles under Trump) and mandate broad vetting and removals. This echoes lustration policies used in Eastern Europe after communism, where former secret police collaborators were barred from positions of trust. The challenge, as history shows, is doing this fairly and legally – avoiding witch hunts while still ensuring accountability. In Germany’s denazification, ultimately only a small percentage of Nazis faced harsh penalties (most were classified as minor offenders or followers and reintegrated)alliiertenmuseum.de. The U.S. might similarly focus on the top “ringleaders” of authoritarian abuses, while rank-and-file participants might face lighter consequences (like being barred from senior jobs but not prosecuted).

Truth Commissions, “Pacts of Forgetting,” or Something in Between?

Another facet of reckoning is whether to pursue full truth and justice, or prioritize reconciliation. Different nations have made different choices. After the fall of apartheid in South Africa, the country established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) rather than prosecuting most perpetrators of human rights abuses. The TRC offered amnesty to those who fully confessed their political crimes, aiming to document the truth and foster forgiveness rather than exact retribution. This model prioritized healing societal wounds over punishment. By contrast, after the fall of Chile’s Pinochet regime, there was a slow march toward justice: an amnesty law initially shielded many officers, but years later courts began prosecuting some of the worst offenders (including Pinochet himself, who was indicted abroad in 1998 and later charged in Chile for torture and disappearances). Spain presents yet another model: following the death of dictator Francisco Franco, Spanish leaders in 1977 passed a sweeping Amnesty Law and agreed to a “Pact of Forgetting.” They decided that “the best way to move forward was to avoid looking back” – granting legal impunity to those who committed atrocities under Franco, in exchange for a peaceful transition to democracyamdoc.orgamdoc.org. This meant no truth commission, no trials, and for decades a national silence on the regime’s crimesamdoc.org. Only in recent years has Spain begun revisiting that pact, exhuming mass graves and reconsidering the amnesty in light of victims’ rights.

Given a presumably energized progressive majority in 2029, the U.S. is unlikely to choose outright forgetting. The base of a left-leaning government, having “experienced direct harm” from MAGA rule, would demand acknowledgment and justice. A middle path might be the establishment of a Truth Commission alongside legal processes. A U.S. Truth Commission could hold televised hearings on the abuses of 2025–28: detailing, say, incidents of political persecution, misuse of agencies, illegal orders given, and violence incited. It could compel testimony from officials and give voice to victims of state abuses (for example, immigrants who suffered under draconian policies, or civil servants who were harassed for doing their jobs). The aim would be to create an authoritative historical record and recommend reforms. Such a commission might offer lower-level perpetrators a chance to confess wrongdoing in exchange for leniency, mirroring the South African approach. This would help differentiate between those who masterminded authoritarian policies and those who were minor functionaries following orders under threat. The process could ease societal tensions by demonstrating a measure of mercy – but it also carries the risk of letting many offenders off the hook, which could anger victims and fuel a sense of impunity. South Africa’s TRC, for instance, has been criticized by some for failing to deliver full justice, as many perpetrators never faced jail time and some victims felt justice was sacrificed for peaceafricanews.combritannica.com.

On the other hand, a scenario of unbridled accountability is also possible. If public sentiment is vengeful enough, the new government could opt for a strict justice approach: prosecute whomever the evidence allows, with no amnesties. This would be more akin to the Allied response after WWII (though on a vastly smaller scale – we are not dealing with millions of perpetrators or death camps, but rather dozens or hundreds of officials potentially culpable of crimes like abuse of power or civil rights violations). In that hardline approach, even propagandists and financiers of the authoritarian movement could be targeted in some fashion. For example, consider media allies of MAGA: Certain television hosts and commentators aggressively spread known lies that undermined democracy or incited violence. In a standard legal framework, spreading lies is not a crime – free speech covers even harmful disinformation, barring direct incitement to imminent lawless action. However, if evidence emerged that media figures coordinated with officials in illegal schemes (for instance, hyping false fraud claims as part of the plan to overturn an election, knowing they were false), they could potentially face legal consequences (such as being sued for defamation or even charged as co-conspirators in fraud). Already, Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit led to a hefty settlement and on-air retractions from Fox News for the network’s promotion of false election claims. In a more charged post-2028 climate, one could imagine Congressional inquiries into media complicity, and perhaps regulation – like reviving the Fairness Doctrine or stronger penalties for election misinformation – to prevent outlets from becoming propaganda organs that imperil democracy. Such moves would be hugely controversial and raise First Amendment issues; even a left-dominated Congress would tread carefully here to avoid outright censorship. Still, the symbolic unmasking of propaganda roles might occur via hearings that put network executives under oath.

