Philippa Kaur

President Donald Trump’s critics often accuse him of harboring authoritarian ambitions. Journalists and scholars have drawn parallels between his leadership style and that of strongmen abroad. Some Democrats warn that the U.S. is sliding toward autocracy – a system in which one leader holds unchecked power.

Others counter that labeling Trump an autocrat is alarmist. After all, he hasn’t suspended the Constitution, forced school children to memorize his sayings or executed his rivals, as dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein once did.

But modern autocrats don’t always resemble their 20th-century predecessors.

Instead, they project a polished image, avoid overt violence and speak the language of democracy. They wear suits, hold elections and talk about the will of the people. Rather than terrorizing citizens, many use media control and messaging to shape public opinion and promote nationalist narratives. Many gain power not through military coups but at the ballot box.

The softer power of today’s autocrats

In the early 2000s, political scientist Andreas Schedler coined the term “electoral authoritarianism” to describe regimes that hold elections without real competition. Scholars Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way use another phrase, “competitive authoritarianism,” for systems in which opposition parties exist but leaders undermine them through censorship, electoral fraud or legal manipulation.

In my own work with economist Sergei Guriev, we explore a broader strategy that modern autocrats use to gain and maintain power. We call this “informational autocracy” or “spin dictatorship.”

These leaders don’t rely on violent repression. Instead, they craft the illusion that they are competent, democratic defenders of the nation – protecting it from foreign threats or internal enemies who seek to undermine its culture or steal its wealth.

President Donald Trump appears at an Air Force base in Doha, Qatar, on May 15, 2025.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Hungary’s democratic facade

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán exemplifies this approach. He first served from 1998 to 2002, returned to power in 2010 and has since won three more elections – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – after campaigns that international observers criticized as “intimidating and xenophobic.”

Orbán has preserved the formal structures of democracy – courts, a parliament and regular elections – but has systematically hollowed them out.

In his first two years he packed Hungary’s constitutional court, which reviews laws for constitutionality, with loyalists, forced judges off the bench by mandating a lower retirement age and rewrote the constitution to limit judicial review of his actions. He also tightened government control over independent media.

To boost his image, Orbán funneled state advertising funds to friendly news outlets. In 2016, an ally bought Hungary’s largest opposition newspaper – then shut it down.

Orbán has also targeted advocacy groups and universities. The Central European University, which was registered in both Budapest and the U.S., was once a symbol of the new democratic Hungary. But a law penalizing foreign-accredited institutions forced it to relocate to Vienna in 2020.

Yet Orbán has mostly avoided violence. Journalists are harassed rather than jailed or killed. Critics are discredited for their beliefs but not abducted. His appeal rests on a narrative that Hungary is under siege – by immigrants, liberal elites and foreign influences – and that only he can defend its sovereignty and Christian identity. That message resonates with older, rural, conservative voters, even as it alienates younger, urban populations.

A global shift in autocrats

In recent decades, variants of spin dictatorship have appeared in Singapore, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Leaders such as Hugo Chávez and the early Vladimir Putin consolidated power and marginalized opposition with minimal violence.

Data confirm this trend. Drawing from human rights reports, historical records and local media, my colleague Sergei Guriev and I found that the global incidence of political killings and imprisonments by autocrats dropped significantly from the 1980s to the 2010s.

Why? In an interconnected world, overt repression has costs. Attacking journalists and dissidents can prompt foreign governments to impose economic sanctions and discourage international companies from investing. Curbing free expression risks stifling scientific and technological innovation – something even autocrats need in modern, knowledge-based economies.

Still, when crises erupt, even spin dictators often revert to more traditional tactics. Russia’s Putin has cracked down violently on
protesters and jailed opposition leaders. Meanwhile, more brutal regimes such as those in North Korea and China continue to rule by spreading fear, combining mass incarceration with advanced surveillance technologies.

But overall, spin is replacing terror.

America too?

Most experts, myself included, agree that the U.S. remains a democracy.

Yet some of Trump’s tactics resemble those of informational autocrats. He has attacked the press, defied court rulings and pressured universities to curtail academic independence and limit international admissions. His admiration for strongmen such as Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele alarms observers. At the same time, Trump routinely denigrates democratic allies and international institutions such as the United Nations and NATO.

Some experts say democracy depends on politicians’ self restraint. But a system that survives only if leaders choose to respect its limits is not much of a system at all.
What matters more is whether the press, judiciary, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, churches, unions, universities and citizens have the power – and the will – to hold leaders accountable.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán delivers a speech at a hotel in Madrid on Feb. 8, 2025.
Thomas Coex/AFP via Getty Images

Preserving democracy in the US

Wealthy democracies such as the U.S., Canada and many Western European countries benefit from robust institutions such as newspapers, universities, courts and advocacy groups that act as checks on government.

