Rainbow Unicorn Delusions:

In 2024, I wrote an article warning that Donald Trump, despite being cornered by criminal cases for fraud, rape, tax evasion, coup and Russian collusion, could stage a surprise return.

The Republican Party was already aligning itself with the most extreme factions of the far right, while the Democrats showed little capacity for strategic clarity or critical thinking. In 2025, this article has been substantially amended to reflect a much darker reality than I had anticipated.

The collapse is deeper, the tactics more brazen, and the danger more immediate. Still, some Democrats continue to live in a hallucinated world of rainbow unicorns and pink ponies, convinced that the 2026 midterms will somehow fix everything.

This article is for them - and for anyone else still holding on to that illusion.

“Just wait for the 2026 midterms – democracy will be saved by pink ponies and rainbow unicorns!” Such is the naive refrain in certain optimistic corners of America. In this candy-coated fantasy, voters heroically ride unicorns to the polls, magically undoing years of democratic backsliding in one night. After all, what better way to fix gerrymandered maps and voter suppression than a midterm election powered by sheer optimism and fairy dust? In this satirical dreamland, the midterms are a mystical cure-all – poof! – partisan bias melts away, authoritarianism surrenders to a chorus of Kumbaya, and the Founding Fathers descend from the heavens on glittery wings to congratulate Americans on restoring their republic with a single vote.

Alas, reality bites. The real America of 2025-2026 is no land of rainbows and unicorns, but rather a landscape of hardball power grabs and democratic decay. The notion that one election, under current conditions, could single-handedly “restore” U.S. democracy is pure fantasy. Beneath the lighthearted satire lies an urgent, unsentimental truth: the United States is on a dark trajectory, one where structural manipulations and authoritarian tactics are undermining the very mechanisms of democracy. From extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression to constitutional power plays and foreign subversion, the threats are concrete, ongoing, and escalating. What follows is a serious investigative analysis of these threats – a far cry from fairy-tale solutions. The evidence shows that unless these anti-democratic efforts are confronted head-on, the 2026 midterms (and even the 2024 elections before them) will occur on a tilted playing field. In fact, the same forces that have dismantled checks and balances piece by piece are already preparing a playbook to entrench power indefinitely. We must dispel the rainbow-hued delusions and examine the stark reality of what American democracy faces.

Gerrymandering: Maps Engineered for Minority Rule

One of the clearest ways democracy is being dismantled is through extreme redistricting and gerrymandering. In multiple states, Republican-controlled legislatures have drawn electoral maps designed to lock in power regardless of actual voter preferences. The result is that even large popular majorities can be undercut by district lines that guarantee the ruling party wins most seats – a systematic bias that subverts the principle of fair representation.

Take North Carolina, a swing state that often votes roughly 50/50 in statewide elections. In 2022, under a court-supervised neutral map, North Carolina’s 14 U.S. House seats split evenly: 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. But in 2023, GOP lawmakers, newly emboldened by a friendly state supreme court, enacted an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map engineered to all but ensure a 10-4 Republican advantage (Montellaro and Mutnick 2023). The new map **“packs” Democrats into just three urban districts and “cracks” the remaining Democratic voters by spreading them thinly across ten Republican-leaning districts. This virtually guarantees the GOP a supermajority of seats even if they win only a minority of votes statewide. As the legislators themselves admitted, the map is explicitly drawn with a heavy Republican lean (Montellaro and Mutnick 2023). Barring court intervention, North Carolina is poised to go from one of the fairest maps in the country to one of the most biased – a deliberate thwarting of voter will.

A similar story is unfolding in Ohio. Ohioans voted for redistricting reforms to curb gerrymandering, but Republican officials have relentlessly exploited loopholes and delays to impose skewed maps. In 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court (then with a moderate Republican chief justice) struck down multiple GOP-drawn legislative maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. Rather than comply in good faith, the Republicans on the state redistricting commission simply kept submitting barely altered maps and ran out the clock. They effectively forced the 2022 elections to proceed under illegal maps, counting on a federal court and the timing to let them get away with it. Their gamble worked: the gerrymandered maps stayed in place, and after the election a new hard-right majority took over the Ohio Supreme Court. In late 2023, that new court dismissed all remaining challenges and let the biased maps stand through 2030 (Tebben 2023). The manipulation was brazen – a two-year saga of defying the voters’ reform mandate and the courts’ orders until a more compliant judiciary was in place. Now Ohio’s state legislature and congressional delegation remain heavily skewed in favor of Republicans (holding supermajorities of seats) despite an electorate that is far more evenly split. The lesson from Ohio: even constitutional amendments for fair maps can be subverted by determined partisans, leaving voters effectively locked into minority rule.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and GOP legislators collaborated on one of the most egregious racial gerrymanders in recent memory. DeSantis personally pushed through a congressional map in 2022 that dismantled a Black-majority district in North Florida, slicing that community into pieces and distributing its Black voters across several Republican districts. The clear intent was to eliminate a Democratic seat held by an African-American representative and boost the GOP’s seat share. Indeed, the result helped Republicans flip multiple seats in Florida, contributing to their narrow control of the U.S. House. This maneuver’s legality has been fiercely contested. Florida’s own constitution (via the Fair Districts amendment) prohibits diminishing minority voters’ ability to elect their chosen candidates. Yet when civil rights groups challenged DeSantis’s map, a federal court upheld it, finding insufficient proof that the legislature acted with racist intent (even as one judge noted the Governor’s explicit racial motive in demanding the change) (Moline 2024). The state’s top court – now packed with DeSantis’s appointees – heard arguments on the map’s validity and showed little inclination to enforce the Fair Districts protections (Fineout 2023). Thus, Florida’s government has effectively quashed a district where Black voters had achieved representation, shrugging off the Voting Rights Act’s spirit and their own state’s laws. The message to minority communities is chilling: electoral power gained through decades of struggle can be erased in a stroke by those currently in power, if they have the votes on a court to bless it.

Georgia likewise saw a post-2020 census gerrymander aimed at thwarting rising Black and Democratic electoral strength. Republicans in the Georgia legislature in 2021 redrew the congressional map to oust a popular Black Democratic congresswoman (Lucy McBath) by transforming her suburban district into a safe white Republican seat. Statewide, although Georgia is demographically about 33% Black and roughly evenly split politically, the GOP’s map yielded 9 Republican U.S. House members to 5 Democrats, muting Black and urban votes. In this case, however, federal courts have intervened under the Voting Rights Act. Citing evidence that the map unlawfully diluted Black voting power, a U.S. district judge ordered Georgia to create at least one additional majority-Black district for 2024 (Gardner 2023). That battle is ongoing – Georgia’s GOP is appealing, even as a court-supervised redraw proceeds. The outcome will test whether the remaining planks of the VRA can still constrain racial gerrymandering. Yet regardless of this one adjustment, the broader strategy remains: partisan mapmaking that insulates Republicans from the state’s shifting electorate. Georgia narrowly elected a Democrat for president in 2020 and has a Democratic Senator, but its gerrymandered House map was crafted to withstand even strong Democratic tides. Only judicial enforcement of voting rights stands in the way – and such enforcement has become increasingly rare after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority severely weakened the VRA’s protections in recent years.

Across the country, these redistricting manipulations amount to a quiet coup against representative democracy. In closely divided states (North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Florida and beyond), gerrymanders enable one party to rule with a permanent majority of seats while often winning only a minority of votes. This was a common feature of diminished democracies in history – for example, during the last years of South Africa’s apartheid regime, electoral districts were engineered to ensure a white minority could hold most parliament seats. While the U.S. situation is not as extreme, the principle is disturbingly similar. By entrenching minority rule, gerrymandering erodes the core democratic idea that voters choose their representatives. Instead, representatives choose their voters. The 2026 midterms will be contested on many of these warped maps. No amount of voter enthusiasm can overcome mathematically precise district lines designed to absorb or cancel out opposing votes. In short, the game is rigged from the start.