As for financiers and business enablers of the MAGA movement, an aggressive accountability drive might examine whether any wealthy donors knowingly funded illegal activities (for example, funding organizations that were effectively orchestrating voter intimidation or the alternate electors scheme). If so, those donors could conceivably be charged with conspiracy or face civil suits. At minimum, they might be named and shamed in reports, tarnishing their reputations. A historical parallel is the way the U.S. and Allies dealt with German industrialists who supported the Nazi regime: a few were prosecuted at Nuremberg for using slave labor or plundering, though most corporations escaped punishment and continued operating. In the U.S., any punitive action against business moguls would be contentious unless clear criminal links are proven. More likely is that a new administration might enforce and strengthen campaign finance and anti-corruption laws to dismantle the funding networks that supported authoritarian candidates. That could involve stricter enforcement of tax laws on dark money groups, or even RICO statutes if some organizations are found to be corrupt enterprises.

Even the bureaucrats and foot soldiers of the MAGA movement might feel consequences. For example, if ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) or other agencies carried out unlawful orders (mass deportations in violation of court orders, or illegal surveillance of citizens), the agents involved could face internal discipline or legal liability. A new DOJ might reopen cases that were quashed – for instance, if there were allegations of federal officers assaulting protesters or mistreating detainees that were ignored under the prior administration, those could now be prosecuted. We could see a thorough audit of the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon to root out any politicized abuses (such as targeting of political opponents or unlawful use of military assets domestically). Think of it as a “draining of the swamp” in reverse – removing those who turned government into a partisan weapon.

However, pursuing justice to that extent can trigger its own backlash. MAGA adherents – both leadership and base – would almost certainly perceive wide-ranging accountability measures as persecution. They already claim to be victims of a “witch hunt” when faced with any legal consequences; a comprehensive reckoning would amplify that narrative. This raises a final crucial question: Do MAGA-aligned individuals realize the personal and systemic consequences at stake? In other words, are they aware that by pushing the envelope now, they may be courting severe retribution later?

Do MAGA Followers Grasp the Stakes of Defeat?

There is an argument to be made that the high stakes are clear to at least the leaders. Trump himself has often framed 2024 (and by extension any election he’s in) in apocalyptic terms, e.g. the “Flight 93 election” logic embraced by his allies – charge the cockpit or dienpr.orgnpr.org. This rhetoric implies they believe if they lose, everything is lost. For some, that means the country is “lost” to alien values (a mix of genuine ideological fear and demagoguery). But implicitly, it could also mean they themselves are lost – facing potential jail, loss of power, and social disgrace. Indeed, Trump’s current legal troubles (multiple indictments) give him a very concrete incentive to avoid leaving power again, because a hostile administration will not hesitate to prosecute him. His allies likely share this incentive. It’s been reported that Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts – a key Project 2025 figure – was “one of the principal advocates for overturning the 2020 election” to keep Trump in officeaclu.org. That suggests recognition that accepting electoral defeat meant relinquishing not just power but protection. Another Heritage executive, Mike Howell, preemptively labeled the 2024 election illegitimate “before voting even began,” asserting that any outcome not favoring Trump must result from fraudaclu.org. This is essentially a declaration that they do not intend to recognize defeat. Such statements indicate a belief that the alternative to holding power is existentially dangerous – that the left will “destroy America” or punish them severely (often framed in terms of a “Marxist takeover” or similar). In one telling line, Russell Vought (a Project 2025 co-author) argued they were in “the last stages of a complete Marxist takeover” of the country, necessitating urgent actionnpr.orgnpr.org. This mix of paranoia and projection may serve as justification for extreme measures. But it also reveals a probable blind spot: many in the MAGA world may underestimate the legitimacy and resolve a future democratic government would have to hold them accountable. Cocooned in propaganda that paints their cause as righteous and portrays the opposition as weak or corrupt, they might truly not anticipate a forceful, justice-driven response.

