Is America Sleepwalking Into Autocracy? From Bad Vibes To Full-On Dictator Mode: What’s Next?

Locking Up The Opposition

When does a failing democracy officially become an autocracy? People measure it and judge it in different ways. Historical examples, like Germany’s shift from Weimar Republic to Nazi rule (1933) or Venezuela’s slide under Chávez and Maduro, show this can happen gradually or rapidly. Scholars like Levitsky and Ziblatt (in How Democracies Die) point to “democratic backsliding” metrics, such as when leaders reject democratic norms, deny opposition legitimacy, tolerate violence, or curb civil liberties. Most people who study this kind of thing agree that no single event flips the switch— it’s a process where democratic norms are eroded until autocratic control is undeniable— when power consolidates in a single leader or small group, and democratic institutions— elections, judiciary, press and civil liberties— are systematically dismantled or rendered ineffective. 

There’s no universal moment, but key indicators include elections being manipulated, opposition suppressed, results are ignored; courts and legal systems becoming tools of the regime, not checks on power; media is controlled and dissent is silenced through censorship or violence; the leader and his allies bypass legislative/constitutional constraints, often via emergency decrees or rewritten laws; and independent organizations, protests and political opposition are banned. And the citizens not really caring all that much one way or another— some backing the shift, some opposing it, perhaps most not paying much attention or being concerned.

To one extent or another, this kind of backsliding describes much of what is happening in the U.S. under Trump. His first term eroded trust in elections, polarized politics and tested institutional norms, with measurable declines in democracy indices. The second term already shows greatly accelerated risks— executive overreach, pressure on the judiciary and threats to civil liberties. Right now, the U.S. is a weakened democracy, not a full-on autocracy, though continued erosion will narrow this gap without concerted resistance.

Personally, though, after Trump’s numbers in almost all the swing counties somehow managed to give him victories in all half dozen swing states that Biden had won— Pennsylvania (Bucks, Erie and Northampton with Philadelphia swinging 4.9 points towards Trump), Michigan (Saginaw and Ottawa with Wayne County swinging 9.1 points towards Trump), Georgia (Baldwin and Houston with Fulton County swinging towards Trump by 1.5 points), Arizona (Pinal and Yuma with Maricopa County sliding around 10 points in Trump’s direction), Nevada (Washoe and Nye with Clark County swinging 7.1 points) and Wisconsin (Sauk, Ozaukee, with Milwaukee County swinging 1.3 points)— I started wondering when Trump would start arresting Members of Congress. I mean historically, arresting elected members of the opposition seems like a real Rubicon kind of event, right?

Let’s see… where have we seen that before? History offers plenty of cautionary tales (or, for Trump, models). During the collapse of the Weimar Republic, Nazi paramilitaries and sympathetic judicial authorities harassed and arrested members of left-wing parties, especially Communists and Social Democrats, paving the way for Hitler’s dictatorship. In Mussolini’s Italy, the Fascists bullied, attacked, and eventually arrested or exiled elected socialist and liberal legislators, eliminating any meaningful parliamentary opposition. Across these cases, the weaponization of law enforcement against lawmakers wasn’t just about silencing individuals— it was about eroding the legitimacy of legislative power itself and replacing it with autocratic rule. More recently, in Russia, the Kremlin has consistently jailed or disqualified opposition lawmakers, most recently targeting municipal and regional politicians who voiced dissent against the war in Ukraine or supported pro-democracy movements. In the early 1990s, Boris Yeltsin ordered the military to dissolve the parliament and arrest lawmakers during a constitutional crisis, consolidating power and setting a precedent for future authoritarian governance.

Similarly, in Turkey, Erdoğan's government has used anti-terror laws to imprison members of the pro-Kurdish HDP party, stripping them of parliamentary immunity in an effort to silence a significant bloc of the opposition. Once hailed as a success story of the Arab Spring, Tunisia's democratic progress unraveled when President Kais Saied suspended parliament and arrested opposition figures, including the speaker of parliament, Rached Ghannouchi. In Myanmar, the 2021 military coup saw the mass arrest of members of the ruling National League for Democracy, including Aung San Suu Kyi and dozens of parliamentarians, as the junta nullified an electoral outcome they did not like. In These arrests are rarely isolated incidents— they're part of broader campaigns to dismantle democratic institutions, criminalize dissent, and render opposition voices illegitimate in the eyes of the state. Isn’t that something we’ve been seeing here in our own country?

Yesterday, Perry Stein and Jeremy Roebuck reported that the Trump Justice Dept. is considering removing a check on lawmaker prosecutions. “Federal prosecutors [many of whom are Trump-appointed MAGA extremists and deranged fascists] across the country may soon be able to indict members of Congress without approval from lawyers in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section [PIN]… Under the proposal, investigators and prosecutors would also not be required to consult with the section’s attorneys during key steps of probes into public officials, altering a long-standing provision in the Justice Department’s manual that outlines how investigations of elected officials should be conducted. If adopted, the changes would remove a layer of review intended to ensure that cases against public officials are legally sound and not politically motivated.”