Voter Suppression: Ballot Restrictions and Purges

Distorting district lines is only one prong of the broader effort. Restricting who can vote and how easily they can vote is the complementary strategy. Since 2020, Republican-controlled states have unleashed a wave of new voting restrictions – ostensibly to combat “fraud” (despite no evidence of widespread fraud) but in reality targeting methods of voting that favor Democratic-leaning constituencies. The result is a slate of voter suppression laws in states like Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin that make it harder to vote, especially for minorities, youth, and urban residents.

In Georgia, immediately after high Black turnout propelled Democratic victories in 2020 and 2021, the legislature passed Senate Bill 202 (signed in 2021) – a notorious omnibus law that tightened rules across the board. SB 202 severely limited drop boxes for mail ballots, allowing only a few drop boxes per county (and only accessible during business hours, locked inside government buildings). For sprawling metro counties like those around Atlanta – which had dozens of outdoor drop boxes available 24/7 in 2020 – this was a drastic cutback. The law also reduced the window to request mail ballots, banned mobile voting centers (which Fulton County had used to ease long lines), and even made it a misdemeanor to hand out water or snacks to voters waiting in those lines. Critics rightly noted the cruelty of criminalizing aid to people made to wait hours in the Georgia heat – delays often happening in heavily Black precincts with fewer polling places. Perhaps most insidiously, SB 202 opened the door for partisan takeover of local election administration: it gave the state board (dominated by Republicans) new powers to suspend county election officials. Almost immediately, some GOP activists petitioned to replace the leadership of Fulton County (Atlanta’s home), threatening to put one of the nation’s largest Democratic counties under effective state control (Rakich 2021). This provision creates a path to hijack the machinery of elections in Democratic strongholds under the guise of “fixing” problems – a tactic reminiscent of authoritarian regimes that remove local officials in opposition areas. While Georgia’s law received the most headlines, its themes – restricting ballot access and undermining neutral election management – have echoed nationwide.

Florida under Governor DeSantis has likewise piled on new voting obstacles. In 2021, Florida enacted SB 90, which introduced stricter ID requirements for absentee ballots, sharply limited who can collect and drop off ballots on behalf of others, and banned practices like unattended drop boxes and mass mailing of ballot request forms. The law also imposed onerous rules on civic groups doing voter registration, such as requiring volunteers to deliver forms to election offices within tight deadlines or face hefty fines. In 2022, Florida went further, establishing a special Office of Election Crimes and Security – a first-of-its-kind state-level elections police unit, empowered to hunt for irregularities. With much fanfare, DeSantis’s election police conducted high-profile raids and arrests of individuals for alleged voter fraud, many of them Black ex-felons who believed they were eligible under Florida’s Amendment 4 (which restored voting rights to most people with past felony convictions). It turned out that Florida’s own state agencies had mistakenly allowed these individuals to register, and no one had informed them they were ineligible – yet they were arrested at gunpoint in some cases (Mazzei 2022). The spectacle sent a clear message of intimidation through minority communities: voting could now carry the risk of arrest if officials later claim you weren’t eligible, even if the state told you otherwise. By 2023, Florida passed additional restrictions (SB 7050), raising the penalties on voter registration groups even higher (up to $50,000 for each infraction) and barring non-citizens (including legal permanent residents) from volunteering with voter registration drives. The League of Women Voters called it a “death knell” for community voter registration efforts in communities with many immigrants (Fineout and Sarkissian 2023). In sum, Florida’s leaders are making registration and voting procedurally intimidating and less accessible, particularly for Black, brown, and low-income voters who benefitted from mail voting or third-party registration drives.

Arizona has been another hotbed of restrictive voting proposals. Although 2022 brought divided government (with a Democratic governor now able to veto bills), Republicans previously enacted measures that still threaten voters. One prominent example is Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration. In 2022, the legislature passed HB 2492, a law mandating that anyone registering to vote provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. Federal law already requires voters to swear under penalty of perjury that they are citizens – which has long been sufficient. By adding a documentary proof mandate, Arizona aimed to disqualify thousands of legitimate voters who lack immediate access to a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers (especially older voters who were born in rural areas, married women who changed names, or naturalized citizens who never received proper documents). Courts have largely blocked these requirements for conflicting with the National Voter Registration Act, but in 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices allowed Arizona to enforce parts of the law for state-level registrations (Howe 2024). This back-and-forth legal fight itself creates confusion and likely dissuades some from registering. Arizona Republicans have also contemplated abolishing or severely restricting the popular no-excuse mail voting system (used by 80% of Arizonans), parroting conspiracy theories about mail ballots. Although such proposals haven’t become law due to the governor’s veto, the persistent rhetoric of fraud has sown distrust and could be laying groundwork for future crackdowns on early voting if the political winds shift again.

In Wisconsin, a perennial swing state, voter suppression efforts have often been subtler but no less significant. Wisconsin passed one of the nation’s strictest photo ID laws back in 2011, which studies showed reduced turnout among minorities and students (who disproportionately lacked the required IDs). During the pandemic, when absentee voting surged, conservative legal challenges eliminated the use of secure drop boxes for returning ballots – a ban upheld by the state’s then-conservative Supreme Court in 2022 (Johnson 2022). This meant that in 2022 and beyond, voters with absentee ballots could no longer drop them in a convenient box; they had to mail them or hand-deliver to clerks, and even delivering a spouse’s ballot was legally dubious under interpretations of state law. The restriction particularly burdened urban voters in cities like Milwaukee, who had few drop-off options and unreliable mail service. Wisconsin Republicans also purged voter rolls and sought to make “indefinitely confined” voters (typically elderly or disabled absentee voters) prove their status or lose access to absentee voting without ID. Although Democratic Governor Tony Evers vetoed many new restrictions, the Wisconsin GOP has tried workarounds – even attempting to sideline the state’s bipartisan election commission by refusing to reappoint its nonpartisan administrator and calling for prosecutors to charge her. The message in Wisconsin is a drumbeat of distrust toward election officials and methods: a constant attempt to tighten the rules and to place election administration under partisan oversight. Even the threat of such measures (like the legislature’s flirtation with impeaching a newly elected state Supreme Court justice to prevent a progressive majority from revisiting voting and districting cases) contributes to a climate where free and fair elections are in peril.

Taken together, these voter suppression laws aim to shape the electorate itself. When eligible voters are discouraged or prevented from casting ballots, election outcomes can be engineered just as surely as with gerrymandered maps. Targeting methods favored by young voters (who lean left) or by minorities (who often lean Democratic) is a deliberate strategy to skew turnout. It’s a modern echo of tactics from the Jim Crow era – poll taxes, literacy tests, arbitrary rules – updated for the 21st century. Instead of an outright literacy test, today it might be a strict ID requirement knowing tens of thousands lack driver’s licenses. Instead of a poll tax, it’s a gauntlet of paperwork and fear of prosecution that deters marginal voters. The effect is the same: the electorate shrinks and skews more conservative, undermining the majority’s voice. By 2026, if these laws remain in force, many voters in key states will face higher hurdles to participate – and many may not bother as a result. Under such conditions, the idea of a “blue wave” election sweeping out authoritarians becomes far less likely; the wave has been drained at the source.

