Tyranny of the Majority: Is the US Heading Down the Path of Dictatorship?

Introduction:

Since its inception, the United States has prided itself on being a democracy and the leader of the free world. The founding fathers of the US have gone out of their way to form a US government that did not resemble a monarchy or an autocracy through a system of checks and balances as well as a separation of powers in order to hold each branch of the US government accountable and to prevent the usurpation of power. While this system has held up for almost 250 years, the re-election of Donald Trump, the Republican Party (GOP) gaining a majority in the US legislative branch, and the Supreme Court being packed with conservative judges has presented challenges to the future of democracy in the US. Therefore, one has to ask the question: is the US heading down the path of dictatorship? This article will explore the US’ potential descent into dictatorship through interpretations of the US constitution relating to key policy issues. Moreover, this article will be divided into the following sections to explain the US’ potential shift towards a more autocratic rule:

• First and Fifth Amendment Violations: Right to Free Speech and Protest Under Attack
• Fourteenth Amendment Violations: Attempts to End Birthright Citizenship 
• Fourth and First Amendment Violations: The Issue of Abortion Rights
• Conclusion

First and Fifth Amendment Violations: Right to Free Speech and Protest Under Attack:

According to the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Const. Amend. 1). One can assert the Trump administration violated this amendment of the US constitution through the detention of US green card and student visa holders as presented in the cases of Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, two students who were detained. The reasons for their forced detention were tied to their involvement in pro-Palestine protests or criticisms of the US foreign policy relating to Israel’s campaign in Gaza (Pazmino, Rose, and Roy, 2025). Therefore, in these cases, the argument can be made that the US government violated the First Amendment by punishing two legal residents in the US for exercising their right to criticise and protest US foreign policy in the MENA region. 

Moreover, it  can be asserted that the actions taken by the Trump administration violate First Amendment protections as these actions show some forms of free speech and peaceable assembly are not protected as they are enacted against government policy. The framers of the constitution championed all forms of free speech and assembly, a central part of US law, as it gave the people the right to criticise and protest government legislation without fear of reprisal or punishment from the ruling elites. By detaining Khalil and Ozturk, the Trump administration set a precedent that no one can criticise US foreign policy, even if it results in arbitrary detention. 

The Trump administration can argue that the student detentions are lawful under Brandenburg v. Ohio, as this Supreme Court decision holds “A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”

While it can be said the actions of the Trump administration in the case of student detentions can be considered a First Amendment issue, one can argue that these actions also violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the detained. This is clear as the Fifth Amendment clearly states that individuals have the right to due process. Neither of the student detainees in this case were charged with a criminal offense and therefore it can be argued that these students are being held arbitrarily. The violation of their Fifth Amendment rights by the Trump administration sets the precedent that the US government can detain individuals who criticise policy. Therefore, it can be said that the student detentions can reflect a violation of first and Fifth Amendment rights and show how the US is increasingly adopting a dictatorial style.

Although some view these actions as unconstitutional, there are some legal arguments that can be made in favour of the Trump administration relating to the student detentions. The Trump administration can argue that the student detentions are lawful under Brandenburg v. Ohio, as this Supreme Court decision holds “A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)). In this case, the Trump administration can argue that the protest that Khalil was involved in directly threatened US national security interests, which would give the administration grounds to prohibit free speech and peaceful assembly. This sentiment is echoed when  US Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the detention of these residents by stating that “The foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and American citizens and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective” (Rubio, 2025 cited in Atkins and Lavietes, 2025). Through this lens, the Trump administration argues these residents’ right to free speech and protest is not protected under the First Amendment as their actions pose a threat to US interests and can undermine US governance.

In regard to the protection of temporary student visa holders, the Trump administration can argue that it was acting lawfully and within the scope of the constitution. This is clear through the Supreme Court decision Kleindienst v. Mandel, where it was decided that individuals that oppose the US national interest can be refused entry and temporary status by the executive branch (Kleindienst V Mandel (1972)). Through this decision, the Trump administration can argue that the detention and potential revocation of legal residency statuses of Khalil and Ozturk is constitutional, as their pro-Palestine beliefs go against the US government’s policy of ensuring Israel’s right to exist. Therefore, it can be said through this interpretation that the US is not headed toward a dictatorship as the Trump administration would be acting constitutionally to protect the US national interest and internal stability. 

