Unlike in 2017, Trump returned to office ready to govern. He acted quickly, with clear goals and a strong sense of past experiences. The aim was not to build consensus or repair relationships, but to control the pace and narrative of his administration. Decisions were made first, while discussions were either postponed or forced to follow. This approach has influenced how the administration interacts with democratic oversight and civic engagement across various policy areas.
Two key weaknesses in democracy are evident in this initial year. The first is the weakening of institutional checks due to a preference for executive decision-making. The second is the shrinking of civic space, especially for those communities and individuals who rely heavily on institutional safeguards.
A key event that highlights the first weakness was the U. S. operation in Venezuela that resulted in Nicolás Maduro’s capture in Caracas and subsequent transfer to the United States on narcotics charges. This operation occurred without prior approval from Congress, leading to immediate backlash from the international community. The administration portrayed it as a necessary law enforcement action, while critics viewed it as an unauthorized use of force that sets a dangerous precedent for unilateral executive actions.
The response from Washington revealed this shift clearly. Lawmakers from both parties suggested measures to limit presidential power over military and security operations after the action had already taken place. The order of events was significant: the executive moved first while institutions were left scrambling to respond later. This pattern has repeated throughout how governance has been approached by this administration.
While Congress still holds its powers formally, its ability to act as a check on deliberation has diminished under pressures of speed and party loyalty. Decisions that would have once led to constitutional crises are now accepted with political resignation. Conflict has become routine-not as an exception but as a governing style.
This acceleration within institutions isn’t just about politics; it’s structural too. Jason Breckenridge, a researcher focused on how political movements impact marginalized groups, told The Fulcrum that what makes this second term unique is prioritizing rapid ideological change over maintaining institutional stability. “The administration has adopted a logic of premature implementation of radical change,” he noted, “without considering economic and social impacts-even on its own supporters.”
Breckenridge’s insights reveal dynamics often overlooked in standard political reporting-speed itself poses risks for democracy. When policy changes happen faster than institutions can adapt, communities most dependent on legal protections feel these effects immediately. “If Trump’s first term saw resistance from bureaucracies,” Breckenridge said, “this one shows an organization centered around loyalty and execution.”
This consolidation goes hand-in-hand with changes in narrative strategy. “This is no longer campaign populism,” Breckenridge pointed out. “It’s governance aimed at preserving power structures and controlling narratives-even if it sacrifices factual accuracy or historical integrity.”
The second major vulnerability-the closing off of civic space-is especially visible in immigration enforcement activities during this past year since Trump’s return. There’s been an increase in raids conducted by U. S Immigration and Customs Enforcement across major cities-targeting not only individuals with serious criminal backgrounds but also families, long-term workers, and people involved in pending administrative cases.
Arrests happening at workplaces, schools, and courthouses have re-entered public consciousness again. Local governments along with civil rights organizations report fear among immigrant communities preventing them from using public services or seeking medical care or cooperating with law enforcement agencies when needed. In this context , immigration policies serve not just as enforcement mechanisms but also act as tools for deterrence and symbolic control.
International human rights organizations have expressed concern regarding how this constriction extends beyond immigration issues alone. As we mark one year since Trump’s return , Amnesty International raised alarms about increasing authoritarian practices within America.
In their report titled Ringing the Alarm Bells: Rising Authoritarian Practices And Erosion Of Human Rights In The United States , Amnesty detailed how actions by this administration-like limiting civic space & undermining rule-of-law -are eroding human rights domestically & internationally. “We are witnessing a dangerous trajectory under President Trump that has already led to a human rights emergency,” stated Paul O’Brien , Executive Director Of Amnesty International USA during remarks shared with The Fulcrum. He warned journalists , protestors , lawyers , students & defenders now face increased risks due normalization eroded norms coupled together concentration accumulated powers
Despite defending such actions as necessary steps toward restoring authority enforcing laws absence comprehensive reform creates perception focusing visibility deterrent rather durable solutions primary objectives
Economic policies reflect narrowing priorities similarly Deregulation favors energy defense large corporations leaving behind housing labor protections social cohesion Inequality hasn’t disappeared entirely from public debate but pushed out central policy discourse
Internationally United States continues engagement albeit increasingly transactional terms Alliances conditional predictability weakened Contradictions between peace rhetoric force usage highlighted surrounding Nobel Peace Prize controversy Venezuela further strain credibility abroad
At same time Trump hints possible third term challenge another democratic norm While no formal moves taken rhetoric itself carries weight By questioning constitutional limits normalizes idea rules negotiable sufficient political backing
Isvari Maranwe political analyst lawyer specializing technology governance cybersecurity remarked many moves anticipated speed caught some off guard “Those who listened closely examined Project 2025 should not surprised direction,” she stated “What striking efficiency.”
Maranwe insight highlights different risk faced by democracy “This term accelerated institutional changes faster than public responses could keep pace” she added “Such efficiency altered global positioning intensified concerns freedom expression ICE enforcement welfare state escalating conflicts.”
Source link
Overall Trumps first year doesn’t indicate sudden collapse democracy instead signals something incremental more enduring normalization executive escalation steady erosion friction within institutions
For civic actors stakes clear resilience depends less formal rules whether institutions can reclaim capacity slow question constrain power Remaining pressure points include Congress courts local governments independent media civil society Continuing escalation hinges whether these actors succeed reclaiming space before speed solidifies permanence
This year hasn’t merely marked Trumps return It tested limits strain American democracy can handle
Alex Segura bilingual journalist covering multiple platforms based Southern California
Source link
