In recent news, the Trump administration has been accused of using Department of Homeland Security funds to pay for President Trump’s midterm election advertisements. According to federal budget and contracting records, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), led by Director Russ Vought, increased funding available to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for “commemorative events” by approximately $20 million on September 19. The following day, DHS awarded a $20 million contract for a national media campaign, and advertisements featuring Trump began airing soon afterward. The advertisements have drawn criticism from both lawmakers and government-ethics experts because their style and messaging resemble political campaign advertising at a time when the country is approaching the midterm elections. Democratic senators, Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, have argued that the expenditure may constitute an unlawful use of taxpayer funds for political purposes. Murray and Murphy stated that “using government funding to create or air political ads” would be illegal and described the spending as a misuse of taxpayer dollars. The White House, however, has defended the advertisements as legitimate public-service announcements intended to promote patriotism and inform the public rather than to influence an election. The controversy therefore centers on whether the advertisements constitute permissible government communications or partisan political messaging financed with public funds. Critics have called for investigations into whether the campaign violates federal restrictions on government-funded propaganda or other laws governing the use of appropriated funds, while the administration maintains that the advertisements serve an appropriate public purpose.

How is this anti-democratic? 

Levitsky and Ziblatt talk about a norm critical to democracy’s survival which is forbearance. Forbearance is described as violating the diplomatic spirit while technically respecting the letter of the law. Acting with forbearance becomes a norm in a political system, and a very important norm for a presidential democracy with separation of powers. It ensures the future of democracy by normalising fair play, as if running for presidency became a dirty game, no one would want to play. Trump has abandoned the practice of forbearance, and instead chose a strategy of winning (or at least trying to) by any means. Most recently the Trump administration’s use of DHS funds for pro-Trump ads leading up to midterm elections can be seen as an act of extensive power use. This puts the Trump administration in a tricky situation, at best they are acting in a manner that goes against democratic norms, and at worst the Trump administration is breaking the law. In any case, this act is anti-democratic by violating political norms, and lowering standards of what is to be accepted from a president. According to Levitsky and Ziblatt the erosion of forbearance has the potential to motivate politicians to use their powers as strongly as they can get away with. This results in a vicious cycle where both parties view the others as a dangerous threat, and therefore will stretch to even more anti-democratic means to secure power. In most extreme cases, such as Charles I’s monarchy, it will lead to a collapse of the system. Which brings us to a hard to face question. Will Trump’s extensive use of power lead to the erosion of political norms in the United States long term? Or is there still a possibility to undo the damage that has been done? The answer will come in bits and pieces. However, if the Democrats win the midterm election, it is certain that there will be more investigations into fraud and Trump’s use or misuse of presidential power. There is still hope for the American democratic system, yet nothing is guaranteed when a president is seen breaking political norms and forbearance.