Such institutions help explain why populists such as Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi or Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, although accused of bending electoral rules and threatening judicial independence, have not dismantled democracy outright in their countries.

In the U.S., the Constitution provides another layer of protection. Amending it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states – a far steeper hurdle than in Hungary, where Orbán needed only a two-thirds parliamentary majority to rewrite the constitution.

Of course, even the U.S. Constitution can be undermined if a president defies the Supreme Court. But doing so risks igniting a constitutional crisis and alienating key supporters.

That doesn’t mean American democracy is safe from erosion. But its institutional foundations are older, deeper and more decentralized than those of many newer democracies. Its federal structure, with overlapping jurisdictions and multiple veto points, makes it harder for any one leader to dominate.

Still, the global rise of spin dictatorships should sharpen awareness of what is happening in the U.S. Around the world, autocrats have learned to control their citizens by faking democracy. Understanding their techniques may help Americans to preserve the real thing. More

Born on June 14, 1946, United States President Donald Trump turns 79 in 2025 — the same day that the U.S. Army, founded in 1775, marks its 250th anniversary. To mark the anniversary, Trump proclaimed that “we’re gonna have a big, big celebration.”

Plans drawn up by the army call for 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, seven military bands and thousands of civilians. The parade will also reportedly include 34 horses, two mules and a dog.

Dismissed as a costly vanity project by some, the parade invites a deeper question: what kind of political work does a birthday celebration like this actually do?

Far from trivial or benign, Trump’s spectacle draws on a long history of authoritarian leaders who use ritualized celebrations to bind personal power to national identity. The most notorious example, Adolf Hitler, turned his birthdays into massive national events with military parades, mass rallies and highly estheticized scenes of domestic cheer.

These displays blurred dominance and intimacy, fatherliness and force — an approach revived today in the digital era, where curated imagery and social media entangle leadership with affective spectacle.

U.S. Army personnel load military tanks for transport to Washington, D.C., on May 22, 2025, at Fort Cavazos near Killeen, Texas.
(AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Fascist birthday culture

I was born and raised in Germany. I’m acutely aware that Hitler’s birthday still casts a shadow and that such dates continue to carry political weight, with the rituals involved doing long-term political work.

During the Third Reich, the Führer’s birthday — modeled on the Kaiser’s — became a mass propaganda event, blending public spectacle with personal attachment.

As German philosopher Theodor Adorno noted, fascist rituals portrayed the authoritarian leader as both a “superman” and an ordinary, flawed “average person.” This duality encouraged intimate identification and awe, much like the dynamic between a patriarchal father and child.

Trump echoes this dynamic through a mix of paternal posturing, hypermasculine bluster and expansive nationalism. Whereas Hitler relied on the latest photograph and film technology, today’s spectacles are amplified by digital media’s participatory culture.

German leader Adolf Hitler reviewing a military parade held in celebration of his 47th birthday on April 20, 1936.
(German Federal Archives), CC BY

Neo-Nazi groups across North America and Europe still mark Hitler’s birthday with cakes, cookies, memes and tweets; often disarmingly “cute” images overlaid with disturbing swastikas and jokes. In his 2017 paper, sociologist Christian Fuchs shows that the most retweeted neo-Nazi post in his study was “Wake and bake #HitlersBirthday #420,” blending cannabis culture with fascist nostalgia to deflect horror through humour.

The blurred boundaries between the national and the personal feed meme culture, where, as communications scholar Limor Shifman writes, “small units of culture” spread through imitation, often cloaked in play.

Amid mounting pressure on various institutions in the U.S. — universities, courts and public discourse — the military/birthday parade is an extravaganza that fuses esthetics and propaganda to cement authority, suppress dissent and consolidate power.

Power aesthetics of military pageantry

By combining a military display with a personal celebration, Trump’s birthday parade stages a grand spectacle of power. Key here is the presence of thousands of soldiers in military uniform, which creates a “persona and a powerful collective presence,” as fashion scholar Jennifer Craik writes.

Uniforms signal discipline and belonging, but also intimidate and threaten. Fashion writer Colin McDowell calls the uniform a “spectacle” steeped in associations with power and eroticism, a garment long linked to theatricality and role-playing.

Nowhere was this more explicit than under European fascism and colonialism. Uniforms were engineered to seduce, often fetishized: streamlined silhouettes, tight jackets and black leather boots. As Craik notes, such imagery was not incidental; it was the visual grammar of domination. As sociologist Klaus Theweleit observes, fascist power had to be seen, desired and even fantasized.