Constitutional Manipulations: State-Level Power Grabs

In addition to maps and voting rules, the very structure of governance in certain states is being altered to cement long-term partisan control. Republican lawmakers have increasingly turned to constitutional manipulation and institutional rewiring at the state level – especially in states where they fear losing power in the future due to demographic or political trends. By changing the rules of the game (often in anticipation of or reaction to electoral defeats), they aim to lock in their agenda and limit the ability of voters or opposing parties to ever shift direction. Two vivid case studies are Kansas and North Carolina, where GOP legislatures are pursuing radical changes to judicial and executive power through constitutional means.

In Kansas, Republicans responded to court decisions they disliked by trying to rewrite how judges are selected – effectively attempting a judicial power grab via constitutional amendment. The Kansas Supreme Court had issued rulings protecting abortion rights (striking down an abortion ban by finding a right to bodily autonomy in the state constitution) and forcing the legislature to adequately fund public schools. These decisions infuriated conservative lawmakers. Their solution: dismantle the merit-based judicial selection system that Kansas has used for decades and replace it with partisan judicial elections. In early 2025, Kansas Senate Republicans advanced a constitutional amendment to end the current system (where a nonpartisan commission vets applicants and the governor appoints a justice from a shortlist). Instead, they want Supreme Court justices to run in open elections, grouped by gerrymandered districts, and subject to campaign fundraising and partisan turnout dynamics (Smith 2025). Ostensibly, this is sold as “letting the people decide” and taking power away from an “elitist” lawyer-led commission. In reality, it would politicize the court and allow dark money groups to dominate judicial races, likely producing a judiciary more in line with the legislature’s ideological bent. Kansas adopted its merit appointment system in 1958 after a serious judicial corruption scandal; the GOP is now willing to undo that reform to achieve a court more amenable to its agenda. As one Republican legislative leader bluntly put it, “politics are already in the system, we just want them in the open” (Smith 2025). If they succeed and voters approve the amendment (a vote is expected in 2026), Kansas’s highest court could become effectively an arm of the Republican Party – elected in low-turnout contests flooded by special-interest spending, rather than a check on legislative excess. This is a textbook example of bending the constitutional order to enable one-party dominance.

North Carolina offers perhaps the most sweeping example of state-level institutional capture. The Republican legislature there has repeatedly used its power to strip authorities from offices held by Democrats and to entrench its own control, even if it means overriding the state constitution’s spirit. In 2016, when a Democrat (Roy Cooper) won the governorship, the outgoing GOP legislature infamously convened an emergency session to slash the incoming governor’s powers, cutting back his appointment authority and attempting to solidify Republican holdovers in key commissions. Courts struck down some of those moves at the time. But the pattern repeated: after Republicans recently lost major statewide offices in the 2024 elections, they enacted a raft of changes in a December 2024 lame-duck session to weaken the offices Democrats are about to fill (Associated Press 2024). One of the most consequential changes is to the State Board of Elections. For decades, North Carolina’s governor has appointed this board (with a 3-2 split favoring the governor’s party), which oversees elections and certifies results. Republicans, unhappy with that arrangement especially now that a Democrat (Josh Stein) will be governor, pushed through a law shifting appointment power to the state auditor – a post that just so happens to be held by a Republican. This maneuver will give the GOP de facto control of elections boards at both state and county levels, even though voters chose a Democratic executive. The same law also took away the governor’s long-held power to fill judicial vacancies and curtailed the incoming Democratic attorney general’s independence by barring him from settling cases without legislative leaders’ consent (Associated Press 2024). In North Carolina, the GOP has shown a willingness to change fundamental governance rules whenever they lose a position of power: if the voters elect an opposing party governor or judge, the legislature simply moves the goalposts to negate that victory’s impact.

These actions in NC have been so egregious that even some Republicans have balked. (Notably, former GOP Governor Pat McCrory criticized his own party’s legislature for these power grabs, calling them damaging to democratic norms.) Moreover, North Carolina’s legislature previously attempted some of these changes via constitutional amendments in 2018 – and voters rejected them by 61% – but the lawmakers have now implemented the changes through statutes anyway (Cooper 2023). This indicates a brazen disregard for the voters’ clearly expressed will. By overriding gubernatorial vetoes with their supermajority and relying on a friendly state supreme court (which they secured in 2022 by winning key judicial races), NC Republicans are effectively re-writing parts of the state constitution by statute, betting that the courts will no longer stop them. The result will likely be enduring one-party control over election administration and a weakened system of checks and balances in the state.

These state-level constitutional manipulations resemble what scholars call “authoritarian reconfiguration” – using legal means to make it structurally harder for power to rotate or opposition to govern. In the late Roman Republic, when elites felt threatened by popular tribunes, they’d sometimes change rules or norms to strip those tribunes of power – a slow corrosion of republican checks that paved the way for Caesar’s autocracy. In modern times, we see echoes in places like Hungary, where Viktor Orbán’s ruling party used its supermajority to rewrite the constitution and judicial selection process, entrenching its dominance. What’s happening in some U.S. states may be on a smaller scale, but the pattern is similar: wherever a single party controls all branches, it is moving to rewrite rules and consolidate that control beyond the reach of normal electoral change. Kansas and North Carolina are warning signs that the guardrails at the state constitutional level can be dismantled from within.

The Authoritarian Playbook: Judges, Institutions, and Emergency Powers

Beyond statehouses and local election rules, the ambition of the MAGA movement (and its allies in the GOP) extends to the federal government and the very fabric of American governance. Should Donald Trump or a like-minded figure regain the White House, they have signaled a systematic plan to transform federal institutions to obey the executive without question – effectively removing the remaining checks and balances at the national level. This playbook can be discerned from public statements, policy proposals, and even trial balloons floated by Trump’s inner circle. It amounts to an American version of the authoritarian consolidation we’ve seen in other countries. Key elements include installing loyalist judges, purging or reshaping the civil service and independent agencies, and exploiting crises (real or manufactured) to seize emergency powers.

First, consider the judiciary. Trump’s first term already saw an unprecedented push to stock the federal courts with ideologues and loyalists – he appointed over 200 federal judges and three Supreme Court justices, many hand-picked by the Federalist Society for their partisan reliability. These judges have tilted the judiciary sharply rightward, producing decisions that curtail voting rights and regulatory power and often align with GOP interests. In a second term (or under a similarly inclined Republican president), this effort would go into overdrive. We could expect appointments of ultra-loyalists even to positions traditionally not overtly partisan (like U.S. Attorneys or special counsels). More ominously, Trump has mused about using the presidency to “investigate the investigators” – essentially to weaponize the judiciary and Justice Department against his rivals. Already in his 2024 campaign, he’s floated the idea of appointing a special prosecutor to go after political opponents (despite the glaring conflict of interest). The broader strategy is clear: ensure that courts at all levels are either occupied by allies or intimidated into compliance. Even the Supreme Court’s current conservative supermajority might not be enough; Trump has complained about appointees who defied him (like Justices who didn’t endorse his baseless election fraud claims in 2020). In a future scenario, he might attempt to ignore or override court orders he dislikes, daring the judiciary to enforce its rulings without executive branch cooperation. This erosion of judicial independence is classic authoritarian fare – as seen in Turkey under Erdoğan, or in Putin’s Russia, where courts are effectively an arm of the regime.