Historical comparisons offer a warning. After the U.S. Civil War, ex-Confederates widely expected either brutal punishment or a quick political comeback. What happened was a bit of both: initially, Radical Republicans imposed Reconstruction, including military occupation of the South and disenfranchisement of many former rebels. Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis were imprisoned for a time, and the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 blocked many from officehistory.comhistory.com. This was effectively a lustration policy to protect the republic. Yet within a decade, political compromise (and waning Northern will) led to most Confederates being pardoned and the “Redemption” of the South by white supremacist Democrats who rolled back many changes. The lesson is that accountability can be reversed if the political winds change. Similarly, in post-Nazi Germany, the initial zeal to purge Nazis gave way by the 1950s to amnesties and the quiet reintegration of many former Nazis into society – partly because Cold War priorities shifted and West Germany wanted stability. In Spain, the choice was to forgo accountability entirely for the sake of unity. In South Africa, it was to trade justice for truth to avoid civil war.

Which path would America choose? The likely tone of blowback in 2029 would be heavily influenced by how extreme the preceding regime had been. If the MAGA government merely enacted hard-right policies but did not cross certain red lines (no mass violence, elections were unfair but not completely voided), there might be more appetite for a measured response – e.g. investigations and reforms, but not mass prosecutions or purges. However, if by 2028 people have “experienced direct harm” – say, political dissidents jailed, protesters shot, draconian laws enforced – then the public mood could favor a far more drastic settling of scores. A left-wing president and Congress, elected on a mandate to restore democracy, would then have not just the opportunity but arguably the obligation to deliver justice on behalf of those harmed.

It’s worth noting that any overreach in accountability could backfire by martyring the MAGA movement. Denazification, for instance, had to be dialed back to avoid alienating too much of the German population (over 8 million had been Nazi Party members)alliiertenmuseum.dealliiertenmuseum.de. In the U.S., tens of millions of citizens supported Trump/MAGA – they are not all guilty of crimes, and many were misled by propaganda. A post-2028 strategy would need to separate the hardcore perpetrators from the broader voter base. Trials and sanctions would focus on leaders and willful collaborators in illegal acts, while outreach or reconciliation would be aimed at rank-and-file voters to bring them back into the democratic fold. Failing to do so could fuel a resentful insurgency or second wave of extremism.

In conclusion, the trajectory of the MAGA movement suggests it is willing to push the boundaries of democracy to a breaking point in order to hold power – employing legal chicanery, institutional sabotage, and even force. The United States has entered a period where scholars openly warn of “democratic decline” and classify it as a “flawed democracy” rather than a full onebrookings.edubrookings.edu. Should the MAGA faction be repudiated at the polls after such a reign, the reaction is likely to be as dramatic as the threat that preceded it. A newly empowered progressive government in 2029 would face immense pressure to ensure “Never Again” – never another Jan. 6, never another subversion of justice. That could entail a rigorous accountability process drawing on models from Reconstruction’s disqualifications to Nuremberg’s prosecutions, from South Africa’s truth-telling to Spain’s cautionary amnesia. The balance struck will define whether the American republic heals or finds itself in a cycle of retribution. What is certain is that the stakes are enormous, and one suspects at least some within MAGA understand this. As authoritarianism expert Rachel Beatty Riedl observed of Project 2025, if its vision were implemented, “no one in this country would be safe”en.wikipedia.org – a dark premise that cuts both ways. MAGA leaders may feel that losing power puts them in danger, and indeed it might. But that is the inescapable corollary of choosing a path that endangers the republic: a free society, when it regains its voice, may demand a day of reckoning commensurate with the trespasses.

Sources:

• Analysis of Project 2025 proposals for expanded executive power and their authoritarian implicationsen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org.

• ACLU summary of Project 2025’s agenda (mass federal staff purges, surveillance, protest crackdowns, voting restrictions)aclu.orgaclu.orgaclu.org.