Trump’s parade is a show of force. Its sheer scale — bands, vehicles, helicopters — performs strength and legitimacy, marking who belongs and who does not. But the birthday celebration also turns attention back to the man himself, reminding us that authoritarianism is not only about intimidation but also about the persona of the autocrat.

Parades staged for Adolf Hitler’s 50th birthday.

Authoritarian scripts, then and now

Autocratic regimes work hard to fashion the leader into a man of the people: familiar, relatable and someone to be admired. Think of Hitler in his motorcade, hands outstretched toward the crowd.

My father, just 10 years old, was part of that spectacle at one of these parades on a mandatory school trip, lined up along the street. Yet as the motorcade neared, he was shoved aside in the crush. What stayed with him wasn’t Hitler — he never saw him — but the fanatical woman who pushed him to get closer.

The point was the crowd itself, kept at a fever pitch with ever-new spectacles like Hitler’s 50th birthday on April 20, 1939, declared a national holiday. German Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels staged it as what historian Ian Kershaw called “an astonishing extravaganza of the Führer cult;” a visual and military spectacle widely broadcast.

One gift, a model of the FW 200 Condor, later became Hitler’s official plane. Trump’s new luxury Air Force One, “a gift” from Qatar, is also part of his visual narrative. The symbolism is eerie: once again, the personal cloaks itself in national power.

The cult of MAGA

U.S. President Donald Trump dances after speaking on his first 100 days in Warren, Mich. on April 29, 2025.
(AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

In the end, Trump’s militarized birthday parade solicits not just admiration but political allegiance. Like past authoritarian rituals, it manipulates affect through military pageantry to elevate the leader as both a symbol and supreme commander.

The spectacle demands emotional submission with the goal being identification with the leader. It exchanges democratic freedom for a vision of unity under a single figure. However wrapped in humour or patriotic kitsch, Trump’s parade rehearses an authoritarian script with disturbingly familiar cues.

What appears as celebration is, in fact, a rehearsal. It signals a dangerous shift toward personal glorification and a political culture where pageantry replaces participation and adoration displaces dissent.

As history warns, that is when democracy begins to give way. More

San Francisco, Chicago and New York are among the major cities – as well as more than 200 small towns and counties and a dozen states – that over the past 40 years have adopted what is often known as sanctuary policies.

There is not a single definition of a sanctuary policy. But it often involves local authorities not asking about a resident’s immigration status, or not sharing that personal information with federal immigration authorities.

So when a San Francisco police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer will not ask if the person is living in the country legally.

American presidents, from Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, have chosen to leave sanctuary policies largely unchallenged since different places first adopted them in the 1970s. This changed in 2017, when President Donald Trump first tried to cut federal funding to sanctuary places, claiming that their policies “willfully violate Federal law.” Legal challenges during his first term stopped him from actually withholding the money.

At the start of his second term, Trump signed two executive orders in January and April 2025 which again state that his administration will withhold federal money from areas with sanctuary policies.

“Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!” Trump said, according to an April White House statement. This statement was immediately followed by his April executive order.

These two executive orders task the attorney general and secretary of homeland security with publishing a list of all sanctuary places and notifying local and state officials of “non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it.” Those that do not comply with federal law, according to the orders, may lose federal funding.

San Francisco and 14 other sanctuary cities, including New Haven, Connecticut, and Portland, Oregon, sued the Trump administration in February on the grounds that it was illegally trying to coerce cities to comply with its policies. A U.S. district court judge in California issued an injunction on April 24 preventing the administration – at least for the time being – from cutting funding from places with sanctuary policies.

However, as researchers who have studied sanctuary policies for over a decade, we know that Trump’s claim that sanctuary policies violate federal immigration law is not correct.

It’s true that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. Yet there is no federal requirement that state or local governments participate or cooperate in federal immigration enforcement, which would require an act of Congress.

A sign is seen at the Nogales, Ariz., and Mariposa, Mexico, border crossing.
Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images

What’s behind sanctuary policies

In 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department was the first to announce a prohibition on local officials asking about a resident’s immigration status.

However, it was not until the 1980s that the sanctuary movement took off, when hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans fled civil war and violence in their home countries and migrated to the U.S. This prompted a number of cities to declare solidarity with the faith-based sanctuary movement that offered refuge to Salvadoran, Guatemalan and Nicaraguan asylum seekers facing deportation.

In 1985, Berkeley, Calif., and San Francisco pledged that city officials, including police officers, would not report Central Americans to immigration authorities as long as they were law abiding.

Berkeley also banned officials from using local money to work with federal immigration authorities.

