An All-Out Attack on Checks and Balances
The erosion of democratic institutions is undoubtedly the most troubling aspect of Trump’s second term. In the space of just twelve months, the U.S. president has signed no fewer than 225 executive orders—a staggering number that reflects a clear desire to govern by executive order rather than through the usual legislative process. This strategy, described by some observers as “shock and awe,” is clearly aimed at overwhelming constitutional checks and balances and paralyzing the ability of democratic institutions to respond. The ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, reports that it has had to file no fewer than 239 legal challenges and 139 lawsuits in an effort to contain this unprecedented assault on fundamental freedoms.
This systematic offensive against checks and balances manifests itself in many ways. Trump has not hesitated to threaten to revoke the broadcast licenses of critical television networks, to order investigations into media organizations that dare to challenge him, and even to publicly suggest imprisoning journalists who refuse to disclose their confidential sources. These threats, far from being mere bluster, have materialized into concrete actions. ABC’s temporary suspension of the show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”—under pressure from the FCC, which threatened to revoke its license—perfectly illustrates this authoritarian drift. Only a massive mobilization of more than 50,000 citizens and 500 artists managed to push back against this blatant attempt at censorship. The message is clear: freedom of the press, a fundamental pillar of American democracy, is now under direct threat.
What revolts me about this story is the appalling normalization of the intolerable. Trump and his allies have pulled off the remarkable feat of making us accept the unacceptable in the name of a distorted conception of “freedom of speech.” They claim to defend free speech while muzzling the free press—a paradox that would have made Orwell laugh if it weren’t so tragically real. It’s like an arsonist shouting “Fire!” while setting the fires himself. The gravity of the situation lies in this reversal of values: what was once considered a threat to democracy is now presented as a necessary measure to “protect” it. It is a reversal of language, a corruption of the meaning of words that inevitably paves the way for even more dangerous abuses. We are living through Orwell in real time, without even realizing it.
The Paralysis of Check-and-Balance Mechanisms
The institutions designed by the American Founding Fathers to serve as checks and balances on the executive branch are now severely weakened, if not paralyzed. Congress, traditionally the main legislative counterweight to the presidency, appears to have lost much of its capacity for action. This gradual erosion of legislative power, observed for several years, has reached a critical point during Trump’s second term, allowing him to act with near-total impunity. The mechanisms of constitutional checks and balances, meant to protect the nation against abuses of presidential power, have proven insufficient in the face of an administration that seems determined to circumvent or ignore democratic norms established over centuries.
The Supreme Court, the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, has not been spared from this assault on democratic institutions. Although some recent decisions have partially curbed certain excesses of the Trump administration, others have set dangerous precedents for fundamental rights. Attacks on the rights of transgender people, restrictions on freedom of speech, and attempts to undermine the right to vote have all received some degree of judicial validation, creating a legal environment conducive to the pursuit of policies that would have been deemed unconstitutional in the past. This institutional normalization of the exceptional is perhaps the most insidious threat to American democracy, as it suggests that the rules of the democratic game can be altered without significant consequences.
I am struck by how easily these assaults on institutions have become commonplace. There is something almost hypnotic about this repetition of acts that, just a few years ago, would have sparked massive waves of protest. Today, each new assault on democracy seems to provoke less outrage than the last, as if we were collectively numbing ourselves in the face of horror. This is what philosophers call the “banality of evil”—that terrifying ability to grow accustomed to the unacceptable, to normalize the abnormal. Trump has understood something fundamental about human nature: if you strike hard enough and often enough, people eventually give up—not out of resignation, but out of exhaustion. It is a strategy of attrition, a war of attrition against the democratic values we thought were secured forever.
Section 3: The Attack on Press Freedom
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_c7547909a034fa0c-optimized-madmax-mkmt90dc.jpg)
A Distorted View of Freedom of Speech
One of the most troubling aspects of the Trump administration is its toxic relationship with the media and its very particular conception of freedom of speech. Among his first official acts upon returning to the White House, Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” a misleading document that purports to defend freedom of expression while insidiously undermining it. The organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has strongly denounced this distorted view of freedom of speech, emphasizing that it is inherently harmful to press freedom. This executive order, with its vague wording, implicitly suggests that the U.S. federal government should no longer combat online disinformation.
