Philippa Kaur

Aleksandr Dugin, sometimes referred to as “Putin’s brain” because of his ideological influence on Russian politics, endorsed the policies of Donald Trump in a CNN interview aired on March 30. Dugin said Trump’s America has a lot more in common with Putin’s Russia than most people think, adding: “Trumpists and the followers of Trump will understand much better what Russia is, who Putin is and the motivations of our politics.”

Dugin made his name by espousing Russian nationalist and traditionalist – including antisemitic – themes, and publishing extensively on the centrality of Russia in world civilisation. So, this endorsement should be a warning of the disruptive nature of the Trump White House. It implies that Dugin believes Trump’s policies support Russian interests.

Dugin began his career as an anti-communist activist in the 1980s. This was less because of an ideological antipathy for communism than his rejection of the internationalism that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union espoused. He also criticised the party for breaking from traditional – especially religious – values.

Dugin proposes what he calls a “fourth political theory”. The first three, he claims, are Marxism, fascism and liberalism – all of which he thinks contain elements of error, especially their rejection of tradition and the subordination of culture to scientific thought.

Dugin’s fourth political theory takes pieces from all three and discards the elements with which Dugin disagrees, especially the dwindling importance of traditional family and culture. The culmination is a melange of ideas that sometimes appear Marxist and sometimes fascist, but which always centre on the criticality of traditional Russian culture.

His founding philosophy is traditionalism, which he views as a strength of Russia. Thus, he has become a strong supporter of the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, who emphasises traditional Russian values. Dugin and Putin align in their criticism of liberalist anti-religious individualism, which they claim destroys the values and culture on which society is based.

Dugin has value for Putin because he advances the president’s objectives. Putin’s security goals are in part founded on the principle that political unity is strength and political division is weakness. If Russia can maintain political unity by whatever means necessary, it retains its perception of strength. And if a state opposed to Russia is divided internally, it can be portrayed as weak.

The Russian government claims complete political unity inside Russia. Its spokespeople reinforce that claim by declaring, for example, the Russian electorate was so unified behind Putin that the 2024 Russian presidential election could have been skipped as an unnecessary expense. They also push a strained claim that the Russian population is unanimously behind the Ukraine war.

Dugin energises voters behind Putin, basing his support on the philosophy of Russian greatness and cultural superiority, and the perception of Russian unity. His influence has been felt throughout the Russian government and society. He publishes prolifically, and lectures at universities and government agencies about the harms of western liberalism. He also served as an advisor to Sergey Naryshkin, currently director of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) of the Russian Federation.

Dugin’s views support an expansionist Russia, especially in the direction of Ukraine. He questions the existence of Ukraine and promotes Russia’s war there wholeheartedly. But his support for the war led to an attempt on his life. On August 20 2022, a bomb exploded in a car owned by Dugin, killing his daughter, Darya, who was driving it back from a festival of Russian traditional art.

Dugin speaking at a memorial for his daughter Daria, who was killed by a car bomb in August 2022.
AP Photo/Dmitry Serebryakov

Divide and conquer

Russia applies the same principle of “unity equals strength” to its adversaries, but in reverse. Many Russian political thinkers try to emphasise political divisions in unfriendly states. They work hard to broaden existing disagreements and support disruptive political parties and groups.

Such operations give the Russian government the ability to denigrate the foreign powers that Russia considers adversaries by making them look weak in the eyes of their own people – and more importantly, in the eyes of the Russian population.

Dugin lays a philosophical foundation for foreign parties that oppose the European Union and western liberalism, and that disrupt political unity. His views have been adopted by far-right political groups such as the German National Democratic Party, the British National Party, Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, and the National Front in France.

Dugin’s interview in which he endorsed Trump’s policies is likely to have been directly authorised by the Kremlin. He pushes a Kremlin-sponsored endorsement of Trump’s divisive – and thus weakening – effect on US politics.

But Dugin’s extreme Russian nationalist rhetoric at times clashes with Putin’s attempts to include all peoples of Russia in a strong unified state, rather than only ethnic Russians. As it is a multi-ethnic state, Russian ethnic nationalism can obstruct Putin’s attempts at portraying strength through unity. The label “Putin’s brain” is only accurate sometimes.

The Russian government uses Dugin when he is useful and separates itself from him when his extremism is inconvenient. Dugin is a tool who says many of the right things and facilitates Kremlin goals. His endorsement of Trump should be seen in its context: Russia attempting to strengthen itself at the expense of the US. More

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on March 27, 2025, ordered top Trump administration officials to preserve records of their messages sent on the messaging app Signal from March 11 to March 15 following a transparency watchdog group’s lawsuit alleging that the officials have violated the Federal Records Act.

This marked the latest development since The Atlantic on March 24 published a Signal chat among Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other national security officials discussing specific plans to attack Houthi militants in Yemen. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief at The Atlantic, was mistakenly included in the chat and wrote about what he saw.

Trump administration officials have shared contrasting accounts about whether they were discussing sensitive war information on Signal – but maintain that they did not share classified information.

Senator Roger Wicker, the Republican chair of the Senate Arms Services committee, and Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat chairing the committee, on March 27 requested an investigation into how the Trump officials used Signal to discuss military strikes.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor, spoke with national security scholar Dakota Rudesill to better understand what constitutes classified information and how the government typically handles its most closely kept secrets.