“We are not asking anyone to do anything illegal,” Nancy Walker, a supervisor for San Francisco, said in 1985, according to The New York Times. “We have got to extend our hand to these people. If these people go home, they die. They are asking us to let them stay.”

Today, there are hundreds of sanctuary cities, towns, counties and states across the country that all have a variation of policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Sometimes – but not always – places with sanctuary policies bar local law enforcement agencies from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the country’s main immigration enforcement agency.

A large part of ICE’s work is identifying, arresting and deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In order to carry out this work, ICE issues what is known as “detainer requests” to local law enforcement authorities. A detainer request asks local law enforcement to hold a specific arrested person already being held by police until that person can be transferred to ICE, which can then take steps to deport them.

While places without sanctuary policies tend to comply with these requests, some sanctuary jurisdictions, like the state of California, only do so in the cases of particular violent criminal offenses.

Yet local officials in sanctuary places cannot legally block ICE from arresting local residents who are living in the country illegally, or from carrying out any other parts of its work.

Can Trump withhold federal funding?

Trump claimed in 2017 that sanctuary policies violated federal law, and he issued an executive order that tried to rescind federal grants that these jurisdictions received.

However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2018 case involving San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California, that the president could not refuse to “disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization.”

Federal courts, meanwhile, split over whether Trump could freeze funding attached to a specific federal program called the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, which provides about US$250 million in annual funding to state and local law enforcement.

These cases were in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court when the Department of Justice, under Biden, asked that they be dismissed.

Other Supreme Court rulings also suggest that the Trump administration’s claim that it can withhold federal funding from sanctuary places rests on shaky legal ground.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 and again in 1997 that the federal government could not coerce state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, or compel them to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

Under pressure

The first Trump administration was not generally successful, with the exception of the split over the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, at stripping funding from sanctuary places. But cutting federal funding – even if it happens temporarily – can be economically damaging to cities and counties while they challenge the decision in court.

Local officials also face other kinds of political pressure to comply with the Trump administration’s demands.

A legal group founded by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff in the Trump administration, for example, sent letters to dozens of local officials in January threatening criminal prosecution for their sanctuary policies.

Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, a sanctuary city, testifies during a House committee hearing on sanctuary city mayors on March 5, 2025, in Washington.
Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

The real effects of sanctuary policies

One part of Trump’s argument against sanctuary policies is that places with these policies have more crime than those that do not.

But there is no established relationship between sanctuary status and crime rates.

There is, however, evidence that when local law enforcement and ICE work together, it reduces the likelihood of immigrant and Latino communities to report crimes, likely for fear of being arrested by federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary policies are certainly worthy of debate, but this requires an accurate representation of what they are, what they do, and the effects they have. More

The Trump administration plans to send special response teams of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to conduct immigration raids in four cities run by Democratic mayors, NBC news reported on June 11, 2025, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the planning process.

NBC reports that New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle are four of the five places that would be affected by this deployment, as well as northern Virginia. These cities are also among the other major metropolitan hubs – as well as more than 200 small towns and counties and a dozen states – that over the past 40 years have adopted what are often known as sanctuary policies.

Special response teams are tactical units under ICE that are trained to respond to extreme situations such as drug and arms smugglers. These units have been used to respond to recent immigration protests in Los Angeles in response to ICE raids. President Donald Trump has also deployed 4,000 National Guard troops, as well as about 700 Marines, to quell protests in that city. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have said the presence of troops is exacerbating the situation and are challenging the legality of these deployments in court.

While sanctuary policies often prohibit local participation in immigration enforcement or cooperation with ICE, if large-scale raids take place in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle, their designation as sanctuary cities offers little protection to immigrants living without legal authorization from deportation.

There is not a single definition of a sanctuary policy. But it often involves local authorities not asking about a resident’s immigration status, or not sharing that personal information with federal immigration authorities.

So when a San Francisco police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer will not ask if the person is living in the country legally.

American presidents, from Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, have chosen to leave sanctuary policies largely unchallenged since different places first adopted them in the 1970s. This changed in 2017, when President Donald Trump first tried to cut federal funding to sanctuary places, claiming that their policies “willfully violate Federal law.” Legal challenges during his first term stopped him from actually withholding the money.

At the start of his second term, Trump signed two executive orders in January and April 2025 which again state that his administration will withhold federal money from areas with sanctuary policies.

“Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!” Trump said, according to an April White House statement. This statement was immediately followed by his April executive order.

These two executive orders task the attorney general and secretary of homeland security with publishing a list of all sanctuary places and notifying local and state officials of “non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it.” Those that do not comply with federal law, according to the orders, may lose federal funding.

