Lawfare Archive: The Authoritarian Playbook in 2025

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast: The Authoritarian Playbook in 2025

Released on March 2, 2025, The Lawfare Podcast hosted by Benjamin Wittes delves into the pressing concerns surrounding the potential rise of authoritarianism in the United States. In the episode titled "Lawfare Archive: The Authoritarian Playbook in 2025," Wittes engages in a comprehensive discussion with Genevieve Nadeau and Erika Nuland, authors of the influential report, The Authoritarian Playbook for 2025: How an Authoritarian President Will Dismantle Our Democracy and What We Can Do to Protect It. This episode meticulously explores the strategies an authoritarian leader might employ to erode democratic institutions and the measures citizens and policymakers can take to safeguard democracy.

---

1. Introduction to the Authoritarian Playbook

Benjamin Wittes opens the discussion by providing context about the Authoritarian Playbook, emphasizing its evolution and relevance in the contemporary political landscape:

"This is not the first publication with the Authoritarian Playbook in the title... Our more recent report, the authoritarian playbook for 2025, focuses on the threat the nation is facing should we choose to elect another authoritarian to the White House come 2025."
[05:27]

Genevieve Nadeau elaborates on the origins of the playbook, highlighting its foundation in historical and global examples of authoritarian tactics:

"The original Authoritarian Playbook outlines the sort of common key tactics that authoritarians use... Our report doesn't cover everything Trump or his allies say, but key categories of threats that he has articulated and that we think everyone should take seriously."
[08:14]

---

2. Evolution of Authoritarian Strategies

Benjamin Wittes draws parallels between his previous analyses and the current situation, questioning how the threat has intensified:

"I feel like you're in a better position today than we were... why are we in a better position today?"
[10:58]

Erika Nuland responds by underscoring the enhanced preparedness of authoritarian actors, noting the establishment of robust infrastructures and weakened institutional safeguards:

"Authoritarians are better prepared. They have spent seven or eight years building out infrastructure, understanding the guardrails and how to work around them... There's anticipatory obedience from folks in and outside of politics."
[13:22]

---

3. Key Components of the Authoritarian Playbook 2025

Genevieve Nadeau outlines the central focus of the updated playbook, emphasizing Trump’s specific promises and their alignment with authoritarian tactics:

"We focused first on what Trump himself and some of his close allies and advisors are saying... we put those promises in the context of the original playbook and the key tactics that we see authoritarians use consistently."
[08:14]

Erika Nuland discusses the detailed plans laid out by influential groups like the Heritage Foundation, which complement Trump’s objectives:

"The Heritage Foundation issued a 900-page document that lays out through very specific plans... This isn't just bluster. This is for real."
[16:56]

---

4. Regulatory Mechanisms as Tools of Authoritarianism

The conversation shifts to the use of regulatory tools to undermine democratic institutions and target opponents.

Erika Nuland provides a concrete example with the proposed Schedule F executive order:

"Recommendation of reissuing Trump's Schedule F executive order to permit discharge of non-performing employees... showing loyalty as the preeminent criteria for federal workers."
[16:56]

Genevieve Nadeau emphasizes the broader implications of such policies, framing them as part of a strategy to remake the federal government to serve personal and political interests rather than the public good:

"Trump is really promising a remaking of the federal government in a way that is meant to serve him personally and politically... his second term, if he gets one, is going to be all about retribution."
[19:46]

---

5. Justice Department and the Prosecution of Political Opponents

A critical discussion unfolds around the role of the Justice Department (DOJ) in potentially prosecuting political adversaries, raising concerns about the erosion of the rule of law.

Benjamin Wittes highlights the unprecedented nature of current DOJ actions against Trump, questioning their implications for democracy:

"The Justice Department is, for the first time in American history, prosecuting the principal prospective political opponent of the incumbent president."
[22:59]

Erika Nuland counters by distinguishing current DOJ actions from authoritarian misuse, asserting that prosecutions are based on legitimate legal grounds and overseen by independent courts:

"The prosecutions are being administered by the courts... the Department of Justice is prosecuting through the special counsel, but it's being overseen by the courts."
[27:42]

However, she warns against potential future abuses:

"Trump is using the appellate process to delay proceedings... trying to use the trial as a tool to influence the election."
[40:49]

---

6. Building a Pro-Democracy Coalition

The hosts and authors discuss strategies to counteract the authoritarian threat, primarily focusing on coalition-building.

Genevieve Nadeau stresses the importance of a broad, cross-ideological coalition that prioritizes democracy and the rule of law over partisan interests:

"Building a pro-democracy coalition... a broad cross-ideological coalition of folks who disagree on policies but uphold the importance of our democracy and the rule of law."
[43:23]

Erika Nuland adds that this coalition must reject political violence and emphasize solidarity among democratic forces:

"Rejecting violence at all costs... maintaining a broad pro-democracy coalition is essential."
[44:45]

---

7. Addressing Optimism and Historical Precedents

In response to skepticism about the efficacy of these efforts, Wittes references historical instances where authoritarian figures were peacefully removed from power, questioning the necessity of heightened vigilance.

Erika Nuland rebuts by asserting the unique nature of Trump’s challenges to democracy and the continuous threats posed by entrenched authoritarian tendencies:

"We were right... our mission is to prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government."
[47:52]

Genevieve Nadeau reinforces the gradual erosion of democratic safeguards, invoking the "frog boiling" analogy to illustrate how incremental changes can lead to significant authoritarian shifts:

"It's important to take the little steps towards authoritarianism seriously... decline starts somewhere."
[50:51]

---

8. Concluding Insights

The episode concludes with a somber reflection on the challenges ahead and a reaffirmation of the necessity to remain proactive in defending democratic institutions.

