Harvard expert: Trump is fully prepared to launch a brute

Reporting by AlternetRead the original at alternet.org

Executive Summary

The assessment from Harvard expert Steven Levitsky suggests that President Trump is prepared to use brute force to attempt an anti-democratic action, such as stealing the 2026 midterms, leading to a potential collapse of American democracy. While legally Trump lacks the formal constitutional power to seize ballots or dictate election outcomes, he possesses "de facto" power demonstrated through previous actions like mass deportations and media actions. Levitsky argues that American democracy is already an "unconsolidated democracy," lacking the consistent commitment to democratic procedures found in other nations. The analysis explores the low probability of a successful coup, noting Trump's declining support compared to past figures, suggesting that while the risk exists, he may lack the capacity or desired support for such an effort. Furthermore, the text suggests alternative pathways for disruption exist, focusing on manipulating bureaucratic processes and legislative actions rather than direct physical force.

Facts Only

* President Trump has stated consideration of declaring a national emergency, implementing martial law, sending ICE or the military to the polls, and other means to hinder the election process.
* The U.S. Constitution grants the federal executive little power over election administration, leaving this authority to the states.
* The analysis distinguishes between legal power and "de facto" power.
* Trump has engaged in mass deportations, silencing media critics, levying tariffs, and destroying national monuments.
* Trump attempted a coup after losing the 2020 presidential election.
* Levitsky assesses that successful assaults on democracy are typically carried out by presidents with high levels of public support (70-85%).
* The text suggests military forces have larger capabilities than potential opposition forces, though achieving a coup requires aligning the military's behavior and managing repression.
* There is uncertainty regarding the speed of judicial response to actions like seizing ballots or declaring an emergency if ordered by Trump.
* Hypothetical methods for overturning election results include embedding election deniers in administration positions or persuading Congressional leadership to reject Democratic victories.

Full Take

The core implication of the discussion is that democratic stability relies less on formal constitutional barriers and more on the collective will and institutional cohesion of the political elite. The shift from a "consolidated democracy" to an "unconsolidated democracy" signals a profound erosion of procedural certainty, which makes the system vulnerable not just to external threats but to internal fracturing among those who define and enforce its rules. The pattern observed is that when public support for an actor declines, the calculus for powerful actors shifts toward less institutionally constrained, more authoritarian means—a shift that was partially enabled by the post-January 6th elite acquiescence. The analysis of why a coup might fail centers on the difficulty of achieving coordinated military action and managing domestic repression under conditions of low public fear or when systemic checks are in place. The most potent threat is not necessarily a successful military takeover but the successful normalization of an environment where democratic processes are treated as negotiable rather than fixed, which allows for incremental subversion through legalistic maneuvers or institutional capture.

From the original · Alternet

force coup President Donald Trump has made it very clear that, if it is within his power, he will steal the 2026 midterm elections rather than allow Democrats to win them. If he succeeds, America will cease to be a democracy — yet even if he fails, he has already made democracy in America into an "if" rather than a given.

Read the full story at alternet.org

Image: alternet.org · rights & removal