The reality, however, is radically different from what this executive order claims. Trump, who remains one of the leading purveyors of false information on social media, has intensified his attacks on the media on multiple fronts. His tech allies, such as Mark Zuckerberg of Meta and Elon Musk of Twitter/X, have dismantled the few remaining safeguards designed to protect the integrity of online information. Zuckerberg eliminated fact-checking on Facebook, falsely claiming that it amounted to censorship, while Musk arbitrarily banned critical journalists from his platform. This systematic deregulation of social media is paradoxically accompanied by increased censorship of traditional media outlets that dare to criticize the administration, creating a paradoxical dichotomy where lies are free to circulate but the truth is under threat.
What astounds me about this story is the incredible hypocrisy underlying it. Trump presents himself as the champion of free speech while doing everything he can to muzzle the critical press. It’s like a thief proclaiming himself a defender of private property while stealing from those who have valuables. What revolts me even more is the complicity of these tech giants who, out of pure financial self-interest, have abandoned all ethical responsibility. Zuckerberg and Musk know full well that their decisions facilitate the spread of dangerous lies, but they don’t care because it’s profitable. This is a betrayal of the internet’s original mission, which was supposed to be a tool for democratizing information, not a propaganda machine. We are in the process of turning one of the most powerful tools of knowledge ever invented into a weapon of mass disinformation.
Intimidation of Journalists
The intimidation of journalists has become a systematic practice during Trump’s second term. The administration has stepped up threats and concrete actions aimed at silencing dissenting voices in the press. Trump has filed lawsuits against several media outlets, including the Des Moines Register and its parent company Gannett for publishing a poll unfavorable to his campaign, as well as the Pulitzer Center for awarding a prize to articles on the alleged ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia. Although he settled a lawsuit against Disney, the parent company of ABC News, out of court, these legal actions clearly serve as a deterrent, creating a climate of fear in American newsrooms.
Verbal threats against journalists are just as troubling. At a press conference the day after his inauguration, Trump harshly rebuked NBC reporter Peter Alexander for daring to ask questions about his mass pardons granted to participants in the January 6, 2021, riots, accusing him of being “biased” and “horrible.” This kind of violent rhetoric against the press is not trivial. Reporters Without Borders notes that attacks on journalists nearly doubled in 2024—at the height of Trump’s campaign—compared to 2023. This direct correlation between the president’s verbal attacks and physical violence against media professionals suggests a troubling causal link, implying that the president’s words have concrete and potentially tragic consequences on the ground.
There is something deeply unhealthy about this desire to silence those who seek the truth. Journalists are not enemies of the people; they are the guardians of democracy. Trump has pulled off the remarkable feat of demonizing a profession that is, in fact, essential to the proper functioning of any free society. What terrifies me is the normalization of this hostility. Today, a journalist can be insulted, threatened, or even physically assaulted, and it elicits only a vague indifference. It’s as if we’ve lost our sense of the gravity of the situation, as if we’ve forgotten that freedom of the press is not a luxury, but a vital necessity. Without a free press, without independent investigation, democracy is nothing but an empty shell, a facade behind which arbitrariness lurks.
Section 4: The Extreme Polarization of American Society
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_9570267f7ef950c4-optimized-madmax-mkmt93gs.jpg)
A Strategy of Systematic Division
The extreme polarization of American society is perhaps the most enduring and destructive legacy of the Trump era. Far from being a natural or spontaneous phenomenon, this division appears to be the result of a calculated strategy, methodically implemented to consolidate political power at the expense of national cohesion. Reed Brody, drawing on his expertise in analyzing authoritarian regimes around the world, clearly identifies this dynamic: Trump deliberately pits Americans against one another, transforming political disagreements into nearly irreconcilable identity-based conflicts. This strategy relies on the creation of two parallel realities—two conceptual worlds where objective facts are subordinated to political allegiances.
This societal fragmentation is evident at every level of American life. Families are tearing apart over political issues, long-standing friendships are breaking down, workplace relationships are becoming strained, and even religious communities find themselves divided. Polls indicate a dramatic decline in the level of trust among Americans, with a majority now stating that they do not trust people affiliated with the opposing political party. This erosion of social capital—the bonds of trust that allow societies to function harmoniously—may be the most serious threat to the future of American democracy. A deeply divided society becomes incapable of solving its problems collectively, leaving the field open to authoritarian leaders who promise to “restore order” through extra-democratic means.