Democratic representatives share text messages on March 26, 2025, sent by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to other top Trump administration officials.
Kayla Bartowski/Getty Images

How are government officials supposed to communicate about classified information?

The first way someone with the proper clearance can communicate about classified information is in person. They can talk about secret things in what is called a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF. This means a secure place, often with a big, heavy door and a lock on it, where security officials have swept the area for bugs and no one can easily eavesdrop. People who are in SCIFs usually have to leave their cell phones outside of the room, and then they can talk freely about secret information. A SCIF can be a particular room, or a floor of a building, or even an entire building.

Second, there is print communication: written documents with classification markings, which have to be handled in really particular ways, like in a safe location, and can be transported between SCIFs in secure containers.

Third, intelligence agencies, the White House and the Department of Defense also all have secure electronic systems. These include visual teleconferences, which are similar to a Zoom call and are secure for discussing highly classified information, as well as secure email systems and secure phones.

Many people with clearances have what is called “high side” email, which is shorthand lingo for classified email and messaging. Many people with security clearance would have two work hard drives and two computers. One of them is “low side,” where there is access to unclassified official email, documents and the internet.

All of these methods of secure communication can be clunky and take more time than people in our smartphone age are used to. That is the cost of protecting the nation’s secrets. My sense is the Trump administration officials wanted to move fast and turned to Signal, a commercial app that promises encryption. Signal is generally considered secure but is not perfect. There is abundant public evidence that Signal is not totally secure and indeed has been penetrated by Russian intelligence.

Can something be declassified after the information has been shared?

Yes. The president can classify and declassify at will via oral or written instruction.

The president’s constitutional powers include removing classification controls after information has been released or leaked. Trump could at any point declassify the information shared on Signal. Several of the Cabinet-level officials on that Signal chat also have expansive delegated powers over classification.

Even so, Trump’s national security Cabinet would have presumably still violated the law. For example, by putting national defense information inappropriately on an insecure app and not checking to verify the clearances of everyone on the chat and thereby allowing a reporter to be present, one could reasonably conclude that the team was showing “gross negligence,” running afoul of the Espionage Act.

The Espionage Act, enacted in 1917, criminalizes unauthorized retention and dissemination of sensitive information that could undermine the national security of the U.S. or help a foreign country.

Was the information shared on Signal likely classified?

Looking at the Signal message transcript that The Atlantic shared, it seems like at least four things were all but surely classified.

The most obvious was the details that Secretary of Defense Hegseth provided on the strike plans. These include the precise times that planes were taking off, what kind and when the bombs would fall. Recent reports have quoted defense officials confirming that this information at the time was classified.

Second, the chat revealed that the president gave a green light for secret strikes at a Situation Room meeting.

Third, there is the mere fact of these top officials deciding whether and when to execute attacks authorized by the president.

And fourth, according to media reports, the chat included the name of an intelligence officer whose position may have been secret.

The Trump administration says that there was no classified information in the chat. But several analysts have noted that defies belief. The exception would be a prior decision to declassify, but we have no evidence of that.

FBI Director Kash Patel, left, Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testify during a House Select Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 2025.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

What other issues does this bring to mind?

First, we don’t know whether the Trump officials carefully thought about it before they set up this chat on Signal, which the Pentagon has warned government officials against using because of hacking concerns.

Second, even if the officials did make a focused decision to use Signal, what is the wisdom of that? I find it really, really hard to imagine that was a prudent decision when we think about how insecure this app is. There is also the fact that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy to Ukraine and the Middle East, was party to the chat while he was in Russia. We do not know for sure if he had a device running Signal on him personally while he was in Russia, but in any event he would have been under intense Russian surveillance.

A broader issue is how the Trump administration is enforcing the law is a giant question mark. Usually, the law both authorizes the U.S. government to do things, and also says it cannot do things. Law enables and limits everyone, including the president. However, Trump wrongly claims that he is the final authority on the law, and so far the Justice Department only seems to be enforcing the law against people outside of the administration.

So does the law limit the Trump administration in any practical sense? Right now it is not clear – and there is abundant reason to be concerned about that from a rule of law standpoint. More

It seems Britain has one key inducement to offer US President Donald Trump: a state visit hosted by King Charles.

One can only imagine what the king thinks of this, but he will undoubtedly maintain a stiff upper lip and preside over several lavish dinners.

Following reports of this offer, which would make Trump the only US president to be twice hosted by a British monarch, stories surfaced that the US might become an associate member of the Commonwealth.

Read more:
The king has a tricky diplomatic role to play in inviting Trump for a state visit

There has been no official confirmation of this, but the story has been floated in several British newspapers.

What is the Commonwealth?

The Commonwealth came into existence as a means of retaining links with former British colonies, so there is a certain historical justification for the idea.

Almost all of Britain’s former colonies are now members of the Commonwealth of Nations, with Ireland and the US notable exceptions.

The Commonwealth is an organisation that ties together 56 countries, including a few in Africa that have been admitted despite not having been British colonies.

Of the 56, only a minority recognise the British king as their head of state, a point local monarchists are reluctant to acknowledge.

Indeed, some members of the Commonwealth, such as Malaysia, Brunei and Tonga, have their own hereditary monarchs.

In theory, all members are democratic, and several, such as Fiji, have at times been suspended from membership for failing on this count.

Whatever doubts we might have about the state of US democracy, it is hard to argue the US would fail to meet a bar that allows continued membership to states such as Pakistan and Zimbabwe.

