Republicans Once Preserved Democracy. Will They Repeat Their Actions?
Trump's Cabinet nominations are poised to be a crucial initial challenge that will indicate the resilience of American democracy during his potential second term.
TroibNews 
In the approaching weeks and months following Donald Trump's second inauguration, Democrats are poised to utilize every opportunity to mobilize voters and collaborate with civil society organizations to counter anti-democratic initiatives and reclaim power. Elected Democrats will oppose Trump’s proposed legislation and aim to challenge his executive orders in court. This is the foundational role of opposition parties and civil society.
However, it is now primarily the responsibility of Republicans to safeguard U.S. democracy.
Research into democratic erosion across various countries indicates that the main defense against an elected leader undermining democracy comes not from opposition parties or pro-democracy activists, but instead from the ruling party, particularly its influential elites, who must work to rein in their own leader.
The threat to democracy is especially pronounced in political systems where leaders exert disproportionate influence compared to their supporting parties, a situation currently evident within the Republican Party. Data tracking democratically elected leaders globally for the past three decades shows that when leaders dominate their parties, the likelihood of democratic backsliding increases, whether through gradual deterioration or sudden collapse.
In the U.S., the role of constitutional checks and balances—such as those held by Congress or the Supreme Court—has traditionally been seen as central to restraining a rogue executive. Yet, it has been found that these institutions can exercise restraint only if members of the president’s party within them choose to wield their authority against executive overreach.
This reluctance often arises because when a political party is dominated by a single leader, party members perceive their political futures as closely linked to that leader, rather than to the party’s long-term integrity, leading to a hesitance to challenge the leader’s actions. In what are termed “personalist” parties, the elite may even support a leader’s abuse of power if it serves their personal interests.
This dynamic extends beyond party members. When prominent party figures either tolerate or endorse a leader’s anti-democratic actions, it normalizes such behavior among their supporters, who often take cues from elected officials. Heightened polarization exacerbates the situation, as partisans may accept abuses of power if it means keeping their opponents out of office. Our findings show that even in environments of substantial public support for democracy, nations can regress into non-democratic practices out of a desire to prevent the opposing side from gaining power.
A growing number of democracies worldwide, from Hungary to El Salvador, Turkey to Tunisia, have experienced this decline. Despite differing political landscapes, these personalist leaders employ remarkably similar strategies to dismantle democratic institutions. Once in office, they appoint unqualified loyalists and family members to key positions, orchestrate threats, vilify opponents, and intimidate dissenting voices in the media. They undermine the judicial system’s legitimacy, position themselves as above the law, try to bypass legislative limitations, and dismiss officials who challenge their actions.
These developments transpire unchecked because party elites do not readily push back against personalist leaders, with defiance often equating to career jeopardy for high-ranking officials. This creates a scenario where the party becomes synonymous with its leader, especially when such parties hold legislative majorities, allowing their presidents and prime ministers to act with impunity.
During Trump’s first term, crucial Republicans managed to assert some autonomy. In July 2020, when Trump suggested delaying the November election, many Republicans—such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy—quickly rejected the idea. Later that year, elected Republicans, including a Georgia secretary of state, an Arizona governor, and electors from Michigan, resisted falsifying vote tallies to maintain Trump’s hold on power. Trump's chosen acting attorney general also refused requests to fabricate evidence of election fraud, and Republican-appointed judges consistently upheld legal norms in the face of Trump’s attempts to remain in power. A pivotal moment for democracy occurred when Vice President Mike Pence turned down Trump’s appeals to overturn the election during the Electoral College certification.
However, the dynamics may shift this time around, as Trump has tightened his grip on the GOP over the past four years, transforming it into a party more typical of those that support autocratic leaders. The recent Republican primary highlighted a lack of leaders willing to advocate for an alternative direction for the party’s future. Trump effectively sidelined top challenger Nikki Haley, signaling to others the potential repercussions of opposing him. Additionally, many House Republicans owe their positions to Trump’s backing in the 2024 election cycle, making them less likely to resist his directives. Trump has further consolidated power within the party by placing allies and family members in leadership roles in the Republican National Committee.
Therefore, the confirmation process for Trump’s Cabinet nominees will be a crucial initial test for the Republican Party. If Republicans fail to oppose problematic nominations—such as former Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense or Tulsi Gabbard for the intelligence community—history suggests that resisting the president in the future will become increasingly difficult.
In essence, if Republicans do not confront Trump from the outset, the trajectory toward authoritarianism is likely to accelerate, as seen in Hungary and Turkey. Each personalist autocracy can pinpoint key moments that shift power in favor of the leader against their political allies. One such moment is when loyalists are installed in significant government roles. Once a president begins to consolidate power, distancing themselves from the party that enabled their rise—here, the Republican Party—the momentum for further power consolidation grows. Power breeds more power; the reverse is seldom true.
It is imperative for senior GOP leaders not only to support qualified appointments but also to denounce Trump’s anti-democratic actions when they arise. Ultimately, voters are the primary protectors of democracy, as they have the power to remove representatives at the ballot box. However, around the world, voters have re-elected personalist leaders partly due to the silence of party elites regarding the leader's undemocratic behaviors, inadvertently signaling that democracy is secure. When senior party officials remain quiet—or, worse, condone such actions—they send crucial public signals that reshape what their supporters consider acceptable democratic norms, facilitating a drift toward autocracy.
While many have already identified Trump’s reelection as a danger to democracy, our research underscores an essential institutional reason behind this. Aspiring autocrats often lie hidden within democracies, and more significant than their ambitions is the level of constraint they face from those within their party.
