In late September, President Donald Trump followed his ad-hoc federal mobilizations of National Guard servicemembers and nationwide deployment of ICE officers with a directive to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Taskforce to target a supposed network of domestic terrorists, issuing National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-7) of concerning scope and yet unknown ramifications. Citing a cherry-picked list of recent acts of political violence, the president imagines combat against a fictitious network of left-wing political insurgents broadly categorized under the umbrella term ‘antifa’, itself a de-centralized movement without leadership or organization. The move follows an executive order labeling the group a domestic terrorist organization, which is itself cited in part as justification for NSPM-7, a designation the president lacks legal authority for. President Trump’s suggestion that wealthy democratic donors George Soros and Reid Hoffman are potential targets for his campaign follows a far too common willingness of aspiring autocrats to weaponize state resources against opposition forces. Confirming critics concerns, it seems Trump is intent on using the full force of the government to target real or perceived enemies, using democratic institutions to consolidate power and erode democracy from within.

Far from unique in aims or means, President Trump follows a global wave of democratic backsliding in wealthy countries thought to be immune to autocratic appeals to power. Partially, this lack in foresight is due to the shifting nature of authoritarian power grabs, as most modern aspirants now rely on the mechanisms of democracy to consolidate power and quash opposition. The mechanisms that do exist for democracy promotion overwhelmingly focus on the overt authoritarian practices associated with cold war dictators, easily detectible shifts such as coups or suspension of the constitution that have fallen out of favor in a post-cold war international system where democracy is the norm. Three mechanisms favored by aspiring autocrats, including Donald Trump, all use the tools of democracy to achieve anti-democratic ends, all while using rule-of-law rhetoric and claiming to enhance democracy in the process.

The use of libel lawsuits to create a culture of self-censorship among dissidents has been wielded by Trump both within and outside of the presidency. In 2023, Trump Media & Technology Group sued 20 organizations for defamation, continuing an established theme in his use of the legal system “to silence people, to force them to correct statements, to just generally make them uncomfortable” says Kevin Goldberg, Vice President of the Freedom Forum. In his second term, Trump has leveled a $15 billion dollar lawsuit against the New York Times for an alleged “decades-long pattern” of “intentional and malicious defamation against” him. A similar lawsuit for $10 billion against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his Wall Street Journal is pending for coverage of the Epstein files, in attacks against reporting giants that is reverberating through other media organizations fearing retaliatory attacks. ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show, CBS’s decision to cancel Stephen Colbert’s show, and Meta’s cancellation of its fact-checking feature show the chilling effect of targeted censorship on coverage by all media outlets.

Racial gerrymandering in republican controlled state legislatures has long been a fixture of American politics, yet recent successful pushes in the historically conservative states of Texas and Missouri have forgone typical election integrity rationales to pass heavily gerrymandered congressional districts at the President’s bidding. Six other states are considering adoption of politically motivated redistricting maps which attempt to secure President Trump’s slim majority in both the house and the senate ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. All are intended to secure lasting Republican control over both chambers of the legislature at the expense of accountability to the American voter.

Lastly, the use of non-political crimes to punish dissidents has featured most prominently in President Trump’s retribution campaign against previous political enemies in the Biden administration and those who led criminal investigations against him, extending even to civil servants within his own government. Trumps recent attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her chair, a key position that has impeded his efforts to lower interest rates, centers around accusations of false statements on a mortgage application for one of her properties. His recent indictment of former FBI director James Comey is only the most recent instance of the administration targeting critics and longtime political enemies alike using face neutral laws to pursue personal vendettas.

It is apparent from this recent directive that, far from only pushing limits, the Trump administration is intent on actively squashing political dissidents from organizing against his rule, moves that directly mirror successful autocrat Viktor Orban in Hungary. The most pernicious aspect of his authoritarian efforts is its cloak of ambiguity, stymieing coordinated responses by using the normal tools of democracy to pursue anti-democratic ends. Though significant minorities of Americans support the erosion of democratic norms by their preferred candidate, most remain opposed to challenges to the rule of law, a longstanding preference of American voters that may fail to translate into national momentum before president Trump solidifies his grip on power.