Genevieve Nadeau warns against complacency, emphasizing the dangers of re-electing leaders who have previously exhibited authoritarian tendencies:

"Re-electing someone who tried dangerous things during the first administration is a really dangerous thing."
[52:11]

Erika Nuland highlights the concept of "anticipatory obedience," where the populace begins to acquiesce to authoritarian measures, making resistance increasingly difficult:

"The decision to push back feels different when you don't think he's going to actually leave... more likely to be in that situation four years from now."
[53:47]

Benjamin Wittes wraps up the discussion by acknowledging the complexity of the situation and the critical need for vigilance and collective action to preserve democracy.

---

Key Takeaways

• Preparedness of Authoritarians: The Authoritarian Playbook for 2025 outlines a well-prepared strategy by potential authoritarian leaders to undermine democratic institutions through specific promises and legislative maneuvers.

• Regulatory and Legal Tools: Beyond overt actions like pardoning allies or attacking the media, authoritarians may employ regulatory mechanisms and the justice system to target political opponents and erode checks and balances.

• Importance of Coalition Building: A robust, cross-ideological pro-democracy coalition is essential to resist authoritarian tendencies. This coalition must prioritize the rule of law and democratic principles above partisan interests.

• Gradual Erosion of Democracy: Authoritarian shifts often occur incrementally, making it crucial to address each step seriously to prevent the overall decline of democratic safeguards.

• Vigilance Against "Anticipatory Obedience": As authoritarian measures gain traction, public acquiescence can become self-reinforcing, necessitating continuous resistance and advocacy for democratic norms.

This episode serves as a cautionary tale, urging listeners to recognize and counteract the subtle and overt tactics that threaten the fabric of American democracy. By understanding the strategies outlined in the Authoritarian Playbook, citizens and policymakers alike can better prepare to defend democratic institutions and values.

Transcript

[Benjamin Wittes]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull and the Aftermath.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone Paying Big Wireless Way Too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[Erika Nuland]

See full [e-mail] ever wonder just how good or bad your diet really is? The Mayo Clinic Diet has just launched its new Diet Score, a game changer in tracking your health. Your Diet Score is personalized, based on tracking key activities that deliver healthy habits, support weight loss and deliver long term sustainable success. The Mayo Clinic Diet was developed by doctors and dietitians from the world renowned Mayo Clinic. It's real foods, no gimmicks or fad diets, just life changing healthy nutrition. Join today for access to customizable meal plans, tracking tools, group coaching and at home workouts. Everything you need for long term success. Get your free Diet score [e-mail] go no sign up needed now. The Mayo Clinic Diet accepts the CareCredit credit card. The Mayo Clinic Healthy Weight Loss for Life.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Foreign.

[Cornette Intern]

Cornette intern at Lawfare with an episode from the Lawfare archive for March 2, 2025. In the first month of President Donald Trump's second term, he has fulfilled his campaign promises to pardon convicted January 6th rioters, made preparations to invoke the Alien Enemies act and deploy the military domestically, continued attacks on journalists and consolidated federal regulatory power via executive orders. For today's Archive episode, I selected an episode from February 21, 2024, in which Benjamin Witte sat down with Genevieve Nadoux and Erika Nuland, two of the authors of the Authoritarian Playbook for 2025 how an Authoritarian President Will Dismantle Our Democracy and what We can do to Protect it. They spoke about what then candidate Trump promised to do in his second term, how such actions could affect American democracy, opportunities to mitigate the most dire consequences of which the report warns, and whether this is just baked into the American presidency. When occupied by a truly authoritarian personality.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Foreign.

Benjamin Wittes. And this is The Lawfare Podcast, February 21, 2024. The advocacy group Protect Democracy last month issued an updated version of its report entitled the Authoritarian Playbook. The new report is called the authoritarian playbook of 2025. How an authoritarian President Will Dis Dismantle Our Democracy and what We can do to Protect is a fascinating compilation of things that Donald Trump has promised to do and how they could likely be expected to affect American democracy if he is elected to a second term in office. Joining me in the Virtual Jungle studio to discuss the report are two of its authors, Genevieve Nadeau and Erica Nuland, both of Protect Democracy. We talked about what's new in the report. We talked about how much of it is speculation and how much of it is simply taking Donald Trump's words seriously. We talked about opportunities to mitigate the most dire consequences of which the report warns. And we talked about whether this is just baked into the American presidency when occupied by a truly authoritarian personality. It's The Lawfare Podcast, February 21st. The authoritarian playbook in 2025.

I want to start with the history of the Authoritarian Playbook. As I recall, this is not the first Lawfare podcast on the subject, and it is certainly not the first edition of the Authoritarian Playbook. So where does it come from, what is it, and how many iterations of it have you guys produced?

[Genevieve Nadeau]

You're right. This is not our first publication with the Authoritarian Playbook in the title. Some time ago, we issued an initial report just called the Authoritarian Playbook, which outlined seven tactics that authoritarians across the world and throughout history use to sort of seize and hold on to power. And that really comes from sort of deep expertise, you know, protect democracies. Founding story is that we met with experts on democracy and democratic decline to understand the risks that we're facing the United States. And that's how we've approached a lot of our work. So the original Authoritarian Playbook outlines the sort of common key tactics that authoritarians use and is meant to help reporters and others distinguish between politics as usual and when to recognize those key tactics at play. Our more recent report, the authoritarian playbook for 2025, takes that a step further and focuses on the threat the nation is facing should we choose to elect another authoritarian to the White House come 2025.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And just to be clear, and this is going to sound like a joke, but it isn't, the Authoritarian Playbook is not like, you know, the Anarchist Cookbook or, you know, sort of a guide for authoritarians who want to know what the appropriate play is. Right. It's sort of a how to spot one and how to spot the likely plays that they are going to make. More for the citizen guide than for the use of the authoritarian himself.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

That's exactly right. It's about recognizing when there are tactics at play, not educating folks on how to, how to run the playbook.