San Francisco and 14 other sanctuary cities, including New Haven, Connecticut, and Portland, Oregon, sued the Trump administration in February on the grounds that it was illegally trying to coerce cities to comply with its policies. A U.S. district court judge in California issued an injunction on April 24 preventing the administration – at least for the time being – from cutting funding from places with sanctuary policies.

However, as researchers who have studied sanctuary policies for over a decade, we know that Trump’s claim that sanctuary policies violate federal immigration law is not correct.

It’s true that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. Yet there is no federal requirement that state or local governments participate or cooperate in federal immigration enforcement, which would require an act of Congress.

A sign is seen at the Nogales, Ariz., and Mariposa, Mexico, border crossing.
Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images

What’s behind sanctuary policies

In 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department was the first to announce a prohibition on local officials asking about a resident’s immigration status.

However, it was not until the 1980s that the sanctuary movement took off, when hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans fled civil war and violence in their home countries and migrated to the U.S. This prompted a number of cities to declare solidarity with the faith-based sanctuary movement that offered refuge to Salvadoran, Guatemalan and Nicaraguan asylum seekers facing deportation.

In 1985, Berkeley, Calif., and San Francisco pledged that city officials, including police officers, would not report Central Americans to immigration authorities as long as they were law abiding.

Berkeley also banned officials from using local money to work with federal immigration authorities.

“We are not asking anyone to do anything illegal,” Nancy Walker, a supervisor for San Francisco, said in 1985, according to The New York Times. “We have got to extend our hand to these people. If these people go home, they die. They are asking us to let them stay.”

Today, there are hundreds of sanctuary cities, towns, counties and states across the country that all have a variation of policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Sometimes – but not always – places with sanctuary policies bar local law enforcement agencies from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the country’s main immigration enforcement agency.

A large part of ICE’s work is identifying, arresting and deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In order to carry out this work, ICE issues what is known as “detainer requests” to local law enforcement authorities. A detainer request asks local law enforcement to hold a specific arrested person already being held by police until that person can be transferred to ICE, which can then take steps to deport them.

While places without sanctuary policies tend to comply with these requests, some sanctuary jurisdictions, like the state of California, only do so in the cases of particular violent criminal offenses.

Yet local officials in sanctuary places cannot legally block ICE from arresting local residents who are living in the country illegally, or from carrying out any other parts of its work.

Can Trump withhold federal funding?

Trump claimed in 2017 that sanctuary policies violated federal law, and he issued an executive order that tried to rescind federal grants that these jurisdictions received.

However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2018 case involving San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California, that the president could not refuse to “disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization.”

Federal courts, meanwhile, split over whether Trump could freeze funding attached to a specific federal program called the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, which provides about US$250 million in annual funding to state and local law enforcement.

These cases were in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court when the Department of Justice, under Biden, asked that they be dismissed.

Other Supreme Court rulings also suggest that the Trump administration’s claim that it can withhold federal funding from sanctuary places rests on shaky legal ground.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 and again in 1997 that the federal government could not coerce state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, or compel them to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

Under pressure

The first Trump administration was not generally successful, with the exception of the split over the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, at stripping funding from sanctuary places. But cutting federal funding – even if it happens temporarily – can be economically damaging to cities and counties while they challenge the decision in court.

Local officials also face other kinds of political pressure to comply with the Trump administration’s demands.

A legal group founded by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff in the Trump administration, for example, sent letters to dozens of local officials in January threatening criminal prosecution for their sanctuary policies.

Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, a sanctuary city, testifies during a House committee hearing on sanctuary city mayors on March 5, 2025, in Washington.
Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

The real effects of sanctuary policies

One part of Trump’s argument against sanctuary policies is that places with these policies have more crime than those that do not.

But there is no established relationship between sanctuary status and crime rates.

There is, however, evidence that when local law enforcement and ICE work together, it reduces the likelihood of immigrant and Latino communities to report crimes, likely for fear of being arrested by federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary policies are certainly worthy of debate, but this requires an accurate representation of what they are, what they do, and the effects they have.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on May 28, 2025. More

President Donald Trump’s speech at the graduation of the class of 2025 from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point included segments that were clearly scripted and portions that were obviously not.

During the unscripted portions, Trump, who wore a bright red “Make America Great Again” campaign hat during his entire appearance on May 24, 2025, delivered remarks that hit many of his frequent partisan political talking points. That included attacking presidential predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden, describing immigrants to the U.S. as “criminals” and trumpeting other policy accomplishments in his first and second terms.

That level of partisanship in a military setting – on the campus of the nation’s first military academy, and before an audience of cadets and their families, many of whom are veterans – is unusual in the United States.

The Conversation U.S. has published several articles discussing the importance to democracy of keeping the military and partisan politics separate. Here are three highlights from that coverage.

