The Path to Totalitarianism Is Paved with Reasonable Excuses

How America’s democratic safeguards are being bypassed—one “necessary measure” at a time

“It didn’t start with gas chambers. It started with politicians dividing people with ‘us vs. them,’ with words, with laws, with surveillance...”
— Auschwitz Exhibition / #ItStartedWithWords campaign, paraphrased

Totalitarian regimes are rarely born overnight. They do not usually begin with dramatic violence or outright dictatorship. Instead, they grow step by step—each action justifiable, each policy a “necessary measure.” It is not the sound of jackboots but the quiet erosion of democratic principles that marks their rise.

A recent image of U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem(1) offers a stark illustration of how authoritarian tendencies can be visually and politically normalized. The photograph shows Noem standing outside a prison cell in El Salvador, inside of which are several men who were deported from the United States. The Trump administration claims these men are members of violent gangs operating within the U.S.—and for many, that may be true. But reporting has revealed that several of the detainees were not criminals at all. Some were legal immigrants or asylum seekers, mistakenly deported based on nothing more than shared names, tattoos, or associations. One of the most prominent and illustrating cases is the one of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

And yet the photo tells a different story: one of certainty, of justice delivered. It sends a message to the public—these are the bad people, and we are the strong ones standing outside the bars. The complexity, the humanity, and the mistakes are hidden behind the bars, both literally and figuratively.

This is how it begins.

1. Start with a Real Threat, Then Expand the Net

Authoritarian logic often begins with real dangers. Gang violence is a genuine problem. It is not wrong to pursue justice or protect public safety. But authoritarianism does not rely on inventing threats—it relies on inflating and generalizing them. The presence of real criminals was used to justify the indiscriminate treatment of others.

In Nazi Germany, Jews were labeled as corruptors, criminals, or threats to social order. The difference is stark: gang members are criminals by definition; Jews were not. But the similarity lies in what happens when suspicion becomes collective, and guilt by association replaces individual justice. That is where the descent begins.(2)

2. Undermining Legal Independence

Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms like Paul, Weiss send a dangerous message: cooperating with investigations into the president or his allies may cost your firm everything.(3) When law firms like Willkie Farr & Gallagher respond with preemptive obedience, the message becomes even clearer.(4)

This climate of intimidation is not limited to private legal practices. It has now extended to the judiciary itself. When U.S. District Judge James Boasberg temporarily blocked deportation flights involving alleged gang members, he was publicly condemned by Trump, who called for his impeachment. Representative Brandon Gill even introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, claiming judicial overreach.(5) While such efforts are unlikely to succeed, they send a chilling message to judges across the country: ruling against the administration might cost you your career.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement defending judicial independence and warning against politicizing the impeachment process. But for some judges—especially those early in their careers or without deep institutional backing—this kind of political targeting may prompt a more cautious, deferential approach to cases involving the administration.

This tactic mirrors early Nazi efforts to bring the legal system under party control. Judges in Germany who opposed the Nazi regime were marginalized or removed, and those who remained learned quickly that survival depended on alignment with power.(6)

A democracy cannot function without an independent legal system. Once the law becomes a tool of personal power, it ceases to protect the people.

3. Weaponizing the National Guard to Intimidate

On June 6, 2025, President Trump federalized 2,000 National Guard troops in California in response to protests against aggressive ICE raids in Los Angeles. The protests, some of which included violence, were portrayed by the administration as aiding “foreign terrorist organizations.”(8) Based on that framing, the president issued a directive to deploy troops on California soil over the objections of the governor and without invoking the Insurrection Act, a key legal requirement for such unilateral federal action.

This echoes strategies used in the rise of autocratic regimes, where state military forces are deployed against civilian populations, not to defend the constitution but to silence dissent, spread fear, and reinforce executive power. Hitler used the Reichswehr to quell internal unrest and demonstrate control; Putin deployed Russian troops to neutralize opposition under the guise of restoring order; Pinochet launched a military coup to “stabilize” Chile while arresting thousands.(9, 10, 11)

In the U.S., this tactic does not yet carry the smell of open dictatorship. But it is unmistakably a test of institutional resistance—a probing maneuver to see whether courts, state governments, and the public will yield. It sends a message: “The law cannot stop us. The military will follow us.”

4. Expansionist Nationalism

Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, parts of Canada, and the Panama Canal are often dismissed as bluster. But history shows us that such rhetoric is a test—a signal to see what the public will tolerate.

In the years before World War II, Hitler annexed the Rhineland, Austria, and the Sudetenland, all under the justification of protecting German interests. Each time, the international response was weak. Emboldened, he took more.

Expansionist talk appeals to nationalism, distracts from domestic issues, and sets the stage for extraordinary powers. It should never be taken lightly.