Next, the federal agencies and bureaucracy: Trump’s advisors have openly discussed invoking an updated version of “Schedule F,” a plan to reclassify tens of thousands of civil servants so that they can be fired at will and replaced by political loyalists (Clark 2022). During his presidency, Trump often raged against the “deep state” – by which he meant the professional, non-partisan civil service that administers everything from intelligence to public health. In a second term, according to reports by Axios and others, he planed a sweeping purge: career officials would be sacked en masse (which is in effect happening in 2025), and their roles filled with Trumpist appointees who swear personal loyalty (Saklakov 2025). We catch a glimpse of this mindset when imagining a Hitler-style Enabling Act disguised as a “sweeping new executive order” that places all independent agencies under direct White House control forcing all regulatory decisions through presidential approval and embedding political commissars in every bureau (Saklakov 2025). This is not a fantasy- it is already being done; it’s also the logical continuation of Trump’s declared agenda. It all harkens back to the mentioned Enabling Act of 1933 in Nazi Germany, which similarly allowed the executive to override and control independent bodies by decree (Saklakov 2025). While an outright enabling act is unlikely in the U.S., incremental steps can achieve a similar effect. By appointing loyalists who will subvert their agency’s mission in favor of presidential directives, a president can neutralize watchdog institutions. Imagine the Environmental Protection Agency run by climate change deniers who will rubber-stamp any corporate polluter that is politically aligned, or the Department of Justice led by an Attorney General who sees his job as protecting the president and persecuting his enemies (Barr’s tenure gave a taste of that). Even agencies like the Federal Election Commission or the Office of Government Ethics could be rendered toothless or turned into enablers of executive power. The endgame is that no part of the federal government stands independent of the president – a condition that approaches autocracy. As I recently put it bluntly in another article of mine, this would eliminate the “traditional checks and balances” and leave the U.S. “teetering on the brink of authoritarianism” (Saklakov 2025).

Perhaps the most chilling part of the playbook is the willingness to use emergency powers or even war as a pretext for consolidation of power. Historical authoritarians often rely on crises to justify extraordinary actions: Hitler had the Reichstag Fire, Putin used the Second Chechen War, and lesser-known dictators have used insurgencies or economic collapse to declare states of emergency. Within the MAGA ecosystem, there is open talk of invoking the Insurrection Act or other emergency statutes to quash civil unrest. Advisors have floated ideas like deploying the military domestically against crime or protests, and even using military force abroad under dubious pretenses. One extreme but increasingly discussed scenario: a “national security emergency” at the southern border, possibly escalating into conflict with Mexico. Hard-right figures have suggested the U.S. military should strike drug cartels inside Mexico – something the Mexican government would consider an act of war. It’s not hard to envision how an administration bent on retaining power could use a border clash or a terrorist incident to invoke emergency powers, deploy troops, and rally nationalist fervor. Saklakov (2025) warns of a blueprint he calls “identical to the sequence used by Putin” – create or exacerbate crises (interstate conflicts, economic shocks, even war) to unify the country under a strongman’s rule. In his analysis, the final step in the subversion of American democracy could be a “manufactured war – likely with Mexico or Canada – as a tool for martial unification under emergency powers” (Saklakov 2025). That sounds extreme, but disturbingly, it aligns with rhetoric we’ve heard: Trump at one point threatened to send the U.S. military into Mexico against cartels, and some far-right influencers fantasize about a confrontation with Canada’s liberal government over “freedom” issues. War need not be large-scale; even a series of armed border skirmishes or a naval incident could be enough to invoke the patriotism and crisis mentality to suspend ordinary politics.

Under such an emergency scenario, the president could attempt to delay elections, curtail protests and media, and rule by decree – all in the name of national security. Recall that even under the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic (a real crisis), Trump floated the idea of postponing the 2020 election (which he legally could not do, but the suggestion itself was telling). One can only imagine what a leader with fewer scruples and more of his own appointees in key positions might attempt. The groundwork is being laid: Trump’s team has already talked about invoking “national security” to justify sweeping changes, and his allies in Congress are increasingly using martial rhetoric (e.g. talk of the country being in “civil war” culturally). The danger is that, faced with losing power legitimately, an authoritarian-minded administration would create a pretext to clamp down. It could even happen before an election – for instance, as 2028 approaches, if polls show them headed for defeat, an international crisis might conveniently erupt to rally voters or even disrupt the voting process. This is not idle speculation; authoritarian regimes throughout history have used war or states of emergency to suspend democratic norms. As Saklakov observed, “the outline is identical” to past cases: control information, bend the law, incite conflict, then secure indefinite rule through “temporary” measures that conveniently never get rolled back (Saklakov 2025).

To be clear, the U.S. constitutional system provides means to resist such a takeover – Congress can refuse to cooperate, courts can block illegal orders, and the military is sworn to the Constitution, not a person. But if the earlier steps of the playbook succeed (stacking courts, purging dissenters from federal agencies, intimidating the media), those guardrails might not hold. Imagine a Justice Department run by a loyalist who refuses to prosecute contempt of court or a military whose leadership has been replaced by cadres willing to follow unlawful orders out of personal loyalty. Trump has explicitly promised to “get rid of the generals” he views as not sufficiently loyal and install his own picks. The insurrection on January 6, 2021, showed there are factions even within law enforcement and armed forces (like some oath-keeping police or retired military) who were sympathetic to Trump’s extra-legal efforts to stay in power. A second attempt could be far more organized and legally shrouded. In fact, we have a playbook from history: when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his army, it was couched in the language of saving Rome from chaos; once he seized power, the Senate’s role in governance was effectively over, even as the forms continued for a while. Similarly, in Weimar Germany, Hitler used the emergency decrees after the Reichstag Fire to arrest opposition, control media, and remove civil liberties – all technically under the color of law (the Enabling Act) passed by a cowed legislature. The MAGA vision, as extreme as it sounds, is to bend American law to a breaking point where authoritarian rule emerges draped in legality.

In summary, the likely playbook of Trumpist Republicans to retain and expand power is multi-faceted: pack the courts with loyalists, neuter independent institutions (from the FBI to the Federal Reserve) by subjugating them to the White House, and exploit emergencies (or create them) to justify draconian measures. It’s a plan to rule not by outright abolition of democracy, but by hollowing it out from within – leaving the shell of elections and laws but emptying them of meaning. This is how democracies die in the modern era: not always with tanks in the streets, but with incremental abuses that cumulatively establish an autocracy behind a facade of constitutionalism. The U.S. is not immune to this – indeed, many of the pieces are already in motion.

Foreign Influence: The Kremlin Playbook Comes to America

As we examine these threats to democracy, we must acknowledge a disquieting reality: American authoritarianism isn’t developing in isolation. There are transnational forces – particularly linked to Russia – that have a stake in undermining U.S. democracy and are actively supporting these anti-democratic currents. For years, intelligence agencies and researchers have documented how Russian state actors (FSB/GRU) and oligarchic networks have meddled in U.S. politics, from the 2016 election interference to ongoing disinformation campaigns. What’s emerging now is an even more direct form of foreign support: financial, informational, and strategic aid to the MAGA movement and its affiliates, with the goal of fracturing America from within.

Consider the flow of money and influence from Russia. During Trump’s rise, we saw hints of this: Russian oligarchs and cut-outs poured dark money into political channels (for example, through the NRA, which was revealed to have received funds from Russian sources around 2016). Operatives like Maria Butina worked to ingratiate themselves with GOP circles, explicitly as agents of influence. Today, multiple reports suggest that Kremlin-linked financiers are channeling funds into far-right ( and some signs say far-left, too) American organizations, media outlets, and even local campaigns (Saklakov 2025). This is often laundered through a web of shell companies, cryptocurrency, and offshore accounts to avoid detection. I noted in my another work (Saklakov, 2025) that such a colossal covert campaign “cannot be concealed without the support of powerful foreign actors” – pointing to Russian and also Saudi intermediaries as key backers of the authoritarian project. The strategic intent for Moscow is clear: a democratic, globally-engaged United States is a threat to Putin’s geopolitical ambitions, whereas an America consumed by internal strife, led by an isolationist strongman, is a boon. A weakened NATO, a U.S. that abandons Ukraine, a U.S. mired in debt and infighting – these are outcomes Putin has actively pursued. By funding extremist factions and propaganda in the U.S., Russian operatives are effectively using the Leninist strategy of “wrecking from within.” Indeed, Saklakov chillingly analogizes this to historical precedent: just as Imperial Germany smuggled Lenin into Russia in 1917 to destabilize the Russian Empire, “China supported Trump to destabilize the U.S. from within. MAGA is not an ideology – it is an instrument” (Saklakov 2025). In other words, external adversaries see MAGA’s rise as a means to an end – the end being America’s democratic cohesion and global leadership.

