dismantling entire agencies like USAID, and overseeing what were created as independent regulatory agencies.”
A blueprint known as Project 2025 offered a glimpse into how he intended to reshape the federal government. Produced by the Heritage Foundation and Trump associates, this 920-page document showed how to subordinate every department to the president’s will. Although Trump claimed ignorance of it on the campaign trail, TIME found that nearly two-thirds of his new executive actions aligned with Project 2025’s recommendations. Members of the team behind it soon landed in top roles, including Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget, who had vowed in Trump’s first term to “identify the pockets of independence and seize them.” In March 2025, Trump issued another order directing seven federal agencies—including those dealing with labor mediation and homelessness—to detail which functions they were legally required to maintain and which could be destroyed or folded into the White House orbit. Departments that failed to comply risked being gutted. The Department of Education, for instance, laid off more than 1,300 employees in a matter of weeks and was left operating at half its former capacity.
Trump, meanwhile, made no secret of his intentions. During the campaign, he famously declared that he would be a dictator “only on Day 1” so he could seal the border and expand drilling. “After that, I’m not a dictator, OK?” he said, drawing cheers from a crowd that seemed to relish his defiant tone. This combination of extreme remarks followed by a partial walk-back was standard for him. In 2024, he had mused about using the military on American soil to deal with so-called “radical left lunatics,” which Harvard professor Steven Levitsky recognized as “really classic authoritarian discourse.” In Levitsky’s view, it evoked the same “enemy within” language that past dictators used to justify extraordinary repressive measures.
On Trump’s first day back, he also issued a “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” halting any new agency rules until his handpicked appointees personally approved them. While regulatory freezes are typical for a new administration, critics said the scope of this one went beyond the norm, essentially giving Trump a veto on virtually all federal policies. With so many independent watchdogs suddenly tethered to White House directives, it became far easier to roll back regulations that had once been insulated from partisan meddling.
What Trump accomplished quickly, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has spent years refining. Over more than 14 years, Orbán restructured Hungary’s legal, electoral, and administrative frameworks to keep his Fidesz party firmly in power. Through redistricting, tightened control of the media, and alleged vote irregularities, he carved out what he calls “illiberal democracy” or “Christian liberty,” concepts widely viewed as masks for suppressing opposition. Observers report tactics ranging from “vote buying” to questionable software systems that conveniently fail on election day. One by one, critical checks on government receded until genuine political resistance was minimized. Orbán successfully sold this centralization as essential for defending Hungary’s identity.
Russian President Vladimir Putin followed a similarly gradual path to consolidate his authority. Early in his reign, he held elections that appeared somewhat competitive and allowed limited criticism. Yet, from around 2012 onward, he pivoted toward a harsher clampdown. Independent journalists, NGOs, and opposition leaders faced legal action, intimidation, or worse, including poisonings. After the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin invoked patriotism to label dissenters as traitors. By painting NATO and the European Union as existential threats, Putin justified more extreme security measures and silenced those who questioned his leadership.