[Erika Nuland]

You know, we were responding to folks like the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial board wrote in December 2023, we think American institutions are strong enough to contain whatever designs Mr. Trump has to abus power, those kind of anti those voices saying just calm down and panic may be the enemy, but so is unpreparedness. And so we wanted to respond to that and help give folks the tools to see what's around the corner, because we think we've done a pretty good job of spotting that as an organization over the past seven years.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so talk to me about the latest addition, updated for a presidential campaign near you. What is distinctive and different about the Authoritarian Playbook 2024 edition for 2025.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

So let me start with why we did it. And the reason is that we really as a nation have a sort of threshold challenge of recognizing and appreciating what the authoritarian threat is. So we published this report building on great work from others, you know, Atlantic and New York Times and many others, to help explain and importantly contextualize the threat that we're facing. And so we tried to do that in a specific way. We focused first on what Trump himself and some of his close allies and advisors are saying. They're telling us what they have planned. So we focus on what the promises are, and we put those promises in the context of the original playbook and the key tactics that we see authoritarians use consistently. So the report doesn't cover everything Trump or his allies say, but sort of key categories of threats that he has articulated and that we think that everyone should take seriously. And then we situate those promises and where they fit in the playbook in the current legal and institutional landscape. So what power specifically will Trump try to use? What guardrails exist or don't exist, and how might that play out? And then of course, towards the end of the report, we offer some high level recommendations for what it takes to push back on further authoritarian decline and to protect our democracy.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so in 2016, I undertook a very similar project which was to I entitled it Trump and the Powers of the American Presidency. It was a three part series in Lawfare and it lined up the things that Trump said, certain obvious features of his character and the authorities of the American presidency. And it kind of said, hey, there's a bit of a mismatch here, or a mismatch here, if you care about Democratic life, but a very dangerous stew here. And so I'm curious for your sense of how the picture has changed since then. What can we, I mean, he was saying then how he was going to use certain presidential powers. We have four years of experience of him doing so, and we have him doing it again now. Why are we, other than a certain amount of experience, why are we in a better position today than we were, I guess, eight years, seven years ago in this undertaking?

[Erika Nuland]

So, Ben, I'm glad you brought up your old piece. I revisited it in preparation for our conversation because I remember where I was at the Department of Justice when I read it.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Alas, it has aged well.

[Erika Nuland]

Yes. You know, and one of the things that you said, I come from the. Originally from kind of the tech civil liberties community. And one of the things you said was that it's not going to be the nsa, it's not going to be drones that are the undoing of our system. It is going to be the Justice Department and the use of regulatory power and of the prosecutorial power to harass.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I took a lot of crap for that when I said it from the tech and civil liberties community who, who were convinced that Trump was going to get in and, like, launch drone strikes against his political opponents and misuse the nsa. And, you know, that stuff's hard to do. You know, having a bad attorney general, that's not so hard to do.

[Erika Nuland]

And the reach of those. I am clearly preaching to the choir here. Right. But the. The reach of those powers is strong. I love the text of a libertarian community. They are very dear to me. Your piece made me, at first just kind of wrinkled me a little bit, and then I stopped and I thought. And it really resonated. And it's one of the conclus we reach in this report, right, that attacks on the independence of the Department of Justice are one of the ways that an authoritarian president will not only seek retribution, which we see as the theme of the current campaign, but will make things hard for American people writ large. But I feel like that does not answer your question of why is it different this time? Because we already saw him in office once.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I mean, it feels different. It feels like we know more. When I wrote that, then it was a bit of a hypothesis. Now you have to be, pardon me, a bit of an idiot not to. Not to accept it. But then it was very much of a hypothesis. But I'm curious for you to walk me through the differences. I feel like you've thought about them more deeply than I have, frankly.

[Erika Nuland]

So why will things be worse this time? Well, the authoritarians, or the would be authoritarians, are better prepared. They have spent seven or eight years building out infrastructure, building out ecosystem, understanding the guardrails and how to work around them. As part of that, they have built their community. That's part of what I mean by ecosystem. In 2017, the Republican Party was not the authoritarian party. John McCain was still alive. You had folks in Senate, in the House, in the States who were willing to push back. And that's not happening anymore. This morning saw the piece in either the Times or the Post talking about how Republicans are laughing off Trump's latest comments about NATO. No one even expects to push back. In addition to that, you've got the focus by Trump and the folks around him on personnel. So they're going to be bringing in people who are fully committed to this kind authoritarian agenda. And with everyone else, you've just got fatigue. It has been a long seven, eight years. I forget what year it is. And it is harder to believe in our system. It is harder to look around and see what is working, though I think Genevieve and I both share the belief that a lot really is working, and that makes it a little bit harder to fight back. You're starting to see more kind of anticipatory obedience from folks in and outside of politics. And that's one of the reasons we're so worry.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so let's talk about those three distinct areas that you identify, which is promises, preparation. And remind me what the third was. A sort of developed ecosystem or acceptance. So Trump has never been shy about promises, and some of his promises are fairly specific as to authoritarian intentions. And some of them are just kind of reflect a certain magical thinking. We're going to have great deals, we're going to blah, blah, blah. And so a lot of them we don't take very seriously. Going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it or we're going to. And so why do you take the specific promises that reflect authoritarianism? Why take those any more seriously than we take, you know, the promise to have a sparkling, perfect economy?