One avenue of foreign influence is through the diaspora communities and ethnic media within the U.S. Take, for instance, the Russian-speaking community in New York (Brighton Beach’s “Little Odessa” and surrounding areas). This community has significant numbers of immigrants and refugees from the former Soviet Union, many of whom consume news in Russian via satellite TV or local radio. Russian state media like Channel One or RT beam Kremlin propaganda directly into these American living rooms, cultivating a narrative that’s often vehemently pro-Putin and, by extension, pro-Trump (whom Russian media cast as a preferable leader who will mend ties with Moscow). Local Russian-language media has also been infiltrated or influenced by these narratives. A striking example is a radio station called Freedom FM 104.7 in New York, which broadcasts in Russian. It was co-founded by now alocal Republican politician, Michael Novakhov, and presents itself as a community station. However, critics have noted that it frequently echoes Kremlin talking points on issues like U.S. politics and skillfully covers by a support of Ukraine, transmitting purely pro-Russian far-right MAGA narratives. Moreover, during Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, some voices on Russian-language media and activists in NYC were excusing Putin’s actions or blaming NATO expansion – the official Kremlin line (Armitage 2022). While many in the community oppose Putin (especially those of Ukrainian or Baltic origin), there is a faction of older, more isolated immigrants who get their worldview from Russian TV/radio and are deeply swayed by Putinist disinformation (Armitage 2022). These individuals reliably support Trump and far-right candidates, seeing them as allies against “socialism” or “decadence” – terms Russian propaganda often uses to malign American liberal democracy. Thus, foreign influence isn’t just about hackers and Facebook ads; it’s unfolding in diaspora community centers, ethnic radio shows, WhatsApp groups, and churches.

Named actors in the disinformation ecosystem also tie back to foreign agendas. Michael Novakhov’s Freedom FM network (with programming in Russian) is one nodal point, but there are others: figures like Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian oligarch under sanctions, has been linked to funding alt-right media in the West; or Yevgeny Prigozhin (of Wagner Group and St. Petersburg troll farm notoriety) who oversaw online influence campaigns targeting U.S. voters. Even after Prigozhin’s presumed demise in 2023, the apparatus he built continues to operate. Their tactics range from planting outright fake news to subtler efforts like elevating polarizing content via algorithms. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) plays into this as well – under Musk, Twitter restored thousands of banned accounts (including QAnon and Russian troll accounts) and has reduced moderation, making the platform once again fertile ground for Russian bots and amplifiers to spread divisive propaganda. As I already pointed out (Saklakov (2025)), tech platforms themselves have become instruments of subversion: Musk, funded heavily by foreign investors (including Russian and Gulf interests), now controls a major “communication network” and can manipulate discourse to benefit autocratic narratives. We saw glimpses of this when Twitter throttled links to certain Ukrainian news or when Musk’s Starlink (a satellite internet service) was restricted for Ukrainian military use, aligning with Russian interests. These are the actions of a private actor, but with clear geopolitical ramifications. It underscores how foreign authoritarian influence can intertwine with domestic actors – tech moguls, talk show hosts, local politicians – to create a powerful echo chamber.

Meanwhile, the FBI, CIA, and NSA have effectively lost the war against tracing the true origins of bribery and foreign subversion in the United States. Russian intelligence and affiliated oligarchic networks have mastered the use of crypto exchanges and blockchain opacity to funnel money directly to American politicians and ultra-right influencers. The mechanism is brazenly simple: an individual merely claims to have acquired Bitcoin in, say, 2015, and now "sells" it in 2024. The burden of proof lies nowhere. In practice, this opens a virtually untraceable pipeline for laundering state-sponsored bribes and covert payments. The crypto is routed through shell wallets, anonymized mixers, and offshore exchanges with weak compliance regimes. From there, it reaches political operatives, lobbying groups, PACs, and media personalities posing as independent voices of the American right. Russian nationals and other foreign agents have used these tactics to prop up figures like Tucker Carlson, Michael Flynn, and various alt-right digital influencers, creating an information battlefield where Moscow-financed narratives masquerade as domestic populism. This subversion goes largely unprosecuted, not due to a lack of awareness, but due to legal loopholes, deliberate institutional paralysis, and the sheer technical difficulty of blockchain-based attribution (Saklakov 2025).

The involvement of foreign intelligence and money also raised the stakes of the 2024 and raises the states of 2026 elections. It means that the anti-democratic side isn’t simply a home-grown faction; it’s augmented by external resources and expertise. Russian strategists are adept at what they call “active measures” – subversion, propaganda, infiltration. We should assume they are leveraging all of that experience now. The playbooks used to destabilize countries like Ukraine or Georgia – funding extremists, cyber attacks on election infrastructure, bribery, blackmail – could be deployed on U.S. soil. Indeed, U.S. intelligence reported attempts by Iran and perhaps others to meddle in 2020; one can anticipate a concerted push by Russia (and possibly China, albeit with different aims) to skew 2024. The targets might include sabotaging voter registration databases, leaking forged documents, or boosting third-party spoilers to siphon votes. And if an authoritarian-minded administration takes power, those foreign friends will help keep it there. Perhaps via financial lifelines (loans from Russian banks to weather sanctions or economic fallout), or joint propaganda (state media mutually reinforcing the legitimacy of the U.S. “strongman”), or even through geopolitical crises intended to aid the leader (e.g., Russia escalating a conflict to allow the U.S. president to rally patriotism).

One particularly disturbing prospect is that foreign actors could exploit diaspora tensions to create unrest that justifies crackdowns. For example, if Russian agents provocateurs stirred up violence at a protest in a U.S. city with a large Slavic immigrant population, it could feed narratives of domestic instability. Or Chinese Communist Party-linked groups might spread disinformation in Chinese-American communities to stoke fears, perhaps pushing some towards anti-government action that then is used as a pretext for law-and-order responses. These are hypothetical, but not implausible given the known tactics. The bottom line is, America’s foes are actively aiding and abetting the democratic unravelling. It’s a form of political warfare. Saklakov (2025) described it as hybrid war, where Russia and China fund political extremes in the U.S. and manipulate international crises to distract and weaken America. This external dimension means that pro-democracy forces in the U.S. are not just up against domestic opponents, but also against Putin’s propaganda machine and possibly others. That makes the fight doubly hard. It’s reminiscent of the Cold War battle for hearts and minds, except now the “Radio Free Europe” is on the other foot – it’s authoritarian Russia trying to beam its message into America to erode faith in democracy, and ironically it is our own domestic media bubbles that amplify it.

Echoes of History: When Democracies Die from Within

History does not repeat exactly, but it often rhymes. The United States in the 2020s is showing troubling rhymes with past republics that fell to authoritarianism. To understand the stakes, it’s instructive to compare today’s developments with Nazi Germany, the Roman Republic, and other cases where democracies (or proto-democracies) collapsed internally. These comparisons are not made lightly or for shock value; they highlight structural patterns and warning signs that are evident now.