The Commonwealth is largely seen as less important than other international groupings, and its heads of government meetings are often skipped by leaders of the most significant members.

Other than turning up to the Commonwealth Games, few recent Australian prime ministers have paid it much attention, compared to our membership of the G20 or the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

Nonetheless, the Commonwealth does include a remarkable range of countries ranging from significant states such as India, Canada and South Africa to the many island states of the Pacific and the Caribbean.

While its work is largely unreported, it does provide a range of international assistance and linkages that otherwise would be out of reach for its smaller and poorer members.

Why is Trump interested in joining?

Trump, it can be assumed, has no interest in the Commonwealth as a means of better working with states such as Namibia and Belize.

The attraction seems to be linked to his strange reverence for royalty and a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the British sovereign.

King Charles is head of the Commonwealth through agreement of its members, probably in recognition of the extraordinary commitment his mother showed as the Commonwealth developed out of the old British Empire. Indeed, she clashed several times with her British ministers because of her loyalty to the Commonwealth.

But unlike the king’s British – and Australian – crown, this is not a position that belongs automatically to the British monarch.

So, while inviting Trump to Windsor Castle may be the gift of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, admission to the Commonwealth would require the agreement of all its members.

Given Trump’s demands to acquire Canada and to punish South Africa for recent land expropriation law, it is hard to imagine unanimous enthusiasm.

Read more:
Donald Trump is picking fights with leaders around the world. What exactly is his foreign policy approach?

Most member states are cautious about being too closely linked to either the US or China, although Australia might end up the last true believer in US alliances. Others, such as Ghana and Pakistan, depend considerably on Chinese aid.

In a world dominated by increasingly autocratic leaders, a middle power like Australia needs as wide a range of friends as possible. Most of us have only a vague sense of what the Commonwealth entails.

Like all international institutions, the Commonwealth often seems more concerned with grand statements than actual commitment.

But there is value in a global organisation whose members claim to be committed to:

democracy and democratic processes, including free and fair elections and representative legislatures; the rule of law and independence of the judiciary; good governance, including a well-trained public service and transparent public accounts; and protection of human rights, freedom of expression, and equality of opportunity.

Would Trump’s America meet those demands? More

In modern times, who was the first presidential candidate to have their campaign almost destroyed by a sex scandal?

The answer, surprisingly, is Jimmy Carter, probably the most pious of all recent presidents. In 1976, when ahead in the polls, Carter gave an interview to Playboy magazine. He said he had looked on a lot of women with lust, “committed adultery in [his] heart many times”, and he would not be condescending to someone who had “screwed” around.

Jimmy Carter greets Cher in 1976.
David F. Smith/AAP

Support among evangelical Christians immediately eroded. Prominent Christian evangelist Jerry Falwell said, “four months ago most of the people I know were pro-Carter. Today that has totally reversed.” Fortunately for Carter, after an intense week or so, the scandal faded.

Morality was much more explicitly an issue in the 1976 election than previously. It was the first election since the Watergate scandal had forced Richard Nixon to become the first president in American history to resign in 1974. It was also the year after America’s long and contentious war in Vietnam had finished in defeat, with many Americans feeling they had been lied to by presidents Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.

An ironic after-effect of Watergate was belated attention to President John F. Kennedy’s sex scandals. Until then, for many decades, American presidents’ private lives had been off limits. Franklin D. Roosevelt had two long-term lovers and his wife Eleanor probably had a live-in lesbian lover. Roosevelt used a wheelchair, due to polio-related paralysis. Yet of 35,000 photos of him, only two showed his wheelchair. Most of the American public were ignorant of his condition.

Neither Kennedy nor Johnson were probed during their presidencies. (One night on Johnson’s ranch a female aide was woken by a man standing at the foot of the bed: “Move over, this is your president.”)

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson pictured in 1960.
Anonymous/AAP

One source of the new attention was a tragedy involving Senator Edward Kennedy. In July 1969, Kennedy drove his car off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts. He swam to safety but his companion, young staffer Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned. He immediately made many phone calls, but only called the police the next day. Many journalists knew of Kennedy’s affairs, drunkenness, tendency to speed and general recklessness, but nothing had been published.

A few years later, a decade after his death, President John F. Kennedy himself was in the public spotlight. After Watergate and defeat in Vietnam, a Senate committee under Frank Church was tasked to investigate American security agencies’ involvement in the assassination and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders. This revealed that Kennedy and Chicago Mafia boss, Sam Giancana, had the same mistress, Judith Campbell. Moreover, Giancana had been hired by the CIA in an assassination plot against Cuban president Fidel Castro.

Judith Campbell in 1960.
AAP

At first, Church, a Democrat and friend of the Kennedys, treated the revelations with as much discretion as he could. But a New York Times columnist, ex-Nixon speechwriter William Safire, waged a campaign that argued journalists were pro-Democrat and went softer on Democrat scandals than on Republican ones. It was the opening of the floodgates. Over many years, more and more revelations of Kennedy’s sexual exploits were revealed. Indeed his relentless promiscuity makes Bill Clinton look like a choirboy.

The next time a sex scandal figured prominently was the 1988 presidential contest. Gary Hart already had a reputation for “womanising”, and at one stage challenged journalists to follow him. Unfortunately for him, they did. He and a young woman, Donna Rice, spent a night aboard the inauspiciously named yacht Monkey Business. Hart went from Democratic front runner to ex-candidate in less than a week.

