There is no denying the seriousness of the threat posed by Trump.
He is trying to implement the classic autocrat’s playbook
by chipping away at the restraints on executive authority.
He has made dangerous inroads,
but in most cases,
the opposition has been significant.
A struggle is under way, and the prospects for his success are dimming.
The Republican-led Congress has been most disappointing.
It has largely swallowed Trump’s excesses because its Republican members fear him mounting a primary challenge against anyone who resists him.
Bowing to his will, they enacted his “big beautiful bill” to cut taxes for the rich and healthcare for the working class.
They discovered their backbones only recently to oppose funding for his ballroom,
a slush fund for his cronies, and his proposal for voter suppression.
The courts have a better, if mixed, record.
More than 300 lawsuits have contested Trump administration actions,
many of them at least temporarily successful.
The supreme court has handed Trump victories on campaign finance, immigrant deportation, racial gerrymandering and executive power over most independent agencies.
It has also largely placed the president above the rule of law.
But even the court with its presumptive 6-3
pro-Trump majority blocked his efforts to impose tariffs,
limit mail-in voting,
remove a member of the Federal Reserve board,
and restrictbirthright citizenship.
Outside government,
the media remains strong, despite Trump’s efforts through libel suits and regulatory oversight to restrain it.
For example, his pressure on the corporate owners of CBS News, who needed government permission for a merger, was followed by the appointment of a controversial editor-in-chief who seems to have inserted herself in ways that are friendly to the administration.
She has now overseen the exodus of a major part of the storied 60 Minutes staff.
Worryingly, the same owner is now taking over CNN.
The billionaire Jeff Bezos was once viewed as a savior of the Washington Post.
He easily could have afforded to run it even at a loss as a quasi-charitable public service.
But seemingly worried about antagonizing the Trump administration to the detriment of his major business interests,
he fired much of the Post’s international staff and lost columnists and its political cartoonist to perceived editorial interference.
Yet significant independent voices remain,
showing the importance of ownership by people whose financial interests are not as vulnerable to Trump’s meddling
(the Sulzbergers for the New York Times)
or by not-for-profits with no external business interests (the Guardian).
Social media platforms, even Elon Musk’s X,
remain venues for endless exposés and criticism of Trump’s excesses.
So do proliferating podcasts.
Universities, a vital source of expertise for monitoring and challenging government action, have largely weathered the storm.
Trump has tried to rein them in, especially by withholding government grants for science and medical research.
That has created financial hardship and hurt American innovation,
but only a handful of universities cut deals with the administration,
most disturbingly Columbia.
Harvard sued the administration,
and no university joined a Trump-proposed compact that would have given them preferential access to government funding in return for permitting greater government intrusion on university independence and academic freedom.
Several major law firms struck deals after Trump threatened to bar them from dealing with government agencies.
Yet they were pilloried for agreeing to provide millions of dollars worth of pro bono services for causes of Trump’s choosing.
Other law firms fought back successfully – and brought some of the lawsuits against the administration.
They have reportedly benefited from clients who prefer lawyers who stand up, rather than capitulate, to the administration.
Civil society remains threatened but largely untouched.
Groups such as the ACLU have taken the lead in many lawsuits.
Others such as Human Rights Watch are strong critics of Trump’s foreign policy.
Trump brought concocted criminal charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, and organizations that depend on government funding are self-censoring,
but the cacophony of voices from all political views remains impressive.
