“There is no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. There is no love except love for Big Brother.”
– George Orwell, 1984
The warnings against authoritarianism have been sounding for decades and centuries. They’ve taken many forms. George Orwell timelessly critiques totalitarianism in his novel 1984 through the lens of a dystopian future. Propaganda, surveillance, and psychological manipulation are employed to control the minds of the populace, convincing them that the Party and Big Brother have their interests at heart.[1] But nothing could be further from the truth. Absolute power is the means and the ends of any authoritarian regime. And the fooled willingly replace our personal freedom with fierce loyalty to the very perpetrators of tyranny.
To the grave distress of Americans with eyes to see, the 2024 American electorate failed to heed the many warnings: they chose authoritarianism over freedom. And many did so with bamboozled glee. They wrongly fell for the disinformation and the propaganda of the Party and Big Brother. They very wrongly believed they were voting for the exact opposite.
And now, hopefully, and whether they will admit it or not, the fooled are finding out the hard way how very wrong they were.
This is part two of the “America is Becoming a Dictatorship. Here’s Why” series. If you missed the first part, “Dismantling the Government,” it’s worth reading first. This series is a fact-based briefing for all Americans on what’s happened to undermine the rule of law and democracy in the United States in the early months of the second Trump administration. As with the first part, the end of this article features a list of cited sources for further reading. You are encouraged to review these more detailed accounts of events to confirm this series’ findings for yourself.
Click here to go to the previous article in this series: “Dismantling the Government.”
Part II: Loyalizing the Government
While America’s attention has been drawn to Elon Musk’s horrifying circus side show (as previously discussed in part one of this series), an even more sinister plot has been unfolding. Trump and his allies have been taking bold steps to transform the federal government into an apparatus more amenable to serving Trump’s autocratic impulses, breaking down and rendering the Constitution and the rule of law into naught but meaningless relics of our free past.
If Donald Trump succeeds in this dark ambition, he will become America’s first tyrant king since we declared independence from King George in 1776.
Don’t take my word for it. Let’s explore the evidence.
For starters, we were warned by so many. Even Trump’s own first-term cabinet members warned us. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, former Chief of Staff John Kelley, and over a dozen other former first-term cabinet members and ranking staff have told us. They got to know Donald Trump very well while serving under President Trump in his first term. As they put it, Trump “prefers the dictator approach to government” and he “meets the definition of a fascist.” Trump has “no understanding of the U.S. Constitution or the concept of the rule of law.” They also referred to Trump as a “wannabe dictator,” a ”tyrant,” and a “king.”[2][3][4]
The Real Fraud Finders were Fired
We explored in part one of this series how the Musk-led DOGE purges of federal workers were carried out under the false pretense of cutting fraud, abuse, and waste in government. Realistically, this goal cannot possibly be achieved by sweeping, immediate, and willy-nilly mass layoffs and funding freezes. Unexamined expediency, paired with massive changes is a recipe for disaster – as with most things in life. This is how you instead render a thing broken or useless: in this case, how federal government services like Social Security, veterans’ benefits, research, Medicaid, and many others have already been sacked of personnel and defunded.
Genuinely combatting fraud, waste, and inefficiency requires fact-based investigations that take time, conducted by experienced investigators with a trained skillset in performing investigations. Unlike DOGE, the inspectors-general are the actual, legitimate federal agents whose duty it is to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. They serve as independent, objective units operating from within the various federal agencies, and have had a good track record since the law creating their role was passed by Congress in 1978 as a response to the Watergate scandal of President Nixon.[5][6]
Considering DOGE’s claimed purpose, it is with great irony that Donald Trump immediately fired about a quarter of all federal inspectors-general on day one of his second term.[7]
If combatting government waste, fraud, and abuse were truly the Trump administration’s goal, they certainly have a funny way of showing it. The exact opposite has been accomplished instead. Not only by haphazardly breaking down nearly all federal agencies and funds, but by firing the very professional inspectors they’d certainly have needed.
This raises a logical question. What would an administration that claims it wants to reduce fraud, abuse, and waste stand to gain by firing those who would examine the administration’s own potential fraud, abuse, and waste?
The answer is not a flattering one for Trump and his allies in government.
