Power Expansion in Trump's Second Term: Impact on Democratic Norms in the United States and Latin America
19/01/2026
On January 8, 2025, when four reporters from The New York Times questioned Donald Trump in the Oval Office, they touched upon a core issue. Just before the interview, the U.S. military had taken action in Venezuela without notifying Congress, let alone obtaining authorization, to remove Nicolás Maduro from power and announce control over this Latin American country and its oil resources. The reporters asked whether there were any limits to his power on the global stage. Trump's response was concise and unsettling: Yes. My own morality. My own mind. That is the only thing that can restrain me.
This response eerily echoes another incident that occurred on the same day in Minneapolis. A federal agent from Immigration and Customs Enforcement shot 37-year-old American citizen Nicole Good in the face while she was inside a vehicle, resulting in her death. At the time, Good, like many citizens across the nation, was following federal agents to protest their actions and warn the community of impending immigration raids.
From military intervention in Venezuela to street shootings in Minneapolis, these two seemingly distant events have proven to be inseparable and closely linked as Trump's second term reaches its one-year mark. Together, they paint a picture: executive power is expanding at an unprecedented pace, traditional checks and balances are failing, and democratic norms at home and abroad are simultaneously under pressure. As columnist Lydia Polgreen wrote, this represents an assault on the Constitution, blurring the lines between law enforcement and military operations, legislative authority and executive power, whether in the Western Hemisphere or on the streets of American cities.
Power Restructuring: The "Imperial" Leap of the Executive Branch
The beginning of Trump's second term did not start with gentle probing, but rather a blitzkrieg of power. On January 20, 2025, the day of the inauguration, a flood of executive orders poured out, with the most symbolic being the pardon of all individuals convicted for storming the Capitol. This was not merely a policy, but a political declaration of impunity, setting the tone for subsequent actions.
Over the past year, this mode of direct governance through executive orders has become the norm. From significantly tightening deportation policies and shutting down refugee programs, to dramatically cutting foreign aid and research funding, and then targeting environmental policies and scientific institutions, the Trump administration's intent to bypass the congressional legislative process has been quite evident. Princeton University historian Kevin Kruse points out that the most significant change is Trump's efforts to portray himself as an omnipotent dictator. He has claimed and exercised powers that no previous president has attempted, greatly expanding presidential authority beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
This expansion was made possible by relying on a crucial political reality: a Republican-controlled Congress and a compliant, Republican-majority Supreme Court. Cruz analyzed that their actions and inactions, in practice, ended the system of checks and balances that had been a cornerstone of the U.S. government since its founding. Rather than playing the constitutional role of a check, Congress often acted as an accelerator of executive power. The Supreme Court, in key rulings, gave the green light to the expansion of presidential authority.
Taking fiscal power as an example, the Constitution clearly stipulates that the purse strings are controlled by Congress. However, the Trump administration repeatedly refused to spend funds already appropriated by Congress while simultaneously attempting to use unauthorized funds. University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kate Shaw emphasized that this is a direct attack on the separation of powers. The president usurped powers belonging to Congress, and the Supreme Court's rulings have largely facilitated such behavior, the effects of which will persist for many years.
Institutional Erosion: From "Deep State" to "Accountability Collapse"
Another dimension of Trump's power expansion is the systemic transformation of the federal government itself. The core narrative involves denouncing the professional, non-political bureaucratic system as the deep state and launching sustained attacks against it. This assault is not mere rhetoric but is achieved through systematic personnel purges and institutional restructuring.
Countless civil servants, who were legally protected and should have been immune from arbitrary dismissal, have been removed. Federal agencies have been arbitrarily renamed, dissolved, or had their functions distorted. Law enforcement agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are widely perceived to have transformed from entities enforcing the law into tools serving political grievances and personal agendas. Democratic strategist Rachel Bitkower pointed out that this has resulted in the absence of any force within the federal government capable of holding those aligned with the MAGA movement accountable. She warned that the United States is sinking into a deep pit, where when state actors cause harm, there is no realistic expectation of accountability as long as this regime remains in power.
The foundation of the rule of law is experiencing significant functional failure at the federal level. Acts of violence are carried out under government authorization yet go unpunished, and the mechanisms that should intervene no longer exist. This change is particularly glaring in the field of immigration enforcement. The tragedy in Minneapolis is not an isolated incident; it reflects a system where accountability has collapsed. Even podcast host Joe Rogan, who holds immense influence among conservatives and young men, has questioned: Are we really going to become the Gestapo? Have we already reached this point?
The judicial system is experiencing unprecedented pressure. Over the past year, numerous judges, including conservatives, have expressed deep concerns in unequivocal terms about the anti-democratic tendencies of the Trump administration. Adjectives such as arbitrary, capricious, and shocking frequently appear in rulings opposing its policies. A judge appointed by Reagan even directly questioned whether the government's actions constituted discrimination against racial and LGBTQ groups, and lamented, "Have we fallen so far? Are we not ashamed?"
The government's standard response is to label anyone who makes unfavorable rulings or expresses opposition as crazy or radical. Behind this lies a long-term strategy aimed at dismantling facts and truth as the foundation of information and debate. When the Attorney General launched an unprecedented criminal investigation against the Federal Reserve Chairman, former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's warning was deafening: If you can bring charges against enemies without reason, then we no longer live in a society governed by the rule of law.
