Trump’s Authoritarian Playbook

The Warning Signs of Tyranny

Donald Trump has orchestrated a years-long campaign of dehumanization and demagoguery of immigrants in the United States. Establishing a particular group as the “other” is often a tool of those seeking to consolidate power and establish authoritarian rule. Since January, Trump has wasted no time testing the boundaries of the groundwork he laid, unleashing cruel and unlawful enforcement tactics against immigrant communities. By calling up the National Guard and deploying the Marines on the streets of Los Angeles in express opposition to the will of California’s governor the President has critically raised the stakes.   

This is the authoritarian playbook, and if left unchecked, the administration will wield its consolidated power against anyone with whom they disagree – a dangerous path.

How is the Trump administration using immigration enforcement to pave the road toward authoritarianism? We’ve collected the receipts here, categorizing immigration-related actions by warning signs of tyranny.

“Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the [AEA, Alien Enemies Act], and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope. The law does not support such a position.”

District Court Judge Fernandez Rodriguez, the first judge to find the government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act unlawful (Trump-appointed)

Deploying the National Guard after Violent Immigration Actions in Los Angeles (June 2025, ongoing)

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement began a series of mass raids throughout Los Angeles, communities rallied in support of their loved ones. The administration met the protests with state violence, including tear gas and flash bang grenades. President Trump quickly moved to inflame the situation, posting on social media that “violent, insurrectionist mobs” were invading Los Angeles. He then announced the deployment of National Guard members to California, a stunning move that marks the first time since 1965 the National Guard has been activated without the state governor’s consent. California Governor Gavin Newsom has stated plainly that the deployment is unnecessary and “putting fuel on this fire.” On June 9, U.S. Northern Command activated 700 members of the Marine infantry battalion to join the National Guard, with little clarity about the rules of force governing this deployment.

Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to Disappear Young Men to a Salvadoran Jail (March 15, 2025)

On March 15, the White House announced the invocation of a 1798 law called the “Alien Enemies Act” to target young Venezuelan men for detention and deportation without due process. The Proclamation claims that a Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua, in coordination with the Venezuelan government, “is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.” This announcement built on previous government action designating Tren de Aragua and a number of other gangs as “foreign terrorist organizations.” It was issued despite formal findings from the U.S. intelligence community that the Venezuelan government does not control Tren de Aragua.

Despite a court order warning them against doing so (more below), the administration immediately used this dubious authority to disappear 137 Venezuelan men to El Salvador where the Salvadoran government – per an agreement with the United States – immediately jailed them in a prison notorious for abuses and torture known as CECOT. None of them had a hearing or due process. All remain incommunicado to this day.

Declaration of Invasion as Pretext to End Asylum at the Border (January 20, 2025)

Among the sweeping set of Executive Orders issued by the White House on Day One was an Order categorically ending access to asylum at the United States’ southern border on the President’s word that their act of seeking safety constitutes an “invasion.” This Order authorizes the automatic expulsion of asylum seekers from the border on the basis of the same provision of federal law that the Trump administration used to justify its Muslim and African bans and the President’s constitutional authority over federal affairs. People arriving at the southern border now face a “murky, ever-changing situation with few obvious rules, where people can be deported to countries they know nothing about after fleeting conversations with immigration officials while others languish in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody,” per the Associated Press.

Declaration of Invasion as Pretext to Slap Trespass Prosecutions on Arriving Migrants (April 11, 2025)

The U.S. government has begun prosecuting people arriving at the southern border (regardless of whether they are seeking asylum) for criminal trespass under the guise of declarations issued on April 11 and May 1 converting certain borderlands into federal lands for military use. These prosecutions flow from a Day One Executive Order declaring a so-called “invasion” at the southern border as justification for the military to use “all available options” to police the border. Experts see this action as a clear effort to circumvent legal restrictions against the use of the military for civilian law enforcement.

“I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people … I think that the courts need to be somewhat deferential. In fact I think the design is that they should be extremely deferential to these questions of political judgment made by the people’s elected president of the United States.”