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Well, I think, Erica, you should jump in as well. But I think one reason to take them more seriously is to Erica's earlier point, that this is not just Trump talking. Right? This is Trump with An entire sort of authoritarian faction now having grown behind him. For example, the Heritage foundation issued a 900 page document that lays out through very specific plans. Erica mentioned personnel and she can say a whole lot more about that. But there are plans already in motion for making sure that the right people are in place in a future administration in a way that makes it easier to actually implement some of the promises that we're hearing that wasn't true the first time around. The guardrails are a bit weakened, having been battered by number of years of Trump both in and out of office. And really just what we're seeing is a lot of sort of growth and learning on the authoritarian side.

[Erika Nuland]

I think the one thing I will add to that is just a plug for the Harrison Foundation's 900 page mandate for leadership. That's a sentence that I'm not sure I.

[Benjamin Wittes]

What is it? Given that most of our readers listeners are not going to read 900 pages of the Heritage Foundation. Give us the TLDR on that. What did they spend 900 pages advocating and saying?

[Erika Nuland]

So our authoritarian playbook 2025 covers the promises, the powers and plans and so does theirs, right? Theirs is the Anarchist Cookbook or what have you. It's an impressively thorough set of chapters that goes agency by agency through the federal government. Obviously doesn't hit them all and lays day one, two and three actions, executive orders, regulations, ways to deconstruct the civil service. Different chapters are going to resonate differently with different people. For me personally, reading through the HHS chapter gave me nightmares in terms of some of the attacks on that institution and the people who depend on it. For others, it'll be other chapters, but it gives you a taste of the commitments to removing guardrails and checks and balances as well as some of the policy commitments and how frankly well thought out they are. This isn't just bluster. This, this is for real.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so give us some examples. Like we're at sort of 30,000 foot altitude here or maybe 15,000 foot altitude since we've reached the Heritage Foundation. What are some Day one plans look like as articulated by Heritage?

[Erika Nuland]

So one is to reissue, and Trump has echoed this himself, to reissue the Schedule F executive order that would allow allow civil servants to be much more easily fired and then hired more easily as, as loyalists to the authoritarian. Now I can hear people saying we got to make it easy. We got to reform the civil service. You know, it takes to get anything done. I'm sympathetic to that, but that's not what this is right. What this is, is actually about adding another criteria and making it the preeminent criteria for a certain level of federal workers. And this criteria is loyalty to the leader. You show loyalty, you get in the door. You don't show loyalty, you are shown the door or you know that you are at risk to be shown the door.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Yeah, I actually think it's going to be important to zoom out a little bit. It isn't. It, it's important to understand what Heritage has put in their 900 page plan book. But it's not just Heritage, of course. You know, it's Donald Trump, it's Stephen Miller, it's others. And so you need to understand what appears in that 900 page document as well thought out policies. And, you know, maybe there's room for debate on some of the very specifics of, you know, what exactly DHS's powers should be or, you know, very, very narrow memos, the Department of Justice issues and the like. You got to sort of zoom out and understand that what Trump is really promising is a remaking of the federal government in a way that is meant to serve him sort of personally and politically and less about serving the American people. He has, he said it himself. Right. His second term, if he gets one, is going to be all about retribution. And so it's important to keep that big picture in mind as we sort of get into like the nitty gritty of the policies where you could easily lose sort of the forest for the trail use here.

[Erika Nuland]

So in the mandate for leadership itself, and this is a great example of kind of how this ecosystem often works. I'm looking at page 535 of the document is one example. Schedule F is talked about it throughout. Recommendation of reissuing Trump's Schedule F executive order to permit discharge of non performing employees. So it's discussed in terms of performance, echoing language that may be seen as sympathetic. But you have Donald Trump in 2023 out saying either the deep state destroys America or we destroy the deep state, and promising that on day one, this is, this is what he's going to do. You have to connect those dots to understand what a next authoritarian administration is going to look like.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so let's talk about some of the very explicit promises. Trump has promised retribution. He has promised prosecution of his political enemies. Of course, he did that in 2016 as well. But you know, the response from the, the, that side of the political spectrum right now would be, hey, there is one side that's prosecuting its political enemies and that's the current administration, not us. We. Trump may have talked a big game about it, but he didn't actually do it. Biden, or the Justice Department that ultimately reports to Joe Biden is busily prosecuting Donald Trump and, by the way, is all but explicitly telling the Supreme Court, we need to get this done and have a trial before the election. They don't actually say that, but they come pretty close. And so what do you say to the Trump supporter who says, hey, you know, he may say some inappropriate things, but you're actually burying the lead here. The lead is that the playbook that you're concerned about is being played out right now by the incumbent administration against Donald Trump.

[Erika Nuland]

I. This is not aimed at you, Ben. Of course, I see that as a form of disinformation. And what I mean by that is that facts matter, and that one of the ways that Trump has succeeded in his political career is by creating false equivalences and, of course, by projecting. And what is happening in this administration with the accountability efforts for Donald Trump are predicated on very reasonably alleged criminal acts. I'll tweak what you said or quibble a little bit with what you said, which is the prosecutions are being led by a special counsel who is, of course, accountable ultimately to the attorney general, who is, of course, hireable and fireable by the president. But there is that extra layer of insulation there, and that the facts make it. That's what makes it different, and that's what made it different when. Part of what made it different when President Trump was abusing his authorities. I hope that wasn't wiggling out.