Radiation Effect: Turmoil in Latin America's Backyard and the Global Order
The expansion of Trump's power is by no means confined to the United States itself; its influence quickly spilled over, with Latin America, seen as the backyard, bearing the brunt first. The military intervention in Venezuela is the most blatant demonstration of this new diplomatic paradigm. The action completely bypassed Congress, unilaterally overthrew the government of a sovereign nation, and openly declared control over its oil resources. This marks a shift in U.S. policy toward Latin America from traditional Monroe Doctrine intervention to a more direct, less restrained, and more transactional new imperialist model.
This incident sends a clear signal to Latin America: the United States will act less through multilateral institutions or diplomatic channels and rely more on unilateral military and economic coercion. It undermines the already fragile authority of regional organizations such as the Organization of American States and may encourage other strongman leaders in the region to further emulate authoritarian governance models, as they see the possibility of making deals with the U.S. government rather than adhering to democratic norms.
At the same time, the Trump administration significantly cut foreign aid, particularly targeting programs in Central America that promoted governance and the rule of law. Analysis indicates that this reduction was not merely a budget adjustment but a deliberate strategic choice: abandoning the path of maintaining long-term stability by supporting democratic institutions, and instead adopting a coercive diplomacy primarily based on immediate threats and punishment. In the long run, this may exacerbate poverty, corruption, and instability in Latin America, ultimately leading to increased pressure for northward migration, which runs counter to the Trump administration's core commitment to securing the border.
At the global level, Trump's erratic tariff threats, public disdain for allies like NATO, and unconventional claims over territories such as Greenland collectively shape an image of an unpredictable, transaction-driven United States. Influential conservative analyst Yuval Levin argues that while Trump delivered on campaign promises like tariffs and border control, he undermined the perception of the federal government as a reliable and predictable actor. Levin points out that the cost of such short-sighted actions far outweighs the benefits, as the stability provided by a predictable and reliable government was once a massive hidden subsidy in American life.
Fragile Resistance: The Last Line of Defense for Democratic Resilience
Faced with systemic erosion of power, has American democracy completely collapsed? The answer is no, but the defenses have become exceptionally fragile and fragmented. Forces of resistance are unfolding at multiple levels in various forms, although they have yet to reverse the overall situation.
The judicial system remains a critical battleground. While the Supreme Court's performance has been disappointing, many lower federal courts have become bulwarks against the expansion of executive power. By issuing injunctions, dismissing frivolous lawsuits, and other means, they have delayed or prevented some of the government's most radical policies. Constitutional law professor Kate Shaw places her hope in these lower courts and in the mobilization of ordinary Americans to protect fundamental constitutional guarantees from permanent erosion.
Democrats in Congress leverage their minority status to launch investigations and hold hearings in an attempt to fulfill their oversight responsibilities. However, with Republicans controlling both chambers, most of these efforts struggle to translate into substantive checks-and-balances legislation. The real test will come in the midterm elections of November 2026. At that time, voters' attitudes will determine whether Congress can restore its constitutionally mandated checks-and-balances function.
The role of civil society and the media has become crucial yet more perilous. Some civil servants continue to engage in soft resistance within the system, opposing improper directives through delays, information leaks, or strict adherence to regulations. Independent media persist in investigative reporting, despite facing stigmatization as enemies of the people and increasing legal threats. Public discontent is also accumulating. Multiple polls show that Trump's approval rating has consistently failed to exceed 40%. Following the Minneapolis incident, excessively brutal and inhumane actions proved unpopular, even drawing criticism from some conservative camps.
The response from the business community, legal circles, and academia has been far more complex. Some tech giants and corporate executives have chosen silence or compromise, fearing they might become targets of retaliation. Many law firms and universities have also appeared hesitant under pressure. This silence itself has, objectively speaking, cleared the way for the further expansion of power.
The first year of Trump's second term was a year of severe stress testing for American constitutional democracy. Presidential power expanded at an unprecedented speed and breadth, while democratic norms both domestically and internationally were simultaneously challenged. This process was not accomplished through a coup, but rather through the systematic distortion of existing institutions, the gradual dismantling of accountability mechanisms, and the continuous erosion of the spirit of the rule of law.
The resilience of American democracy is being tested. The institutional checks and balances—Congress, the courts, the media—though weakened, have not yet collapsed. Resistance from civil society flickers intermittently. However, the inertia of expanding power is immense, while the forces of restraint are fragmented and fragile. The lessons of history show that the decline of democracy is often not a sudden event, but a gradual process, beginning with the erosion of norms, followed by the hollowing out of institutions, and finally, the loss of rights.
In the next three years, the tug-of-war will continue. Each court lawsuit, every congressional hearing, every investigative report, and each street protest may become a crucial weight determining the direction in which the scale tilts. Ultimately, the question is whether, in a system where power is increasingly concentrated in the executive branch and checks and balances are continuously yielding, the judicial declaration that "we are not a monarchy" can transform from a historical principle into a living political reality. The answer will not only determine the fate of the United States but also provide a vital reference for the future of global democracy.