Fourteenth Amendment Violations: Attempts to End Birthright Citizenship:

Moreover, while it can be said that the Trump administration is moving towards a dictatorial leadership style through first and Fifth Amendment violations, it can also be argued that Trump’s desire to end birthright citizenship is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the Fourteenth Amendment “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” (US Const. Amend. 14. Section 1). This amendment gives all people born in the US the right to citizenship and protection under the US constitution. 

Although some can consider the language of the Fourteenth Amendment clear in its language regarding birthright citizenship, the Trump administration plan on banning this right via executive order as the first order of business under the new administration. The rationale behind this ban is grounded in the idea that ending birthright citizenship will lead to a decline in illegal immigration, as the newborns of illegal aliens will not benefit from gaining US citizenship (Wendling, 2025). This rationale is also supported by Trump as “…he thought the children of unauthorised immigrants should be deported alongside their parents – even if they were born in the US” (Trump, 2025 cited in BBC, 2025). As of now, there has been a freeze on ending birthright citizenship as three judges from Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts have blocked the executive order and Trump has taken the case to the Supreme Court (Howe, 2025). 

The Trump administration’s desire to end birthright citizenship can be considered unconstitutional, as the Fourteenth Amendment states all individuals born on US soil should be guaranteed citizenship and therefore protected constitutional rights. One can argue that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mention the circumstances or the legality of one’s birth in the US and therefore can make the assumption that regardless of the immigration status of the parent or parents, a child born in the US should be granted citizenship. Through Trump’s desire to end birthright citizenship, one can make the argument that the US is moving closer to a government with dictatorial tendencies. This is clear as some can assert that ending birthright citizenship could lead to the mass deportation of people born in the US in the hundreds of thousands. This can mean the government can strip people’s birthright citizenship away and deport them from the only country they can call home. 

While the Trump administration’s desire to end birthright citizenship can be considered unconstitutional by some, the Trump administration does provide an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that some can argue provides precedent for ending birthright citizenship. According to Scott Bomboy, the legal argument for ending birthright citizenship is grounded in the idea that “…the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (Bomboy, 2025). Under this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the children of illegal immigrants would not be afforded citizenship, as their parents are not under the jurisdiction of the US, as they pledge allegiance to a sovereign nation that is not the US. Therefore, the Trump administration believes it is constitutional to end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants on the basis that they are not within the US’ jurisdiction. 

However, as mentioned before, the case is with the Supreme Court, however, it would not be surprising to some if the court ruled in favour of Trump. This is clear as the argument can be made that the Supreme Court is made up of primarily conservative judges who tend to share similar ideological thoughts with Trump. Therefore, it can be said that if the Supreme Court were to rule in favour of ending birthright citizenship, it could potentially expose how the court is not impartial as it should be and therefore could also show how Trump could use the court to guarantee his executive orders are upheld. 

Fourth and First Amendment Violations: The Issue of Abortion Rights:

Furthermore, it can also be argued Trump is moving the US towards a dictatorial path through potential Fourth and First Amendment violations relating to abortion rights. Before presenting this argument, it must be mentioned that although Roe Vs. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022 in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation and abortion was not deemed a constitutionally protected right, it is still not considered illegal on a federal level but now considered an issue for the states to decide. However, it can be argued that there are legitimate fears that the second Trump term will bring about a nationwide abortion ban that would put the reproductive health of women at risk. 

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a US think tank focused on reproductive health, it is probable that Trump could enforce a nationwide abortion ban, and reinstate the global and domestic gag orders to prevent NGOs and medical clinics from administering abortions, and undo all of Joe Biden’s abortion protections (Bernstein, Friedrich-Karnik, and Damavandi, 2024). While Trump has not engaged in any policy relating to abortion at this moment, any enforcement of the aforementioned policies could potentially result in the violation of fourth and First Amendment rights of women in the US. 

