Can Trump be a dictator?

At the end of August, Donald Trump declared in the White House that he is not a dictator. He clarified why he isn’t, adding that he hates dictators. (However, he implied that Americans may like a “dictator.”) During a Cabinet meeting at the White House in early September, Trump reaffirmed his belief that he is not a dictator, and he just knows how to stop crime. “Dictators everywhere, first of all, claim that they’re not dictators,” Harvard University political scientist Steven Levitsky reminded us following Trump’s claim.

And secondly, “somewhat contradictorily, claim that the people want a dictator. Those are classic dictator lines.” Before the 2024 election, Trump, however, intended to become a dictator only on the first day of his second term. One can perceive that his aspiration has gained a long-time horizon. While Illinois Governor JB Pritzker referred to him as a “wannabe dictator,” I also found an intriguing survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) of 5,025 adults during February-March that revealed that 52 per cent of Americans think that President Trump is a “dangerous dictator.”

Advertisement

But is he? Or can he be? “It’ll be fixed!” Trump assured supporters during the 2024 presidential campaign that they won’t have to vote in the future. Wow! He even advocated doing away with elections. Then, to gain more authority over the Federal Reserve, President Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. When he disapproved of a subpar jobs report, he dismissed the head of the Bureau of Labour Statistics. He has demanded that former President Barack Obama be looked into for treason and also threatens to prosecute Democrats. Overall, many of his actions – from mobilising the national guard to attacking media and educational institutions – seem inappropriate for a democratic leader.

In Chaplin’s 1940 depiction, Adenoid Hynkel thrives on grand spectacle and bluster. Indeed, some of these performative authoritarian characteristics may be echoed in Trump’s large rallies, dramatic speeches, MAGA framing, and attacks on opponents, the media, and immigrants. There’s a catch, though. Unlike Hynkel, Trump functions in a democratic system with term limits, media pluralism, and institutional pushback. Undoubtedly, the nature of dictatorship changes with time. A dictator in ancient Rome was a leader who was momentarily granted absolute authority to address a particular situation. These days, leaders in non-democracies are referred to as “dictators.”

They typically consolidate power by intimidating or co-opting the legislature, courts, media, and other centres of authority. In their 2022 book Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century, Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman described how, in contrast to dictators of the 20th century like Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini, today’s leaders like Putin, Erdogan, and Orbán manipulate their populace by falsifying information and mimicking democratic processes. The use of the phrase “spin dictatorship” is primarily centred on media manipulation, highlighting outside threats, and feigning democracy. The book explains why the majority of authoritarians in the modern era are spin dictators and how they vary from the “fear dictators,” like Bashar al-Assad and Kim Jong-un.

Both kinds, however, aim to monopolise political power and maintain their positions indefinitely without fair elections or checks and balances. Is Trump a dictator, though? Daniel Treisman, a professor at the University of California, LA, however, says “no.” Also, Steven Levitsky, a co-author of the 2019 book How Democracies Die, thinks Trump is not a dictator from a political science perspective. Trump could certainly sway the balance of power in the US Supreme Court by appointing a staggering number of federal judges during his first term – roughly 25 per cent of the 800-something total.

In fact, the US is a country where the public, media, and academicians freely debate judges’ allegiance to the appointing party or president. However, in America, judges have lifelong tenures, and the court system is set up to restrain the executive. Thus, gaining the judiciary’s complete allegiance is never simple. Not every Trump appointee has made decisions that align with Trump’s preferences. Historically, President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted but was unable to fully control the courts. It’s doubtful that Trump’s Justice Department will be able to create the institutional and societal consensus necessary to do what FDR couldn’t following the New Deal.

In the past, Trump rejected election results, claimed legal immunity even after leaving office, and defended MAGA-aligned media as an alternate source of reality. However, he is still far from establishing the kind of societal consensus he would need to rule as an autocrat or gain complete control over American institutions, the media, and the court. The mainstream news channels and independent media outlets are examples of the old guard’s tenacity. New York is another symbol of a fortress, where Zohran Mamdani is expected to become this important city’s mayor, despite Trump’s fierce opposition. For as long as possible, cities and metropolitan centres – where young people, professionals, and educated elites congregate – will stave off an illiberal coup.

Still, from Columbia and Harvard Universities to Trump’s tariffs, the fragility of the US system became apparent in the recent past. It’s neither unassailable in its institutional commitment to liberal democracy nor impervious to populism, which is a prelude to authoritarianism. Thus, America has the potential to erode its checks and balances and descend into a form of electoral dictatorship of the majority if given enough time.

But four years of Trump 2.0, of which nine months have already elapsed, are insufficient for that. It took years for illiberal governments to weaken the rule of law in the majority of authoritarian countries of the 21st century, including Hungary, Tunisia, and Turkey. Dismantling a democracy has a specific rhythm and procedure, which is similar to the incubation phase for despotism: laws must be changed, institutions must be dismantled, and alliances must be formed. Thus, numerous checks and balances from other organisations and constitutional actors continue to apply to Trump 2.0. And the powerful US Constitution would guarantee his replacement on 20 January 2029.

(The writer is Professor of Statistics, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata.)