Federal law enforcement officials arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) at an immigration facility this month, and prosecutors charged him with trespassing. Trump administration officials have warned that three members of Congress from New Jersey— all Democrats— who were at the facility with Baraka could be charged as well.

… [C]utting the Public Integrity Section out of the approval process for lawmaker prosecutions entirely could give presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys more authority in shaping public corruption cases, making prosecutions more political, said Dan Schwager, a former Public Integrity Section attorney who now works in private practice.

“The reason you have the section is exactly what this administration says they want, which is stop politicization,” Schwager said. “That requires a respect and ability to understand how the laws have been applied in similar situations in the past. The only way to ensure that public officials on both sides of the aisle are treated similarly is to have as much institutional knowledge and experience as possible.”

… The Justice Department has proposed permanently shrinking the Public Integrity Section, giving U.S. attorney’s offices more authority in overseeing lawmaker prosecutions.

The 93 U.S. attorneys offices across the country handle many public corruption investigations and prosecutions in their jurisdictions. But, according to the Justice Department manual, which is posted online, the PIN section must still be consulted on key steps in those investigations.

… The Justice Department manual says that PIN attorneys must approve— not just be consulted on— charges against members of Congress when the allegations are related to their public office or campaign activities. Still, the attorney general has final say on whether an indictment should be brought.

That isn’t very reassuring at this point, considering that Pam Bondi is a useless partisan hack with a revolting career to prove it. Bondi— a walking conflict of interest and a career political fixer with no allegiance to the law beyond its usefulness as a weapon— was Florida’s Attorney General, when she infamously quashed an investigation into Trump University after receiving a $25,000 bribe disguised as a “donation” from Trump’s now-defunct and fraud-riddled foundation. Her record reads like a blueprint for institutional decay: cronyism, dereliction of duty, pay-to-play schemes, shameless sycophancy to power and a talent for transforming public office into personal opportunity. She is not merely unqualified, she’s the embodiment of corruption in a Gucci belt. And now this piece of garbage holds the reins of federal prosecutorial power? If this plan succeeds, MAGA loyalists in U.S. Attorney’s offices across the country will be free to unleash indictments against lawmakers without oversight, opening the floodgates for retaliatory prosecutions and gutting one of the last remaining checks on authoritarian abuse. This isn’t reform; it’s a step towards Trump’s retribution plan. And Bondi, with her record of selling out the public trust for political gain, is the perfect foot soldier for a movement that sees law not as a safeguard of democracy but as a cudgel against it.

One of those three Members of Congress who Trump and Bondi are threatening to arrest is an old friend of DWT, Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), who we first met when she was Majority Leader of the New Jersey Assembly. In 2014 she was elected to Congress, the first African-American woman to represent a New Jersey congressional district in the House. She turned 80 in February, underwent serious back surgery less than a year ago and is anything but a threat to Kristi Noem’s violent Department of Homeland Security bullies.

“Fox,” wrote Chad Pergram on Friday, “is told that arrests could be in the offing for Reps. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), Robert Menendez Jr.(D-NJ), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ)… Democrats argue they did nothing wrong. They had a right, under the law, to request an inspection of the facility. That comports with their oversight responsibilities. But House Speaker Mike Johnson assessed videotape of Democrats tangling with federal agents. He determined that wasn’t oversight. ‘It looked like a battery to me,’ said Johnson. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries saw it differently. ‘There is zero basis to hold any Member of Congress accountable,’ said Jeffries. ‘No videos have been produced suggesting that they've engaged in any inappropriate activity. And if those videos existed, certainly they would have been put into the public domain by now. Those videos haven't been released because they don't exist.’”

Buddy Carter (R-GA) introduced a resolution to strip McIver, Menendez and Watson Coleman of their committee assignments.

…An arrest of these lawmakers would spark a firestorm on Capitol Hill. Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution generally shields lawmakers from charges— so long they as they are conducting official Congressional business. A lawmaker isn’t off the hook if they shoot someone. But the Founders were mindful of how politically-motivated arrests could undercut the work of Congress. So, they crafted what’s known as the “Speech or Debate” clause to inoculate lawmakers when conducting business.

 “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place,” reads the provision.

 “I don't think that's Speech and Debate clause,” said Johnson about the rhubarb in Newark. “We have to set a standard here. You cannot have Members of Congress pushing law enforcement officials around and that's exactly what everybody saw on the videotape.”

 Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wondered how a prosecution might short-circuit Congressional prerogatives and privileges.

 “I think its a sign of weakness to instill fear,” said Pelosi. “It does definitely step on the Speech or Debate Clause.”

 One Democrat involved in the Newark skirmish said prosecution wouldn’t surprise her.

 “The rule of law means nothing to them,” said Watson Coleman. “I think the majority of this country will see that this is not American. This is not upholding the Constitution.”

 House Republicans would like to censure the triumvirate of New Jersey Democrats who were at Delaney Hall. Censure is one of the official modes of discipline in the House, just short of expulsion. That requires a vote on the House floor. The House voted to censure Rep. Al Green, D-Tex., after he hectored President Trump during his speech to a Joint Session of Congress in March.

 Like all things, it’s about the math. And Fox is told the House likely lacks the votes to discipline the Members or oust them from committees.