Vice President J.D. Vance, Interview with Ross Douthat, New York Times

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’”

Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, District Court for the District of Columbia, in an April 16, 2025 order finding probable cause of criminal contempt by government actors.

Refusal to Obey District Court Order to Turn Planes Around in Alien Enemies Act Case (March 15, 2025)

A D.C. District Court Judge has found probable cause that the government’s actions in delivering its first flights to CECOT (as described above) constituted criminal contempt of a judicial order. The contempt investigation remains ongoing.  Disclosures from a whistleblower previously employed as a Department of Justice attorney confirm the administration’s willfulness in its disregard for Judge Boasberg’s order. 

Delay and Obstruction in Following Supreme Court’s Order to Facilitate Kilmar Garcia Abrego’s Return (April through June 2025)

Kilmar Garcia Abrego fled death threats in El Salvador to find safety in the United States. An immigration judge issued an order known as “withholding of removal,” preventing his deportation to El Salvador where he could be harmed or killed. He married a U.S. citizen and raised a family. On March 15th, Mr. Garcia Abrego was among the young men sent to CECOT. His deportation was clearly unlawful because of the withholding of removal order, and in early April 2025 the Supreme Court ordered the White House to “facilitate” his return. The administration openly and plainly refused for nearly two months until finally returning Mr. Garcia Abrego on June 6, only to subject him to criminal charges. A federal prosecutor in the charging jurisdiction resigned over the case, due to concerns that he was being forced to bring a political prosecution.

Flouting Judicial Order to Return “Cristian,” Also Sent to CECOT (Ongoing)

On April 23, a federal judge ordered the government to facilitate the return of another person believed to be held in CECOT, a young man using the pseudonym “Cristian.” Cristian’s deportation was specifically unlawful because it violated the protections of a settlement agreement in a case called J.O.P. In that case, the government agreed not to deport people who came to the United States as an unaccompanied child and have a pending asylum application. The government has not yet returned Cristian.  

Third Country Deportations In Violation of Standing Preliminary Injunction (Ongoing)

In a case called D.V.D. v. DHS, a federal court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction requiring the government to give people notice and the chance to claim a fear of torture before being deported to a country that is not their country of nationality. Throughout the litigation, the government has violated or nearly violated the injunction in a dizzying and cynical series of maneuvers. In late March, the administration transferred four members of the D.V.D. class to Guantanamo Bay, and from there to El Salvador, in violation of the temporary restraining order that preceded the injunction. Then on May 21, the Boston federal judge overseeing the case ruled the government had blatantly violated the preliminary injunction by attempting to deport six men from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan without the required opportunity to claim protection under the Convention Against Torture. On June 23, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction while the case proceeds; in a searing dissent, Justice Sonya Sotomayor noted that, “[t]he Government thus openly flouted two court orders, including the one from which it now seeks relief. Even if the orders in question had been mistaken, the Government had a duty to obey them until they were ‘reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.’ … That principle is a bedrock of the rule of law. The Government’s misconduct threatens it to its core.” 

“…Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right[s].”

Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, inaccurately defining “habeas corpus” during Congressional testimony.

“The rule of law is, according to [the President], something to navigate around or something ignored, whether that be for political or personal gain…”

U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour, in his decision enjoining the administration’s efforts to end birthright citizenship.

Attempted Revocation of Birthright Citizenship (January 20, 2025)

In a Day 1 Executive Order, President Trump attempted to rewrite the U.S. Constitution by revoking citizenship for children born in the United States to certain undocumented parents. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution and 120 years of Supreme Court precedent guarantee birthright citizenship. Many courts have blocked the Executive Order’s implementation because of its blatant illegality; the Supreme Court is now weighing the question. 