A Bush denial and ‘bimbo eruptions’

Bill Clinton’s 1992 election campaign brought a huge escalation in attention to a candidate’s private life. It was the first time a person had publicly claimed to have had an affair with a presidential candidate. Gennifer Flowers said she had had a 12-years-long affair with Clinton. Flowers admitted she had been paid more than US$100,000 to go public, and her account included many lurid details.

Gennifer Flowers in 1992.
Alex Brandon/AAP

Clinton denied the affair but his recall of events seemed uncharacteristically hazy. (And six years later, he would admit they had a sexual encounter.) He was greatly helped by the prominent role his wife Hillary played. They admitted without giving any specifics that there had been difficulties in their marriage but stressed how these were all in the past. Eventually, in the absence of new developments, the scandal ran out of steam.

Nevertheless, throughout the campaign, the Clinton team had a “bimbo eruption watch”, and although several claims arose and Clinton often seemed evasive, he won the election relatively easily.

Some Democrats in 1992 thought there had been a double standard with intense attention to Clinton’s sexual escapades contrasting with the lack of media attention to allegations of George H.W. Bush having had an affair, rumours that had been around since the early 1980s.

But the two were very different – there was no publicity-seeking by an ex-lover or admissions by the Bushes. When the rumours began to circulate in 1988, George Junior asked his father about them and then issued a short statement: “The answer to the Big A [ie adultery] question is NO”. Although his father was apparently angered by this public intervention, it effectively killed the issue.

President George H. Bush and president-elect Bill Clinton at the White House in November 1992.
Doug Mills/AAP

Likewise later there were rumours that the Republican candidate in 1996, Bob Dole, had had an affair, but it was a long time in the past, and received minimal coverage.

In 2008, it was known that John McCain, a war hero, and his wife lived largely separate lives. But his opponent Barack Obama did not seek to make it an issue, and again there was almost no coverage. While it is often argued that the media have salacious appetites for sex scandals, cases like these also show the media is reluctant to push allegations where there is not clear evidence, and no public interest or political dimension.

Nothing thus far had prepared anyone for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Lewinsky had been an intern in the White House and had had consensual sexual relations with Clinton. She confided in a colleague, Linda Tripp, who then started taping their telephone calls.

Later Tripp gave the tapes to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Whitewater property deals by the Clintons in Arkansas. He found no evidence of wrongdoing in that case, and now broadened his scope to include perjury, finding that Clinton had lied about his relations with Lewinsky. Thanks to Tripp’s tape and Starr’s investigations, the public were treated to details such as Lewinsky’s stained dress.

The story broke in early 1998 and the Zippergate scandal as it was dubbed, received intense news coverage for most of the year. Clinton gave a series of misleading denials, and eventually confessed. It led to an impeachment by the House of Representatives but the motion failed in the Senate, and Clinton survived.

A video of Monica Lewinsky being sworn in for her deposition at the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton in 1999.
AAP

The scandal may have had an effect on the extremely close 2000 presidential election. The Democrat candidate Al Gore, who had been Clinton’s vice-president, sought to distance himself from the Clintons. Even after all that had happened, though, the Clintons were still fairly popular, and were an electoral asset Gore could have used more.

The two Obama elections were broadly scandal free, but this was the quiet before the storm.

How Trump rewrote conventional wisdom

Donald Trump has rewritten the conventional wisdom of American presidential sex scandals. Most importantly, Trump is the first president where sexual harassment and assault have been so central. Whereas Kennedy’s affairs, for instance, seem to have been overwhelmingly consensual, in a “hot mic” from 2005 (released during his 2016 presidential campaign), Trump was heard saying “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything […] Grab ‘em by the pussy.”

What became known as Pussygate looked as if it might sink Trump’s candidacy, but for a variety of reasons, not least the FBI’s public announcement that it was investigating more possible email offences by Clinton, eventually Trump triumphed.

The second notable feature of the Trump sex scandals is their sheer number. In October 2019, a book All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator by Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy contained allegations by 43 women of sexual misconduct by Trump.

Trump is the first presidential candidate to be convicted in a civil court of sexual assault. The writer E. Jean Carroll testified – and a jury unanimously agreed – that Trump pushed her up against a wall and assaulted her.

Writer E. Jean Carroll in May 2023: a New York jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996.
John Minchillo/AAP

Trump is also the first presidential candidate in modern times to be associated with paying hush money to cover up sexual relationships, most famously to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, and also to a lift attendant in the Trump Tower.

Stormy Daniels departs the Supreme Court of the State of New York after testifying in the hush money trial of US President Donal Trump in May 2024.
Justin Lane/AAP

Finally – despite or because of all this – he is the first presidential candidate in modern times to directly accuse his opponents of immoral sexual behaviour. Speaking of his two female opponents, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, he said, “Funny how blow jobs impacted both their careers differently”. His supporters had banners saying “Say No to the Hoe”. (Earlier in 2024 Trump and his supporters had been spreading the claim that Biden was “all jacked up” on drugs, and demanded a drug test before the first debate.)

Trump’s verbal attacks on women often have a particularly bitter edge, but they are part of the new coarseness and violence that mark his rhetoric from his predecessors, as are the vituperative personal attacks on whomever his opponent is – judge, prosecutor, journalist, bureaucrat or political opponent.