A Jan. 12, 2021, message from the nation’s top military officers reminds all service members: ‘We support and defend the Constitution’ – not any particular person.
Joint Chiefs of Staff

1. Cadets focus on the Constitution

During the West Point ceremony, the graduates themselves took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” And all of them had studied the significance of that oath, including in classes like those taught by Joseph G. Amoroso and Lee Robinson, active-duty Army officers who graduated from West Point and later served as professors there.

As Amoroso and Robinson wrote, those classes teach cadets that, like all military personnel, they serve the Constitution and the American people, not a particular person or political party:

“(O)ur oath forms the basis of a nonpartisan ethic. In the U.S., unlike in many other countries, the oath implies military leaders should be trusted for their expertise and judgment, not for their loyalty to an individual or political party. We emphasize to cadets the rules and professional expectations associated with this profound responsibility.”

Read more:
Military personnel swear allegiance to the Constitution and serve the American people – not one leader or party

2. A tradition of nonpartisanship

Retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Samuel C. Mahaney, who teaches history, national security and constitutional law at Missouri University of Science and Technology, observed:

“(S)ince the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. … (N)onpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.”

Mahaney wrote that if Trump’s actions during his second term meant a change from the centuries of precedent, “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?”

Presenting a key question for military personnel.

Read more:
Trump’s firings of military leaders pose a crucial question to service members of all ranks

3. Dating back to the founding of the nation

Marcus Hedahl and Bradley Jay Strawser, professors of philosophy who teach military ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School, respectively, explain the reason for this long-standing focus on keeping politicians and politics separate from military action.

“To minimize the chance of the kind of military occupation they suffered during the Revolutionary War, the country’s founders wrote the Constitution requiring that the president, an elected civilian, would be the commander in chief of the military. In the wake of World War II, Congress went even further, restructuring the military and requiring that the secretary of defense be a civilian as well.”

As they observed, “… the framers always intended it to be the people’s military – not the president’s.”

Read more:
Threatening ‘the enemy within’ with force: Military ethicists explain the danger to important American traditions

This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives. More

President Donald Trump’s speech at the graduation of the class of 2025 from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point included segments that were clearly scripted and portions that were obviously not.

During the unscripted portions, Trump, who wore a bright red “Make America Great Again” campaign hat during his entire appearance on May 24, 2025, delivered remarks that hit many of his frequent partisan political talking points. That included attacking presidential predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden, describing immigrants to the U.S. as “criminals” and trumpeting other policy accomplishments in his first and second terms.

That level of partisanship in a military setting – on the campus of the nation’s first military academy, and before an audience of cadets and their families, many of whom are veterans – is unusual in the United States.

The Conversation U.S. has published several articles discussing the importance to democracy of keeping the military and partisan politics separate. Here are two highlights from that coverage.

A Jan. 12, 2021, message from the nation’s top military officers reminds all service members: ‘We support and defend the Constitution’ – not any particular person.
Joint Chiefs of Staff

1. Cadets focus on the Constitution

During the West Point ceremony, the graduates themselves took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” And all of them had studied the significance of that oath, including in classes like those taught by Joseph G. Amoroso and Lee Robinson, active-duty Army officers who graduated from West Point and later served as professors there.

As Amoroso and Robinson wrote, those classes teach cadets that, like all military personnel, they serve the Constitution and the American people, not a particular person or political party:

“(O)ur oath forms the basis of a nonpartisan ethic. In the U.S., unlike in many other countries, the oath implies military leaders should be trusted for their expertise and judgment, not for their loyalty to an individual or political party. We emphasize to cadets the rules and professional expectations associated with this profound responsibility.”

Read more:
Military personnel swear allegiance to the Constitution and serve the American people – not one leader or party

2. A tradition of nonpartisanship

Retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Samuel C. Mahaney, who teaches history, national security and constitutional law at Missouri University of Science and Technology, observed:

“(S)ince the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. … (N)onpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.”

Mahaney wrote that if Trump’s actions during his second term meant a change from the centuries of precedent, “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?”

Presenting a key question for military personnel.

Read more:
Trump’s firings of military leaders pose a crucial question to service members of all ranks

This story was updated to highlight two articles from The Conversation’s archives. More

The United States has long played a leadership role in NATO, the most successful military alliance in history.

The U.S. and 11 other countries in North America and Europe founded NATO in 1949, following World War II. NATO has since grown its membership to include 32 countries in Europe and North America.

But now, European leaders and politicians fear the United States has become a less reliable ally, posing major challenges for Europe and, by implication, NATO.