Openly Questioning Basic Constitutional Due Process Rights (Ongoing)

President Trump and his chief policy advisor Stephen Miller have repeatedly and publicly argued that due process rights only apply to U.S. citizens. This argument flies in the face of the plain language of the Fifth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s precedent including an April 2025 decision expressly affirming non-citizens’ due process rights in removal proceedings. Stephen Miller has stated that, “[t]he right of ‘due process’ is to protect citizens from their government, not to protect foreign trespassers from removal.” President Trump has said he “[doesn’t] know” if immigrants have the right to due process.

Threatening Suspension of Habeas Corpus for Immigrants (Ongoing)

The writ of habeas corpus is the bedrock protection all people in the United States have to challenge their detention in court. On May 9, Stephen Miller told the press that the administration is “actively looking at” the possibility of suspending the writ for noncitizens. 

“So, sanctuary cities are going to get exactly what they don’t want: more agents in the communities, more people arrested, more collateral arrested. So, that’s a game they want to play? Game on.”

Tom Homan, “Border Czar,” to Fox News.

“I think we ought to get them all out of the country. They’re troublemakers. They’re agitators. They don’t love our country. We ought to get him the hell out…”

President Trump, commenting on the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil.

Targeting Students for Protected Speech (Ongoing)

The Trump administration has weaponized immigration law to target non-citizen students and scholars they see as opposed to the President’s ideology, including for engaging in pro-Palestinian speech or protest. The administration arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and the most well-known of those targeted, in the lobby of his university residence; during his time in detention, his wife gave birth to their first child. A federal district court judge recently found the government’s use of vague national security grounds of deportation in Mr. Khalil’s case likely unconstitutional. The administration has targeted scores of others; judges in numerous cases have similarly resisted the government’s assertions of unchecked authority.

Threatening Criminal and Civil Retribution Against Local and State Officials for Enacting Welcoming Policies (Ongoing)

One of the President’s Day One Executive Orders directed the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to strip federal funds from and take criminal and/or civil actions against sanctuary jurisdictions. The Department of Justice followed on with a memo threatening the same, and then escalated by launching lawsuits challenging welcoming policies in Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois; Denver and Colorado; Rochester, New York; and four New Jersey cities.

Then, on April 28, the White House escalated its campaign with an Executive Order referring to state and local officials’ actions in implementing sanctuary and welcoming policies as a “lawless insurrection,” in violation of numerous federal laws. The Order requires the publication of a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions – which the Department of Homeland Security has since published and subsequently pulled down after law enforcement officials decried its haphazard nature and process.   

Criminal Charges and Violence as Retribution Against Politicians Who Defend Immigrant Communities (Ongoing)

Threats have turned to action as the administration began bringing criminal charges against elected officials and their staff for prosecution in apparent retribution for actions taken in support of immigrant communities, including oversight activities.

In late April, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan and brought federal charges against her after she raised questions about immigration agents waiting to arrest a man appearing in her countroom. Then in May, federal agents arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka when he joined several Members of Congress in conducting an oversight visit at a major new immigration detention facility in New Jersey; a federal magistrate judge called the arrest a “worrisome misstep.” Federal prosecutors dropped the charges but swiftly brought new ones against Congressperson LaMonica McIver, who was also present at the oversight visit.

In a further escalation, the administration has used intimidation tactics against civil society members attempting to monitor a new trend of immigration arrests and detention happening in immigration courthouses. On May 31, Congressman Jerry Nadler issued a statement condemning the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after agents “forcefully entered [his]Congressional office and handcuffed a member of [his] staff.” Congressperson Nadler noted he was “alarmed by the aggressive and heavy-handed tactics DHS is employing in New York City and across the country.” On June 17, masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents handcuffed and pushed against the wall New York City Comptroller Brad Lander as he asked questions about the arrest of a man he was accompanying to his immigration court proceedings.

Also in June, federal agents forcibly removed California Senator Alex Padilla from a press conference where he attempted to question DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. The video is chilling – after removing him from the room, and as he repeatedly identified himself, the agents pushed Senator Padilla to the floor and cuffed him.