Trump’s shamelessness was on display days after the “Pussygate” revelations in 2016. For the second presidential debate, he wanted to have in his “family box” three women who had made accusations against Bill Clinton, and one who was sexually assaulted as a 12-year-old, with Hillary Clinton as the public defender representing the suspect. The idea was to throw Hillary off her stride and damage her performance. The debate organisers stopped the move. As a fallback an hour before the debate, Trump had a media conference with the four, attacking the Clintons.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the second presidential debate in 2016.
Rick T. Wilking/AAP

An evangelical about face

What a wondrous trajectory America’s white evangelical Christians have been on. In 1976, they were shocked that a candidate had lust in his heart. In 2024, around 80% of them voted for a serial sexual predator, a liar and fraudster.

At one rally, a donor told the crowd, “Donald J. Trump is the person that God has chosen.” The evangelicals have indeed shown Trump amazing grace.

One reason Trump was able to survive this surfeit of potential scandals is because of the much more polarised media environment now. Much of Trump’s base consume media such as Fox News, which is willing to ignore or downplay his outrages.

In addition, podcasts played a bigger role in 2024 than in any previous election, and some of these, such as Joe Rogan’s, have audiences that are overwhelmingly young males, perhaps helping Trump mobilise the “bro vote”. In 2000 against Biden, 41% of young men aged 18–29 voted for Trump; in 2024 against Harris, 49% did; an eight-point gain for Trump.

Recently, Trump joked with an audience:

you used to be able to say a young beautiful waitress but […] if you call a woman beautiful today, it is the end of your political career, so I will not do it.

In fact, his career shows the exact opposite. He has survived all sorts of moral transgressions, which earlier would have been politically fatal.

Given Trump’s invulnerability despite his multiple and serious transgressions, does this mark the end of presidential sexual scandals having a dramatic impact?

There has never been a direct, simple or logical relationship in political scandals between the seriousness of the alleged offence, the amount of media attention and the severity of the political consequences. However, we’re now post-Trump: what might a presidential sex scandal look like in 2028 and beyond? More

The second Donald Trump administration has already sent shockwaves through the political establishment on both sides of the Atlantic. Overseas, the focus has been on the administration’s apparent dismantling of the post-war international order and Trump’s apparent pivot away from America’s traditional allies towards a warmer relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin. But within the United States itself, the greatest concerns are associated with administration actions that, for many, suggest a deliberate destruction of American democracy.

Such fears in the US are not isolated to the political elites, but are shared by citizens across the entire nation. But what is also emerging is a concerted assault on people’s ability to push back – or even complain – about some of the measures being introduced by Trump 2.0. This will inevitably result in what is often called a “chilling effect”, where it becomes too hard – or too dangerous – to voice dissent.

Many of Trump’s policies – the mass deportations, the wholesale sacking of public servants by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), the decision to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants – have been challenged in the courts. The Trump administration is now embroiled in a range of legal challenges. It is here that Trump’s disdain for a legal system that has temporarily blocked the wishes of the president has emerged.

Chilling effect

Judicial decisions calling for the administration to reverse or pause some of these policies have been greeted by Trump and some of his senior colleagues (including Musk and the vice-president J.D.Vance), with noisy complaints at judicial interference in government. Even, in some cases, calls for the impeachment of judges who rule against the government.

Not only did the administration ignore the court’s ruling that suspended the forced expulsion of Venezuelans to El Salvador, some of whom were in the US legally, but Trump attacked the judge on social media calling him a corrupt “radical left lunatic” and called for his impeachment.

This stirred the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Glover Roberts Jr., to intervene. He reminded the president that America doesn’t settle its disputes, saying that the “normal appellate review process exists for that purpose”. Later, Tom Homan, Trump’s chief adviser on immigration issues, told ABC News that the administration would abide by court rulings on the matter.

The pressure being brought to bear on America’s legal system has not stopped at the judiciary. Trump has recently targeted some of America’s biggest and most powerful law firms, seemingly for no other reason than their acting for clients who have opposed his administration.

On March 25, Trump signed an executive order targeting Jenner & Block, one of whose partners, Andrew Weissmann, worked with special prosecutor Robert Mueller on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The executive order calls for the firms to be blacklisted from government work and for their employees to have any security clearances removed, for them to be barred from any federal government contracts and refused access to federal government buildings. A death warrant for the firm in other words.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

This follows the news that the head of the prestigious law firm Paul Weiss, Brad Karp, had signed a deal with the White House committing to providing millions of dollars worth of pro-bono legal work for causes nominated by the president. He’s also agreed to stop using diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, which had been faced with a similar fate.

Silencing dissent

This administration’s chilling effect has also extended to an attack on press freedom. Trump has expelled established news organisations from the Pentagon, curtailed access to press events for the esteemed Associated Press, and taken control of the White House press pool, sidelining major media outlets.

These actions mark a significant downgrading of press freedom in America. They are undermining the role of independent journalism in their key function of holding power to account. By restricting access and silencing critical voices, his administration has raised concerns over transparency and the free flow of information in the domestic media landscapes.

Dissent: student activists protest the arrest of Columbia university graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil.
EPA-EFE/Sarah Yenesel

Universities have traditionally been bastions of independent thought. We saw that with the massive protests against US policy towards Israel and Palestine which have roiled campuses during the conflict in Gaza. But universities are also seen by many in the administration as a hotbed of “woke” activism. Accordingly Trump 2.0 has fixed its sights on one of the most prominent US universities: Columbia.

