Author: Louis Mignot Bonnefous, MA
December 18, 2024
Introduction
On July 27, 2024, the new re-elected President of the United States Donald Trump addressed
a Christian audience in West Palm Beach, Florida. At the end of his speech, he said: “In four
years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.” The interpretation of this sentence was widely debated by both sides of the campaign, but demonstrates a certain idea of what democracy is for Trump. During the 2024 campaign, the Republican candidate developed a political narrative against some of the basic democratic rights in the U.S. On the other side, the Harris campaign tried to picture Trump as a “threat for democracy” or a “fascist,” to warn voters against the potential risk that a Trump re-election would mean for American democracy. The results of November 5th illustrate the ineffectiveness of this strategy. But with an upcoming second term from Trump, is democracy truly at risk? To understand if this is the case, this article will analyze how the first Trump administration dealt with democratic rights between 2016 and 2020. It will then
go over some of the proposals made during the 2024 campaign, with the different ways that
both sides view the concept of democracy. Finally, this article will showcase some of the
existing guardrails to protect democratic rights in America.
Trump’s first mandate: 4 years of democratic backsliding
During his first term, Trump and his administration seriously damaged the American democratic model. In a study from 2022, political scientists Ashley Jardina and Robert Mickey said that “Trump undermined faith in elections, encouraged political violence, vilified the mainstream media … and refused to denounce support from far-right groups.” This non-exhaustive list gives a preliminary understanding of the decline of democracy in the U.S. during this period. In its 2021 report, the V-Dem Institute analyzed democratic trends around the world using their Liberal Democracy Index (LDI). They found out that the U.S. significantly declined from 2010 to 2020, partly because of Trump’s attacks on the media and political opposition. This is particularly relevant when it comes to freedom of expression, with a decrease from 0.91 in 2016 to 0.61 in 2020 during the Trump administration. This democratic backsliding phase was also analyzed by Freedom House in its 2021 Freedom in the World report. The institute pointed out other problematic threats to American democracy during the first Trump mandate. Those threats include but were not limited to the presence of corruption and conflicts of interest within the administration, the absence of transparency, and the harsh policies on immigration and the right of asylum. According to Freedom House, the culmination of this phenomenon occurred when Trump refused to recognize the results of the 2020 elections. As a result, the U.S. has strongly declined in its Freedom in the World score, with a decrease from 94 in 2010 to 83 in 2020.
Threats to political opponents
One of the most visible threats of this administration was the constant political attacks towards Trump’s political opponents. In 2018, Trump wanted the Justice Department to prosecute two of his most prominent political opponents: the former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the former FBI director James Comey. Although this prosecution never officially occurred, it highlights the problematic exercise of power by the U.S. president over 4the judiciary's independence. Other examples of such behavior towards judicial authority include the former president asking James Comey, then FBI Director, to end a federal investigation into one of Trump’s former national security advisers, as well as ordering the dismissal of Robert Mueller, a former special counsel overseeing an investigation into Russia. This investigation was launched to examine Russian interference in the 2016 election and reports of potential cooperation by the Trump campaign, although no evidence of collusion was ultimately found.
The non-recognition of the 2020 election results
After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump refused to acknowledge the results, culminating in the events of January 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol following a rally he held. The attack was an attempt to delay the certification of the electoral vote, with the mob threatening the lives of the members of Congress present. Although the investigative committee provided evidence implicating Trump, the re-election of the former president has posed a significant threat to democratic institutions. However, those events are just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous investigations have determined that Trump and his allies sought to overturn the election results using a combination of legal, political, institutional, and public pressure to challenge the outcome and undermine democratic processes. Trump's persistent refusal to accept the 2020 election results has heavily influenced the Republican Party's stance on the election. Many GOP members followed Trump’s rhetoric and denied the election results. This contributed to a further decline in the party's commitment to democratic principles, a trend that had already begun before 2020.
Support and admiration towards authoritarian leaders
The GOP ultimately shifted towards a new political rhetoric, closer to illiberal right parties
such as AKP in Turkey or Fidesz in Hungary. This is partly due to the constant praise of
authoritarian leaders made by Trump during his first presidency. For example, the former
president often mentioned Vladimir Putin as a “strong leader” and did not believe in the
allegations of Russian interference during the 2016 presidential elections. Trump also praised
authoritarian leaders Kim Jong Un and Erdogan for the ability to govern their respective
country. Another example of Trump's admiration for strong leaders emerged when he spoke
about Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, calling him “one of the strongest leaders in
the world,” despite Orban characterizing his governing style as an “illiberal democracy.” This
constant legitimization of authoritarian leaders and practices raised multiple concerns about
the potential authoritarian trajectory of Trump’s second term.