What breaks my heart is seeing just how deeply this division has penetrated the most intimate spheres of life. I have friends in the United States who no longer speak to their own brothers and sisters because of politics. Couples are divorcing; children are cutting ties with their parents. It’s devastating. Trump has achieved something almost diabolical: he has transformed ordinary political disagreements into all-out identity wars. It’s no longer just a matter of politics; it’s become a matter of who you are—of your very identity. That’s much harder to overcome. When you believe that someone who votes differently from you isn’t simply disagreeing with you, but is fundamentally evil, there’s no longer any room for dialogue. It’s a moral prison that we’ve built for ourselves.
The Disastrous Consequences for Democratic Dialogue
The consequences of this extreme polarization on democratic dialogue are nothing short of catastrophic. Compromise—the very essence of politics in a democracy—has become a near-taboo word, perceived as a betrayal by the extremes on both sides. Legislatures, at both the federal and state levels, find themselves paralyzed by the inability of elected officials to work together, even on issues of vital common interest. The legislative process, which is supposed to reflect the diversity of opinions and find balanced solutions, has turned into an arena of relentless combat where the primary goal is not to serve the public good but to destroy the political opponent.
This institutional paralysis has direct and tangible repercussions on the lives of American citizens. Necessary reforms on crucial issues such as climate, health, education, and immigration remain stalled by the inability of political actors to find common ground. Economic and health crises are managed in a partisan manner rather than through an approach based on science and the public interest. Worse still, this polarization fuels a spiral of minority rule, where organized minorities can impose their views on the majority, further exacerbating frustrations and fueling a cycle of increasing radicalization. It is a vicious cycle that, if not broken, could lead to the complete implosion of the American political system.
I am terrified by this growing inability to simply talk to one another. We have lost the art of compromise—that precious ability to recognize that no one holds the absolute truth and that democracy requires mutual concessions. Today, everything has become binary: you are either for or against, good or bad, friend or foe. There is no longer any nuance, no gray area, no room for complexity. This is a worldview that is not only false but dangerous. The problems we face are complex and challenging. They require complex and nuanced solutions. How can we hope to solve them if we can’t even have a civilized conversation without insulting one another? We’re shooting ourselves in the collective foot.
Section 5: The Impact on Vulnerable Communities
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fcontrast_american_flag_dark_background-optimized-madmax-mkmt96jv.jpg)
Marginalized Populations as Targets
Vulnerable communities have borne the brunt of Trump’s policies. Racial minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals—and transgender people in particular—have been systematically targeted by an administration that appears to have made exclusion a matter of state policy. The ACLU has documented hundreds of cases in which the fundamental rights of these communities have been violated, often in a flagrant and systematic manner. Mass deportation policies, carried out with unprecedented brutality, have torn families apart and terrorized entire communities, creating a climate of fear reminiscent of the darkest moments in American history.
Attacks on the rights of transgender people have been particularly vicious and devastating. Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to cut off funding to healthcare providers who offer gender-affirming treatments to anyone under the age of 19. This measure, which directly undermines access to health care for an already vulnerable population, was challenged by the ACLU and temporarily blocked by the courts, but it perfectly illustrates the ideological determination of an administration willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of American citizens in the name of a conservative political agenda. These attacks are not isolated; they are part of a broader strategy to dehumanize certain communities, portraying them as threats to “normal” society in order to justify their systematic oppression.
What revolts me the most is this calculated cruelty toward the most vulnerable. There is something deeply inhumane about targeting people who already face so many obstacles in their daily lives. Transgender people, for example, are already struggling to be accepted, to find their place in a society that often rejects them. To see the government use all its power to marginalize them even further—to make them understand that they are not welcome in their own country—is simply heartbreaking. This isn’t just a matter of politics; it’s a matter of humanity. How can we claim to be a great nation if we treat our own citizens with such brutality?
