Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump's march on Washington

Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021

Supporters of President Donald Trumps stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Kleinfeld is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and States United for Democracy.

What separates a democracy from a dictatorship? The ability for the will of voters to determine who governs them. The rule of law, a force that holds even the most powerful to a set of rules and institutions independent of the will of any one man. The peaceful transfer of power between parties.

This month, Americans are learning how thin that line can be.

As Cassidy Hutchinson described Donald Trump’s plan to march with his followers to the Capitol, I heard echoes of Benito Mussolini’s March on Rome – when conservative leaders handed the country to a dictator without a shot.


On Oct. 28, 1922, about 25,000 of Mussolini’s black-shirted supporters gathered on the outskirts of Rome, threatening a march on the capital. The prime minister had been warned just a few days before – but refused to believe the threat was real. The military could have overwhelmed the marchers – but the government decided not to.

Mussolini’s Fascists were already the country's strongest political party, having used persuasive fears of communism mixed with street violence to get business leaders and others on their side, one locality at a time. Conservative elites thought they could pull the strings and control Mussolini, using his popularity to forward their agendas. By the time the marchers entered the capital, Mussolini had already been handed control of the country by the king and conservative party leaders.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Americans are rightfully stunned by the revelations of the select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. The president of the United States was aware that his followers were armed. He knew that the armaments were not intended for him. He directed the armed mob to march on the Capitol to pressure his vice president to overturn a legitimate election, after his own calls that morning had not succeeded. When Mike Pence did his constitutional duty, Trump was willing to let the man next in line for the presidency be killed by the angry mob he had summoned.

For two more weeks, this leader – a man who allegedly grasped for a steering wheel from the back seat so that he could lead his marchers to a transfer of power by force, whose word can launch thousands of nuclear missiles – remained in charge of the United States of America.

The country should be shocked by these devastating revelations. But they are not a surprise to the members of Congress who had been involved in the plotting and later sought pardons. They were not a revelation to the Republican Party and state leaders who had been privy to nearly two months of attempts to grasp at power over a lie through false accusations, demands to “find votes,” and fake elector schemes. They were not a shock to his staffers or his Cabinet, who failed to invoke the 25th Amendment, as was their constitutional duty.

Trump’s character was well-established during the 1,446 days he was in power before the events of Jan. 6. The intimidation and violence Trump directed his supporters to launch at anyone who stood in his way was also well known. Oathkeepers and other organized violent movements had provided volunteer security during his first inauguration and at multiple campaign events. The violent threats and armed protestors a Trump tweet could direct at the home of a Republican who voted for his impeachment, supported bipartisan legislation or otherwise opposed his will had been occurring for years.

Trump failed to take over our democracy by force on Jan. 6. But like Mussolini, his popularity and threats of violence led conservatives to hand him power well before the march.

More concerning is his continued grip. Weeks after the election was decided, Republicans in leadership positions refused to allow classified security briefings and other necessities that enable our country to continue to function during a time of government transition. The MAGA faction of Republican elites continued to pay obeisance after Jan. 6, building Trump’s power by repeating lies about the election that they knew were untrue. And as Republican primaries are demonstrating, Trump continues to hold sway over local Republican elites.

America needs a conservative party to serve the tens of millions of conservatives whose beliefs deserve representation. But a two-party democracy cannot function if one party allows an authoritarian to take the helm. Judge J. Michael Luttig has warned that the Electoral Count Act, which determines the presidency, is not up to the challenge of another attempted takeover. We remain in “clear and present danger.”

But Congress can reform the Electoral Count Act. They can protect election officials like Shaye Moss from intimidation. State GOP leaders can stop using violence to buttress their own power and instead prosecute people who intimidate and threaten. Republican voters can reject lies and threats. Democrats can stop supporting anti-democracy Republicans in the hopes that doing so will help Democrats in general elections. It is time to take back our elections from a potential dictator and his mob.

Read More

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
red and white x sign

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

On Friday, March 21, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) related to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging the purchase of Tesla stock on March 19th.

CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

The U.S. White House.

Getty Images, Caroline Purser

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

Presidential Immunity: History and Background

Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Trump 2.0: Navigating the New Political Landscape

With Trump’s return to the White House, we once again bear daily witness to a spectacle that could be described as entertaining, were it only a TV series. But Trump’s unprecedented assault on our democratic norms and institutions is not only very real but represents the gravest peril our democratic republic has confronted in the last 80 years.

Trump’s gradual consolidation of power and authoritarian proclivities, reminiscent of an earlier era, are very frightening on their own account. But it is his uncanny ability to control the narrative that empowers him to shred our nation’s fabric while proceeding with impunity. His actions not only threaten the very republic that he now leads but overturn the entire post-WWII world order, which is now in chaos. Trump has ostensibly cast aside the governing principle with the U.N. Charter of Sovereignty. By suggesting on multiple occasions that the U.S. will “get Greenland one way or another,” and that Canada might become our 51st state, our neighbor to the north is now developing plans to protect itself from what it views as the enemy across the border.

Keep ReadingShow less
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

A speakerphone locked in a cage.

Getty Images, J Studios

Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.

The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”

Keep ReadingShow less