Cast your mind forward to a plausible scenario: It’s 2029. The incoming president’s a Democrat. Concerns that Donald Trump would run for a third term, in violation of the Constitution, proved unfounded, as did fears that the election would be postponed or cancelled altogether. Trump, visibly slowing down and enjoying immunity from future prosecution, granted not only by the Supreme Court in 2024 but also by a late-term self-pardon, showed little interest in retaining the presidency, and his would-be successor, winning the nomination with just a plurality of GOP voters, had little charisma.
The 2029 scenario continues: Although both sides accuse each other of electoral irregularities, the outcome’s held up in court and been certified by Congress, where the Democrats hold a slim House majority though they haven’t regained the Senate. A lingering recession, attributed largely to tariffs and outbreaks of infectious disease, is widely seen as the key reason for the Republican loss of the White House. Voters emphasized their pocketbooks, not abstract concerns about the Constitution or foreign policy, though experts warn the rule of law and U.S. alliances have both been damaged.
The kicker: Some liberal pundits welcome the 2028 Democratic victory as bringing a “restoration” of civil liberties that they argue eroded severely during the second Trump administration. However, weeks into the new administration, anonymous White House sources make clear they’ve no such priority. Rather, they’re planning a crackdown on “Russian oligarchs” and tech companies. “Trump’s people thought they were the only ones with the balls to use the Enemy Aliens Act and ignore court orders,” says one official, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive topics. “They’re going to find out how big our balls are.”
End scenario; back to our 2025 reality. If you’re a supporter of the Trump administration, and its sweeping assertions of executive power cheer you, you may be operating under one or more of the following assumptions: (1) That going forward, there’ll never be an administration you dislike and distrust, wielding similar powers, because (1a) democracy is over, or (1b) future elections will reflect an irreversible sea change whereby public opinion now aligns with your political preferences. Or (2) there may someday be some adverse administration, but it won’t have much effect, because its sources of power—the federal bureaucracy, left-wing NGOs, woke universities—have all been beaten and tamed on an effectively permanent basis. Or (3) you personally won’t live to see any of this, so who cares?
Take it from me, Ken Silber, that things change. I once held political views that I disavow on a frequent basis. I once assumed a political party I’d been a member of for decades stood for certain things, and against other things, that it didn’t over time. I once had little desire to visit the country my family had fled from in 1939, let alone become a citizen of it, as I have, a contingency that once was too far-fetched to think about. If you enjoy videos of members of Tren de Aragua (how do you know that’s who they are?) in shackles in El Salvador, consider that the president of that Central American country’s offered to incarcerate U.S. citizens there too, getting Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s thanks for his generosity.
I was wrong in putting any faith in Rubio, and overall I underestimated the danger that a second Trump administration would pose to checks and balances and American liberties. I expected more of a slow, insidious erosion than a headlong plunge toward autocracy. Conceivably, the speed and brazenness with which Trump and the people are building an authoritarian regime will raise public alarm and make effective opposition more likely. To date, the alarms are ringing, but few in power seem to be listening.
—Kenneth Silber is author of In DeWitt’s Footsteps: Seeing History on the Erie Canal. Follow him on Bluesky
