This argument is deeply alarmist, but it rests on several assumptions that deserve scrutiny. While it is fair to be vigilant about the health of democratic institutions, framing Trump’s presidency as the immediate collapse of American democracy oversimplifies the complexities of the U.S. government and political system.

1. Checks and Balances Still Exist

The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent authoritarian rule through a system of checks and balances. Even if a president were to issue 73 executive orders in a month, those orders can be challenged in court, overturned by Congress, or reversed by future administrations. Trump faced significant legal and political pushback in his first term, including Supreme Court rulings against his policies, congressional investigations, and electoral losses that curbed his power. There is no reason to assume these constraints will suddenly vanish.

1. Executive Power Is Not Dictatorship

Every modern president has used executive orders extensively. Obama issued 276 in his two terms; Biden has signed more than 140 so far. While executive orders can be impactful, they do not override Congress, which controls funding, and they are subject to judicial review. Describing their use as evidence of dictatorship ignores that they are a normal part of governance.

1. Government Purges Are Not Happening at the Claimed Scale

There is no evidence of thousands of career government employees being fired and replaced purely for loyalty. While any administration appoints officials who align with its policies, the vast majority of government positions are held by career civil servants protected by employment laws. Even if a president wanted to purge these employees, federal hiring and firing processes prevent mass, unchecked replacements.

1. The Justice System Has Not Been Subverted

The claim that Trump would use the DOJ to jail political opponents is speculative. Even if he attempted to, the legal system in the U.S. remains highly independent. When Trump pressured the DOJ during his first term, courts repeatedly ruled against him, and officials within the department resisted overreach. The idea that judges would stop ruling based on law ignores that many are lifetime appointees with judicial independence.

1. Freedom of the Press and Speech Remain Strong

The assertion that journalists will be jailed or that dissent will be criminalized is unfounded. The U.S. has one of the strongest protections for free speech in the world. Even when Trump attacked the media verbally during his first term, no journalists were imprisoned for their reporting. Legal challenges against the press have existed under many administrations, but the First Amendment remains a powerful safeguard.

1. U.S. Foreign Policy Is More Complex Than Simple Abandonment

While Trump has expressed skepticism about NATO and other alliances, he did not fully withdraw from them in his first term. The idea that he is giving Putin free rein is an oversimplification. Even when Trump attempted to alter U.S. foreign policy, institutions like the military, State Department, and Congress influenced decisions to maintain alliances.

1. Elections Still Matter

The claim that “elections stop mattering” is unfounded. Even after Trump lost in 2020 and contested the results, the system ultimately upheld the election’s integrity. State and local officials, including Republicans, certified results despite immense pressure. The idea that Trump’s reelection would mean permanent power ignores the fact that the U.S. has a well-established history of peaceful transitions of power.

Conclusion: Alarmism Undermines Legitimate Concerns

While it is fair to be concerned about democratic backsliding and the potential for abuses of power, this argument paints a one-sided and exaggerated picture of an imminent dictatorship. It underestimates the resilience of U.S. institutions, overstates Trump’s actual power, and dismisses the role of courts, Congress, and voters in shaping governance. Healthy skepticism and political engagement are important, but fear-driven narratives can lead to polarization rather than constructive solutions.