President Donald Trump opened his second term with an assertive campaign to centralize authority and bring public and private institutions firmly under his direction. Ten months later, that rapid march toward concentrated power has collided with intensifying resistance, waning approval, and a splintering political base. A stream of political and legal setbacks that began in September has only grown.
The November 4 elections delivered sweeping victories for Democrats. Responsibility for the nations longest government shutdown was widely attributed to Trump. Universities rejected his attempts to impose ideological oversight. A push for mid decade redistricting appears poised to misfire. The Supreme Court seems prepared to overturn his tariff strategy. Efforts to punish perceived rivals have repeatedly faltered in court.
These troubles deepened after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The Republican Party fractured over the decision to welcome extremist influencer Nick Fuentes into its ranks. Trump has also turned on longstanding allies, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who resigned from Congress following their clash over legislation to release the Epstein files. What began as a small conservative bloc defying Trump quickly expanded until nearly every Republican lawmaker supported the bill he fought to stop.
While presidents often see their honeymoon periods end within their first year, the implications are different for a presidency built around reshaping the balance of power and weakening institutional checks. Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky noted that declining public approval and a fracturing coalition inevitably slow any authoritarian style offensive.
Trumps slipping support is evident in polling. A November 24 CBS YouGov survey recorded his economic approval at 36 percent, the lowest of his career, including a significant drop among Republicans. Independent voters also voiced record low approval.
The administration has responded by intensifying its most aggressive tendencies. Within the past week, federal officials launched investigations into eight Democratic lawmakers for statements encouraging military personnel to follow the law. University of Michigan scholar Dan Slater warned that declining popularity can make embattled autocratic leaders more unpredictable and more dangerous.
Trumps early term strategy resembled methods used by leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban and Recep Erdogan, relying on legal mechanisms rather than overt force to weaken democratic norms. Institutions frequently yielded early on. Law firms agreed to limits on challenging the administration. Universities altered policies under government pressure. Agencies were dismantled, civil servants removed, and foreign students targeted for deportation based on speech.
According to Levitsky, the rising cost of opposing the administration created an atmosphere where businesses, media outlets, universities and elected officials hesitated to take constitutionally protected actions out of fear of retaliation.
Although expanding opposition has weakened this climate in some areas, Trumps broader project continues with the support of a Supreme Court reshaped during his first term. Princeton scholar Kim Lane Scheppele emphasized that despite sinking popularity, Trump maintains tight control over the executive branch and enjoys support from a judiciary increasingly favorable to presidential power.
The Court is expected to overturn long standing precedent to allow the president to dismiss independent agency officials at will. It has already permitted the dismantling of agencies and the removal of numerous civil servants. Future decisions may further expand Trumps authority to deploy troops domestically.
Yet Trumps drive to consolidate power is hindered by administrative dysfunction. Large numbers of loyalists with little experience have been placed in senior roles. Levitsky described parts of the Department of Justice as hampered by notable incompetence, slowing Trumps agenda even as loyalists comply with his directives.
This was evident in the failed prosecutions of former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. When the acting US attorney in Virginia refused to pursue the cases and resigned, Attorney General Pam Bondi installed White House aide Lindsey Halligan, who had no prosecutorial background. Her indictments were thrown out when a judge ruled her appointment unlawful. Additional loyalists pursuing inquiries into Democratic lawmakers are themselves under investigation for abusing their positions.
Economic conditions pose an even larger threat to Trumps long term ambitions. Public approval of presidents is strongly tied to economic performance. While historical autocrats often benefitted from improving economies, the situation in the United States has moved in the opposite direction. Inflation and unemployment have risen since Trump took office, and the public has noticed.
Princeton economist Paul Krugman questioned whether a government that inherited a strong economy but weakened it, while also pursuing unpopular policies, can still entrench authoritarian rule. Scheppele noted that Trump could attempt to mimic modern autocrats by offering direct financial benefits to citizens. His proposal to distribute two thousand dollar checks funded by tariff revenue reflects this approach, though it would require congressional approval and may be blocked if the Supreme Court strikes down his tariff plan.
Even if economic challenges ultimately prevent Trump from fully establishing an entrenched autocracy, experts warn that significant damage is already unfolding. Dan Slater compared the situation to Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, whose failed autocratic project nonetheless caused enduring harm to democratic institutions.
The most lasting impact may be the broader authoritarian shift within the Republican Party. Potential successors, from Vice President JD Vance to media figure Tucker Carlson and Fuentess extremist movement, appear positioned to steer the party even further in an illiberal direction. Levitsky noted that Trump crossed lines in 2016 that few mainstream politicians would have approached, and it remains unclear whether these boundaries can be restored once he leaves the stage.