The democratic ideal at clash in the 2024 campaign
The democratic backsliding of the U.S. during Trump’s first presidency sparked a renewed
debate on democratic rights during the 2024 campaign. The two candidates presented a
narrative that were fundamentally opposed to one another. The Democratic candidate Kamala
Harris presented herself as the only one able to protect American democracy. On the other
hand, Trump constantly criticized democratic rights and institutions that he already undermined during his first term.
Harris’s campaign strategy on democracy centered on criticizing Trump, labeling him as a
“threat to democracy” and a “fascist,” while prioritizing the protection of democratic rights.
She frequently emphasized the need to safeguard free and fair elections as well as uphold the rule of law. Some of her proposals included reforms to straighten democratic institutions with better voting rights protection and access to civic education. Harris also proposed measures to further transparency and accountability in government. This emphasis on protecting democracy as a central narrative was a recurring theme throughout her campaign and was closely tied to safeguarding other rights, including access to abortion. The Democratic candidate discussed the protection of women’s rights often during the campaign and pledged to restore the federal right to abortion if elected. However, the results showed that Harris’ narrative on democracy did not appeal to voters. A New York Times article showcased this phenomenon by asking more than 200 voters about the issues they cared about in this election. Their answers centered consistently around issues like inflation, employment, or rent; never on democratic rights.
Trump's campaign focused less on the issue of democracy compared to Harris'. Nevertheless,
the president-elect maintained a similar approach to democratic issues as during his first term. Among his primary targets were the Justice Department and the FBI, which he pledged to completely restructure “from the ground up.” This branch of the government has often been attacked by Trump after criminal charges were brought against him. He also threatened to use the National Guard or the military against “people from within including radical left lunatics.” This proposal can be directly tied to the rise of authoritarianism discussed earlier, as well as the previous threats enacted towards his political opponents. Furthermore, Trump has still not officially recognized his loss in the 2020 election, claiming that it was “rigged” and repeatedly questioning the electoral process during the 2024 campaign. It is worth mentioning that these criticisms over the legitimacy of the 2024 presidential election have ceased since the results were officially announced. In addition to those threats, Trump’s agenda on other major topics constitute other attacks on democratic and civil rights. On immigration, the president-elect often called for mass deportation and the installation of detention camps across the country. Another example is the series of attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, including proposals to ban gender-affirming care for minors and enforce federal recognition of only two genders, which would significantly undermine these rights.
The importance of guardrails to protect democracy
Although Trump’s first term and the 2024 campaign were marked by democratic backsliding and numerous attacks on democratic rights, there is still optimism for safeguarding a robust democracy in the U.S., supported by various institutional guardrails. These guardrails—consisting of dedicated civil servants, an independent judiciary, and the decentralization of power through state and local governments—serve as critical buffers against authoritarian tendencies and ensure the resilience of democratic institutions.
In the U.S., civil servants represent 2.2 million employees and are committed to maintaining
government operations independently of political pressures. The civil service is a crucial
guardrail for this country and is valued for its nonpartisan nature. Trump has often criticized
this system by affirming his will to end the “deep state.” One of his proposals included the
reclassification of federal employees under "Schedule F," which aimed to make it easier to
dismiss career officials, potentially undermining the nonpartisan nature of the civil service.
Such a measure could negatively impact the work of civil servants that would no longer be
considered as nonpartisan. Civil servants have already showcased their role in protecting
democracy. During the 2020 election, they maintained the integrity of the vote despite the
numerous attacks and lies claimed by Trump. Their efforts ensured the proper conduct of the
election, and their presence across various government agencies is vital to the country's
democratic health.
As previously mentioned, the Judiciary, particularly the Justice Department, is one of
Trump's primary targets. During his first term, the president-elect used his power to influence
different judicial institutions with various appointments, including 200 federal judges, 54
judges in appeal courts, and, most importantly, 3 Supreme Court justices. Despite these efforts, the Judiciary and the courts remained strongly independent. This resulted in the former president being charged in four different criminal cases, with one accusing him of “wide-ranging criminal conduct.” In addition to those charges, courts repeatedly ruled against Trump’s legal challenges to the results of the 2020 election. However, none of these charges or rulings provided a legal basis to disqualify him from running for the presidency. Trump was therefore able to run for president again and, despite being the first president convicted on criminal charges, secured re-election.