5. Silencing the Free Press

Trump’s legal threats against journalists and media organizations have already produced results: settlements, retractions, and chilling effects.(12) When major outlets alter coverage out of fear, democracy suffers.

In Nazi Germany, critical journalists were silenced early. Publications were shut down, reporters jailed or disappeared, and the entire media landscape brought under the control of Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda.(13)

Freedom of the press is not optional in a democracy. It is the immune system of the body politic. When it is weakened, infection spreads quickly.

6. Encouraging Political Violence

The Proud Boys and other extremist groups have threatened election workers and civil servants.(14, 15, 16) Trump has, at best, looked the other way—at worst, encouraged them with winks and nods.

This is eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s use of the SA (Sturmabteilung), a paramilitary force that intimidated opponents, broke up meetings, and terrorized dissenters. While not officially part of the government, they operated with its protection.(17)

When the state allows violence to flourish in defense of its leader, it creates an environment where fear replaces debate. That is not democracy.

7. Politicizing the Bureaucracy

Project 2025 aims to purge non-partisan civil servants and replace them with loyalists. The justification is that career officials are obstructing the will of the elected president.(18) But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic governance.

A professional civil service exists to implement policy within legal and constitutional bounds. Its neutrality ensures stability across administrations. When that neutrality is replaced with political loyalty, the government becomes an extension of the ruling party.

In Nazi Germany, this process was called Gleichschaltung—"coordination"—a system-wide purging of the non-aligned and their replacement with party loyalists.(19) The result was total control of every institution by the Nazi Party.

Purging the bureaucracy is not reform. It is a power grab.

8. Targeting Dissenting Elites: The New Oligarch Playbook

Authoritarian regimes are not sustained only by mass suppression; they are often enabled, at least in their early phases, by economic elites—industrialists, tech innovators, financiers—who believe they can profit or maintain influence under autocratic leadership. But once their loyalty is questioned, the state quickly reminds them who really holds the power.

In 2025, Elon Musk—who briefly served as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration—became a public target after leaving his post in May and reportedly considering donations to Democratic candidates. In response, President Trump warned of “very serious consequences” if Musk supported his political opponents.(20)

This behavior mirrors the treatment of oligarchs in Putin’s Russia, where billionaires like Mikhail Khodorkovsky were expropriated and imprisoned after showing political independence.(21) It reflects tactics seen in China, Turkey, and Hungary, where state power is used not only to silence journalists or judges but to discipline the business class into submission.

When a sitting president threatens a private citizen over legal political donations, economic freedom becomes contingent on political loyalty. It chills not only the targeted individual, but others watching from the sidelines. This is authoritarian signaling—and it works.

The Danger of the Reasonable Step

Each of these developments can be, and is, rationalized. Fight crime. Reclaim strength. Streamline government. Silence lies. Maintain order. Punish disloyalty.

But taken together, they form a pattern that is not new. It is old. It is well-documented. And it is deadly.

History does not repeat itself exactly. But it rhymes. And if we ignore the echoes, we invite the verse to continue.

We must remain alert to the creeping normalization of authoritarian tactics. Because totalitarianism doesn’t come with a bang. It comes with a nod, a shrug, and a “reasonable excuse.”

The bars in Kristi Noem’s photo may not look like the ones in history books. But they are part of the same architecture. And so are the soldiers on our streets. And the threats against those who dare to dissent.

Footnotes

1. yahoo!news: Homeland Security Secretary Noem visits the El Salvador prison where deported Venezuelans are held
2. Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, 1951.
3. The White House: Addressing risks from Paul Weiss
4. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/politics/willkie-farr-gallagher-trump-law-firm-deal/index.html
5. https://www.newsweek.com/judge-boasberg-impeach-deportation-flights-brandon-gill-2049585
6. Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin, 2004.
7. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/us/los-angeles-immigration-enforcement-protesters
8. https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1931533276985823392
9. Judah, Ben. Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell In and Out of Love with Vladimir Putin. Yale University Press, 2013.
10. Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Simon & Schuster, 1960.
11. Constable, Pamela, and Valenzuela, Arturo. A Nation of Enemies: Chile Under Pinochet. W. W. Norton, 1993.
12. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5152827-donald-trump-condemns-media-outlets-pbs-ap-cbs-msnbc/
13. Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich in Power. Penguin, 2006.
14. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/election-workers-threats-trump/680362/
15. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/election-workers-are-being-bombarded-with-death-threats-the-u-s-government-says
16. https://www.wired.com/story/proud-boys-comeback-revenge/
17. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: A Biography. Norton, 2008.
18. https://www.project2025.org
19. Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin, 2004.
20. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-elon-musk-consequences-funds-democratic-candidates-rcna211605
21. Rutland, Peter. “The Oligarchs and Putin’s Russia.” Russian Politics & Law, vol. 46, no. 1, 2008.