• Evidence from Trump’s 2020 election subversion efforts, including pressure on DOJ and state officialsapnews.comreuters.com.

• POLITICO reporting on discussions of martial law and voting machine seizures in December 2020politico.compolitico.com.

• Kari Lake’s public threats of armed resistance to Trump’s prosecutiontheguardian.com.

• Heritage Foundation figures advocating refusal to accept election defeataclu.org.

• Just Security analysis of the authoritarian playbook and comparisons to other nationsjustsecurity.org.

• Historical precedents: Denazification in Germanyalliiertenmuseum.de, Spain’s 1977 Amnesty (Pact of Forgetting)amdoc.org, and Reconstruction-era disqualification of insurrectionistshistory.com.

Conclusion

Fox News headquarters in New York City. Critics argue the network has become a central organ of the far-right propaganda feedback loop fueling extremism.

The contemporary American right exhibits a form of collective political delusion – a mass psychosis grounded in grievance, disinformation, and cult-like loyalty to demagogic authority. This is no spontaneous aberration, but the foreseeable culmination of decades of ideological conditioning. For nearly half a century, conservative media and politicians have steadily primed their base to distrust institutions and embrace an alternate reality. As economist Joseph Stiglitz observes, widespread loss of faith in government is “the predictable result of 45 years of Republican (and neoliberal Democratic) campaigning, starting with Ronald Reagan’s famous quip that ‘the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help’”theguardian.com. The outcome is an epistemic crisis: millions of Americans now reject empirical facts and even the legitimacy of elections. Indeed, after the 2020 vote, only 31% of Republicans accepted Joe Biden’s victory as legitimatetheguardian.com. Mainstream conservatives once prided themselves on pragmatism, but today the GOP base has been “transformed into ungovernable paranoiacs,” nurtured by conspiracy theories and race-baiting demagogueswashingtonpost.com. The “fever” of fantastical thinking has not broken – if anything, it has been consciously stoked. Republican leaders who know better have proven either unable or unwilling to pierce this bubble of unreality, instead “refus[ing] to disrupt the collective delusion” consuming their voterswashingtonpost.com. Little wonder, then, that the movement increasingly resembles a political cult. Even prominent commentators have bluntly described the Trump-era GOP as “a right-wing cult that threatens the survival of our democracy”washingtonpost.com. The base’s grievances – the belief that they are under siege by cultural elites, immigrants, and nebulous conspiracies – are continually validated by an echo chamber of deceit. What we are witnessing is a mass psychological and political disturbance, deliberately engineered over decades of propaganda. It is a paranoia with a pedigree, traceable to the reactionary narratives of the late 20th century and now weaponized in the 21st.

On the other side of the spectrum lies an American left long disoriented by the traumas of neoliberal capitalism. After the Cold War, the left’s ideological core was hollowed out by the rise of market fundamentalism and “Third Way” acquiescence to corporate power. For 40 years, both major parties embraced neoliberal economics, resulting in “unprecedented inequality… stagnation in the middle of the income spectrum… and declining average life expectancy” across the United Statestheguardian.com. Entire communities were gutted by deindustrialization and deregulation, yielding an epidemic of “deaths of despair” and shattered faith in the American Dreamtheguardian.com. This socioeconomic wreckage left the left’s traditional base demoralized and its political vision blurred – a condition of ideological vertigo and defeat. In this void, contemporary “wokeness” emerged as a polarizing but understandable reaction. Detractors wield “woke” as a pejorative, yet at its core “wokeness is simply the awareness of injustice… an awakening to systemic inequalities and oppressive structures in our societies”greenpeace.org. The much-maligned “wokeism” of today is essentially a moral counteroffensive against the very real legacy of racism, economic exploitation, and social exclusion. It responds to systemic racism and predatory inequality not with violence, but with demands for historical truth and equitable treatment. Far from a Marxist revolution, this progressive awakening asks that society reckon with facts – that Black lives matter equally, that extreme wealth gaps and corporate impunity be addressed, and that the unchecked “theological capitalism” of the right (which treats market outcomes as sacrosanct) be subject to humane values. In effect, the left’s cultural activism – however overzealous or clumsy at times – represents an attempt to heal the wounds inflicted by neoliberal and racialized injustice. It is the mirror-image reaction to the same underlying crisis that drives the right mad with resentment. Where the far-right doubles down on denial and exclusion, the progressive left (at its best) is groping toward inclusion and accountability. But lacking a coherent economic vision beyond repudiating neoliberalism, the left often finds itself reactive and fragmented, easily caricatured by opponents. Neoliberal trauma left the left dazed; its newer “woke” reflex is an effort to stand upright in a gale of systemic abuses. Crucially, this dynamic too was shaped by history – by decades of eroded labor rights, Democratic compromises with Wall Street, and the festering pain of racial injustice long ignored. What some call a culture war is in truth a contest between denial and acknowledgment of America’s deepest wounds.

