How much alarmism is too much alarmism?

Over the first few weeks of the second Trump administration, I have bounced back and forth between two different states of mind. The first state of mind is that America’s institutions will hold, and the normal political rules still apply. The second state of mind is that we are living through an ongoing destruction of government institutions and rule of law. I want to make the case for both states of mind and explain why on most days I’m in the second camp.

There is evidence for my first state of mind. Courts have repeatedly declared Trump’s actions unconstitutional. The president (or Musk) cannot simply stop Congressionally authorized disbursements of funds. The 14^th amendment cannot be interpreted in any way, that doesn’t mean birthright citizenship. And so on. The judicial branch has signaled its intent to fulfill its Constitutional duty and hold the president accountable for his illegal actions.

Secondly, the normal history of American politics tells us that presidents quickly become unpopular, and the president’s party does as well. The most likely scenario is that in the midterm elections of 2026 Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives. Trump can also not run for a third term as it violates the 22^nd amendment to the Constitution. He will quickly become a lame duck president who does not have control of Congress and both Democrats and Republicans will turn their attention to the presidential election in 2028. The next of the many most important elections in our lifetime.

And there are also longer-term factors that suggest American democracy cannot easily be overturned. Unlike Hungary or Venezuela, we have a long history of democracy and adherence to the rule of law. We are a large, diverse country in every way with power separated in multiple ways across multiple levels. Madison argues in Federalists 10 and 51 that this provides a security against would be tyrants. As much as Trump (and Musk) may want to hijack the government and centralize power, these factors suggest it will be difficult.

If all of these things are correct, then these first few weeks are similar to the normal flurry of action taken early in presidents’ administrations. Granted, with a little more unconstitutionality than most. The proper reaction is to trust that the institutions will hold and that eventually a majority of Americans will turn their political attentions away from Trump.

Now that you are feeling a little more optimistic, let me make the case for the other. The courts have indeed said that Trump’s spending freeze is unconstitutional, but the freeze continues to go forth. The court has said the attempt to overturn birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, but do we believe that will prevent Trump officials, or local officials sympathetic to Trump, from not providing proper birth documentation to children of illegal immigrants. The rule of law requires people to follow the courts orders willingly, and if they don’t, the executive branch needs to enforce it.

Consider the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education that declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. That was not automatically followed by school districts everywhere. If not for President Eisenhower using the power of the executive to enforce the decision, school districts could have continued to flout it without much consequence.

Our system is not set up to handle individuals who will not willingly follow the decisions of the courts, especially when that person is the chief executive responsible for faithfully executing the law. There is little evidence that Trump will follow on his own volition and that other branches of government (looking at you Congress) will hold him accountable. So, in effect, we may be operating in a system where the president is above the law.

What if we are not living through a normal political cycle, but the transition from democracy to something a little less democratic? Trump has been joking about running for a third term. We can all laugh it off, but if controls the levers of government, and is unwilling to follow the orders of the court, and Congress is unwilling to check his power, what really prevents him?

History tells us that Democrats are likely to win in 2026, but will Trump accept the result? He has already tried to steal one election without much consequence. Now, there are no officials like Bill Barr and Mike Pence who will not carry out his unlawful orders. It was made abundantly clear that to be part of this Trump administration you had to believe the 2020 election was stolen and be loyal to Trump first. Are Kash Patel, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth going to defy Trump’s unlawful orders?

Edward Luttwak is a military strategist who literally wrote the book on how to undertake a coup. In his book this is how he defines a coup: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.” He discusses how the modern bureaucracy of the state can be used effectively in a coup, because the default is to follow standard operating procedures. If my immediate superior in the chain of command gives me an order, I am more than likely to follow it.

What has occurred in the last few weeks with Musk and his minions taking control of Treasury department payment systems, closing agencies, firing bureaucratic employees, and doing so without accountability and oversight is, according to Luttwak’s definition, a coup. This was made fairly clear to me when elected members of Congress were refused entry into the Department of Education headquarters. They were blocked initially by someone without a uniform who had no indications that he worked for the government and eventually were blocked by armed security guards.

There are two differences between what is happening now and the prototypical coup described in Luttwak’s book. First, in this coup the president is an active participant and the government that is being displaced is Congress. Second, this coup is a digital coup more than a physical coup. The tangible evidence of the coup is harder to find because it takes the form of Musk getting access to computer systems and preventing normal government employees’ access. But it is a coup in every other way to what Luttwak describes in the book. If Trump (and Musk) effectively wrench away bureaucratic control and make it serve their political (and economic) interests, what is to prevent them from using it to help with elections or attacking media outlets or politically prosecuting political opponents?

Finally, I’ve been thinking a lot about American history recently. Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that despite the diversity of our institutions and geography, presidents can take authoritarian actions and often the people go along with it. Presidents often do unconstitutional things and get away with it for a while. Consider Franklin Roosevelt, who took unconstitutional actions, threatened the Court when they overturned his actions, and then the Court became compliant. Or the number of Americans who supported the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry. Consider the segregationist regimes that flourished in the American South following the end of Reconstruction. Consider John Adams, and his supporters in Congress, blatant defiance of the first amendment with the passage and enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798.

In each of these cases there was a reaction against executive power and the institutions ultimately held…but just because they did in the past does not mean they will in the present and future. The current divisions in American politics and the sheer volume of unconstitutional acts taken by Trump are warning signs that this time may be different.

So, this is why I find myself more often in the severe alarmism state of mind. I keep trying to convince myself otherwise. It is in my nature to minimize problems and trust that they will resolve themselves. But when I look for evidence, I don’t find it. I see a Congress that has fully abdicated its Congressional powers. Something that has been slowly happening over a long period of time. I see a news media and professional political class that desperately wants to analyze events in a normal perspective, considering the feasibility of illegal actions and polling the public about them, as if Trump had put forward a health care plan. I see an American public that is overwhelmed with the news, or distracted with their lives, or believe that America is in so much trouble that whatever Trump (and Musk) do is justified because the dangers are so great.

Luttwak argues that coups are successful because bureaucracies are “machine-like” in their behavior and default to normality. Most people do that in their lives as well. Many desperately want to minimize events and act as if we are in normal times or, at worst, it is an aberration that will quickly be corrected.

I hope that is true. But I also have been burned too many times thinking it’s true. When Trump was peddling his lie of a stolen election, many people suggested just let him promote his lie, the courts won’t side with him, what’s the harm. Then after January 6^th, the message was don’t worry, the criminal justice system will hold him accountable, and he won’t be able to run for president again. Time and again, we act as if we are in normal political times following normal political rules despite all of the evidence to suggest otherwise. And, as the old tweet/meme above indicates, when Trump gets away with it we go back to our normal routines. I’m not sure we will have that luxury after the events of the past few weeks.