Citing what it says is a repeated failure to protect students from antisemitic harassment, the administration cancelled US$400m (£310 million) of federal contracts with the university. Columbia caved in to the pressure moments before the administration’s deadline passed. It agreed to overhaul its disciplinary procedures and “review” its regional studies programmes, starting with those covering the Middle East.

Columbia’s academic staff are horrified. They are launching legal action against the government, alleging that “the Trump administration is coercing Columbia University to do its bidding and regulate speech and expression on campus”.

Democracy in peril

Why is this all so worrying? The legal system, the media and universities are the pillars of US democratic freedoms. The Trump administration’s undermining of these institutions is a blatant attempt to impose an authoritarian rule by bypassing any counterbalance to executive power. And the US Supreme Court has ruled that he is almost entirely immune from prosecution while doing it.

The checks and balances system of government in the US was designed to ensure that no single branch could dominate the political process. But partisan loyalty, and loyalty to Trump over the party, now outweighs constitutional responsibility for the majority of those within the Republican Party.

American democracy is under threat. Not from the external existential threats it faced over the past century such as communism and Islamic fundamentalism, but from within its own system. Those Americans who are terrified about this threat are trying to fight back, but Trump’s assault on dissent is so chilling that this is becoming increasingly dangerous. More

Heads of state are the symbolic leader of a country. Some of them, like King Charles III of the United Kingdom, carry out largely ceremonial roles these days. Others, like Saudi Arabian King Salman, are absolute monarchs and involved in governing the country’s day-to-day activities and policies. It also means that the Saudi monarch gets to do whatever he wants without much consequence from others.

In the United States, the president is both the head of state and head of government. The head of government works with legislators and meets with other world leaders to negotiate agreements and navigate conflicts, among other responsibilities.

Some presidents, like Jimmy Carter, got so bogged down in the specifics that the nighttime comedy show “Saturday Night Live” made fun of it in 1977. “SNL” spoofed Carter responding in extreme, mundane detail to a question about fixing a post office’s letter sorting machines.

As a political scientist who studies American presidents, I see that President Donald Trump loves the power and prestige that comes with being head of state, but does not seem to particularly enjoy the responsibility of being head of government.

Trump rarely talks about the often-tedious process of governing, and instead acts with governance by decree by signing a flurry of executive orders to avoid working with other parts of the government. He has also likened himself to a king, writing on Feb. 19, 2025, “Long Live the King!”

As much as Trump loves hosting sports teams and talking about paving over the White House’s rose garden in a remodeling project, he seems to begrudgingly accept the role of head of government.

President Donald Trump is driven around the track prior to the Daytona 500 in Daytona Beach, Fla., on Feb. 16, 2025.
Chris Graythen/Getty Images

‘You have to be thankful’

Trump revels in social events where he is heralded as the most important person in the room. On Feb. 9, 2025, Trump became the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl. A week later, he attended the Daytona 500 at Daytona Beach, Florida, where his limousine led drivers in completing a ceremonial lap.

Trump’s preference for serving as head of state and not head of government was on full display during his now infamous Feb. 28, 2025, White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

In the televised Oval Office meeting, Trump repeatedly told Zelenskyy, “You have to be thankful.”

Trump was demanding deference from Zelenskyy to show his inferior and submissive position as a recipient of U.S. aid and military support. These are mannerisms of absolute kings, not elected officials.

Governing through executive orders

The beginning of Trump’s second term in office has been filled with announcements of changes – mostly through executive actions. The Trump administration has ordered the Pentagon to stop cyber operations against Russia and fired hundreds of employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The administration has also closed the Social Security Administration’s civil rights office and, among many other things, named the president chair of the Kennedy Center, a performance arts venue in Washington.

Trump has enacted policy changes almost exclusively through executive orders, instead of working with Congress on legislation.

Executive orders do not have to be negotiated with the legislative branch and can be written by a small team of advisers and approved by presidents. Within the first six weeks, Trump has signed more than 90 executive orders. By comparison, former President Joe Biden signed 162 executive orders during his four years in office.

Many of Trump’s executive orders are being challenged in court, and some have been found to likely not be constitutional.

More importantly, Trump’s successor can turn executive orders into confetti in an instant, simply with a signature. Trump himself has signed at least two executive orders that rescind over 60 previous executive orders, mostly signed by Biden.

The fact that Trump has removed almost all of Biden’s executive orders highlights how the orders can create change for a moment, or a few years. But when it comes to long-term policy change, congressional action is needed.

President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders at the White House on March 6, 2025.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Trump gets bored

Early in Trump’s first term in 2017, the administration planned themed weeks called “Made in America” and “American Heroes,” for example, to emphasize changes it intended to pursue.

Trump’s staff launched, stopped and then relaunched a themed infrastructure week seven times in 2019. This happened after Trump repeatedly derailed infrastructure events to focus on a more interesting event or topic, ranging from defending his comments that seemed to suggest support for white supremacists to discussing the reboot of Roseanne Barr’s sitcom.

In his second term, Trump has farmed out many head of government tasks to other people, notably billionaire Elon Musk, who is leading the new so-called Department of Government Efficiency. By mid-February 2025, Trump gave Musk, who holds the title of special government employee, oversight for hiring decisions at every governmental agency.

But as DOGE has initiated widespread cuts at different government agencies and offices in an effort to trim government waste, Musk has reportedly clashed with Trump’s cabinet members. This includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as other independent agencies funded by Congress.

