Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What would really happen if Trump wins?

Mark Esper sitting next to Donald Trump

Defense Secretary Mark Esper (left) and other leaders stood up to Donald Trump when he was president. Trump would likely face similar resistance if he wins another term.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Cooper is the author of “ How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t. ”

If Donald Trump wins the presidential election, many worry that America will descend into dark times.


Washington Post columnist Ishaan Tharoor, for example, detailed myriad ways he thinks Trump would subvert American democracy:

“As my colleagues have reported over the past year, Trump has made clear his stark, authoritarian vision for a potential second term. He would embark on a wholesale purge of the federal bureaucracy, weaponize the Justice Department to explicitly go after his political opponents (something he claims is being done to him), stack government agencies across the board with political appointees prescreened as ideological Trump loyalists, and dole out pardons to myriad officials and apparatchiks as incentives to do his bidding or stay loyal.”

These concerns don’t withstand scrutiny. If Trump wins, American democracy will undergo a severe stress test. Yet again. But it won’t plunge into dictatorship, authoritarianism or fascism. These are coherent governmental structures. Instead, if Trump wins, America will have an incoherent and volatile mix of some government institutions that function democratically and some that don’t.

The fundamental problem with predictions like Tharoor’s is that Trump can’t actually accomplish these things. The federal bureaucracy can’t be “purged” by the sitting president. Valid federal legislation authorizes and funds government agencies — so the courts won’t allow them to be gutted by executive order. Republican presidents have long tried to shrink the administrative state. They’ve failed every time. Even if the federal bureaucracy were halved it would still be huge.

The Justice Department, moreover, didn’t go after Trump’s enemies while he was president. To the contrary, DOJ lawyers rejected Trump’s demands to prosecute Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and others. The DOJ did, however, prosecute many of Trump's friends, like Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort and Tom Barrack. And of course the Justice Department brought two major cases against Trump himself. To imprison his enemies, as Tharoor warns about, Trump would need grand juries to indict on his command, courts to illicitly rule in his favor and juries to render his chosen verdicts. There’s no reason to think any of those things could happen.

The Senate, furthermore, still has to confirm all executive-level presidential appointments. And pardons only apply to specific acts and offer no protection under state law or for future activity. Just look at Bannon, who was first pardoned by Trump for one thing and then later convicted of something else.

Moreover, Trump wouldn’t control most government activity — at the federal, state or local level. If the Democrats take the House in November, they will oppose Trump at every turn. We should expect Trump’s third impeachment — for something or other — to commence promptly. Democratic-run state and local governments likewise would fight back against Trump's initiatives, just like they did previously.

The most serious domestic risk America faces if Trump wins is that the military starts doing his bidding. But there’s no reason to expect this to happen. He has long had strained relations with military leaders, including secretaries of defense (John Mattis and Mark Esper) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. The military has steadfastly refused to obey Trump’s improper orders.

This isn’t to say a second Trump presidency wouldn’t be dangerous. It would be. But the biggest concerns would reside where the American electorate often doesn't bother to focus: international affairs. This is where American presidents have the fewest checks on their power and the most potential to do harm. The international community is desperate for sober and rational American leadership — the opposite of Trump-style diplomacy.

If Donald Trump wins the election there will be plenty to worry about, to be sure. But there will also be many doomful predictions that don’t come true.


Read More

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media

White House communications aide Danielle Alvarez (R) films with her phone as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as he departs on the South Lawn of the White House on October 23, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Trump’s Arch Plan Defies Law and Warps D.C.’s Historic Core

The Trump Arch construction controversy is the latest vanity project by Donald Trump using taxpayer money without Congressional approval, placing his ego-based physical stamp on not only American historical architecture but also the American psyche. With no good reason for constructing this arch, it’s an act of self-aggrandizement meant to make him look powerful and important. The project is unconstitutional, illegal, and patently un-American. Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian have also filed a lawsuit against it.

Like all other actors in government, executive agencies, like the National Park Service, must follow the rule of law and respect ‘separation of powers’ established by the U.S. Constitution. This means following the laws enacted by Congress, which has the power to distribute public funds and determine how they are spent, not the Executive Branch, including the President.

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less