[Benjamin Wittes]

No, no, not at all. I mean, I think the. I think the question is difficult because, in fact, there is something genuinely novel about the current situation, and it doesn't bear no relationship to the things that you guys are warning about. Now, the. The answer to it might be that, hey, we're not against the use of accountability tools with respect to, you know, by an administration through the normal processes of the Justice Department with respect to people who are, among other things, political foes of the incumbent administration. But it can't be done because they are or without a very, very solid factual basis. But I do think it's a really awkward. It's an awkward moment to make this argument, although also an essential moment to make this argument, because, in fact, the Justice Department is, for the first time in American history right now prosecuting the. The principal prospective political opponent of the incumbent president. And that's something that 10 years ago, we all would have said is sort of hypothetically possible, but in fact, vanishingly unlikely in the American political system.

[Erika Nuland]

I'll agree with you and I'll point, and then I'll let Genevieve jump in. I'll say, you know, I read Michelle Goldberg wrote a piece about Poland last week in the Times. And one of the things she pointed out toward the end of that piece, which I commend to everyone, is how hard it is once a nation has started down the authoritarian path to fix things. When you use even regular order to fix things, it starts feeling irregular because you have so much digging out to do. And at some point, and I am not saying we are at this point right now, at some point, regular order even has a harder time cutting it. And one of our fears is that another four years or more of and we expect it would be more of a would be authoritarian in an office, and we start losing the tools and the ability to fix this for ourselves.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

No, that's a great point. I think it's actually really important, this question that you're getting at, Ben, the sort of competing claims of weaponization and sort of the way at least folks in the Trump universe are positioning things. And I know we're here to talk primarily about our 2025 report, but protect Democracy also has put out a guide for the media and others we call Prosecuting Political Leaders in a democracy. And it's meant to help people sort through exactly this sort of conundrum of how do you sort through all the competing claims? And there are ways to do that. So, you know, one is to look, you referenced this, Ben, like, look at the facts. What are the publicly available facts? Tell us we can judge those for ourselves. Right. What are the rules and norms and guardrails that the Department of Justice in this case are meant to follow? And are they following the following them?

[Erika Nuland]

Right.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Are they following their own rules? And as far as we know, the answer to that question right now is yes. And then how are other institutions reacting? Right. Right now, these prosecutions are actually being administered by the courts. So, yes, the Department of Justice is prosecuting through the special counsel, but it's being overseen by the courts. And so how are those institutions reacting? And that includes the grand jury system, who, of course, indicted the president. And it includes denials of immunity, defenses and motions to dismiss and the like. And so when you look at those factors together, it can help sort out what's normal and what's not. Which side of the line are we on? And, you know, also, of course, just don't want to lose fact of the reason that we are in this unprecedented sort of position is because we've never before had a president try to overturn the results of election and stay in power.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail].

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to 15 per month.

[Erika Nuland]

Required intro rate first 3 months only then full price plan options available, taxes.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

And fees extra fee full [e-mail] Some.

[Erika Nuland]

Tech presents the ins and outs of caring for your home out uncertainty, self doubt, stressing about not knowing where to start in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done out word art sorry live laugh lovers in knowing what to do, when to do it and who to hire.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Start caring for your home with confidence.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Download thumbtack today with the Redfin app. You'll know the moment your next place hits the market.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Whether you're looking to buy your dream.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Home or rent a sweet apartment. Give Redfin your gotta have it wish.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

List of property features and you'll receive.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Real time notifications tailored just for you, ready to see it up close and personal scheduling a tour is just a tap away. Don't wait to find your perfect match. Download the Redfin app and start searching today. Or at least the one that we had that did something like that. Not cheating in an election by conducting dirty tricks and espionage. There was an affirmative political decision to pardon that person. Right? We've had criminal presidents before, but we've had a decision not to have a disposition on the point. I want to talk about some of the lesser, the less obvious mechanisms, which is to say the regulatory side, the Justice Department side has kind of become a little bit obvious thanks to the late unpleasantness. The use of regulatory tools to harass political opponents is a little bit less obvious, notwithstanding Trump's behavior with respect to the Amazon Slash Bezos, Washington Post empire and others. You guys in my view rightly focus on this to some degree. So walk us through it. What are you what are you specifically concerned about here?

[Genevieve Nadeau]

So that's right. You know, there's the criminal investigation and prosecution is one method of enacting sort of retribution or retaliation. The other are the sort of vast regulatory, administrative and the like tools that the federal government has, that ranges from funding that the federal government gives to licenses to tax code. There's a wide range of things that the government does to regulate the media, other businesses, et cetera. And so I think it's important, and we try to highlight in this report how those tools might be leveraged against critics or opponents of the president. I'll let Erica say a little bit more, maybe, about how that happens. It starts with the civil service. There's also some funding mechanisms. You know, I think at the top of the list, you sort of hinted at this already, Ben, is the media, right? Media is a sort of important check on power in a democratic society. And Trump has already made very clear, Right. He wants to take licenses away.