The Militarization of the Response to Protests
The response to protests against Trump’s policies has been marked by a worrying and growing militarization. The administration has deployed federal troops and National Guard units in several U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., under the pretext of controlling the demonstrations. This use of military forces to respond to civil protests represents a dangerous departure from the American tradition of separating military and civilian law enforcement. The ACLU had to file a series of lawsuits and submit amicus curiae briefs to force transparency regarding these actions and limit their scope.
Thanks to a series of legal victories, including in the case of Illinois v. Trump, as well as sustained political opposition, Trump finally announced on New Year’s Eve that he was abandoning his efforts to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland. However, these episodes have left deep scars on the American collective consciousness. They have normalized the idea that the military could be used against American citizens expressing political dissent—a concept that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. This normalization of state violence against political dissent is perhaps one of the most alarming indicators of the Trump administration’s authoritarian drift.
When I see images of these military deployments on American streets, it gives me goosebumps. This is not what America is supposed to be. This is not what we want for our democracy. The military is supposed to protect citizens, not intimidate them. Seeing these soldiers in combat gear facing peaceful protesters is like a dystopian nightmare come true. What terrifies me is the gradual acceptance of this normalization. Today it’s Chicago and Portland—where will it be tomorrow? We’re sliding down a very slippery slope, and we don’t even know anymore when we lost our footing. Democracy isn’t a given once and for all. It must be defended every day, and we’re losing that battle.
Section 6: International Implications
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FRippled_USA_stars_and_stripes_American_flag-optimized-madmax-mkmt99mq.jpg)
The Erosion of American Influence
The deterioration of American democracy has profound and lasting consequences on the international stage. For decades, the United States has served as a model and defender of democracy around the world, using its influence to promote human rights and democratic values. This moral legitimacy is now seriously compromised by the domestic situation. How can the United States preach democracy abroad when it tramples on its principles at home? Dictators and authoritarian regimes around the world have seized this opportunity to discredit the American democratic model, presenting the United States’ problems as proof of democracy’s inherent failure.
This loss of moral leadership has concrete geopolitical implications. The United States’ traditional allies, who have long relied on America’s commitment to democracy to guide their own foreign policy, now find themselves disoriented and uncertain. Some are even beginning to seek out other models of governance—ones less focused on Western democratic values and more on authoritarian efficiency. Meanwhile, the United States’ geopolitical rivals—notably China and Russia—are strengthening their own influence by presenting themselves as stable and reliable alternatives to the “flawed” American democratic model. This gradual geopolitical realignment could have lasting consequences for the global balance of power, weakening the collective West in the face of authoritarianism.
What fills me with despair is this irreparable loss of moral prestige. For decades, America was that city on a hill, that beacon of freedom that inspired oppressed peoples around the world. Today, that beacon is flickering, and the message it sends is far darker. When dictators like Putin or Xi Jinping can get away with lecturing the United States on democracy, it means something truly serious has broken down. This is not just a matter of foreign policy; it is a matter of ideas, values, and the worldview we represent. We are losing what made America great: its ability to inspire, to give hope, to show that a better world is possible.
The Challenge to Traditional Alliances
The international alliances that have underpinned the world order since World War II are also being put to the test by Trump’s policies. The administration has adopted a transactional and hostile approach toward the United States’ traditional allies, calling into question decades of cooperation based on shared values. Tensions with France—illustrated by Trump’s threats to impose 200% tariffs if Emmanuel Macron refused to join his “Peace Council”—reflect this deterioration in relations with historic partners. These threats are not isolated; they are part of a broader strategy of rejecting multilateralism and international cooperation.
This undermining of alliances has significant economic and security implications. Carefully negotiated trade agreements are being torn up, historic military alliances are being called into question, and diplomatic coordination on global crises is becoming nearly impossible. The United States is gradually finding itself isolated, its international credibility eroded by the contradictions between its rhetoric and its actions. Worse still, this isolation weakens the international community’s ability to respond to global challenges, from climate change to pandemics to humanitarian crises. The world is becoming more dangerous, more unstable, and less capable of solving problems that require urgent international cooperation.