If one individual and institution can be singled out as the linchpins of our current extremism, they are Donald Trump and the Murdoch media empire (especially Fox News). The two formed a symbiotic engine that turbocharged the slide into unreality. Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, in particular, is the institutional core of the feedback loop of extremism that incubated the Tea Party, MAGA, and the ongoing authoritarian fever-dream. The network pioneered a model of overt propaganda that melds entertainment with agitation, cultivating perpetual outrage in its audience. As early as 2009, Fox did not merely report on the nascent Tea Party movement – it actively nurtured it. Historians note that Fox became “cheerleader-in-chief” for the Tea Party, giving fledgling protests constant, anticipatory coverage and even branding Tax Day rallies as “FNC Tea Parties”reuters.comreuters.com. Fox hosts promoted and virtually co-organized these anti-Obama demonstrations, lending legitimacy and national reach to what was then a fringe uprisingreuters.comreuters.com. This was a critical turning point: a major “news” outlet abandoning any pretense of objectivity to openly manufacture a political movement. The Tea Party’s anti-establishment, anti-tax furor – tinged with racial resentment after the election of the first Black president – was amplified and legitimated by Murdoch’s network. In the following years, Fox News and its talk-radio and online counterparts became what one scholar calls an “evangelical-capitalist resonance machine”, aligning Christian nationalist populism with corporate-libertarian interests in an emotionally charged narrativeraffaellopalandri.medium.com. By the time Trump descended his golden escalator in 2015, this right-wing media-industrial complex had primed a large segment of America to accept a post-truth politics of perpetual grievance.

Donald Trump’s own rise was less a visionary political revolution than a reality-TV stunt that caught fire – and then spread uncontrollably. When Trump initially announced his presidential run, many observers dismissed it as “a publicity stunt, a way to get a bigger audience”npr.org for the celebrity mogul’s ego and business ventures. Indeed, Trump himself seemed unprepared to actually govern; he offered no coherent policy vision beyond slogans and personal brand-building. Yet the stunt metastasized into a genuine autocratic political movement once Trump realized he could ride the tiger of right-wing populist fury. Trump’s campaign deftly exploited the “white grievance” and alienation that conservative media had fomentednpr.org – reframing many Americans’ economic and cultural anxieties as an intentional conspiracy against them. He positioned himself as the voice of the aggrieved, telling his followers that their hardships were not the product of complex systems or policy failings, but of deliberate betrayal by cosmopolitan “elites,” immigrants, minorities, and socialists. In Trump’s telling, you are the victim of a vast plot, and he alone can avenge you. This rhetoric, delivered with shameless bombast, forged an intense cult of personality. The MAGA movement thus became less a traditional political coalition than a personalist following, tethered to Trump’s fortunes and appetites. Crucially, Trump had no guiding principle except self-interest and survival. Once in power, his presidency was characterized not by strategic reforms but by a constant drive to shatter constraints – ethical, legal, and institutional – that inconvenienced him. He treated the Justice Department, for example, as his personal legal shield and the bully pulpit as a platform for settling scores. The longer Trump stayed in office, the more his narcissism and legal troubles pushed him toward overt authoritarianism. After losing the 2020 election, facing the prospect of criminal and financial accountability, Trump did not concede like a normal politician. Instead, he doubled down on the Big Lie that the election was stolen, propagating this falsehood relentlessly through friendly media in a last-ditch bid to cling to power. Internal evidence from Fox News in that period reveals the depth of the feedback loop: Murdoch’s own correspondence shows that “from the top down, Fox knew ‘the Dominion [voting] stuff’ was ‘total bs’… yet despite knowing the truth… Fox spread and endorsed these outlandish voter fraud claims”, even as they privately labeled them “crazy” and “absurd”reuters.comreuters.com. Fox executives consciously chose to amplify Trump’s lies because they feared losing their pro-Trump audience to even more extreme outletsreuters.com. In other words, the network and the Trump campaign became locked in a perverse dance: Fox fed the base Trump’s falsehoods, the base demanded ever more extreme lies, and Trump in turn was emboldened to escalate his attacks on democracy. Murdoch himself conceded under oath that his star hosts “endorsed” Trump’s 2020 election lies on air – and that he chose not to intervene to stop itnpr.orgnpr.org. All of this culminated in the unprecedented spectacle of a sitting U.S. president inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn a democratic election.

