Trump's push to consolidate power draws comparisons to authoritarians, but U.S. checks remain in place

President Donald Trump's push to reshape the federal government after returning to office has drawn comparisons to elected strongmen in Venezuela, Hungary and Turkey, who used formal power to suppress rivals and control media. Yet most analysts say the United States remains far from those cases, with a judiciary that can check power and a system of government spread across 50 states that makes unified control difficult.

In recent days, several actions have intensified the debate. In a social media post, Trump complained to Attorney General Pam Bondi about a perceived lack of prosecutions of his foes, writing: "JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!" Days later, the Department of Justice announced a felony indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, a figure Trump has blamed for the Russia inquiry that dogged his first term. Separately, federal authorities launched a crackdown on groups he says fund political violence, outlining targets that included entities backing Democratic candidates and liberal causes.

David Smilde, a Venezuela analyst and professor at Tulane University, said the United States is moving faster than comparable cases abroad. "The only difference is the speed with which it is happening," he said, noting that the United States still benefits from institutional checks that do not exist in many other countries. He stressed that the U.S. remains far from Venezuela or other authoritarian governments because it has robust courts, a resilient civil service and a federal system that diffuses power across states.

Other observers point to heads of state in Europe and the Middle East as a frame for comparison. Alper Coskun, who worked in Turkey’s government and now teaches at the Carnegie Foundation, said Trump is "emulating Erdogan much faster than I expected" but cautioned that Erdogan had decades to consolidate power and faced a different political ecology. Coskun added that Trump’s approach has been more brazen in breaking democratic norms, though Erdogan's own trajectory has involved longer institutional pressure and harsher prosecutions of opponents.

Kim Scheppele, a Princeton sociologist who studied constitutional design, highlighted Viktor Orbán as a model cited by some American conservatives. She noted Orbán’s rapid legal reforms after returning to power in 2010 and, crucially, his use of a first year to push through changes that set up long-term consolidation. Scheppele described Orbán’s early years as a cautionary example of how a leaders with popular backing can embed power through constitutional and legal adjustments, rather than through overt autocratic edicts alone.

Still, Smilde warned that while the U.S. bears similarities in rhetoric and rhetoric’s consequences, its institutions have proven more capable at containing excesses. He cited 2020 and 2021, when courts, administration staff and elected officials at state and federal levels blocked efforts to overturn a presidential election and to derail a transition of power. "But now, here we are with a more pointed attack," Smilde said, underscoring concern that the current dynamics are altering the standard operating environment for U.S. democracy.

Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of How Democracies Die, said foreign journalists frequently ask how the United States can permit such actions. He warned that the United States is not historically prepared for authoritarianism, a view echoed by other scholars who describe the resilience of U.S. institutions even as the pace of disruption accelerates. "If you talk to Brazilians, South Koreans, Germans, they have better antennae for authoritarians," Levitsky said. "This is not a society that is prepared for authoritarianism."

Observers also cited domestic steps that have fueled concerns about the consolidation of authority. Henri Barkey, a Turkish expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Trump is following Erdogan's playbook in prosecuting enemies, but he cautioned that the United States has not yet seen the same use of the Justice Department to neutralize opponents running for office. "We have to see if Trump is going to go to that next step," Barkey said.

Meanwhile, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s example continues to circulate on the right as a reference point for lawmakers advocating rapid reform. Kim Scheppele noted that Orbán’s 2010 return to power involved a swift, calculated sequence of legal changes designed to secure long-term authority, a pattern that some fear mirrors potential U.S. trajectories if current practices persist.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez faced early resistance and a failed coup before moving to consolidate power through media control and security-state measures; the country’s media environment and political landscape shifted substantially under his successors. In the United States, however, scholars emphasize the role of a independent judiciary, a plural media landscape, and political power distributed across states as critical brakes on consolidation.

Trump’s second term has also included actions widely viewed as punitive, including pardons for more than 1,500 people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, a step many analysts describe as an effort to reward supporters and punish opponents. The White House has framed such moves as part of accountability and restoring integrity to the justice system, while critics argue they represent politicization of executive power.

The public record at this stage shows a mix of threats, public pledges, and targeted actions rather than a single, clearly defined path to authoritarian rule. The administration has signaled a willingness to use federal resources to counter perceived threats and to reorient legal and law-enforcement priorities in ways that align with political aims. Yet the system’s checks—courts that review actions, a federal structure that distributes authority across agencies and jurisdictions, and a strong civil society—remain active and, at times, oppositional.

As the country debates the balance between accountability and extraordinary executive authority, experts say it is essential to monitor both the rhetoric and the actions, and to assess whether the balance of power continues to function as designed. The overarching question for observers remains whether the current trend constitutes a temporary, policy-driven recalibration within a functioning democracy, or a more persistent shift toward centralized authority that could erode traditional safeguards over time.