What terrifies me is this methodical destruction of the fabric of alliances that has maintained world peace for so long. Alliances are not merely bureaucratic agreements; they are expressions of trust, solidarity, and shared values. When Trump threatens France with 200% tariffs to force it to join an absurd project, it is not just aggressive diplomacy—it is a betrayal of the shared history between our nations. France was the United States’ first ally—the one that helped it win its independence. Today, it is treated as a potential enemy. This is unimaginable. In just a few years, we are destroying what has been built with such difficulty and wisdom over decades. The world that will emerge from this destruction will be a more dangerous place for everyone.
Section 7: Resistance and Future Prospects
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_0a3a0d4d4c95690c-optimized-madmax-mkmt9cpu.jpg)
Citizen Resistance Movements
In the face of this assault on democracy, resistance movements have organized across the United States. The ACLU, with its “Undo, Delay, Dilute” strategy, has shown that it is possible to effectively combat Trump’s policies. By mobilizing its lawyers, advocates, organizers, and supporters, the organization has succeeded in delaying unconstitutional policies before they take effect, diluting their scope when a complete block was not immediately possible, and undoing them through the courts, public pressure, and sustained organizing. Over the past year, the ACLU has educated more than 84,000 people about their rights and enrolled 180,000 individuals in its People Power activism program.
This citizen resistance takes many forms and expressions. Mass demonstrations have been organized in hundreds of cities, awareness campaigns have been launched to inform citizens of their constitutional rights, legal actions have been taken at all levels of the judicial system, and human rights coalitions have grown stronger. The suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” perfectly illustrates the power of this mobilization: in less than 24 hours, a coalition of more than 500 artists and 50,000 citizens succeeded in forcing the Trump administration to back down and restoring freedom of expression on American television. These victories, though partial and sometimes temporary, demonstrate that American civil society retains a significant capacity for resistance and action.
What gives me a glimmer of hope amid this bleak picture is the vitality of this resistance. Despite everything, people are standing up, organizing, and fighting back. They refuse to accept this normalization of the unacceptable. There is something deeply inspiring about seeing ordinary citizens turn their outrage into concrete action. This is the very essence of democracy: the ability of ordinary people to come together to defend what matters. Of course, it’s not easy. There are setbacks, moments of discouragement, and moments of doubt. But there are also those moments of grace when we see that resistance is not in vain. Like the mobilization that saved Jimmy Kimmel’s show. It’s a small victory, but it’s a victory nonetheless. And these small victories add up.
The Challenges Ahead for American Democracy
Despite these efforts at resistance, the challenges facing American democracy remain considerable. The coming months will be crucial, with court decisions that will affect civil rights and civic liberties and determine whether marginalized communities will be able to participate fully in public life for years to come. The year 2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a moment that reminds us of the centrality of liberty and equality in the founding of the American nation. This commemoration comes at a paradoxical time when these fundamental values are under greater threat than ever before.
The road ahead will be long and difficult. Restoring eroded democratic norms, rebuilding trust among citizens, protecting vulnerable communities, and reaffirming American moral leadership on the international stage will require sustained efforts over many years. As Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU—who has led the organization through eight presidential administrations—points out, progress is never permanent, and setbacks are never inevitable. However, the work of defending democracy must continue, for democracy does not defend itself: it is the people who defend it. The future of American democracy will depend on the ability of its citizens to remain engaged, informed, and organized in the face of threats to their fundamental freedoms.
I remain fundamentally optimistic despite everything, because I believe in the human spirit’s ability to resist oppression. History shows us that even in the darkest moments, there are always people who refuse to give up, who continue to believe in a better future. The United States is going through a terribly difficult period, but this isn’t the first time this has happened. The country has survived the Civil War, the Great Depression, Watergate, and terrorist attacks. Each time, it has managed to rise again, stronger and more resilient. What worries me is that this time, the damage seems deeper and more systemic. But I continue to believe that Americans will find the strength to come together, to overcome their divisions, and to reaffirm the values that have made their nation a great democracy. It won’t be easy, it won’t be quick, but it is possible.
Conclusion: The Urgency of Collective Action
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Famerican_flag_isolated_on_black_background_1_-optimized-madmax-mkmt9ft2.jpg)
A Critical Moment in American History
The United States is undeniably at a critical juncture in its history, a pivotal moment in which the future of its democracy is at stake. Reed Brody’s warning about the extreme danger of the current situation resonates with particular urgency on the eve of the 250th anniversary of American independence. The systematic division of society orchestrated by Trump, the methodical erosion of democratic institutions, the attacks on press freedom, extreme polarization, the marginalization of vulnerable communities, and the deterioration of international influence paint a disturbing picture that demands a vigorous collective response.
