Trump’s Autocratic Actions Threaten More Than Just the U.S.
By Michael Ji
If you’ve been following the news recently, especially after President Donald Trump’s election, there’s a good chance that you’ve heard the term “democratic backsliding” more than once. The United States, once considered by many to be one of the largest and most robust democracies in the world, has been seemingly slipping towards an autocratic nature for some time, especially in the last few years due to the actions of the Trump Administration. Before Trump’s initial 2016 election, scholars had already noted the decline in American democracy, so much so that the Economist demoted the US from a full democracy to a “flawed democracy” in 2016. Despite this decrease in quality, Trump’s recent actions against United States democratic values since his second inauguration have shocked academics’ prior assumptions. His administration has caused what feels like an endless cycle of crises, especially as the president attempts to work around checks and balances embedded in the U.S. Constitution. But while his actions are unprecedented in the U.S., the world as a whole has been experiencing similar patterns and warnings about democratic decline for months or even years already. All eyes are on the U.S. given its status as a global superpower, which is especially concerning as the country now fails to stand for human rights around the world.
Within his first few weeks in office, Trump weakened American democracy. He has pardoned the culprits of the 2020 January 6th Capital riot, moved to fill important organizations such as the military with loyalists, and pressured the Justice Department to drop ongoing charges against him and his allies. Some prosecutors were even discouraged from pursuing corruption charges against one of his potential future allies, NYC mayor Eric Adams.
His gross expansion of the executive branch—proven by his multiple attempts to pass executive orders outside of his jurisdiction—has created tension among other parts of government, namely Congress. With his moves to dismantle long standing American traditions—such as birthright citizenship or the existence of the Department of Education—it’s no surprise that judges and other officials are racing to check back on his power.
Although this news is often analyzed in terms of domestic affairs, many overlook one of America's key responsibilities as a global hegemon—that is, a duty to its allies and the international community. Allies have especially taken note of Trump’s recent actions. After his clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over peace talks and a seeming alliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin, European allies have begun to doubt the U.S.’ ability to commit long-term to defending democracy and their territory.
But most of these allies are strong democracies, such as Britain, France, or Germany. Overall, it’s safe to say that their governments will survive with or without the U.S.’ backing. The biggest harms of the U.S.’ domestic actions instead happen in places where there is risk—when democracy is weakened or in a state of collapse. With major cuts to organizations such as USAID, funding for global pro-democracy and human rights groups has declined significantly. Ironically, the initial order to cut funds was an actual overstep of Trump’s executive powers—such authority to cut funding is given only to Congress, which was confirmed in a judicial block of Trump’s order. Still, specific contracts unrelated to the initial wave of executive orders were still cut without any checks under the Trump administration, making it difficult for Congress to challenge the decrease. These cuts could prove disastrous for human rights around the world.
Autocratic regimes such as China have already attempted to take advantage of this opportunity, with some organizations reportedly being offered money if they changed their activism to be on private channels, which some felt was an attempt to silence them. So far, impacts to global democracies have been minimal. But this is not to say things will stay the same—in the next few months (and years), the country’s actions could be life or death for millions hoping for change around the world.
The first and perhaps most famous nation at risk is South Korea, a staunch U.S. ally for decades. On December 3rd, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol made an announcement that shocked both South Korean citizens and the world. Broadcasting live at 10 PM KST, he announced to the nation that for the first time in over 40 years, South Korea was set to be placed under martial law. Declaring martial law suspends civil rights and limits the jurisdiction of government courts. This announcement came after political struggles and an investigation into him and his wife, with Yoon declaring that there were dangerous “threats of North Korean communist forces,” with martial law being the only solution.
Yet Yoon’s announcement and grab for power did not play out the way he hoped. Most of his fellow lawmakers, and a majority of the Korean population, refused to believe his story. A mere six hours later, a predown vote had already reversed his declaration of martial law by a vote of 190-0, with 18 members of Yoon’s own party voting with the opposition.
Within hours of his announcement, thousands of Koreans had gathered outside government buildings to protest, clashing with the military while chanting for an end to martial law. In the days that followed, South Koreans demonstrated surprising resilience and willingness to act in order to preserve their institutional democratic values.
Despite Yoon’s vows to “fight to the end,” other leaders were undeterred from moving to keep him out of power. Korean police, prosecutors, and other authority figures almost immediately launched investigations into whether Yoon’s actions constituted rebellion, abuse of power, or various other crimes against the government. Days after the initial chaos, lawmakers voted to impeach the National Police Chief and Justice Minister for their part in the martial law declaration, while protests continued and demanded for Yoon’s ousting. Accordingly, by December 14th, less than two weeks after martial law was declared, Yoon was impeached from office and replaced with an interim President, Han Duck-soo.
Even after this quick response, South Korea’s political turmoil continued for a time. Weeks after the interim President took power, the opposition party moved to impeach him as well, after clashes surfaced over court seats and investigations into Yoon. Interim President Han refused to fill vacant court seats and launch independent investigations into Yoon himself, most likely because initiatives, such as adding more court seats, would increase the chance that Yoon would be found guilty.
Despite South Korea’s heavy emphasis on democracy, where democratic values are integrated into their culture and education system, U.S. domestic politics have seeped their way into how politicians and political parties view themselves.