Government agencies, funding recipients and others are pushing back against the cuts and at times are succeeding in getting court rulings that halt the dismissal of government workers, or reinstate other workers at their jobs.
Trump also seems to have abdicated most responsibility of bureaucracy to others by allowing Musk’s team unprecedented access to sensitive government programs and documents that include people’s personal information.

Absolute kings, queens, emperors and dictators are heads of state who demand obedience because they hold the nation in their grip.

Presidents from elected democracies may, as in the case of the U.S., have a ceremonial aspect to the job, but it is only a part of it. The people democratically elect American presidents to serve everyone and provide the best government possible. More

In just two months back in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump has tested the limits of the US Constitution, from overhauling immigration to drastically reducing the federal workforce and dismantling government agencies.

With Republicans now in control of both the Senate and House of Representatives, Congress has so far shown little sign it will stand in Trump’s way.

The judiciary is the other branch of government that can check the power of the president. However, the Trump administration has appeared increasingly willing to simply ignore decisions handed down by judges.

There has also been a notable lack of unified opposition from the Democratic Party.

Congressional Democrats are demoralised and deeply divided over how to respond to Trump. They face criticism, too, over their apparent lack of strategy.

This has led some to ask why the United States lacks a formal political opposition leader.

How opposition leaders operate in other countries

In the American political system, the loser of the presidential election doesn’t retain a position as leader of the party in opposition. Instead, they tend to disappear from view.

Kamala Harris is considering a run for governor of California — and could well attempt another run for president in 2028 or beyond. But she hasn’t remained a vocal counterpoint to Trump since he took office.

By contrast, in countries with Westminster-style parliamentary systems, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and India, the main party not in power selects an opposition leader from among their ranks. In most countries, this position is defined by convention, not law.

The opposition leader in many countries serves as the main face — and voice — of the party not in power. They work to keep the government accountable and are seen as the leader of an alternative government-in-waiting.

Kemi Badenoch is the new Conservative Party leader – and leader of the opposition – in the UK.
House of Commons handout/EPA

What it takes to lead the opposition in the US

During Trump’s first term, the Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was widely recognised as the de facto Democratic opposition leader.

A skilled negotiator, Pelosi was largely able to unite the Democrats behind her to lead the opposition to Trump’s legislative agenda — famously ripping up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union address on the House podium in 2020.

As Senate majority and minority leader, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell successfully blocked swathes of legislation during Barack Obama’s presidency. He even thwarted a US Supreme Court nomination.

In the 1980s, then-Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill led the Democratic opposition to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s domestic agenda, without resorting to obstructionism.

Nancy Pelosi was the de facto opposition leader in the US during Trump’s first term in office.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP

However, for an opposition figure to have this level of influence, they usually need decades of experience, political skill, and a party in control of the House or Senate.

The Democrats no longer have a majority in either chamber and are no longer led by Pelosi. Hakeem Jeffries has been the House minority leader since 2023, but without the speaker’s gavel or control of any committees, he has limited influence.

Party discipline is typically far more unwieldy in the United States compared to other countries. In Australia, for instance, crossing the floor to vote against your own party is very rare.

Unruly party caucuses make it significantly more difficult for a single party figurehead to emerge unless they command near-universal party loyalty and respect among their members in both chambers.

Will Democratic cracks shatter the party?

The Democratic caucus, already strained by Joe Biden’s late withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, is now even more fractured.

The Democrats continue to grapple with their resounding defeat in November, which saw the party lose ground with almost every demographic across the country. Polling shows public support for the Democrats has slumped to unprecedented lows, with just over a quarter of voters holding a positive view of the party.

Most dramatically, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer defied fellow Democrats (including Jeffries) by voting in favour of a resolution in recent weeks to avoid a government shutdown. His decision sparked an uproar from his party colleagues.

Visual images of the party’s disarray were also on clear display during Trump’s joint address to Congress earlier this month. While some representatives protested loudly, others followed leadership instruction to remain silent.

Democrats were in near lock-step on almost all issues during Trump’s first term, as well as Biden’s presidency. Now, some are calling on Schumer to step aside as minority leader — and for the Democrats to coalesce behind a younger, more outspoken leader such as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been among the most vocal Democrats since Trump came back into power.
David Zalubowski/AP

Where next for the party?

In the fractious debates now consuming the party, some see parallels with the emergence of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party during Barack Obama’s first term in office.

The current Democratic division could result in the emergence of a stronger dissident faction within the party. And this could push a harder line in opposition to Trump, no longer toeing the line from party leadership.

Yet, while the political outlook for Democrats may appear bleak, electoral turnarounds can happen quickly in the United States.

Few expected a demoralised Democratic party to turn John Kerry’s heavy defeat to George W Bush in 2004 into a generational victory just four years later. Similarly, after Obama decisively won reelection against Mitt Romney in 2012, few Republicans could have predicted they’d soon be back in power with Trump.

But, as was the case 20 years ago, the soul-searching process will be painful for the Democrats. Whether it’s Ocasio-Cortez or another figure, the 2026 midterm elections are likely to be the best opportunity for a new central leader to emerge on the national stage. More

President Donald Trump gave no specific reason for firing Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff less than halfway through Brown’s four-year term in office.