[Benjamin Wittes]

It's also a particular obsession of Donald Trump because he's, he's a, among other things, he's, he's obsessed with his presentation in the media. And so it's a. I think it's reasonable to say he cares about it more than he does about, I don't know, oil leases on national parkland. Right, right, right.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

He's being very clear. And we should not lose sight of what Trump has already tried in the first administration. And you sort of hinted at this with the Amazon example, right? Trump tried to leverage postal rage to punish Amazon owned by Bezos, because the Washington Post, also owned by Bezos, was critical of him. You know, he banned reporters from CNN based on what he didn't like in terms of what they were saying or what they were asking. We can expect, we should expect to see more of that and to see more of that in sort of deeper ways in terms of leveraging the tools of the regulatory state. You know, there's the fcc. There are other sort of sub agencies that we can expect Trump and others to use in a more deliberate way next time. And, you know, we see attacks on businesses happening somewhat more frequently, and by that I mean sort of punishing corporate expression of views that are disliked. You know, the most prominent recent example, of course, is, you know, Ron DeSantis and Disney. But we can expect maybe to see similar things not only at the state level, but at the federal level going forward.

[Erika Nuland]

I think this is a great example of how this authoritarian threat can impact everyone. Like, I can understand a sense like, okay, I'm not Hillary Clinton. I'm going to stay quiet. Trump's going to leave me well enough alone. I think that is shortsighted, but I understand that instinct. But, you know, Miles Taylor, who'd been at dhs, of course, spoken about Trump's threats to pull FEMA funding that California needed to fight wildfires. He said, you know, people in state of California didn't support him. You know, what are you giving, what are you giving him money for? He pulled funds from sanctuary cities and it's this claimed power over the federal pocketbook that allows him to retaliate against businesses and regulated entities. And all the way down to, you know, those of us who, all of us who rely on, on federal, federal services at home. I say claimed threat because I'm not ready to concede that that's lawful. Congress has the power of the purse. But we know he, he wants to, wants to abuse the power that way.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Let's talk about the good news and you guys say at the outset of the report that it's not all doom and gloom, although I will say that it's mostly doom and gloom and that there are available strategies here. So walk us through them. You know, I, I keep coming back to the fact that the American presidency is monstrously powerful and, you know, that whole unity thing is real. And so now we have elected an authoritarian. We've got a three month transition. What does who need to do?

[Erika Nuland]

You're not even going to allow us the out of. We haven't elected an authoritarian yet. That there's, there's still accountability in the works and. Well, hang on a second, we're not there yet.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Let's start with that. All right, let's, let's, let's say other than don't. What are the mechanisms? Before I say, all right, we've elected an authoritarian, what do we do?

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Well, I think this report and these kinds of conversations are a big piece of it. Right. Understanding and socializing the threat that we face is a big piece of preparing not only to withstand it, but maybe prevent it. Right. Like Erica was saying, the result isn't inevitable. There's accountability at the ballot box, of course. And I think the more that we can focus on the threat and focus on building the kind of sort of broad pro democracy coalition that we'll need now that kind of benefits both in terms of preventing it. But again, like I said, down the line. So we are focused first on this, making sure that folks understand the stakes and not the odds. That's sort of a key phrase we want to sort of hammer in. Right. Stakes and not the odds.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so I want to, I want to focus on a puzzle related to this that I have been struggling with and relates to our use of the Justice Department conversation, which is, all right, the Justice Department has two cases against Donald Trump. Two state prosecutors have two others. And the Justice Department routinely goes into court and says please set a trial date soon because it's really important to do this quickly. And of course, what they don't say is why it's important to do this quickly, which is so that people have a chance to vote with the knowledge of the, the outcome of the election of the criminal process. But of course, electoral politics is something the Justice Department absolutely should not be considering and should not be urging the courts to consider and something the courts should not be considering. So my question is when is it or is it ever appropriate to use the criminal process as a prospective democracy protection mechanism against the would be authoritarian. He's been indicted. Let's agree on the merits. But the Justice Department is saying, come on, we want a March trial deadline because we want, you know, the Supreme Court should hear cert before judgment so that we can move this along as quickly as possible. But don't ask us why.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Okay, I'm going to jump in and actually reframe a little bit if that's okay. So first, there's an existing well recognized in law by the Supreme Court, public interest in speedy criminal justice. And there are a lot of reasons why that that's the case. It's the vindication of our criminal laws, ensuring that witnesses and evidence aren't lost, making sure that the public can observe the conduct of the administration of justice, all of those things that is true in every criminal case. And in this particular criminal case, of course, we have the impending election, which is a critical feature in our democracy. The information that will come out of the trial, however it goes, however it lands, is relevant to voters choices. But I want to be careful that we're not talking about rushing the criminal process or rushing to judgment in service of an election, but we are talking.

[Benjamin Wittes]

About literally asking the Supreme Court for cert before judgment, which is rushing the process. And when, when asked to justify why it's they just fall back on the public's interest in a speedy trial, which is of course, as you say there in every trial. And so I'm just trying to, I'm just trying to suss out like in this prospective countering the authoritarian playbook, how, how okay is it to treat the criminal case against the authoritarian a little bit differently than we treat the criminal case against, say me, I guess.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

I don't think that's what's happening. So we have a trial date that was set. That's not what's issue on appeal. The trial Date was set by the judge taking into account the factors, including, you know, Donald Trump gets all the rights, no more, no less, but all the. The rights of any criminal defendant. So the trial date was set after taking into account his need to prepare this public interest and speedy justice, all of those things. What we have here is Donald Trump trying to use the appellate process, advancing a novel and unfounded claim of immunity from the rule of law in order, has the explicit purpose of delaying the proceedings. So when the special counsel goes to court and tries to get the Supreme Court, for example, to take the case before the D.C. circuit rules or now is pushing, we can expect against a stay or to have the case move quickly, it's really about countering the strategy of delay. So it's Trump's strategy is to say, I have this trial coming and the election coming. Let's have been very clear. I think they proposed a trial date of 2026 initially. I mean, he's not hiding the ball.

