They Warned Us About Autocracy — They Just Didn’t Think It Would Happen This Fast
And Why Democracies Fall Faster the Second Time
By Janet Kira Lessin
January 2026
For nearly a decade, political scientists, former officials, historians, and even members of Donald Trump’s own party warned that his return to power could place American democracy at risk. They spoke of eroding norms, bending institutions, and a presidency increasingly untethered from law.
What they misjudged was not whether it would happen, but how quickly.
Barely one year into Donald Trump’s second term, the United States is no longer debating theoretical threats to democracy. It is confronting the operational reality of authoritarian governance — implemented not through a single dramatic coup, but through speed, saturation, and compliance.
This is not a story about personality.
It is a story about velocity.
The Velocity Problem
In hindsight, the warning signs were unmistakable. Trump campaigned openly on retribution, emergency powers, and “taking back” the country from internal enemies. He expressed contempt for courts, legislatures, and constitutional limits without disguise.
What few anticipated was the speed with which those ideas would be converted into state power.
From the moment he took office, Trump issued cascading executive orders declaring overlapping “emergencies,” granting himself unilateral authority to waive laws, redirect congressionally appropriated funds, and suspend regulatory oversight. These were not symbolic gestures. They were procedural shortcuts designed to consolidate power faster than the opposition could organize or adapt.
As Steven Levitsky, co-author of How Democracies Die, later acknowledged, the pace itself became a strategic weapon. Democratic systems are built to deliberate; authoritarian systems exploit deliberation as a delay tactic.
When Law Enforcement Becomes a Paramilitary Instrument
Perhaps the most jarring transformation has been the repurposing of federal agencies — particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement — from civil enforcement bodies into armed, masked units operating with near-total impunity.
What was once framed as immigration enforcement now bears the hallmarks of a paramilitary force: military-grade equipment, unmarked deployments, opaque chains of command, and operations answerable only to executive authority. The killing of a 37-year-old American citizen following a confrontation with immigration agents is not an anomaly. It is the predictable outcome of policy choices that removed accountability in the name of efficiency and control.
Levitsky later admitted that even he did not anticipate how quickly lethal force would be normalized against civilians. Democracies rarely collapse when tanks roll down avenues. They erode when violence is reframed as an administrative routine.
The Guardrails Were Removed, Not Broken
During Trump’s first term, the system bent but did not snap. Senior military officers refused illegal orders. Cabinet officials stalled, softened, or ignored directives they believed crossed legal lines. Institutional resistance — uneven and imperfect — nonetheless existed.
That resistance is now largely absent.
In its place stands a vertically integrated loyalist apparatus: officials selected not for independence or expertise, but for personal allegiance. With a defense secretary unwilling to articulate boundaries and a Justice Department transformed into a political instrument, executive power has been consolidated rather than constrained.
As Robert Kagan warned in his once-dismissed 2023 essay, the danger was never chaos. It was coordination.
Kagan did not predict disorder. He predicted competence applied to authoritarian ends — selective prosecutions, emergency rationales, intimidation of elected officials, and the quiet hollowing of electoral safeguards. His forecast is now unfolding with disturbing precision.
The Silence That Accelerates Power
One of the most revealing aspects of this moment is not repression, but preemptive submission.
Universities, major law firms, media conglomerates, and corporate leaders — institutions that once presented themselves as democratic bulwarks — have rushed to demonstrate compliance. Donations, pledges of cooperation, and conspicuous silence in the face of coercion have sent an unmistakable signal downward: resistance is costly; accommodation is safer.
When elite institutions kneel early, fear spreads faster than force ever could.
As Levitsky observed, if institutions with immense legal and financial resources cannot withstand pressure, what expectation remains for ordinary citizens?
Why Democracies Collapse Faster the Second Time
To understand the speed of this moment, one must grasp a deeper historical pattern:
Democracies rarely fall all at once — but when they fall a second time, they fall much faster.
1. The Precedent Problem
Every violation of democratic norms in a first term becomes a precedent in the second. What was once shocking becomes debatable. What was once debated becomes normalized.
Trump’s first presidency trained the public to absorb rule-breaking as spectacle. His second relies on that conditioning.
2. Institutional Memory Works Against Democracy
Bureaucracies remember where resistance failed. Officials who defied illegal orders in the past were sidelined, fired, or punished. Their successors learned the lesson.
Authoritarian acceleration depends less on new rules than on institutional fear memory.
3. Legalism Replaces Law
Second-term autocracies rarely abolish constitutions outright. They reinterpret them beyond recognition, cloaking domination in technical legality. Emergency declarations, “law enforcement actions,” and “national security” rationales provide procedural cover for acts that would once have been unthinkable.