The Guardrails Are Gone
Back in 2013, President Obama appointed James Comey as FBI Director. President Obama, a Democrat, chose this registered Republican for his reputation as a skilled attorney of integrity. Mr. Comey was impressed in turn by the deep respect President Obama had for the democratic norm of maintaining a strict distance between the FBI and the presidency. While a sitting president has the power to hire and fire FBI directors, this democratic norm had been adhered to for several decades in order to ensure the FBI can independently and impartially pursue justice, without interference or prejudice from the White House or its politics. To do otherwise would clearly corrupt the integrity of the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency. In support of this important norm, President Obama only ever spoke with Director Comey on two occasions during his four year tenure, the first being at the interview for the director’s role. The only personal request President Obama ever made of Comey was during that interview: Obama admired the FBI gym’s basketball court, and asked for Comey’s permission to use it.[8]
When Trump’s first presidential term began after Obama’s ended, Comey was immediately and repeatedly affronted by President Trump’s numerous phone calls and personal meeting requests. Trump sought to influence the director in clear violation of the democratic norm of maintaining the FBI’s independence from the executive branch. This sharply contrasted with what Obama and the long line of previous presidents had upheld. President Trump even invited Comey to a one-on-one private dinner, where he flat out told the director, “I need loyalty.” Comey was alarmed by the blatant attempt to corrupt the FBI into loyal service to one man, Trump, and his personal ambitions.[9]
Comey noted in a book how similarly Trump’s mode of operation matched that of the organized crime bosses he’d helped to prosecute and put behind bars in his earlier career. This is how dictators and mob bosses conduct themselves. Not American presidents. Comey was able to brush off Trump’s demand at that dinner. But as Trump grew disappointed by Comey’s evident incorruptibility, Trump fired him after just a few months into his presidential term. Trump was disappointed to find a man of integrity whose loyalty was, as it should be, to the U.S. Constitution and all Americans instead.[10][11]
James Comey was one of many individuals in Trump’s first presidential term who proverbially served as constitutional guardrails. Others include the aforementioned generals Mark Milley and John Kelley, among others. From cabinet members to White House staffers, repeated attempts were made to deflect and keep Trump’s worst dictatorial ambitions in check in his first presidential term. They repeatedly advised Trump against the many unconstitutional, criminal, and frankly immoral demands he’d made of them. Some even resorted to actions like hiding particularly dangerous orders he would have signed into law. Some went on to warn the country in no uncertain terms that Trump is an “authoritarian”, a “fascist”, and entirely “unfit for office”.[12][13][14] Not all in the first Trump administration had the integrity to protect democracy from his worst impulses. Especially towards the last year, as fewer remained due to either resigning out of frustration or being fired and replaced as Trump grew disappointed with the lack of absolute fealty to himself. We can wonder why more was not done to stop Trump then, given that the Constitution clearly prohibits both the unfit from serving as president and those who engage or even assist in an insurrection from being in any federal or state office whatsoever, including the presidency.[15][16] Nonetheless, America was at least safeguarded from the worst of Trump’s dictatorial impulses then.
But a slight majority of the 2024 American electorate chose the authoritarian wannabe…
This time around, Trump clearly learned the wrong lesson from his first administration. In a radical departure from his first term, he avoided appointing cabinet members who are competent, experienced professionals who take their oaths of office seriously. Instead, Trump appointed a slew of loyal, immoral sycophants who’ve demonstrated their complete willingness to regurgitate and defend Trump’s propaganda and support and implement his authoritarian impulses without question. His picks are largely incompetent as well, having demonstrated no relevant experience in the roles they were picked for. With 19 cabinet members and other White House officials brought in from the right-wing propaganda media company Fox News, there is a clear focus on bringing in experts in communications who can sell right-wing narratives, not government and policy experts.[17][18]
Take Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as an example among many whom Trump had no business placing in their cabinet roles. Putting aside his reputation for excessive drinking and multiple accusations of rape, on the one hand Hegseth is a military veteran who attained the rank of major in the U.S. Army. This is not unusual for past defense secretaries, who’ve often ranged from Purple heart-awarded Sergeants to top Generals. What is unusual is, when compared with defense secretaries before him, Hegseth has perhaps the least relevant professional experience of all. He simply does not possess the knowledge and expertise to qualify him as a defense secretary. The DOD is one of the largest and most complex entities in the U.S. government. It has its own judicial code, legal system, and healthcare system. Hegseth has no prior experience leading an organization of anywhere near the magnitude, the complexity, or the budget of the DOD. Hegseth also has clearly expressed misogynistic sentiments concerning women in combat, in essence claiming without evidence that women do not belong in combat, at all.[19][20] He has lied about women being held to lower standards to let them join the military, a bigoted falsehood in line with the broader anti-diversity, anti-equity, pro-bigotry attitudes of Trump and his MAGA allies. Hypocritically, Hegseth expected the Senate to lower its standards to confirm him for a role he is clearly not qualified for.
