The day after Donald Trump became president in 2017, millions of Americans turned out in protest in the Women’s March. Nearly half a million marched in Washington, DC, rivalling the numbers who had witnessed the inauguration (much to his chagrin). But over a month into his second presidency, we have yet to witness any protest on this scale. Where is the resistance?
The relative lack of opposition is especially striking given how extreme Trump’s policies have been, eclipsing anything he did during his first term. He has pardoned leaders of white supremacist militias, eviscerated trans rights and tried to erase birthright citizenship. His raids on undocumented migrants are just getting started. He has fired top military officers and replaced them with handpicked loyalists. And he is reorienting American foreign policy toward alliance with authoritarian regimes such as Russia.
Most radically, Trump has declared war on the federal government with the aid of Elon Musk, who holds no officially appointed role. Their goal is to replace civil servants who might resist him with loyalists at the top and with AI at the bottom. Trump has asserted the right to freeze all federal funding. He has demolished government agencies established by Congress such as USAID. Through mass firings, he has undermined the ability of all civilian agencies to function including ones vital to scientific research and public health. Trump and Musk appear to be operating under the philosophy that if you want to make an omelette, you don’t just break a few eggs, you slaughter all the chickens and burn down the hen houses.
The most significant source of resistance to Trump’s policies thus far has come from the courts. Judges have enjoined Trump from denying birthright citizenship and halted some of his efforts to destroy the federal government and his withholding of funds appropriated by Congress. Dozens of cases are still making their way through the judicial system. The courts are an essential source of resistance to Trump, and an effective one given that most of his actions are actually illegal. The fact that organisations such as the American Civil Liberties Union bring these cases to court proves that the US retains a relatively robust civil society.
Johnny Ronan secures planning permission from Dublin City Council for capital’s tallest building
‘I’m 50 this year and feel a bit like a teenager with my problem. My best friend has fallen in love’
So far the grotesque reality of Trump’s ambitions has exceeded all the worst predictions
Man arrested after woman dies following ‘serious incident’ on Rosslare ferry
However, there are limits to relying on judicial action alone to restrain Trump. It is not clear how much of his agenda will be ruled illegal, especially with a conservative supreme court as the ultimate arbiter. Trump might choose to ignore court findings against him. And the judicial system is slow. After all, he outwaited numerous criminal cases against him brought during the Biden administration. In addition, even in cases where judicial action effectively restrains Trump, his actions will still have achieved part of their purpose in sowing chaos and terrorising those targeted.
So stopping Trump will require effective political opposition. But so far, the Democrats mostly seem missing in action. Democratic leadership in Congress has been remarkably subdued. Yes, Democrats have voted against Trump’s awful cabinet appointments, but they have done little to call attention to the dangerous effects of his policies. The speed and ferocity of Trump’s actions appear to have left them stunned. And Democratic leaders have spent their time complaining about liberal organisations whose members have been calling their offices demanding more militant challenges. Instead of griping about grassroots opposition, Democratic leaders should be actively trying to stoke it into a mass movement. They should take their cue from the indefatigable Bernie Sanders, who has recently launched a “national tour to fight oligarchy”.
It could be that the lack of resistance to Trump today is partly due to the flawed assumptions of the resistance during his first term. Online “#resistance” too often mistook social media activism for the painstaking work of political organisation. In any case, the platform formerly known as Twitter is now owned by Musk and no longer exists as a tool of resistance.
Resistance in Trump’s first term was also based on the notion that he was an aberration to normal American politics. As such, his presidency was illegitimate and could be easily challenged. But Trump’s second election seems to have convinced some that he is the norm, not the exception, and that little can thus be gained from opposing him. This is flawed analysis. Trump won a narrow victory over Kamala Harris that did not reflect a massive rightward shift in public opinion nor confer upon him permanent legitimacy. Many who voted for him don’t support his most extreme policies. Trump’s approval ratings are falling, with the numbers of Americans who disapprove of him now almost equalling those who approve of him.
Another false assumption is that Trump’s re-election brought about an American fascism. But Trump’s America is not Hitler’s Germany. There is still considerable space for voicing political opposition, yet many Americans appear to suffer from an epidemic of mass cowardice. To be sure, there are those who are rightly scared to protest: those fearing deportation, possible targets of hateful violence, and government employees fearful of losing their jobs. However, many more millions of Americans can protest without incurring great personal risks yet are choosing to tune out the news. They are protecting their emotional wellbeing instead of fighting for their democracy.
While the US is not yet a fascist society, acting as if it is could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only thing that will stop Trump from moving the US and the world further toward right-wing authoritarianism will be a resistance movement even greater than that which arose in his first term. With the civil service under attack, the courts essential yet limited in power, and Democratic leaders so passive, a mass movement is needed to save American democracy.
Daniel Geary is Mark Pigott professor in US History at Trinity College Dublin
