The Authoritarian Drift of the United States

Poonam Sharma
When the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs as unlawful, everyone anticipated a traditional political reaction — a reluctant concession to judicial review, possibly accompanied by an assurance to pursue legislative solutions. Rather, what ensued was much more illuminating: a scathing critique of the judiciary, a promise to disregard the decision, and an affirmation that tariffs — legal or illegal — would stay in effect until the Supreme Court overruled him.

Trump’s response is not merely tariffs. It is indicative of a general authoritarian shift happening in America, in which executive power increasingly runs counter to, and even ignores, constitutional checks on power. The incident is representative of how America, once viewed as the world leader in democratic government, is struggling with an internal movement towards dictatorial tendencies.

The Tariff Battle as a Case Study

At the center of the furor is Trump’s bold application of tariffs as an economic and political tool. Tariffs have been a feature of U.S. trade policy for a long time, but Trump made them the keystone of his “America First” policy. He used them not just as a negotiating tactic but as a force of coercion — against foes and friends.

The Appeals Court decision targeted this cornerstone directly, ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The statute gives wide latitude to presidents in time of crisis, but the court was adamant: it does not include the ability to impose tariffs, a power left to Congress.

Instead of honoring this line, Trump doubled back. Asserting the ruling “incorrect,” he asserted tariffs are still in effect and threatened to repeal them would “destroy the United States of America.” This kind of language turns a debate about policy into an existential struggle — the discourse of bullies who blur individual will with national destiny.

The Authoritarian Playbook

Trump’s strategy is reminiscent of practices typical of authoritarian regimes:

Delegitimizing Institutions: By labeling the Appeals Court “partisan,” Trump attempted to devalue public confidence in an independent judiciary. Such a delegitimization of institutions is characteristic of authoritarian regimes.

Conflating Self with Nation: His assertion that overturning tariffs would “literally destroy America” reduces an intricate economy to the whim of an individual. In such a presentation, arguing against Trump’s policies becomes tantamount to treason against the country.

Harnessing Crises: Trump’s use of emergency legislation to railroad trade actions shows how crises either real or created are used to enhance executive authority, usually at the cost of legislative power.

Weaponizing Nationalism: By linking tariffs to Labor Day and using “Made in America” rhetoric, Trump reframes protectionism as patriotism. This rallies support not on matters of policy, but on identity and loyalty-based emotional appeals.

These movements collectively drive the U.S. political system towards a style in which executive discretion more and more supersedes legal and institutional limits.

India and the Global Dimension

The authoritarian bias is not limited to domestic affairs. Trump’s pre-emptive “legal layering” of tariffs on India serves to spotlight a deliberate attempt to insulate his policy from judicial review. Trade commentators observe that although the Appeals Court decision jeopardizes tariffs placed on nations such as Canada and Mexico, India’s tariffs will probably hold up because Trump relied on other legal authorities aside from IEEPA.

This two-layered strategy emphasizes the authoritarian tendency to expect opposition and reinforce measures against it. It also sets a dangerous trend in international commerce: weaponizing legal structures to cement executive power over both domestic checks and foreign norms. For India, the lesson is clear — America’s metamorphosis is not only an internal issue but one of deep external implications.

The Broader Democratic Erosion

The tariff war is only one page in a larger book. On issues — immigration, environmental policy, foreign affairs — Trump has consistently shown he is willing to push, twist, or flatly disregard constitutional boundaries. The aggregate impact is the gradual disintegration of democratic life, where formal restraints are maintained in theory but constantly circumvented in fact.

This erosion has precedent. American history has known presidents to amass unprecedented power during war or crisis. But what is unique about this moment is how it’s being normalized. The unprecedented becomes normalized, and disregard of legal limits is framed as strength.

The Future of American Democracy

The Appeals Court decision, and Trump’s refusal to accept it, is a chilling question: can America’s institutions hold out against repeated attack from within? To date, the judiciary has stood firm on its independence, but the president’s public defiance calls its enforcement into question. If executive authority can declare legal decisions “wrong” and simply do what it likes anyway, then the very idea of rule of law is under threat.

The authoritarian makeover of the United States isn’t finished — but it is clearly under way. Whether it will continue depends on whether the American people, the courts, and Congress decide to defend the constitutional order, or give in to the allure of strongman politics.

Conclusion

The tariff melodrama can seem, at first glance, a trade war. It is actually a referendum on the viability of American democracy. Trump’s insistence that his policies are beyond judicial review is a dictatorial mentality remaking the country’s political culture.

The United States, once the world model of checks and balances, is now on the brink of authoritarian drift. The world is watching closely — for if America itself will not stand by democratic norms, it will have no credibility in defending them abroad.