Trump loyalists attack the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Such scenes underscore how extreme propaganda and false grievances can erupt into real political violence.

The evangelical–capitalist media-industrial complex that nurtures America’s far right today operates as a self-radicalizing propaganda machine. It has systematically converted legitimate economic frustrations and racial anxieties into a politics of existential rage. This complex spans from Fox News and talk radio to social media echo chambers and televangelist broadcasts – a decentralized yet synchronized ecosystem reinforcing the same narrative of us-versus-them apocalypse. It weds Christian nationalism with laissez-faire market dogma, preaching a hybrid gospel of free-market fundamentalism, white American nativism, and militant religiosity. As one analysis put it, in the vacuum of critical thought this machine “injects a toxic brew of conspiracism, authoritarianism, and theological capitalism – a trinity of unreason”raffaellopalandri.medium.com. The rank-and-file are inundated with messages that their very identity and existence are under imminent threat – that socialists, immigrants, secularists, and “globalists” are conspiring to destroy their faith, steal their jobs, and erase their heritage. Every grievance, from factory closures to changing neighborhood demographics, is deliberately framed as not merely unfortunate events but intentional attacks orchestrated by nefarious forces. The anger of a laid-off factory worker, the cultural disorientation of an evangelical white suburbanite, the fear of rural communities facing decline – all these valid anxieties are channeled and inflamed toward scapegoats. Social problems with complex causes (like globalization or automation) are repackaged as moral betrayals by liberal elites or phantom cabals (as seen in QAnon’s fever-dream of a satanic Deep State). This propaganda engine has made white victimhood and cultural nostalgia its central fuel. It glorifies an imaginary past of “real America” and tells its audience that any loss of privilege or change in status quo is an illegitimate theft. In this narrative, multiracial democracy itself is cast as the enemy – portrayed as a zero-sum racial struggle. The result is an ever-escalating cycle of radicalization. Class anger that could have been directed at economic inequality is redirected into racist or nativist fury; religious fervor that could have been a force for charity is weaponized into theocratic zeal to impose sectarian values on others. The feedback loop is self-perpetuating: outrage generates ratings and clicks, which incentivize more outrageous lies, which in turn deepen the viewers’ sense of persecuted fury. Empirical reality has little chance to intrude. To cite one concrete example, the so-called “Great Replacement” theory – a white supremacist conspiracy claiming elites are “replacing” white Americans with immigrants – migrated from the fringes into mainstream discourse via figures like Fox’s Tucker Carlson. By 2022, Carlson had devoted hundreds of segments to this fearmongering, making it “acceptable to talk about” replacement in prime timenpr.org. The consequences leapt from TV screens to the real world: a young man in Buffalo, marinating in online hate, cited “replacement” as inspiration to murder Black shoppers in a supermarket. Such is the deadly alchemy when propaganda convinces people that their very existence is at stake. The evangelical-capitalist media juggernaut has effectively sacralized political hatred – wrapping rage and prejudice in the mantle of piety, patriotism, and free-market virtue. It tells its followers that their rage is righteous and that compromise is akin to sin. In doing so, it has robbed a significant portion of the American populace of their ability to discern truth from fable. A “parallel universe of lies and conspiracy theories” has supplanted shared realitywashingtonpost.com. This machine will not stop on its own; it will continue radicalizing itself and its audience unless decisively confronted by truth and accountability.

