America’s descent into the suppression of dissent

Tracking the Trump administration's actions across four domains of suppressing dissent.

One of the most obvious hallmarks of an authoritarian regime is the suppression of dissent. This month we have seen the Trump administration deploy the National Guard and the Marines against protesters in Los Angeles, arrest or repress Democratic lawmakers, and threaten to invoke the Insurrection Act. But this is only the latest culmination in an escalating campaign to suppress dissent across four distinct fronts, and it’s worth reflecting on how we got here and what might happen next.

Four ways to suppress dissent

I’ve been tracking Trump’s actions since his inauguration in January 2025, and so far I have logged 93 actions that I consider to be acting to suppress dissent. I believe they fall into four main domains of suppression:

1. to make it harder for people to know what there is to dissent to, but undermining press freedom (21/93 actions, 23%)

2. to make it harder for people to defend themselves against the state by systematically weakening the independence of law enforcement, attacking law firms who bring cases against the state, and attacking judges who rule against the state (16/93 actions, 17%)

3. to target perceived prominent enemies of the state directly (both individuals and organisations) to prevent them becoming a focus for stimulating dissent and to discourage others from taking a stand (27/93 actions, 31%)

4. to suppress protests, to punish protesters or to punish others who are directly dissenting (29/93 actions, 29%)

Viewed as a whole, the administration’s domains of suppressing dissent operate like concentric rings: first undermining the media that informs the public, then hollowing out the courts that protect the public, next targeting prominent individuals who could organise the public, and finally deploying force to control the public.

The administration has been using all of them, but their use of each tactic over time is changing.

Escalation of actions across the domains

Below, I’ve plotted the number of each of the four types by each month of the presidential term since 20 January to show the emerging story.

During the first month of his second term, Trump concentrated on reducing press freedom and targeting his perceived enemies. The former involved starting the federal scrutiny of public broadcasting (NPR, PBS), suing organisations that he felt were biased against him (CBS) and restricting independent media access to the White House. At this stage, his targeted enemies comprised the previous administration, those he blamed for investigating the 2021 January 6^th insurrection and federal employees who directly criticised him or his policies.

The second month of his administration (20 February to 19 March) saw increasing attacks on specific law firms, state capture of key military and law roles and early attacks on federal judges ruling against his administration. While there were large scale protests in early February, there was no attempted state suppression.

During the third month (20 March to 19 April) this changed with a concerted attack on both students who had protested Israel’s war on Gaza and universities . This was the start of the deportation or detention of foreign students who had been prominent protesters, the assault on the independence of universities, and the increased vetting of foreign current and future students and academics. Targeting foreign students was administratively easier (the state already has detailed information on them and the power to revoke their status), legally easier (those denied new visas have no recourse to US justice, those deported little recourse), and less politically risky as many Americans simply did not care that much about the fate of foreign students painted as Hamas sympathisers. That month also saw more attacks on law firms, lawyers, and judges, serving to create a significantly more hostile environment for students, or anyone, seeking to assert their rights in court.

The fourth month (20 April to 19 May) saw Trump return to his attacks on independent media. CBS gave way under pressure, the New York Times was investigated for its coverage of the attacks on CBS, federal funding was ended for PBS, NPR and the Voice of America, and the US Attorney General revoked a Biden-era policy that protected reporters’ phone records. There were also increasing attacks on perceived enemies – but this time the enemies of the present and not the past. The Dept of Justice said it would ‘name and shame’ Trump critics, the State department targeted ‘suspect’ employees, Trump wanted investigations into celebrities who publicly opposed him and called for Republican congress members who opposed his tax bill to face primary challenges.

Finally, this last month we have seen direct targeting of American citizens’ right to protest and elected politician to hold the government to account, and an increased assault on perceived enemies. The latter includes targeting ‘disloyal’ FBI agents, Harvard University, NGOs and civil rights organisations, California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Senator Padilla, Democratic Congressman McIver and Union President Huerta. As others have written, the Los Angeles protests at the brutal deportation raids across the state have given the administration the perfect pretext to flex its direct powers of repression. The right wing media have been free to depict the protests as left wing and immigrant lawlessness threatening the security of America, with independent broadcast media less able to respond given the administration’s attacks over previous months. The National Guard and Marines have been mobilised without the consent of the California governor against American citizens. Republican states such as Texas and Missouri are using California as an excuse to pre-emptively mobilise the National Guard to discourage their citizens from protesting. One Florida sheriff even threatened to kill would-be protesters.

Where do we go from here?

The number and severity of the administration’s actions to suppress dissent have increased each month. There is nothing to suggest either from the last five months or administration rhetoric that Trump will de-escalate. His cabinet and the Republican party has rallied firmly behind him. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem vowed to “liberate this city [LA] from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country”; Senator Marco Rubio has backed aggressive measures—including revoking thousands of visas—to “protect national security”; and Stephen Miller has openly urged ICE to “intensify efforts” against what he terms agitators. Some commentators are warning that these crackdowns could be a dress rehearsal for potential unrest during or after the midterm elections. This hardening stance has already emboldened extremists, manifesting most tragically in the June 15, 2025, shooting of two Democratic state lawmakers in Minnesota by a gunman posing as a police officer.

What might come next? If the trajectory continues to worsen, we might see the administration shift from crackdowns against specific protests to more institutionalised repression. This might take the form of legislation to criminalise broad categories of protest, or introducing enhanced surveillance powers into routine law enforcement, or pre-authorising rapid-deployment protocols for the military in any jurisdiction deemed ‘at risk.’ By the midterms – still almost 18 months away - those measures could be supplemented by voter-suppression tactics masked as ‘security enhancements,’ while further judicial, regulatory and media checks on executive power are weakened. In effect, the current playbook is laying the groundwork for a permanently securitised state in which dissent itself becomes a state-policed privilege rather than a protected right.

Yet there is reason for hope: on Saturday 14 June, millions across the US joined in “No Kings” protests to reaffirm democracy and reject authoritarian overreach. While there were some clashes with the authorities, the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. The administration does not yet feel able to suppress dissent that lacks a MAGA friendly bogeyman such as foreign students, illegal immigrants or ‘coastal elite cities’.

Keep dissenting – exercise your rights today to preserve them for tomorrow.

Addendum

I’ve been incredibly busy at work and life in general and so just haven’t been able to post as much as I would like to. It’s been all I can do to keep my tracker up to date (now at well over 500 actions since Jan 2025), and only then because of the amazing help of Sandy Laping. Am on holiday now for two weeks in Germany, but some stuff I’ve been working on in the background should be coming out this week so expect more soon!