The situation, while serious, is not hopeless. The resistance movements that have emerged across the country, the legal victories achieved by organizations such as the ACLU, and the mobilization of millions of citizens determined to defend their fundamental rights demonstrate that American civil society retains a significant capacity to fight back. As the ACLU points out, we are in a constitutional crisis only if we allow ourselves to become one. Defending democracy requires constant vigilance, methodical organization, and an unwavering commitment to the values that have made the United States great. The challenges are immense, but the resources to meet them exist—provided that American citizens choose to use them with courage and determination.
What keeps me from falling into complete despair is this deep conviction that history is not predetermined. There are pivotal moments when the future of a nation, a people, or even the entire world, is decided in the span of a few years. We are in one of those moments. What happens in the United States in the coming years will determine not only the future of American democracy, but also the future of democracy itself. This is an enormous responsibility weighing on the shoulders of Americans, but also on those of all of us—observers and citizens of the world—who still believe in the possibility of a more just, freer, and more democratic world. The battle for American democracy is also our battle.
A Call to Action for All Democrats
In the face of this unprecedented threat, a call to action goes out to all those who believe in democracy, in the United States and elsewhere. Defending democratic values is not only the responsibility of Americans; it is a responsibility shared by all who recognize that democracy is a fragile system that must be constantly protected and strengthened. Whether by staying informed about the issues, participating in democratic processes, supporting civil rights organizations, or simply refusing to normalize the unacceptable, everyone has a role to play in this vital fight for the future of democracy.
The lessons of history are clear: democracy cannot be taken for granted; it must be actively defended against those who seek to erode or destroy it. The United States faces an existential challenge, but this is also an opportunity to reaffirm the values that have made the nation great and to show the world that democracy, though fragile, remains the best system for guaranteeing freedom and human dignity. The time has come to choose: either we accept this normalization of the unacceptable and allow democracy to erode inexorably, or we stand up collectively to defend the values that underpin our shared society. History will judge our generation by this choice.
I conclude this analysis with one certainty: we are living through a decisive historical moment. What is happening in the United States is not merely an American political crisis; it is a crisis of democracy itself. Trump has achieved something terrifying: he has shown how a democracy can be dismantled from within—not by a foreign invasion or a military coup, but through the gradual erosion of its norms and values. It is a terrifying but also powerful lesson, for it reveals the fragility of our hard-won gains. Yet this realization is also an opportunity. We now know what is at stake. We have seen the mechanisms of democratic erosion at work. This knowledge gives us the power to act. The battle for democracy is not lost—it has only just begun. And it is a battle we must win, for ourselves and for future generations.
Sources
Primary sources
France 24, “Trump pits Americans against Americans: We are living in a very dangerous moment in the US,” published January 20, 2026, accessed January 20, 2026. Reed Brody, former New York Assistant Attorney General and human rights lawyer, interviewed on the political situation in the United States during Trump’s second term.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF), “USA: Trump’s vision of ‘free speech’ comes at the expense of press freedom,” published on January 23, 2025, analyzing Trump’s policies toward the press and freedom of expression. Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF USA, is quoted in the article.
ACLU, “One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration,” published on January 20, 2026, by Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, detailing legal actions and citizen mobilization in response to Trump’s policies.
Secondary Sources
The Conversation, “Congress’ power has been diminishing for years, leaving Trump to act with impunity,” published in 2025, analyzing the gradual erosion of U.S. legislative power and its consequences for the balance of powers.
Ballotpedia, “Donald Trump’s executive orders and actions, 2025–2026,” documenting the 225 executive orders signed by Trump during the first year of his second term, illustrating his “shock and awe” strategy.
PBS NewsHour, “What the move to pull Kimmel off the air says about free speech under Trump,” analyzing the suspension of the show Jimmy Kimmel Live and the public outcry that followed, highlighting the tensions between the Trump administration and freedom of speech.
This content was created with the help of AI.