Donald Trump did not set this collapse in motion, but he has become its avatar and accelerant. His presidency and post-presidency have been a litany of norm-shattering abuses, each more brazen than the last, fueled by his sociopathic narcissism and mounting legal peril. Trump is now entangled in a web of criminal exposure that ranges from fraud and obstruction charges to investigations for election subversion and incitement of insurrectiontheguardian.com. Facing potential prosecution, he and his allies have rational incentives to burn down the rule of law itself to escape accountability. In effect, Trump is trapped in a sunk-cost spiral of criminal momentum. Having gone so far in violating democratic and legal norms, he cannot turn back without facing punishment or humiliation, so he instead doubles down. This dynamic was evident after his 2020 defeat: rather than concede, Trump leaned into ever more outlandish and illegal schemes to overturn the result – pressuring officials, spreading libels about voting machines, and ultimately inciting a violent attempt to stop the transfer of power. As Catherine Rampell wrote, “millions of Americans refuse to acknowledge the results of a legitimate election, and their leaders appear too cowardly or too powerless to disrupt the collective delusion”washingtonpost.com. It is a collective delusion cemented by collective complicity in wrongdoing. The MAGA movement’s leaders, from members of Congress to state legislators and right-wing operatives, largely went along with Trump’s election lies – nearly two-thirds of House Republicans voted to nullify the 2020 resultswashingtonpost.com – effectively binding the party apparatus to an anti-democratic plot. Hundreds of Republican officials at the state and local level also participated in various attempts to falsify or throw out votes. And on January 6, 2021, Trump’s most fervent followers literally broke into the halls of Congress, attacking police and lawmakers, in a bid to enforce his lie through violence. Over 1,000 people have been charged and hundreds convicted for their roles in that attack – including some on grave charges like seditious conspiracytheguardian.com. This means the movement now shares in a collective criminal guilt. Many of Trump’s loyalists see the January 6 rioters not as criminals, but as martyrs or patriots – a recent poll showed Republicans growing increasingly sympathetic to the insurrectionists and dismissive of Trump’s culpabilitytheguardian.com. The movement has constructed an elaborate rationalization that any actions taken in service of their cause – even political violence – are justified. In such an environment, retreat or moderation becomes psychologically impossible. To admit error or wrongdoing now would be to unravel the very identity of MAGA and to indict oneself. Thus the entire right-wing coalition, from the grassroots up to Trump himself, remains locked on a collision course with the truth, each complicit actor afraid that stepping off will lead to personal ruin or betrayal by the rest. This is a classic problem of “sunk costs” in extremism: having invested so much in the lie, they feel they must see it through, no matter how destructive, because the alternative is admitting defeat and facing consequences. In practical terms, this means the GOP as an institution has lost whatever ability it had to self-correct. As early as 2020, some commentators hoped for a GOP “reckoning” after Trump’s excesseswashingtonpost.comwashingtonpost.com. That reckoning never came. Instead, the party purged most dissenters and tightened its embrace of Trumpism. Even after the horror of the Capitol attack, Republican senators shielded Trump from conviction in his impeachment trial, ensuring no official accountability at the highest leveltheguardian.com. Far from distancing themselves, the party and its media arms have since normalized or whitewashed the insurrection. The few GOP figures who spoke against Trump’s coup attempt (like Liz Cheney) were swiftly exiled or defeated. In short, the movement is profoundly, perhaps irredeemably, entrenched in delusion and illegality. It cannot simply walk away from Trump’s big lie or from the conspiratorial mindset that undergirds its identity, because to do so would be to collapse the entire scaffold of its politics. As a result, the stage is set for further escalation.