[Benjamin Wittes]

On what their proposed trial date was. Like that New Yorker cartoon, no, Thursday doesn't work. How about never Is never good by you?

[Genevieve Nadeau]

So he's not hiding the ball on what the strategy is. His strategy is delay. This is not about the propriety of the trial date. It's about trying to use the appellate process to delay it inevitably, sort of indefinitely. Right. Like, let's get it past the election, because there may be consequences, and Donald Trump does not want the public to have the relevant information. And if he's lucky, he wins the election and is able to put an end to the prosecution altogether. So I think it's very different to talk about urging the courts not to go along with that strategy, not to enable it, not to help him, than it is to say, hey, courts rush these processes because of the election, and I think it's the first that's happening here. So I think it's very important to keep that in mind, that this is Trump strategy and we've got to push back on it.

[Erika Nuland]

I'll add one small thing there, which is in the South African legal system, and it may be another system, they refer to these as Stalingrad burning tactics, going house by house, burning down building by building, burning down the infrastructure and going piece by piece of the legal system. Delay, delay, delay. And metaphorically burning down its ability to hold a very powerful. This is former President Zuma in South Africa, who this term is often talked about with respect to holding a very powerful person accountable. That is not to diminish the former president's rights, which as Jean Bierre very importantly said are equal to, you know, his rights as a defendant are equal to any other defendant's rights. But to emphasize as well that he is particularly well positioned to attack our justice departments, our justice systems ability to create accountability for this type of, of crime.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so let's say all the don't do that stuff fails and you end up with an authoritarian elected. What is the counter playbook look like?

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Well, I'm going to say it starts Erica, you should jump in. But I think it starts with of course we say in the report, you got to start now. Now building a pro democracy coalition. And a key feature of withstanding the authoritarian threat in 2025 and beyond is maintaining that coalition. And it needs to be a broad cross ideological coalition of folks who disagree on all sorts of things, all sorts of policies, politics, but do we might.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Call it a coalition of all democratic.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

Forces, you might and it's okay to disagree on any number of things. But what the pro democracy coalition needs to both recognize and share and uphold of above all else is the importance of our democracy, of the rule of law and the like. And so a lot I think it's going to be very important to focus on that and keeping the coalition together and focused. And that includes, you know, the sort of the big tent concept and it includes people on the right, Republicans who are trying to do their best to stand up to the rule of law and welcoming them into the coalition. It includes protecting, you know, nonpartisan civil servants, court personnel, election officials and volunteers and the like. It's really going to be really important, I think, to rally around the people who serve our democracy and the people who want to stand up and do the right thing in the face of pressure to the contrary. And you know, that includes protecting the targets of the authoritarian state, whether that's people who are targeted for prosecution or become targeted by the broader faction in more violent ways and the like. And then of course there's a sort of forward looking, right, we got to withstand the authoritarian administration, but also think ahead, right? Make sure we're focused on, you know, the free and Fair elections in 2026, 2028 and not losing sight of the longer term as well.

[Erika Nuland]

I'll add a few things. You know, Ian Bassin, Protect Democracy's executive director, talks about kind of a, he calls an equivalent of like a NATO Article 5 for the pro democracy forces. You attack one, you attack all as possibly metaphor but possibly literal way to support each other. Another is rejecting violence at, rejecting political violence at all costs. That is a Way to divide the coalition. It all circles back to keeping this coalition together. Right. And to, you know, continue focusing on building the democracy of tomorrow, hoping we have one to give people something to hope for.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

But.

[Erika Nuland]

But do these all sound a little bit empty? Maybe? It's hard. It's going to be really, really, really hard. It was an exceptional thing that in 2020 we defeated a would be authoritarian at the ballot box and defeated his attempts to stay in power. It's going to be even harder the next time around. I hope not. Impossible, possibly. So it's going to be a lot.

[Benjamin Wittes]

So I want to play devil's advocate for a moment and say, okay, over the last four years we have had not one, not two, but three separate times where authoritarians in office were defeated at the ballot box and removed from power. We had the United States, we had Brazil, and now we have Poland. And Poland is a particularly interesting example because the former ruling party was relatively entrenched. It had been elected more than once. So the skeptic would say to you guys, hey, maybe the authoritarians aren't actually that authoritarian. And they have a kind of radical chic with respect to, you know, authoritarian right wing movements passed. You know, they do a little light rioting, insurrection sometimes. In Poland they didn't even do that. But at the end of the day, the bark really is worse than the bite. And if you vote them out, they leave. And they might leave kicking and screaming. They might not show up to their opponents inauguration. They might, you know, sack the capitol first. But they're actually, you know, this isn't a Reichstag fire. This isn't, you know, a, you put in Mussolini once and you, you need a world war to get rid of him. What do you say to that? Like, you know, we were, I was saying four years ago, it's going to be very hard to get rid of people, you know, and actually we got rid of people. What do you say to somebody who says to me now, yeah, you said that last time and we got rid of him once, by the way, he's term limited this time. It'll be easier this time.