Nor did he give an explanation for similarly ousting other senior military leaders, including the only women ever to lead the Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as the military’s top three lawyers – the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. But since the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. I know this because I served 36 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring as a major general. Even now, as a lecturer in history, national security and constitutional law, I know that nonpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.

Trump’s actions could raise concerns about whether he is trying to change those centuries of precedent.

If so, military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military’s independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president’s orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?

After the American Revolution, George Washington resigned his military commission and returned to civilian life.
Herman Bencke via Library of Congress

Political neutrality from the start

Washington and other U.S. founders were very aware that a powerful military could overthrow the government or be subjected to political whims as different parties or factions controlled the presidency or Congress, so they thought long and hard about the role of the militia and the use of military power.

Julius Caesar, who used his army to seize power in ancient Rome, was a cautionary tale. So was Oliver Cromwell’s use of his military power in the English Civil War to execute King Charles I and rule England.

One of Washington’s most significant contributions to the apolitical tradition of the military was his resignation as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army after the American Revolution officially ended, in 1783. By voluntarily giving up his military power and returning to civilian life, the man who would become the nation’s first president demonstrated his commitment to civilian control of a military grounded in allegiance to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not allegiance to any one party, faction or person.

Washington’s act set a powerful example for future generations. A few years later, the founders embedded civilian control over the military in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war and fund armies, while Article II, Section 2 designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the military.

This check and balance ensures the military remains neutral and subordinate to elected leaders. It also solidifies the allegiance of military leaders to a principled document, not to the ebbs and flows of politics.

As part of their training, U.S. military members learn about their duty to obey lawful, constitutional orders.
Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Training and response to orders

Polling consistently shows that the American people trust the military more than any other element of the U.S. government. In part that trust comes from the military’s professional dedication to political neutrality, which includes training its personnel to uphold values like duty, honor and integrity.

Military members up and down the ranks take their allegiance to the Constitution seriously. At the beginning of their service, at every reenlistment and usually during promotion ceremonies, all military members – officers and enlisted – swear to support and defend the Constitution. The enlisted oath also includes a promise to follow the lawful orders of the president and of the officers appointed above them.

This foundational oath ensures that if members of the military receive orders that they believe are questionable, they will not follow those orders blindly. They are taught throughout their career – during basic training, officer candidate training and in recurring sessions through the years – to seek clarification. If necessary, they are told to challenge those orders through their chain of command, or through attorneys associated with their units, or by contacting their branch’s inspector general.

Depending on their ranks, military members’ responses to questionable orders can vary. Senior officers, who have extensive experience and higher levels of responsibility, have the authority and the duty to ensure that any orders they follow or pass down are lawful and in line with the Constitution. When evaluating uncertain orders or navigating unclear situations, they often consult with legal advisers, discuss the implications with peers and thoroughly analyze the situation before taking action.

Junior officers and senior enlisted personnel often find themselves in positions where they must make quick decisions based on the information available to them. While they are trained to follow orders, they are also encouraged to use their judgment and seek guidance when they believe an order to be unlawful – including getting advice from people with direct access to attorneys.

Junior enlisted personnel, who make up more than 40% of the military force, are also taught the importance of the legality and constitutionality of orders. They have the right to seek clarification if they believe an order is unlawful.

Even so, their training focuses heavily on discipline and obedience. This can make it challenging for them to question orders, especially in high-pressure situations.

Members of the U.S. military swear an oath to the Constitution.
Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Ultimate responsibility

The responsibility of scrutinizing orders falls on senior military leaders – admirals and generals, colonels and Navy captains. Junior officers and senior enlisted and junior enlisted personnel rely on their leaders to navigate the complexities of politics and ensure orders they receive are lawful and focused on national defense, not politics.

If senior military leaders fail in their responsibility, chaos could ensue: Units may end up following conflicting orders or ignoring directives altogether. This can lead to a breakdown in command and control, with some units acting independently or based on politically motivated directives. This would be a dangerous shift, making the military extremely vulnerable to operational failures and enemy attack.

President Lyndon Johnson, center, and Gen. William Westmoreland visit troops in South Vietnam in 1967.
AP Photo

Such a situation has never happened in the history of the U.S. military. But some events have come close to crossing the line. For instance, during the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was determined to demonstrate American strength and resolve, famously stating, “I will not lose in Vietnam.” His pressure landed on the shoulders of Gen. William Westmoreland.

Westmoreland responded by publicizing the numbers of enemy personnel killed in battle, attempting to show that U.S. efforts were reducing the size of opposing forces. But historians have found that this emphasis lacked clear military objectives, meaning troops faced confusion and contradictory orders. The price was a longer war, and more deaths for Americans and for Vietnamese civilians.

Ultimately, Westmoreland was accused of manipulating enemy troop strength estimates to create an impression of progress – in service of Johnson’s political desire to avoid defeat. His decisions did not directly violate the Constitution or U.S. law, but they exemplify how political pressures can adversely influence military strategies, with devastating consequences.

Unbiased sources of information

In addition to senior military leaders’ responsibility to remain apolitical, leaders also have clear responsibilities to the civilians elected and appointed above them.

For example, the president needs factual and unbiased information about the military’s capabilities from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on their experience and professional opinions. If advisers are hesitant to speak freely about what is and is not possible in any given situation, and about potential consequences both good and bad, the president will miss out on the kinds of critical insights that shape effective strategies.

The bottom line is that when top military experts give advice and take action influenced by politics, they undermine the centuries-old system of military training and ethics. Some traditions are worth keeping. More