Absent systemic accountability and deep institutional reform, the United States faces a nightmare choice between democratic collapse and widespread civil strife. We are teetering at the brink of one of two catastrophes: either a gradual slide into authoritarianism (fueled by the far right’s determination to seize and hold power at any cost), or an explosion of political violence that could crescendo into civil conflict. Leading scholars of democracy and civil wars do not issue these warnings lightly. In a recent survey of over 500 political scientists, an overwhelming majority agreed that the U.S. is “moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism”npr.org. By early 2025, after the latest electoral disruptions, experts rated American democracy at only 55 out of 100 – a precipitous drop that indicates we are “no longer living in a full liberal democracy”npr.orgnpr.org. They see the United States approaching the condition of a “competitive authoritarian” regime, in which elections still occur but one faction wields state power to entrench itself and punish opponentsnpr.orgnpr.org. Indeed, aspects of this are already visible: extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression, violent intimidation of election workers, politicization of the justice system under Trump, and open talk among his loyalists of expanding executive power to override Congress and the courts. If Trump or a like-minded acolyte were to regain the White House without robust guardrails in place, the transformation of the republic into an autocratic state could be rapid and likely irreversible. Conversely, many Americans also fear the eruption of civil conflict if our democratic institutions continue to erode. Polls show that more than two out of five Americans (including over half of “strong Republicans”) believe a civil war is at least somewhat likely within the next decadetheguardian.com. While a full-scale nationwide civil war on the 1860s model is improbable, the increasing normalization of political violence is undeniable. Already we have suffered armed standoffs, assassination plots against public officials, street clashes, and the Capitol siege – all precursors of a society flirting with domestic warlike conditions. Analysts of insurgency, like Professor Barbara F. Walter, point out that the U.S. has met several key predictors of internal conflict: hyper-polarization, rising acceptance of violence for political ends, and factions that reject the legitimacy of the oppositiontheguardian.com. One need only listen to the rhetoric: a U.S. senator (Lindsey Graham) publicly mused that there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump were held accountable for crimestheguardian.com. Such veiled threats from high places underscore how deeply the specter of violence now hangs over our political life. America, long thought “exceptional,” is not immune to the historical forces that have fractured other democracies. We must remember that democracy is not an assured inheritance; it is an ongoing choice and struggle. If mass delusion and authoritarian ambitions are allowed to continue fester, the path forward narrows to a grim fork: either the lawless faction succeeds in entrenching a tyranny of the minority, or their failure to do so leads them to embrace terrorism and rebellion. In both scenarios, the American experiment as we know it will be gravely damaged or destroyed.

Our situation demands an unflinching moral and legal response. The only way to arrest this descent is through resolute accountability and structural reform. This means that those who have lied, defrauded, and fomented insurrection – regardless of status – must be held to account under the law. It means breaking the propaganda feedback loop by confronting media corporations that traffic in toxic falsehoods (through robust fact-checking, media literacy education, and, where appropriate, regulation or litigation, as in the Dominion lawsuit). It means reinforcing democratic guardrails: protecting voting rights, safeguarding the nonpartisan administration of elections, and perhaps reforming anti-majoritarian institutions that extremists exploit (from gerrymandered legislatures to the Electoral College). And it means revitalizing the social contract that neoliberalism allowed to fray – tackling the gross inequalities and racial injustices that fuel resentment on both left and right. America needs a renewed pro-democracy coalition, as scholars like Steven Levitsky argue, uniting all who are willing to prioritize the constitutional order over partisan loyalties

• washingtonpost.com
• washingtonpost.com.

The hour is late, but not past hope. The alternative – to continue on our present trajectory – is to acquiesce to a union in which civic life is dominated by lies, anger, and fear, teetering between autocratic crackdown and sporadic violence. In the starkest terms, without decisive intervention, the nation will find itself either under the boot of a metastasized authoritarianism or mired in ever-increasing civil strife. History will record whether we had the wisdom and courage to choose a different path. The stakes could not be higher: American democracy’s survival hinges on our ability to reassert reality over delusion, justice over impunity, and the common good over the corrosive, long-cultivated hatreds that threaten to consume us. Only by confronting this crisis with eyes wide open – and by demanding accountability and reform with an uncompromising sense of urgency – can we hope to steer the republic away from the abyss and back toward sanity, equality, and the rule of law.

Sources: Recent analyses and data on U.S. political extremism, media, and democracy

•  theguardian.com
• washingtonpost.com
• theguardian.com
• reuters.com
• reuters.com
• npr.org,

among others, as cited above.