Illegality becomes invisible when wrapped in paperwork.
4. The Public’s Alarm Fatigue
Warnings issued too early are dismissed as hysteria. Warnings repeated too often lose force. By the time danger becomes undeniable, people are psychologically exhausted.
This is not apathy. It is a defense mechanism.
5. Elections Become the Final Illusion
The last stage is the most dangerous: elections still occur, but under intimidation, selective enforcement, and administrative manipulation. Outcomes are framed as legitimate regardless of the conditions under which they were produced.
As Levitsky has warned, ambiguity is fatal. Close or contested results provide the pretext for override.
The Myth of the Self-Correcting Republic
Many Americans continue to place faith in an abstract idea of “checks and balances,” as though the system itself possesses an immune response independent of the people who operate it.
That belief is increasingly untenable.
Courts issue rulings that are ignored. Congressional oversight exists on paper, but collapses when enforcement depends on the executive being restrained. Norms do not enforce themselves. Laws do not defend their own meaning.
Democracy survives only when enough people decide that defending it is worth discomfort, risk, and sustained attention.
The Most Dangerous Sentence in America
Perhaps the most revealing response to this moment comes from those who still insist nothing fundamental has changed:
“It’s never happened, and it’s not going to happen.”
History shows that this sentence appears just before it happens.
Authoritarianism rarely arrives as an announcement. It presents itself as temporary, necessary, protective — and always reluctant. It advances not when people are terrified, but when they convince themselves that the alarm is exaggerated.
What This Moment Requires
The coming elections are not simply contests of ideology. They are tests of whether democratic participation can still function under intimidation and administrative distortion.
Ambiguous outcomes will not protect democracy. Only unmistakable civic engagement can.
As Kagan has observed, waiting for political elites to intervene is a fantasy. When authoritarianism advances through legal channels, it is rarely undone by those who benefit from its stability.
It is resisted — if at all — by citizens who recognize the moment they are in before the window fully closes.
The Record We Are Making
This is not an article about panic. It is a record.
Future historians will not ask whether Americans were warned. They will ask when those warnings were ignored, normalized, or deferred in the hope that someone else would act first.
They warned us.
They just didn’t think it would happen this fast.
And now the question is no longer whether the warning was accurate, but whether enough people still recognize it in time.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome”: Gaslighting as a Tool of Submission
One of the most effective weapons deployed in the normalization of authoritarian power has not been law enforcement, emergency declarations, or even violence. It has been a language.
The phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” functions as a psychological restraint rather than an argument. It reframes legitimate concern about authoritarian behavior as emotional instability, delegitimizing dissent without engaging with its substance.
This is classic gaslighting.
Rather than responding to evidence—extrajudicial killings, defiance of court orders, politicized prosecutions, or the deployment of armed federal agents against civilians—critics are told the problem lies not in what they are seeing, but in their perception of it. The implication is clear: If you are alarmed, you are irrational.
Gaslighting works not by proving critics wrong, but by exhausting them into silence.
In authoritarian systems, this tactic serves several purposes at once:
- It pathologizes resistance, turning civic concern into personal weakness.
- It isolates dissenters, making individuals feel alone or extreme for noticing what others quietly see.
- It trains bystanders to disengage, lest they too be labeled unstable or hysterical.
Most importantly, it shifts the burden of proof. Instead of defenders of power having to justify unprecedented actions, critics are forced to justify their sanity.
This rhetorical maneuver is not new. It appears in every authoritarian transition: concern is dismissed as paranoia; warnings are labeled hysteria; insistence on evidence is mocked as obsession. By the time events can no longer be denied, the language has already trained people to doubt their own judgment.
The accusation of “derangement” is especially effective because it preys on Americans’ desire to appear reasonable. No one wants to be seen as overreacting. No one wants to be dismissed as unbalanced. And so many choose quiet discomfort over public clarity.
But history is unambiguous on this point:
Democracies do not fall because people panic. They fall because people are taught to doubt their own perception of danger.
Labeling resistance as madness is not evidence of stability. It is evidence that persuasion has failed—and coercion is being psychologically prepared.
When power no longer argues its case, but instead questions the mental fitness of those who question it, the conversation has already shifted from politics to control.
In retrospect, future historians will likely note that one of the most effective tools of submission was not fear, but ridicule—the insistence that anyone who noticed the pattern was simply imagining it.
📚 References Section — Articles on Trump & Autocracy
Here are actual published pieces you can include in your references, complete with links and brief notes on why each is relevant:
📰 Recent News Analyses
- How to Save a Democracy (Authoritarian Watch Column) — A weekly column tracking Trump’s actions through the lens of rising authoritarianism. Strong for contextual framing on patterns over time.