Federalism also serves as a powerful guardrail for preserving and protecting American
democracy. Historically, the different levels of powers in the U.S. were established to
safeguard against the concentration of authority within the federal government. States have a strong political power to resist potential undemocratic actions. For example, many states have challenged gerrymandering procedures to allow for better representation during elections.
Even in states controlled by Republicans, the protection of the 2020 election results was
preserved at the state and local level. While it is uncertain if this specific guardrail will last forever, the absence of any fraud or misconduct during the 2024 election serves as a symbol
of hope. While Trump’s re-election will significantly alter political decision-making at the federal level, state and local officials across the U.S. retain the authority to enact their own
laws. In some cases, they can even refuse to comply with federal directives, acting as
Conclusion
Reflecting on Trump’s first presidency and his recent re-election, predicting the state of the
country in 2028 is a challenging task. The democratic backsliding that began over a decade ago shows no signs of abating. Trump’s tenure has been defined by numerous verbal and legal assaults on democratic norms and rights, including threats to political opponents and his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election. The 2024 campaign further exposed the president-elect’s contentious approach to democratic principles. Moreover, some of the individuals proposed for his new administration have raised further concerns about the future of democracy in the U.S.
Despite these challenges, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The enduring presence of
institutional guardrails provides hope for the preservation of democratic integrity. Civil servants, the judiciary, and state and local officials all have critical roles to play in safeguarding democracy over the next four years. Historically, the U.S. has weathered
numerous political and violent challenges, consistently emerging with its democratic ideals
intact. While the threats to the nation’s democratic foundations are significant and must not be underestimated, the resilience of these guardrails offers a path forward. Their efforts will be vital in protecting and preserving the American ideal of democracy in the face of ongoing challenges.
Glossary
Authoritarian Leaders: Political figures who exercise power with minimal accountability, often suppressing opposition and restricting political freedoms.
Civil Servants: Non-political public employees who work in government agencies to implement policies and provide essential services.
Constitutional Rights: Rights explicitly granted and protected by a country's constitution, ensuring basic freedoms and protections for citizens.
Deep State: A term used by conspiracy theorists to describe alleged hidden networks within government bureaucracies that purportedly work against elected officials.
Democratic Backsliding: The gradual decline in the quality of democracy, often characterized by the weakening of political institutions, reduction in political freedoms, and erosion of democratic norms.
Election Integrity: The adherence to electoral processes that are free, fair, and transparent, ensuring that outcomes reflect the will of the voters.
Electoral Fraud: Illegal interference in the election process, including manipulating vote counts or tampering with ballots to alter outcomes.
Federalism: A system of governance where power is divided between a central authority and individual states or regions, allowing localized autonomy.
Freedom House: An independent organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights globally. Their "Freedom in the World" report assesses the state of freedom in countries annually.
Freedom of Expression: The right to freely articulate opinions and ideas without fear of government censorship or retaliation.
Gender-Affirming Care: Medical and psychological support provided to individuals, particularly minors, undergoing gender transition to align their physical characteristics with their gender identity.
Gerrymandering: The manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one political party or group over another.
Guardrails of Democracy: Mechanisms or institutions, such as the judiciary, free press, and federalism, that prevent the erosion of democratic norms and protect against authoritarianism.
Illiberal Democracy: A governing system where, although elections occur, citizens lack real political freedoms, and democratic principles like judicial independence and free speech are undermined.
Judiciary Independence: The principle that judicial decisions should not be influenced by external pressures, including political actors or government officials.
Liberal Democracy Index (LDI): A metric developed by the V-Dem Institute to measure the degree to which liberal democratic principles are upheld in a country, including freedoms of expression, association, and the rule of law.
Mass Deportation: The large-scale removal of individuals, typically unauthorized immigrants, from a country.
National Guard: A reserve military force that can be mobilized for federal or state emergencies, often including domestic security operations.
Political Opponents: Individuals or groups opposing a political figure or party, often through electoral competition or critical advocacy.
Resilience of Democratic Institutions: The ability of democratic systems to withstand and recover from political, social, or institutional challenges.
Schedule F: A proposed reclassification of federal employees under the Trump administration intended to make it easier to dismiss career officials, sparking concerns over the erosion of nonpartisan civil service protections.
Supreme Court: The highest judicial authority in the United States, responsible for interpreting the Constitution and overseeing federal legal disputes.