Thus, when Trump proposes delaying the next election or contends that the two-term limit should apply only to consecutive terms, one question will linger for the Republican elite: Will you stand firm against Trump? Key figures in the Republican Party upheld democracy in 2020. Will they do so once more?
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
However, it is now primarily the responsibility of Republicans to safeguard U.S. democracy.
Research into democratic erosion across various countries indicates that the main defense against an elected leader undermining democracy comes not from opposition parties or pro-democracy activists, but instead from the ruling party, particularly its influential elites, who must work to rein in their own leader.
The threat to democracy is especially pronounced in political systems where leaders exert disproportionate influence compared to their supporting parties, a situation currently evident within the Republican Party. Data tracking democratically elected leaders globally for the past three decades shows that when leaders dominate their parties, the likelihood of democratic backsliding increases, whether through gradual deterioration or sudden collapse.
In the U.S., the role of constitutional checks and balances—such as those held by Congress or the Supreme Court—has traditionally been seen as central to restraining a rogue executive. Yet, it has been found that these institutions can exercise restraint only if members of the president’s party within them choose to wield their authority against executive overreach.
This reluctance often arises because when a political party is dominated by a single leader, party members perceive their political futures as closely linked to that leader, rather than to the party’s long-term integrity, leading to a hesitance to challenge the leader’s actions. In what are termed “personalist” parties, the elite may even support a leader’s abuse of power if it serves their personal interests.
This dynamic extends beyond party members. When prominent party figures either tolerate or endorse a leader’s anti-democratic actions, it normalizes such behavior among their supporters, who often take cues from elected officials. Heightened polarization exacerbates the situation, as partisans may accept abuses of power if it means keeping their opponents out of office. Our findings show that even in environments of substantial public support for democracy, nations can regress into non-democratic practices out of a desire to prevent the opposing side from gaining power.
A growing number of democracies worldwide, from Hungary to El Salvador, Turkey to Tunisia, have experienced this decline. Despite differing political landscapes, these personalist leaders employ remarkably similar strategies to dismantle democratic institutions. Once in office, they appoint unqualified loyalists and family members to key positions, orchestrate threats, vilify opponents, and intimidate dissenting voices in the media. They undermine the judicial system’s legitimacy, position themselves as above the law, try to bypass legislative limitations, and dismiss officials who challenge their actions.
These developments transpire unchecked because party elites do not readily push back against personalist leaders, with defiance often equating to career jeopardy for high-ranking officials. This creates a scenario where the party becomes synonymous with its leader, especially when such parties hold legislative majorities, allowing their presidents and prime ministers to act with impunity.
During Trump’s first term, crucial Republicans managed to assert some autonomy. In July 2020, when Trump suggested delaying the November election, many Republicans—such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy—quickly rejected the idea. Later that year, elected Republicans, including a Georgia secretary of state, an Arizona governor, and electors from Michigan, resisted falsifying vote tallies to maintain Trump’s hold on power. Trump's chosen acting attorney general also refused requests to fabricate evidence of election fraud, and Republican-appointed judges consistently upheld legal norms in the face of Trump’s attempts to remain in power. A pivotal moment for democracy occurred when Vice President Mike Pence turned down Trump’s appeals to overturn the election during the Electoral College certification.
However, the dynamics may shift this time around, as Trump has tightened his grip on the GOP over the past four years, transforming it into a party more typical of those that support autocratic leaders. The recent Republican primary highlighted a lack of leaders willing to advocate for an alternative direction for the party’s future. Trump effectively sidelined top challenger Nikki Haley, signaling to others the potential repercussions of opposing him. Additionally, many House Republicans owe their positions to Trump’s backing in the 2024 election cycle, making them less likely to resist his directives. Trump has further consolidated power within the party by placing allies and family members in leadership roles in the Republican National Committee.
Therefore, the confirmation process for Trump’s Cabinet nominees will be a crucial initial test for the Republican Party. If Republicans fail to oppose problematic nominations—such as former Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense or Tulsi Gabbard for the intelligence community—history suggests that resisting the president in the future will become increasingly difficult.
In essence, if Republicans do not confront Trump from the outset, the trajectory toward authoritarianism is likely to accelerate, as seen in Hungary and Turkey. Each personalist autocracy can pinpoint key moments that shift power in favor of the leader against their political allies. One such moment is when loyalists are installed in significant government roles. Once a president begins to consolidate power, distancing themselves from the party that enabled their rise—here, the Republican Party—the momentum for further power consolidation grows. Power breeds more power; the reverse is seldom true.
It is imperative for senior GOP leaders not only to support qualified appointments but also to denounce Trump’s anti-democratic actions when they arise. Ultimately, voters are the primary protectors of democracy, as they have the power to remove representatives at the ballot box. However, around the world, voters have re-elected personalist leaders partly due to the silence of party elites regarding the leader's undemocratic behaviors, inadvertently signaling that democracy is secure. When senior party officials remain quiet—or, worse, condone such actions—they send crucial public signals that reshape what their supporters consider acceptable democratic norms, facilitating a drift toward autocracy.
While many have already identified Trump’s reelection as a danger to democracy, our research underscores an essential institutional reason behind this. Aspiring autocrats often lie hidden within democracies, and more significant than their ambitions is the level of constraint they face from those within their party.
Thus, when Trump proposes delaying the next election or contends that the two-term limit should apply only to consecutive terms, one question will linger for the Republican elite: Will you stand firm against Trump? Key figures in the Republican Party upheld democracy in 2020. Will they do so once more?
Navid Kalantari contributed to this report for TROIB News