- US ‘on a trajectory’ toward authoritarian rule, ex-officials warn — Former intelligence officials warn that democratic decline is accelerating. Useful for connecting expert assessments to broader autocracy narratives.
- In one year, Trump has imposed a culture of impunity — Summary of executive power consolidation and impunity; underscores key points made in this article.
- A Green Light for Authoritarianism: How the Trump Administration Fuels Global Autocracy — An analysis of how U.S. policy choices have emboldened authoritarian regimes globally, tying domestic authoritarian behavior to international impacts.
- Can Resistance Succeed? (The American Prospect) — Explores forms of resistance and legal challenges to administration actions — useful for your resistance/response discussions.
🧠 Supplemental Context & Analysis
You might also reference these background reports and think-piece sources — even if they are not traditional news articles, they provide depth and comparative perspective:
- “U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective” — a policy analysis comparing U.S. developments to other democratic backsliding cases.
- Protect Democracy’s Threat Index — data on democracy threats globally and in the U.S. (can be linked from Protect Democracy’s site).
🧾 Primary Source Links for Referencing Specific Events
When mentioning key events like the Venezuela operation and controversies around it, you can include links such as:
- Venezuela military capture legal justification — a reported DOJ memo explaining legal basis for the Venezuelan operation.
(Useful if you analyze constitutional and war powers concerns.) - AP News on Venezuelan opposition sidelined after the U.S. action — contextual reporting on foreign policy ramifications.
📌 Recommended References Section Format (Draft)
At the end of your article, you can structure the References section like this:
References
- How to Save a Democracy (Authoritarian Watch Column) — The Nation.
- US ‘on a trajectory’ toward authoritarian rule, ex-officials warn — The Guardian.
- In one year, Trump has imposed a culture of impunity — Le Monde (International Edition).
- A Green Light for Authoritarianism: How the Trump Administration Fuels Global Autocracy — Center for American Progress.
- Can Resistance Succeed? — The American Prospect.
- U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective — Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Protect Democracy — Authoritarian Threat Index and Analysis.
- US government’s legal rationale for Venezuelan operation — Washington Post (DOJ memo).
- Venezuelan opposition response and aftermath — AP News.
FEATURED / HEADER IMAGE (COMPOSITE)
THE SPEED OF POWER
Description:
A high-impact composite image establishing the article’s central thesis: democratic erosion accelerated by speed, compliance, and force.
Image Prompt:
A wide-aspect 16:9 editorial composite, realistic and cinematic. Center: the U.S. Capitol under a cold, overcast sky, partially shadowed. Left foreground: a stack of unsigned executive orders blowing in the wind, pages mid-air. Right foreground: masked federal agents in military-style gear standing in formation, faces obscured. Background layers subtly include courthouse columns fading into darkness and faint silhouettes of corporate boardrooms. Lighting is stark, somber, and documentary-style. Mood conveys urgency, speed, and institutional collapse. 8k resolution, photorealistic, cinematic lighting, soft natural colors, emotional depth, journalistic realism.
SECTION IMAGE PROMPTS (ONE PER MAJOR SECTION)
THE VELOCITY PROBLEM
Description:
Visualizing how speed itself became the weapon.
Image Prompt:
A cinematic wide-angle scene of a clock with shattered glass, its hands spinning rapidly. In the reflection of the broken clock face, blurred images of executive orders being signed at a desk. Papers streak across the frame as if carried by wind. Cool tones, sharp contrasts, motion blur emphasizing acceleration. Realistic, photorealistic, cinematic lighting, emotional tension, 8k resolution.
WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT BECOMES A PARAMILITARY INSTRUMENT
Description:
The normalization of force disguised as administration.
Image Prompt:
A wide landscape shot of masked federal agents in unmarked uniforms standing on an American city street at dusk. No visible insignia, weapons held low but ready. Streetlights cast long shadows. Civilians are visible in the distance, blurred and small. The mood is ominous but restrained — no action, just presence. Photorealistic, cinematic lighting, muted palette, emotional gravity, 8k resolution.
THE GUARDRAILS WERE REMOVED, NOT BROKEN
Description:
Institutional resistance quietly disappearing.
Image Prompt:
A symbolic wide shot of empty government offices at night — desks clean, chairs pushed back, lights off. In the foreground, a single resignation letter lies on a desk beneath a dim desk lamp. American flag barely visible in shadow. Atmosphere conveys absence, abandonment, and silence. Realistic, cinematic lighting, soft natural colors, emotional depth, 8k resolution.