This concern is not unfounded.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken of a desire to seize Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member. He has declared that Canada, another NATO member, should become “the 51st state.” Trump has also sided with Russia at the United Nations and said that the European Union, the political and economic group uniting 27 European countries, was designed to “screw” the U.S.

Still, Trump – as well as other senior U.S. government officials – has said that the U.S. remains committed to staying in and supporting NATO.

For decades, both liberal and conservative American politicians have recognized that the U.S. strengthens its own military and economic interests by being a leader in NATO – and by keeping thousands of U.S. troops based in Europe to underwrite its commitment.

President Donald Trump speaks at a NATO Summit in July 2018 during his first term.
Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Understanding NATO

The U.S., Canada and 10 Western European countries formed NATO nearly 80 years ago as a way to help maintain peace and stability in Europe following World War II. NATO helped European and North American countries bind together and defend themselves against the threat once posed by the Soviet Union, a former communist empire that fell in 1991.

NATO employs about 2,000 people at its headquarters in Brussels. It does not have its own military troops and relies on its 32 member countries to volunteer their own military forces to conduct operations and other tasks under NATO’s leadership.

NATO does have its own military command structure, led by an American military officer, and including military officers from other countries. This team plans and executes all NATO military operations.

In peacetime, military forces working with NATO conduct training exercises across Eastern Europe and other places to help reassure allies about the strength of the military coalition – and to deter potential aggressors, like Russia.

NATO has a relatively small annual budget of around US$3.6 billion. The U.S. and Germany are the largest contributors to this budget, each responsible for funding 16% of NATO’s costs each year.

Separate from NATO’s annual budget, in 2014, NATO members agreed that each participating country should spend the equivalent of 2% of its gross domestic product on their own national defense. Twenty two of NATO’s 31 members with military forces were expected that 2% threshold as of April 2025.

Although NATO is chiefly a military alliance, it has roots in the mutual economic interests of both the U.S. and Europe.

Europe is the United States’ most important economic partner. Roughly one-quarter of all U.S. trade is with Europe – more than the U.S. has with Canada, China or Mexico.

Over 2.3 million American jobs are directly tied to producing exports that reach European countries that are part of NATO.

NATO helps safeguard this mutual economic relationship between the U.S. and Europe. If Russia or another country tries to intimidate, dominate or even invade a European country, this could hurt the American economy. In this way, NATO can be seen as the insurance policy that underwrites the strength and vitality of the American economy.

The heart of that insurance policy is Article 5, a mutual defense pledge that member countries agree to when they join NATO.

Article 5 says that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against the entire alliance. If one NATO member is attacked, all other NATO members must help defend the country in question. NATO members have only invoked Article 5 once, following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., when the alliance deployed aircraft to monitor U.S. skies.

A wavering commitment to Article 5

Trump has questioned whether he would enforce Article 5 and help defend a NATO country if it is not paying the required 2% of its gross domestic product.

NBC News also reported in April 2025 that the U.S. is likely going to cut 10,000 or more of the nearly 85,000 American troops stationed in Europe. The U.S. might also relinquish its top military leadership position within NATO, according to NBC.

Many political analysts expect the U.S. to shift its national security focus away from Europe and toward threats posed by China – specifically, the threat of China invading or attacking Taiwan.

At the same time, the Trump administration appears eager to reset relations with Russia. This is despite the Russian military’s atrocities committed against Ukrainian military forces and civilians in the war Russia began in 2022, and Russia’s intensifying hybrid war against Europeans in the form of covert spy attacks across Europe. This hybrid warfare allegedly includes Russia conducting cyberattacks and sabotage operations across Europe. It also involves Russia allegedly trying to plant incendiary devices on planes headed to North America, among other things.

President Joe Biden speaks during a NATO summit in Washington in July 2024.
Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

A shifting role in Europe

The available evidence indicates that the U.S. is backing away from its role in Europe. At best – from a European security perspective – the U.S. could still defend European allies with the potential threat of its nuclear weapon arsennal. The U.S. has significantly more nuclear weapons than any Western European country, but it is not clear that this is enough to deter Russia without the clear presence of large numbers of American troops in Europe, especially given that Moscow continues to perceive the U.S. as NATO’s most important and most powerful member.

For this reason, significantly downsizing the number of U.S. troops in Europe, giving up key American military leadership positions in NATO, or backing away from the alliance in other ways appears exceptionally perilous. Such actions could increase Russian aggression across Europe, ultimately threatening not just European security bu America’s as well.

Maintaining America’s leadership position in NATO and sustaining its troop levels in Europe helps reinforce the U.S. commitment to defending its most important allies. This is the best way to protect vital U.S. economic interests in Europe today and ensure Washington will have friends to call on in the future. More

The first five months of Donald Trump’s second presidency have been brutal for the Democratic party, which has been almost completely unable to stop his aggressive agenda. In March, CNN polling showed the favourability rating for the Democrats at just 29% – a record low in CNN polls dating back to 1992.