The downfall of Weimar Germany (1919–1933) into the Third Reich is a classic example of a democracy’s self-destruction. Germany in the 1920s was a fledgling democracy with deep polarization, economic turmoil, and a public disillusioned by government dysfunction. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party did not seize power overnight by force; they gained it through a mix of electoral success and constitutional manipulation. In 1932-33, the Nazis exploited Germany’s constitutional emergency provisions. After a suspicious fire at the parliament (Reichstag) building in February 1933, Hitler’s government convinced the aging president to invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which allowed rule by decree in emergencies. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended civil liberties – rights to free speech, assembly, privacy – on the pretext of combating a communist uprising. With political opponents silenced and many jailed, the Nazis then pressured the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act in March 1933. This law – passed legally by a vote of a cowed parliament – gave Hitler’s cabinet the power to enact laws without the Reichstag, including laws that deviate from the constitution. It was essentially a legal revolution: the elected legislature voted away its own authority, and henceforth Hitler ruled by decree. By July 1933, all other political parties were banned, and Germany’s fate as a one-party totalitarian state was sealed.

Why is this relevant? Because it shows how quickly a democracy can unravel using the tools of legality and emergency. Today’s America has constitutional guardrails, but it too has provisions that could be abused. The Insurrection Act, broad emergency powers granted to the President under various statutes, even the 50-state patchwork of emergency election powers – these could be analogues to Weimar’s Article 48. We have already seen an elected leader (Trump) refuse to accept an election result and incite followers to violence; had a few more officials (or military officers) gone along, January 6th could have been a much darker turning point. The Nazi comparison also underscores the role of propaganda and scapegoating. Hitler rose in part by demonizing minorities (Jews, Romani, LGBTQ) and blaming them along with leftists for Germany’s problems. In the U.S., we see a parallel demonization of migrant immigrants, racial minorities, and LGBTQ individuals by MAGA rhetoric – accusing them of “invading” the country, or “grooming children,” or causing societal decay. Such dehumanization lays the psychological groundwork for draconian measures later, just as it did in Germany where persecution escalated stepwise from rhetoric to Nuremberg Laws to Kristallnacht to the Final Solution. We are not at those later steps, of course, but the early steps – rhetorical vilification and legally sanctioned discrimination (e.g. bans on transgender healthcare, “Don’t Say Gay” laws, voter purges that disproportionately hit minorities) – are already underway. The trajectory, if unchecked, is profoundly dangerous. As Saklakov (2024) alludes in discussing “infamous Enabling Act of 1933”, moves like Trump’s plans for sweeping executive control strongly evoke that precedent – an authoritarian executive using legal instruments to obliterate institutional checks (Saklakov 2025).

Going further back, the fall of the Roman Republic in the first century BCE offers another cautionary tale. The Roman Republic had stood for nearly 500 years with a complex system of checks: a Senate, popular assemblies, and elected magistrates (consuls, tribunes, etc.) with limited terms. Yet, by 50 BCE, this system was in advanced decay due to power-hungry elites and stark factionalism. Julius Caesar, a charismatic general and politician, capitalized on a series of crises and the dysfunction of the Senate. In 49 BCE, when the Senate (backed by Caesar’s rival Pompey) tried to strip him of power, Caesar marched his army across the Rubicon River into Italy – an illegal act tantamount to declaring war on the Republic. “Alea iacta est” (the die is cast), he supposedly said. Civil war ensued, and Caesar emerged as the victor. The key point: Caesar did not immediately crown himself king or emperor. He maintained the facade of republican institutions for a time – getting himself appointed “dictator”, a position that in Roman law was meant to be temporary (6 months) for emergencies, but which he stretched first to 10 years, then for life. He packed the Senate with his loyalists, and although the Senate still met, it simply rubber-stamped Caesar’s decisions. Traditionalists in Rome, sensing the end of the Republic, assassinated Caesar in 44 BCE, but it was too late – a series of civil wars followed, and Caesar’s adopted heir Octavian (Augustus) ultimately established the Roman Empire, with himself as de facto emperor, though he kept the title “Princeps” (first citizen) to keep a republican veneer. The Republic had died not with a formal abolition, but by concentration of power in one man and the erosion of norms that once prevented any single person from holding supreme authority.

The American Framers were deeply aware of the Roman example; that’s why they built in term limits for the presidency and a balance between President, Congress, and Courts. But what if those norms erode? We haven’t had a president try to become “dictator for life,” but we did hear Trump casually muse in 2019 and 2020 that maybe “we’ll have 12 more years, 16 more years” in office, or praising China’s Xi for making himself president for life. His quip that “maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday” in reference to term-limit removal (Restuccia 2018) was offhand, but again, telling. In 2023, some of his allies began openly floating the idea of repealing the 22nd Amendment (which limits presidents to two terms) to allow Trump a third term if he wins in 2024. They argue for “consecutive terms” not counting toward the limit, or even outright repeal (which is admittedly a long shot, but the Overton window is being shifted). This is straight from the Caesar playbook – extend your term under some pretext, and eventually make it indefinite. If Trump or another MAGA president were to declare a national emergency, might they not say “for continuity, the 2028 election should be postponed” or “the President’s term is extended by special decree”? It sounds absurd to Americans – that can’t happen here! – but so did the idea of a Roman general for life or a German chancellor abolishing elections, until those happened. The fragility of term limits or regular elections lies in the public’s willingness to defend them. If half the country is whipped into fear of “socialist radicals” or external enemies, they might acquiesce to a strongman “just until things are stable.” That was the rationale in Rome (the Republic is too chaotic, we need a single ruler to restore order) and in Weimar (only Hitler can save us from communists and economic ruin). It’s unnervingly similar to narratives one hears now (only a strong leader can save America from crime, from immigrants, from China, etc.).

Other historical precedents abound: Hungary in the 2010s, where Orbán used legal changes and propaganda to turn a democracy into a semi-authoritarian state within the EU; Turkey, where Erdoğan survived a coup attempt and then purged the judiciary and civil service, and now rules with emergency decrees and referendums that expanded his powers; Venezuela, where Hugo Chávez was democratically elected but then rewrote the constitution, packed the courts, and over time eliminated meaningful competition, leading to the current dictatorship. In each of these, the pattern holds: a leader or party with popular support works within the system initially, then bit by bit changes the system’s rules, disarming any entities that could challenge them (courts, press, opposition parties, election authorities) until their hold on power is unassailable. Democracy’s collapse is often incremental – the slow boiling of the frog.

The U.S. is amid that incremental process. We have not crossed the Rubicon, nor suffered our Reichstag Fire moment, but we can see those possible inflection points on the horizon. The urgency cannot be overstated: we are perhaps one or two national elections away from a point of no return, where the institutions are so compromised that it becomes virtually impossible to claw back democracy through normal means. In the framework of an “orchestrated decline”, the collapse of American democracy is deliberate and calculated, driven by a kleptocratic elite and cheered on by foreign adversaries (Saklakov 2024). It has, in his words, “every mark of targeted economic and political warfare” and is enabled by the public’s ignorance of history and truth (Saklakov 2024). The warnings from history are flashing red, but too many citizens are oblivious or in denial – much like the Romans who didn’t realize the Republic was effectively gone until it was too late, or the Germans who thought they could control Hitler through backroom deals and then found him in control of them.

Fighting Back: Countermeasures and Prospects

Given this dark picture, one must ask: What, if anything, can be done to halt or reverse the dismantling of American democracy? Are there feasible countermeasures to the redistricting abuses, voter suppression, state-level authoritarian moves, and the looming federal power grab? And if so, who can implement them? This section outlines several avenues of resistance and reform – some already in motion, others aspirational – while also candidly assessing their limitations. In some cases, there may be no easy remedy, only damage mitigation and long-term organizing.

