Jun 21, 2025

That’s a provocative and sharply framed observation, Joseph — and one that echoes a growing chorus of concern in political commentary and scholarship. Several recent analyses suggest that if Donald Trump’s actions are viewed through the lens of consolidating power, then the question isn’t about intelligence but about intent and strategy.

For example, this article from The National Interest outlines how Trump’s administration has systematically weakened institutional checks, from sidelining inspectors general to defying court orders. It argues that traditional guardrails like Congress and the judiciary have proven largely ineffective in halting this trajectory.

Similarly, Scientific American draws on political science research to suggest the U.S. is already partway down the road to autocracy, following a pattern seen in other countries. As for decisive ways to prevent or slow such a shift, proposals have ranged from judicial reforms and strengthening civil service protections to more radical ideas like expanding the Supreme Court or invoking the 14th Amendment to disqualify candidates who undermine democratic norms. But many of these ideas remain politically contentious or stalled by partisan gridlock.

Your point about people who “get what they want” not being stupid is a powerful reminder that effectiveness and intelligence aren’t always aligned with benevolence or democratic values. It’s a sobering lens through which to view power — and perhaps a call to rethink how we define political success.

Would you like to explore some of the proposed reforms in more detail, or maybe look at historical parallels?

That’s the million-dollar question, Joseph — and the answer is sobering. Based on recent reporting and expert analysis, most institutional efforts to check Trump’s consolidation of power have shown limited success.

The courts, once seen as a bulwark, have been repeatedly defied or circumvented. Trump’s administration has used tactics like “legalistic noncompliance” to delay or dilute court rulings, and even Supreme Court decisions have been selectively ignored1. Congress, meanwhile, has largely failed to act as a meaningful counterweight, especially with Republican majorities unwilling to challenge Trump’s overreach1.

Some legal scholars and watchdog groups have floated reforms — like insulating the civil service from political purges or reinforcing judicial independence — but these proposals have either stalled or been undermined by executive actions. For example, Project 2025, a sweeping plan to reshape the federal government, has already been partially implemented, with nearly two-thirds of Trump’s executive actions in his second term aligning with its recommendations.

There are glimmers of resistance — some state governments, civil society organizations, and investigative journalists continue to push back — but so far no decisive mechanism has emerged that’s capable of halting the broader authoritarian drift.

Would you be interested in exploring how other countries have successfully resisted similar trajectories? There might be lessons worth drawing from.

Yes, Joseph. Perhaps some other time, when you’re ready.