The problem with the Democratic party “isn’t a lack of talent”, says Federico de Jesús, a Democratic strategist and spokesman for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who I interviewed for this story. It is a “problem of vision and strategy”, he argues.

“A lot of people, in theory, agree with the Democrats on a lot of issues. But they don’t necessarily feel comfortable with the direction the party is taking.” De Jesús told me that the Democrats allowed themselves to become identified by “woke issues” by many voters who abandoned them in November.

However, the Democrats now have some reasons to celebrate. In early April, a Democratic-backed judge called Susan Crawford secured a seat in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. This kept liberal control of the state’s highest court intact. And a Reuters/Ipsos poll released a few weeks later showed that only 37% of US voters approve of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

As a Washington political correspondent for almost two decades, I have witnessed how the parties changed the guard after painful election cycles. This time, in the absence of clear leaders, the challenge is quite high for the Democrats.

But who are the Democrats positioning themselves to lead the struggle against Trump’s policies? The acts of defiance are coming from two fronts: lawmakers in Congress and governors.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden greet each other at Trump’s inauguration on January 20.
Kenny Holston/EPA

Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has predicted that the Democrats will win back control of the Senate after the 2026 midterm elections. “The electorate will desert the Republican candidates who embraced Trump in an overwhelming way”, he said on April 23.

Others, like California senator Adam Schiff and Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, are using tactics like holding town halls in strong Republican districts to rally the opposition. Michigan congressman Shri Thanedar even filed articles of impeachment against Trump on April 28, but top Democrats shot down the effort as impractical.

At the same time, House of Representatives minority leader Hakeem Jeffries is facing an intra-party effort to unseat many long-time lawmakers in solid Democratic districts. David Hogg, vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee, is pledging US$20 million (£15 million) to end a culture of “seniority politics” which allows “asleep at the wheel” lawmakers to stay in office.

But it is New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has been stealing the headlines. She is setting fundraising records, preparing for an effort to challenge Schumer in a New York senatorial primary in 2028. Surveys this early are rarely predictive, but an April head-to-head poll has Ocasio-Cortez leading Schumer by double digits.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez delivers a speech on stage during a rally in Los Angeles, California, in April 2025.
David Swanson/EPA

Three Democrat governors are standing out at present: Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Minnesota’s Tim Walz and California’s Gavin Newsom.

Shapiro is very popular with voters in his crucial swing state, and gets good marks even from Republicans on his bipartisan record. Walz was Kamala Harris’s running mate in November’s election, and his campaign performance was well received by his party. Walz is an obvious contender to run for the White House in 2028.

But Newsom is probably the most notable of the three. While he’s been critical of his party, telling the Hill newspaper on April 21 that Democrats haven’t performed a thorough autopsy of what led to the loss in November, he is seen as someone who can address Republican voters well.

A second tier of governors include Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, whose soft criticism of the Trump administration’s tariff regime saw Trump praise her for doing an “excellent job”. She is joined by Maryland’s Wes Moore, who is young and popular in his state, and JB Pritzker of Illinois.

Pritzker called for “mass mobilisations and disruption” against Trump at a Democratic event in New Hampshire in late April. “These governors need to stand out”, said de Jesús, “either by fighting against Trump, or either [by] achieving something memorable.”

Harris had largely kept a low profile since November’s election. But on April 30 she sharply criticised Trump’s first 100 days in office during a speech in San Francisco. She may decide to enter the race for California governor in the summer of 2025.

Dark horse leader

There could also be a dark horse leader waiting in the wings: Rahm Emanuel. As former Chicago mayor, Illinois congressman, Obama and Bill Clinton aide and US ambassador to Japan, he is considered a political heavyweight.

Emanuel has hinted he may again run for public office, while criticising the party’s focus on gender issues and not on “kitchen table” issues as reasons for November’s defeat.

Rahm Emanuel walks next to Joe Biden during a visit to Japan in 2023.
Franck Robichon/EPA

Progressives chafe at the idea of dialling down the talk about certain policies, such as gender and identity issues. But both Newsom and Emanuel are among those suggesting that the focus should instead shift to defending changes that most voters can relate to.

At the moment, the party still lacks a clear leader and direction to recover from the 2024 defeat. Newsom, for instance, told the Hill that he doesn’t “know what the party is”. “I’m still struggling with that,” he added.

According to de Jesús, “people don’t necessarily want someone to just hate Trump, but to identify the issues voters care about and co-opt that populist message.” More