1. Legal Challenges and Federal Intervention: One immediate line of defense is through the courts. Voting rights groups and civil liberties organizations have filed lawsuits against many of the measures described above – from gerrymandered maps to voter suppression laws. For example, in Georgia and Alabama, litigation under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) has forced the redrawing of maps to better respect minority representation (Gardner 2023). The Department of Justice (DOJ), under the Biden administration, has also sued states like Georgia and Texas over new voting restrictions, arguing they intentionally discriminate on race (a violation of VRA Section 2 or the 14th/15th Amendments). These legal efforts can score important wins – the recent Supreme Court decision in Allen v. Milligan (2023) surprised many by upholding VRA claims in Alabama’s redistricting, reaffirming that cracking Black communities violated the law. Those victories suggest the judiciary isn’t entirely closed off as a venue. Additionally, civil suits and DOJ oversight can at least drag out implementation of bad laws, buying time. In North Carolina, while the legislature is pushing its power grabs, the Governor (Roy Cooper) took the unusual step of suing the legislature for violating separation of powers – effectively asking the courts to referee the constitutional dispute (Cooper 2023). Even if state courts are captured, federal courts might intervene if federal constitutional rights are implicated (for instance, if a state election board overhaul infringes on citizens’ right to vote in federal elections). There’s also the nuclear option of the U.S. Congress or federal courts invoking the Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees every state a “republican form of government”) to overturn extreme anti-democratic state actions. Historically, the Guarantee Clause has been considered non-justiciable (courts avoiding it as a political question), but some scholars argue a state that locks in minority rule could trigger its application. In practice, however, expecting the current Supreme Court or a narrowly divided Congress to use this power is far-fetched. So while lawsuits and DOJ pressure are critical, their success rests heavily on the courts – and the judiciary itself is increasingly polarized and sometimes complicit (e.g., the federal court in Florida that blessed DeSantis’s racial gerrymander, or the Supreme Court majority that gutted the VRA’s preclearance in Shelby County v. Holder). Outcome: Legal challenges can slow or moderate the erosion of rights (as seen with some VRA cases), but they are not a panacea and could fail if courts tilt further right.

2. Ballot Initiatives and State-Level Reform Movements: In some states, citizens still have the power of direct democracy through ballot initiatives and referenda. This tool has been used to great effect to bypass gerrymandered legislatures. For example, Michigan voters in 2018 approved an independent redistricting commission, ending partisan map-drawing there – which in 2022 yielded fairer districts and flipped the legislature to genuinely reflect voter sentiment. Missouri voters passed a “Clean Missouri” amendment to reform redistricting (though GOP lawmakers later undermined it with a second referendum). Arizona established its independent commission decades ago, which has helped create more competitive districts. In states like Ohio, activists are currently mobilizing for a 2024 initiative to create an independent redistricting system, after witnessing the legislature’s defiance of the current rules (Common Cause Ohio 2023). Ballot initiatives have also expanded voting access – e.g., Floridians in 2018 passed Amendment 4 restoring felon voting rights (subsequently undercut by the legislature’s financial requirement, but still a significant popular statement). Nevada and Michigan voters enacted same-day registration and other pro-voter policies via referendum. Where possible, using the direct vote of the people to implement structural pro-democracy changes is a powerful countermeasure. It is, after all, harder to argue against reforms that come from a majority vote of the electorate. However, this approach is only viable in states whose constitutions allow initiatives and where the electorate is not already so skewed or propagandized as to reject pro-democracy measures. Notably, North Carolina and Wisconsin do not allow citizen-initiated ballot measures – a deliberate choice of their constitutions that now works to the advantage of the entrenched legislatures. In those states, reformers lack this bypass and must fight within the system or via courts. Additionally, even when initiatives succeed, hostile legislatures may try to overturn or sabotage them (as Florida did with the felon voting law, or as Ohio’s legislature tried by putting a special August 2023 measure to raise the threshold for passing amendments – which voters defeated). Outcome: Ballot initiatives can secure fairer rules in some states (especially those with more balanced or reform-minded electorates), but in the most entrenched states they may be unavailable or undermined.

3. Election Engagement and Local Action: While structural fixes are vital, so too is mass civic engagement to counteract suppression and manipulation. This means pro-democracy forces focusing on down-ballot races and local offices that are often overlooked. For instance, county election boards, secretaries of state, and state supreme court races have huge influence on election fairness. The 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which flipped that court to a 4-3 liberal majority, was a beacon of hope – voters turned out in record numbers for an off-year spring election, essentially to protect democracy (the winning justice campaigned openly on supporting fair maps and abortion rights). That victory shows that even under gerrymandered conditions, statewide offices can still be won, and those wins can serve as bulwarks. Wisconsin’s new court is expected to take up the gerrymander issue and could order new maps, undoing (at least temporarily) the GOP stranglehold – though we saw the GOP threaten to impeach the justice, a move they paused due to public backlash. Public pressure matters: the outrage at the impeachment scheme, including from voters and some Republicans, made the Wisconsin legislature at least hesitate. This suggests that popular mobilization – protests, media shaming, coalition-building – can raise the political cost of anti-democratic maneuvers. In North Carolina, hundreds of citizens packed the legislative gallery and chanted “Shame!” during the veto override session in December 2024 (AP 2024). Though the law passed anyway, such visible dissent keeps the issues in the news and signals to courts that these moves lack broad legitimacy.

Another crucial arena is local journalism and watchdog groups. Corruption and anti-democratic dealings often thrive in the dark, so shining a light can halt or slow them. Nonprofit news outlets like Kansas Reflector and NC Newsline have reported meticulously on the power grabs we discussed, informing citizens and arming opposition lawmakers with facts. National media attention can likewise embarrass bad actors. For example, when a local election official in rural Arizona or a county commission in New Mexico refused to certify election results in 2022 due to conspiracy theories, the swift spotlight and court orders pressured them to back down or face consequences. Public exposure and accountability – through investigative journalism, congressional hearings, or inspector general reports – can temper the worst impulses. Even within the Trump administration, there were whistleblowers and inspectors general who exposed abuses (like the plot to weaponize the DOJ to overturn the election). Strengthening protections for such truth-tellers and funding robust oversight (like GAO, inspectors general, etc.) at the federal level would improve resilience.

4. Federal Legislation and Structural Safeguards: In 2021-22, there was an attempt in Congress to pass landmark pro-democracy legislation: the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. These bills aimed to set national standards for voting access (early voting, mail voting, automatic registration), end partisan gerrymandering via independent commission requirements, and restore the full power of the VRA (requiring preclearance for changes in states with a history of discrimination). They also addressed campaign finance dark money and ethics. Unfortunately, these measures stalled due to the Senate filibuster and united Republican opposition. In an ideal world, such federal reforms would be game-changers – essentially creating a firewall of uniform democratic norms across all states. For instance, a ban on partisan gerrymandering nationwide would instantly force fairer maps in NC, OH, etc., likely shifting dozens of House seats to be competitive or reflect the electorate. Restoring preclearance under the VRA would catch many suppressive laws before they take effect (as it did pre-2013). And standardizing things like two weeks of early voting and no-excuse mail ballots would level the playing field across states, making it harder for any one state to severely restrict voting. These policies are overwhelmingly popular in polls; it’s the political logjam in Washington that prevents them. If pro-democracy candidates can win a broad enough majority in Congress and the presidency, revisiting these reforms (and possibly carving out the filibuster for voting rights) is crucial. Short of that, smaller steps like the Electoral Count Reform Act (which was passed in 2022 to clarify the vice president’s purely ceremonial role and raise the threshold for objecting to electoral votes) can at least remove some vulnerabilities that Trump tried to exploit. Going forward, consider reforms like expanding the Supreme Court or instituting term limits for justices to rebalance a judiciary that currently skews against voting rights. While court expansion is politically explosive, some argue it’s justified to restore legitimacy after partisan appointment games. Others propose interstate compacts to neutralize the Electoral College’s anti-majoritarian outcomes (the National Popular Vote compact). These structural safeguards face uphill battles, but they remain part of the arsenal of ideas to save the republic.