[Erika Nuland]

So the first thing I'll say is from your lipstick Oziers. But I'll give you two other responses. The first is in so many ways, the folks who were warning about Trump, this is you, Ben. This is protect democracy. This is other folks who've been out there since 2016 talking about this. We were right. Sometimes it was about whether or not there would be a Muslim ban. Sometimes it would be about whether or not he would go willingly. Right. And he didn't. He went, but not willingly. We were on the razor's edge is my interpretation of what happened. You know, we said he would quash dissent, he'd politicize independent institutions. Right. You went, we can go through the list. People said, oh, no, no, he won't do that. You're exaggerating. And he did protect democracy. Our mission is to prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government. And our orientation, we have to memorize that. And back in early 2019, when I joined, we all cringed. We really have to say that no one will take us seriously using the A word. And now they do. So I'd say history past its prologue on this.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah. So I want to amplify a little point that you just made and skated over a little bit. And I want to bring it out, which is the words more authoritarian. This is not a light switch. You know, it's a rheostat. And you know, it is not like you flip the switch and then there's no space between the United States and Mussolini. Right. You bing. Right. There's a lot of gradations in between. There's there. And when you say a more authoritarian system of government, it can be 80% what we are now. And that 20% is still really bad. Right. You can turn that rheostat small amounts or large amounts, and you know, the answer is not, well, as long as you don't turn it all the way things are fine. So I just think that's the critical point that we don't know how much it's going to turn or in how lasting away. But you don't want it turning in that direction.

[Erika Nuland]

That is exactly right. And there is so much that is good about what our system can do. I want to take bets moment for a little bit of positivity. It's easy to look at all that's wrong with it. That is in some ways what Genevieve and I do professionally. But there is so much that is good about it and we have so much to lose. That is one of the things that I try to keep central in my mind on this. Genevieve, do you have additional thoughts on this this point?

[Genevieve Nadeau]

I mean, I think those are all really important points, you know, we talk about in our mission statement, which Erica just read, sort of declining into a more authoritarian form of government. You know, to the extent Americans are looking for some dramatic event that overnight changes the government from a democracy to an authoritarian state, that's not really how it happens. So much these days. We see sort of the gradual erosion of guardrails and of norms. We see the gradual erosion of fair and fair, free and fair elections or elections that appear to be elections but really are just delivering a predetermined result. And so the decline starts somewhere. I think if you think about some of the historical examples that you referenced, Ben, it started somewhere. It started somewhere that maybe seemed alarmist to say, this is where we're headed. You can also think about the sort of like frog boiling analogy. So it's really important to take the little steps towards authoritarian seriously. And then I think you're right, it isn't about an all or nothing, it's not a light switch. But we are talking about the possibility of re electing an authoritarian after having sort of succeeded in accomplishing, you know, ousting him from office at the ballot box. And I think that's a really, that's a really dangerous thing if as a country we reelect someone who not only tried a lot of dangerous things during the first administration, which I think we need to remember, but came very close on January 6th.

[Erika Nuland]

I'll offer one other thought. The term anticipatory obedience, which you take from Tim Snyder, came up earlier in this conversation. And the further that we get down the authoritarian path, the more you see the anticipatory obedience and the more it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I think about, you know, disposal December 2020 and early January 2021. In this regard, my own possibly cynical view of how we got out of this was that the official line in D.C. including amongst Republicans, was humor Trump. This is not serious. He will leave office on January 20th. And I think that was genuinely felt. And it meant that folks saw the writing on the wall. Trump was going to be gone if they broke laws, if they facilitated an effort to obstruct the transfer of power, they worried about criminal accountability. And so suddenly their incentives were misaligned with his and they did the right thing. These are folks who maybe had been aligning themselves with Trump for four years or more, that becomes less and less the case the more that authoritarian gets entrenched. And so, you know, the decision to push back in the Oval Office in December because you're worried about saving your own skin, that feels different when you don't think he's going to actually leave. That plays out differently. And we're a lot more likely to be in that situation four years from now if he gets reelected, than we were back in December of 2020.

[Genevieve Nadeau]

That's right. And the he will leave you references, Ben. They leave. They leave. We have a the sixth section in our report sort of touches on this and it sounds alarmist to say he won't leave. Of course we have the 22nd amendment and certainly don't want to feed into any narrative that that isn't crystal clear in what it means. But Trump is once again talking about another term. He's talking about changing the Constitution. And while we shouldn't necessarily credit that in a sense other than he probably means it, and sometimes things don't seem possible until, until they start to happen. And so we don't take that kind of threat lightly.

[Benjamin Wittes]

We're going to leave it there. Jean Fievre, Erika, thank you both so much for joining us.

[Erika Nuland]

Thank you.

[Benjamin Wittes]

The Lawfare Podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. Our audio engineer this episode was Noah Mosband of Goat Rodeo. Folks, we need you to become material supporters of Lawfare. You know, we do just a huge amount of writing, of podcasting, of live streaming, and it is mostly based on reader support. Yeah, we have some major backers, but mostly what we have is you. So go to lawfaremedia. And become a material supporter of Lawfare and you'll never have to listen to ads again on this podcast. The Lawfare Podcast is edited by Jen Patya. Our music is performed by Sophia Yan. And as always, thanks for listening.

[Erika Nuland]

Ever wonder just how good or bad your diet really is? The Mayo Clinic Diet has just launched its new Diet Score, a game changer in tracking your health. Your diet Score is personalized based on tracking key activities that deliver healthy habits. Habits support weight loss and deliver long term sustainable success. The Mayo Clinic Diet was developed by doctors and dietitians from the world renowned Mayo Clinic. It's real foods, no gimmicks or fad diets. Just life changing healthy nutrition. Join today for access to customizable meal plans, tracking tools, group coaching and at home workoutseverything you need for long term success. Get your free diet score [e-mail] go no sign up needed now. The Mayo Clinic Diet accepts the CareCredit credit card. The Mayo Clinic Diet Healthy Weight Loss for Life.