During his push for power, Yoon referenced the U.S. and argued that he should be entitled to the same immunity that the U.S. provided for their presidents, something that the U.S. Supreme court had decided recently.
While Yoon was charged for insurrection due to his actions, President Trump was not—despite his proven role in the capital riots of January 6th. This creates a dangerous situation—while South Korea’s system works in this case, a more unstable nation might see the U.S. as a model on how they should hold politicians accountable. What might have once been a good example may soon turn into a bad influence in the world. Conservatives in South Korea had also begun to believe Yoon’s promises of election interference, much like the claims made in the U.S. during the 2020 election. Among the far-right, some believed that North Korea was indeed interfering in their elections.
It may come as a shock, but South Korea is actually comparatively stable compared to other regions around the world. Notably, many conflicts across the world remain chronically underreported, masking the larger issue especially in poorer countries. In Bangladesh, for instance, the people are leading their own fight for democracy—but the fight seems to be much harder than in South Korea. Last year, student-led protests were able to topple the brutal dictatorship led by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, after conflicts between police and paramilitary forces that killed hundreds of protestors. Despite Bangladeshi officials locking down schools and internet access in an attempt to slow down the spread of the protests, the movement continued to grow among the general population. After the successful revolt, however, citizens remain uncertain of how to proceed. With the interim government struggling to maintain order as the country remained plagued by chaos, many have called for new elections to be held as soon as possible.
But movements for democracy have been fragile ever since the rebellion. Some students began to form their own political party, called the National Citizens Party, but quickly faced criticism when it was discovered that many leaders were part of the interim government. Opposing parties called for the leaders to resign in order to ensure fair elections, something that still seems to be years away. Separate from political parties, however, another threat seems to be brewing: a resurgence of Islamist extremists. As has happened in so many nations, the collapse of the previous government left a power vacuum that religious hard-liners hope to fill. Already, officials have lost hope of a secular constitution, leaving minorities and especially women vulnerable to persecution. Student leaders have expressed fear the movements driven by religious leaders could descend into violence and conflict, crushing the idea of an open democracy.
Bangladesh’s infighting is relatively new compared to their history. But right next to Bangladesh is a nation that has been in this fight for much longer, struggling to make progress. In the country of Myanmar, a violent push for democracy has been ongoing for decades, seemingly forgotten by the international community. With the initial 1990 elections suppressed by the military after pro-democracy party victories, Myanmar descended into years of instability and violence until protests successfully forced elections again in 2015, where pro-democracy parties won again.
Yet, by the 2021 elections, the junta government had begun to feel their grasp on power slipping. In February, military leaders staged a coup, charging opposition leaders with corruption and other crimes before placing most activists under house arrests. In response, thousands of ordinary civilians took to the streets, soon establishing their own government in opposition to the main military government. Before long, hundreds of local militias had taken up arms against the junta, with many civilians leaving their day jobs to join the resistance.
Following years of rebel victories, the military government recently called for elections to be held in a few years—a promise shunned by most rebels and outside observers. But the promise indicates that there is a real chance for change in Myanmar. Trump’s entrance complicates things; not only has political pressure against the junta subsided, but even sanctions have been at risk as the administration devalues human rights concerns. Hospitals, emergency shelters, and food for activist movements have been cut off, as a result of the freeze in foreign aid.
Interestingly, Syria seems to be one of the nations with the most potential for a democracy. After a lightning-fast offensive that brought down Bashar al-Assad’s long-standing autocratic regime in December 2024, many in Syria and around the world have expressed hope around the creation of a new democratic nation in the Middle East.
Yet, Syria will likely face similar risks of democratic backsliding and infighting that have plagued other hopeful democracies in the past, such as those in the 2011 Arab Spring revolts. These risks are amplified by the state of Syria following years of war and dictator rule—high rates of poverty, missing infrastructure, and a struggling economy. Not to mention, the multiple different rebel, religious, and terrorist groups that continue to vie for power in the new government being formed.
The main rebel group, known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), has promised to Syrians and the world that they would promote an inclusive and democratic government. Diplomats have engaged with Western and Middle Eastern officials, emphasizing that Syria will not pose a threat to its neighbors. They also assured that the new government would remain solely committed to the reconstruction of the Syrian nation, ensuring the protection of women’s and minority rights while working to stabilize the economy. HTS’s actions in the early months following the revolution have cast doubt on their initial promises. After arguing that a census and thus elections would take years to happen, the HTS government has begun to take less of an inclusive, secular stance than promised and has instead chosen what some people view as a dangerous path. Other rebel groups and locals have protested the promotion of hard-line Islamist figures, the exclusion of secular nationalist, and reported cases of executions or disappearances of certain minorities. It remains uncertain how Syrians will be able to create a peaceful democracy in a region so embroiled in war.
There’s nothing new about the fact that democracies can rise and fall around the world. However, recent trends of backsliding, combined with the scale and influence of these nations, suggest we are heading down a dangerous path globally. What's more concerning is that most people remain unaware of the ongoing crisis. Reform will need to start at home, with the US remaining key to act as a bulwark for nations around the world. Trump may continue to push his agenda, but Congress and the Supreme Court, with the backing of the American people, have a chance to follow South Korea’s example of dealing with a democratic crisis and start the fight to preserve our government. We may even be able to re-expand our influence outwards one day, to those who desperately fight for a better tomorrow.