According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” (US Const. Amend. 4). According to Ren Brabenec of Tennessee Lookout, abortion is protected under the Fourth Amendment as he claims “When a government bans abortion, it violates the right of the people (women) to be secure in their persons (bodies) against government seizure (gov’t control of uteruses)” (Brabenec, 2023). This is an interesting interpretation of the Fourth Amendment applied to abortion rights as it implies that the government control over a woman’s choice violates their bodily autonomy. Moreover, the right to privacy and bodily autonomy argument is made through the Supreme Court decision relating to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where the Supreme Court upheld that a Connecticut law banning contraceptives was unconstitutional as it violated the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments implied right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)).

That being said, a nationwide ban could also have a catastrophic impact on abortion rights when it comes to the issue of privacy, as a nationwide ban and policing of abortion would lead to the violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, as some can argue that doctors would most likely be forced to give up patients seeking abortion to law enforcement for prosecution. Therefore, it can be argued that a nationwide abortion ban would be  dictatorial as it would allow the federal government to violate a woman’s right to privacy while also setting a precedent that the federal government could police a woman’s bodily autonomy. 

While abortion rights can be considered a Fourth Amendment issue, it also raises questions relating to the First Amendment in regards to the aspect of religion. This is clear as the First Amendment interpretation states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” (US Const. Amend. 1) A nationwide ban on abortion supported by a GOP controlled government can be seen as a violation of the First Amendment as some can argue the grounds for an abortion ban could be based on religious views. To some, the constitution states that no law shall be made to establish religion in the US, which goes against the GOP’s religious nature and therefore some can make the argument that there is no ground in treating abortion as an issue of religion. Furthermore, one could argue that the Supreme Court violated the First Amendment as Martin E. Gold, Adjunct Professor of Columbia Law states “All these judges placed their personal, conservative Christian beliefs above those of others. Each of them believes a “human person” …comes into existence immediately upon conception and that abortion at any stage can be made a crime” (Gold, 2022). Therefore, beyond the conservative nature of the Supreme Court, it can be argued by some that Trump and his allies in congress could potentially use the religious conversation around abortion to eventually enact a nationwide ban, which some can argue sets a precedent that religion could be used as a basis for lawmaking. 

Although some can argue that a nationwide ban on abortion can be considered unconstitutional and can lead the US down the path of dictatorship, the Trump administration can argue that a nationwide ban is lawful under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is clear as the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 mentions “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. Amend. 14. Section 1). Through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Trump administration can make the argument that abortions violate an unborn fetus’  right to life and equal protection, as the Trump administration views unborn fetuses as a person.  Moreover, the Trump administration can argue that the First Amendment does not apply to abortion rights as the religious statute implication is focused on the establishment of a national religion and not focused on religious views influencing lawmaking in the US. Hence, the Trump administration can argue that any nationwide ban on abortion is grounded in social and ethical arguments as opposed to religious ones.

Conclusion:

Conclusively, the argument can be made that the Trump administration violated the US constitution in the aforementioned cases, which could lead the US down the path of dictatorship. The detention of university students exercising their right to free speech and protest provides the perspective that the Trump administration violated the First and Fifth Amendment as the students were detained for criticising the US government. Moreover, it can be argued Trump’s desire to end birthright citizenship can be interpreted as a Fourteenth Amendment violation, which could lead to mass deportation of US citizens based on the circumstances of their birth. Finally, the case can be made to support how a potential nationwide ban on abortion rights violates a woman’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy, while also possibly violating the First Amendment’s directive that no law should be made establishing religion. In this sense, one can make the argument that the Trump administration’s actions violate the constitution and therefore is leading the US down an autocratic path. 

While the argument can be made that the US is heading towards autocracy, this piece does highlight how the actions of the Trump administration can be considered intense but working within the democratic system. This is clear through the examples of Supreme Court decisions that potentially back the Trump administration’s actions through existing precedents, which deem these actions as constitutional. Moreover, it can be argued that the Trump administration’s intensity relating to these actions does not override the system of checks and balances, as executive action and judicial review are considered part of the democratic processes of the US. Therefore although the Trump administration’s actions are intense and swift, it can be argued that these actions are within the scope of the constitution, hence does not reflect a breakdown of the US’ democratic systems. 

References

Sherif Amin is a Research Fellow at the America Program of the Sixteenth Council