THE SILENCE THAT ACCELERATES POWER
Description:
Preemptive submission by elite institutions.
Image Prompt:
A wide editorial illustration of a long corporate boardroom table. Suited figures sit in shadow, heads slightly bowed. At the head of the table, an empty chair dominates the frame. Reflections on polished wood resemble bars or restraints. Lighting is subdued, cinematic, and symbolic. Photorealistic, realistic style, emotional restraint, 8k resolution.
WHY DEMOCRACIES COLLAPSE FASTER THE SECOND TIME
Description:
The historical pattern of accelerated authoritarianism.
Image Prompt:
A wide composite image showing two timelines side by side. Left: faded black-and-white imagery of a past democracy in decline. Right: sharp, modern imagery of digital surveillance, armed enforcement, and controlled elections. A thin glowing line connects the two timelines, emphasizing repetition and acceleration. Realistic, cinematic lighting, high detail, emotional clarity, 8k resolution.
“TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME”: GASLIGHTING AS SUBMISSION
Description:
Psychological control through ridicule and dismissal.
Image Prompt:
A wide conceptual portrait of a person looking into a cracked mirror. In the reflection, protest signs are visible, but words are blurred and distorted. Overlapping reflections suggest doubt and self-questioning. Lighting is cool and intimate, cinematic and restrained. Realistic, photorealistic, emotional depth, 8k resolution.
THE MYTH OF THE SELF-CORRECTING REPUBLIC
Description:
Faith in systems without enforcement.
Image Prompt:
A wide image of courthouse steps leading upward into fog. The doors are closed. A single figure stands at the bottom of the steps, small against the structure. Light filters faintly through the mist. Mood is contemplative, not dramatic. Realistic, cinematic lighting, soft tones, emotional gravity, 8k resolution.
THE RECORD WE ARE MAKING
Description:
Citizens at the threshold of history.
Image Prompt:
A wide sunset scene of diverse citizens standing quietly in line at a polling place. Faces are thoughtful, determined, not celebratory. The American flag hangs motionless nearby. Golden-hour light with subdued colors. Realistic, photorealistic, cinematic lighting, emotional depth, 8k resolution.
REFERENCES
(As requested — all included)
- How to Save a Democracy (Authoritarian Watch Column) — The Nation
- US ‘on a trajectory’ toward authoritarian rule, ex-officials warn — The Guardian
- In one year, Trump has imposed a culture of impunity — Le Monde (International Edition)
- A Green Light for Authoritarianism: How the Trump Administration Fuels Global Autocracy — Center for American Progress
- Can Resistance Succeed? — The American Prospect
- U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective — Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Authoritarian Threat Index and Analysis — Protect Democracy
- Legal rationale for Venezuelan operation — Washington Post
- Venezuelan opposition response and aftermath — AP News
BELLS & WHISTLES (STANDARD END BLOCK)
⚠️ WORK IN PROGRESS
This article is part of an ongoing series examining democratic erosion, authoritarian acceleration, and the historical mechanics of power consolidation.
📬 SUBSCRIBE
Stay informed. Independent analysis matters more than ever.
Subscribe on Substack: https://substack.com/@janetalexlessinphd
🔗 RELATED SERIES
- The 250-Year Fracture
- The Mutilation Doctrine
- Authoritarian Acceleration in the Aquarian Age
✍️ AUTHOR BIOS
Janet Kira Lessin — writer, researcher, publisher, co-founder of Aquarian Media.
Dr. Sasha Alex Lessin — anthropologist, transpersonal psychologist, co-author and collaborator.
Websites:
🖼️ IMAGE PROMPT BACKEND LIST
(Complete prompts included above for archival and regeneration use.)
🏷️ TAGS
democracy, authoritarianism, Trump, democratic backsliding, civil liberties, gaslighting, ICE, rule of law, history, governance, Aquarian Age
They Warned Us About Autocracy — They Just Didn’t Think It Would Happen This Fast
By Janet Kira Lessin
January 2026
For nearly a decade, political scientists, former officials, historians, and even members of Donald Trump’s own party warned that his return to power could place American democracy at risk. They spoke of norms eroding, institutions bending, and a presidency untethered from law.
What they misjudged was not whether it would happen, but how quickly.
Barely one year into Donald Trump’s second term, the United States is no longer debating hypothetical threats to democracy. It is confronting the operational reality of authoritarian governance—implemented not through a single dramatic coup, but through speed, saturation, and compliance.
The Velocity Problem
In retrospect, the warning signs were clear. Trump campaigned openly on retribution, emergency powers, and “taking back” the country from internal enemies. He never disguised his contempt for courts, legislatures, or the limits of executive authority.