5. Cultural Mobilization and the Responsibility of Influence
As formal institutions face systematic erosion, the onus of resistance increasingly falls on cultural leaders and institutions. Universities, law firms, artists, writers, and public intellectuals possess significant influence and must actively defend democratic norms. Their engagement is crucial in shaping public discourse and countering authoritarian tendencies.

Recent events underscore this imperative. Harvard University has become a focal point in the struggle for academic freedom. In April 2025, the university publicly rejected sweeping demands from the Trump administration, which included revoking federal funding and imposing oversight on university governance. Harvard's stance, asserting its constitutional rights and academic independence, garnered widespread support and highlighted the role of academic institutions in resisting authoritarian overreach .

Similarly, the legal community has demonstrated resistance. The law firm Perkins Coie filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging an executive order that appeared to punish the firm for its election-related work opposing the president. This legal action represents a broader commitment within the legal profession to uphold the rule of law and resist political retribution .

Public pressure campaigns have also intensified. Republican officials supporting disenfranchisement or institutional capture are facing direct confrontations through protests, professional blacklisting, and reputational exposure. These actions aim to reframe complicity not as a policy stance but as a social and moral failing.

Celebrating individuals who take principled stands is equally vital. Judges refusing unlawful rulings, state officials certifying election results despite threats, and journalists exposing foreign influence exemplify courage and provide moral scaffolding for broader resistance. Their actions demonstrate that standing up for democratic principles is both possible and necessary.

In contrast, silence among cultural and professional elites equates to consent. Neutrality or apathy, especially from those with influence, enables the erosion of democratic norms. Now is the time for decisive action and clear stances in defense of democracy.

6. Grassroots Democracy and Cultural Change: Ultimately, laws and courts alone won’t sustain democracy if a large segment of the population has lost faith in it or prefers authoritarian solutions. Thus, a less tangible but vital countermeasure is societal recommitment to democratic values. This involves education, dialogue, and addressing the root causes of extremism. Many Americans gravitate towards strongman rhetoric and conspiracy theories out of fear, anger, or disillusionment – fear of economic precarity, anger at cultural changes, distrust in institutions that seem corrupt or unresponsive. To counteract this, proponents of democracy must do more than condemn; they must offer a compelling positive vision and materially improve people’s lives. Reducing economic inequality and insecurity can take fuel away from demagogues (who often scapegoat minorities for problems actually caused by systemic inequality). Civics education that actually teaches how government works and why checks and balances matter could inoculate the next generation against misinformation. Community-level dialogues between political opposites, while difficult, might rebuild some mutual understanding and reduce the “us vs. them” tribalism that autocrats exploit. There are organizations facilitating these conversations and combating disinformation on the ground – their work is slow and not flashy, but it’s crucial for the long haul. Essentially, democracy’s defenders must fight a culture war of their own: a war for truth, for inclusion, for the idea that America is stronger united in its diversity. This means calling out lies (like election fraud claims) consistently, but also empathizing with those who fell for the lies and helping them back to reality rather than just shaming them.

It’s worth acknowledging that in some arenas, countermeasures might fail or be outright blocked, and we must be honest about that. If, for instance, Trump or a similar figure wins the presidency in 2024 with a compliant Congress, and then executes the playbook of purges and emergency rule, the normal avenues of resistance could be closed. We might then be in a situation akin to an authoritarian state where the opposition’s only hope is mass protest, strikes, or international pressure. That is a bleak scenario – essentially Americans having to engage in pro-democracy civil resistance on a scale not seen in modern U.S. history. One prays it doesn’t come to that. Yet, even now, some activists are preparing for worst-case scenarios, forming networks to defend the vote, to protect targeted communities, and to engage in nonviolent resistance if institutions fail. Those preparations are a sobering indicator of how close to the brink many feel we are.

In conclusion, there are still measures that can be taken-but let us not delude ourselves with false hope. America has never before faced such a total internal assault on the very concept of democracy. The structures of governance are being gutted in plain sight, not by foreign armies, but by its own elected officials. It remains unclear how even Republicans-those who now cheer on the collapse-expect to live in the scorched world they are helping to create. Is it truly worth destroying the meaning of American wealth, pride, and power, simply to “own the libs”? What kind of movement proves its strength only by setting fire to its own foundations?

This is not political strategy. It is weakness dressed in vengeance. It is a cultural and civilizational death wish. The MAGA machine has no future vision-it only feeds on resentment and the illusion of restored greatness while dragging the country backwards through wreckage. It is not just a betrayal of future generations, who will inherit a diminished, disgraced nation. It is a betrayal of the very genetic memory of humanity, a sabotage of progress that will spiral into economic collapse, scapegoating, persecution, and, when all else fails, war.

Trump will fail. But before he does, millions may suffer. When economic illusions crack, he and his loyalists will turn, as always, to enemies within. When that fails to unify the broken, they will manufacture enemies abroad. They will start wars-not to win, but to survive. And in those wars, tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, will die. If the world burns, it will not be for strategy or survival. It will be for the vanity of a nation that refused to admit its emperor was naked.

So yes, fight with every legal, political, and cultural tool left. Yes, build coalitions, pass reform if possible, expose corruption, vote. But do not believe that this can be solved through tradition or patience. Do not wait for institutions to save you-they are collapsing. Do not expect normalcy to return-it is gone. Understand this moment for what it is: a final reckoning with the darkest parts of American history and the most dangerous impulses of the present.

There are no unicorns. No cavalry is coming. There is only us-alert, unflinching, unafraid. Either we stop this now, or we live to watch the country burn and the world follow.

***

References (Author/Year):

• Armitage 2022 – Susie Armitage, The Guardian (March 11, 2022).
  
• Associated Press 2024 – “North Carolina GOP lawmakers enact law eroding governor’s powers,” AP News via NPR (Dec 12, 2024).
  
• Clark 2022 – Campbell Clark, The Globe and Mail (Schedule F analysis, 2022).
  
• Cooper 2023 – Office of Gov. Roy Cooper, Press Release (Oct 17, 2023).
  
• Fineout 2023 – Gary Fineout, Politico (Florida redistricting case, 2023).
  
• Fineout and Sarkissian 2023 – Gary Fineout & Irene Sarkissian, Politico (Florida SB 7050 analysis, 2023).
  
• Gardner 2023 – Amy Gardner, Washington Post (Georgia voting rights case, 2023).
  
• Howe 2024 – Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog (Aug 22, 2024).
  
• Johnson 2022 – Shawn Johnson, WPR/AP (Wisconsin drop box ruling, 2022).
  
• Mazzei 2022 – Patricia Mazzei, New York Times (Florida voter fraud arrests, Aug 18, 2022).
  
• Moline 2024 – Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix (Mar 28, 2024).
  
• Montellaro and Mutnick 2023 – Zach Montellaro & Ally Mutnick, Politico (Oct 25, 2023).
  
• Rakich 2021 – Nathaniel Rakich, FiveThirtyEight (April 2021 analysis of GA SB202).
  
• Restuccia 2018 – Andrew Restuccia, Politico (Sept 2018, reporting Trump quote on Xi tenure).
  
• Saklakov 2024 – Dan Saklakov, “Trump’s Orchestrated Decline” (Dec 11, 2024).
  
• Saklakov 2025 – Dan Saklakov, multiple works (“Technofascism” Mar 24, 2025; “Europe’s Breaking Point” Apr 22, 2025; etc.).
  
• Smith 2025 – Sherman Smith, Kansas Reflector (Feb 26, 2025).