What few anticipated was the velocity with which those ideas would be translated into policy.
From his first days back in office, Trump issued sweeping executive orders declaring overlapping “emergencies,” granting himself unilateral authority to bypass laws, redirect congressionally appropriated funds, and suspend regulatory oversight. These were not symbolic gestures. They were functional tools designed to consolidate power faster than opposition could organize.
As Steven Levitsky, co-author of How Democracies Die, later acknowledged, the pace itself became a weapon. Democratic systems are built to deliberate; authoritarian systems exploit that deliberation as delay.
When Law Enforcement Becomes a Paramilitary Force
Perhaps the most alarming shift has been the transformation of federal agencies—particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement—from civil enforcement bodies into armed, mask-wearing units operating with near-total impunity.
What was once described as “immigration enforcement” now bears the hallmarks of a paramilitary force: military-grade equipment, unmarked deployments, and operations answerable only to executive command. The killing of a 37-year-old American citizen during a confrontation with immigration agents is not an aberration; it is a consequence of policy choices that removed accountability in the name of speed and control.
Levitsky later admitted that even he did not foresee the readiness with which lethal force would be normalized against civilians. Democracies do not usually fall when tanks roll in. They fall when violence is reframed as routine administration.
The Collapse of the Guardrails
During Trump’s first term, the system bent but did not break. Senior military officers refused illegal orders. Cabinet officials stalled or ignored directives they believed crossed legal lines. Institutional resistance, however imperfect, existed.
That resistance is now largely gone.
In its place stands a loyalist apparatus—officials selected not for expertise or independence, but for personal allegiance. With a defense secretary unwilling to draw boundaries and a Justice Department recast as a political weapon, the executive branch has become vertically integrated around one man’s will.
As Robert Kagan warned in a prescient 2023 essay, the danger was never chaos. It was coordination.
Kagan predicted not merely Trump’s return, but the method by which a second-term presidency would entrench itself: selective prosecutions, emergency powers, intimidation of opposition officials, and the quiet hollowing out of electoral safeguards. That prediction is now unfolding with unsettling precision.
The Silence of the Institutions
One of the most revealing features of this moment is not repression, but preemptive submission.
Major universities, law firms, media conglomerates, and corporate leaders—institutions that once styled themselves as defenders of democratic values—have rushed to demonstrate compliance. Donations to inaugurations, public pledges of cooperation, and conspicuous silence in the face of coercion have sent a clear message downstream: resistance is risky; accommodation is safer.
When cultural and economic elites kneel early, fear spreads faster than force ever could.
As Levitsky observed, if institutions with vast legal resources and public standing cannot withstand pressure, what signal does that send to ordinary citizens?
The Myth of the Self-Correcting Republic
Many Americans continue to place their faith in an abstract idea of “checks and balances,” as though the system itself possesses an immune response independent of the people who operate it.
That belief is increasingly untenable.
Congress has shown little appetite for confrontation. Courts issue rulings that are ignored. Oversight mechanisms exist on paper but fail in practice when enforcement depends on the very executive being restrained.
The idea that democracy automatically snaps back to equilibrium misunderstands history. Democracies survive only when enough people decide that defending them is worth the cost.
The Illusion of “It Can’t Happen Here”
Even now, denial persists. Some donors and former supporters express discomfort with Trump’s actions while insisting that concerns about dictatorship are exaggerated. They frame extrajudicial killings, politicized prosecutions, and armed federal deployments as excesses that will somehow correct themselves.
History suggests otherwise.
Authoritarian systems do not announce themselves as such. They insist they are temporary, necessary, and protective. They normalize each step so the next one feels inevitable rather than shocking.
The most dangerous moment is not when people are afraid—but when they are tired of being alarmed.
What Happens Next
The coming elections represent more than a contest of parties. They are a test of whether democratic participation can still function under conditions of intimidation and administrative manipulation. Levitsky has openly worried about federal agents deployed near polling places and the selective enforcement of voting regulations.
Ambiguity will not protect democracy. Only overwhelming, unmistakable civic engagement can.
As Kagan bluntly noted, relying on political elites to save the system is a fantasy. History shows that when authoritarianism arrives through legal channels, it is rarely dismantled from within the halls of power.
It is resisted—if at all—by citizens who recognize the moment they are in before it has fully closed around them.
The Record We Are Making
This is not a story about hysteria or partisan outrage. It is a record—one future historians will examine to understand how a democracy slid toward autocracy not through a single dramatic rupture, but through speed, compliance, and the quiet decision of too many people to wait and see.
They warned us.
They just didn’t think it would happen this fast.