Why did Trump pick such an unqualified candidate to head America’s defense department? The answer to this question becomes clear when we consider two facts. First, this former Fox News host has had plenty of professional experience telling lies on TV in ardent support and defense of Trump. And second, Trump’s observable and obvious pattern is to seek personal loyalty above all else from his cabinet picks.[21]
Indeed, Hegseth has shown a strong willingness to do Trump’s bidding. For instance, he’s corruptly enabled the hiring and firing of generals at the Pentagon for Trump’s political reasons. “Political independence and ethics are the bedrock of our military today,” former Defense Secretary and former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel wrote. With Hegseth, “I’m concerned that both are in danger.”[22][23]
To the surprise of no one except those who have not paid attention, multiple breaches of security have already occurred under Hegseth’s completely inept watch. By law, sensitive and classified information is communicated only over specially secured government networks or in specially secured rooms (called SCIFs). This ensures that only the security-cleared and intended government operatives are privy to classified or sensitive information on a “need to know” basis.[24] Yet in March 2025, it was revealed that Hegseth, along with Vice President Vance, Trump’s national security advisor Mike Waltz, and several other cabinet members (who all also should know better, by the way) accidentally included the editor-in-chief of the news journal The Atlantic in a group chat on the consumer messaging app Signal. The messaged content was very obviously classified, though Hegseth shamelessly lied to the contrary. Anyone can use Signal, not just cleared government officials, making this a very dangerous choice. U.S. war plan details in Yemen were discussed in this Signal chat, potentially compromising the plans to the intended Houthi targets and other U.S. adversaries and risking the lives of U.S. military officers and operatives.[25][26]
In April, Hegseth proved he either learned nothing, or didn’t care to learn. He was caught again messaging classified information about Yemen war plans on Signal. This time, it was certainly not by accident. In clear violation of the law, he purposely discussed the plans with his wife and brother, individuals without government clearance for this information.[27]
Hegseth has a clear pattern of incompetence and gross disregard for U.S. law, U.S. interests, and the lives of U.S. military operatives. If it were anyone else in government caught doing this, just once, they would be immediately terminated from their jobs and, either brought up on criminal charges or, if they’re a military officer, court marshalled.[28] And we can reasonably expect that these two events were not the only breaches of national security, just the ones he was caught doing. Nor will they be the last if Hegseth remains in the administration.
Yet Donald Trump has brushed off the matter as a minor blip, showing no interest in holding Hegseth, Waltz, or any other cabinet members accountable in any way. Hegseth remains in his role and has faced no consequences for what he’s done and probably continues to do.[29][30] Donald Trump said, “I think we learned, ‘Maybe don’t use Signal, okay?’… I would frankly tell these people not to use Signal, although it’s been used by a lot of people.”[31] Trump’s response here reveals a remarkable level of ignorance on Trump’s part as well regarding government security protocols and what went wrong. No one in the administration should have had to learn this the hard way, as Trump falsely implied could not be the case. Had Trump appointed competent and qualified individuals in the first place, they’d have already known not to use Signal for sensitive government communications. Additionally, while “a lot of people” indeed do use Signal, no competent federal worker or leader would dream of using it to communicate sensitive or classified information, while half of Trump’s cabinet apparently has had no problem doing. Meanwhile, according to Vice President Vance, Trump “promoted” Waltz to be the ambassador to the United Nations for… doing such a great job?! Waltz breached security protocols by starting the Signal chat in the first place, and he was rewarded? Vance claims this “promotion” had nothing to do with this incredible, entirely avoidable breach of security.[32]
Hegseth has furthermore lied and shifted the blame to his subordinates. Several of them were fired, in spite of the clear evidence that Hegseth himself is responsible for typing and sending classified information over an unsecured messaging app multiple times.[33] While the “promoted” Waltz is responsible for starting the first Signal chat and accidentally inviting a member of the press. Not to mention the fact that Vice President Vance and more than several additional ranking cabinet members were all on that first Signal chat, and not a single one of them thought to put a stop to it. The only person who did show common sense and a comprehension of security protocols was the accidentally invited Atlantic editor when he voluntarily removed himself from the group chat on realizing he should not be seeing this.
At the end of the day, Hegseth is loyal to King Trump. As are Waltz and the rest of Trump’s cabinet. Like a king of old with his court of sycophantic lords and ladies who fawn and compliment him at every turn, the qualifications Trump appears to have sought from his cabinet picks are twofold: loyalty and guile. Incompetence is irrelevant to Trump: just lie when something goes awry, blame it on others, give praise to Big Brother Trump, and you’re “a very fine person” in Trump’s eyes.
It’s not just cabinet members. Past presidential administrations have hired staff strictly in a non-partisan manner, based entirely on their competency for various jobs, including national security civil servants, FBI agents, foreign or domestic policy experts, and much more. In sharp contrast with previous administrations’ hiring policies, Trump administration staffers at all levels were hired first and foremost for their loyalty to Trump and the MAGA movement. Actual interview questions asked by White House recruiters revolved around their “enthusiasm” for Trump. They were asked when their “MAGA revelation” occurred, and what they did to support Trump’s presidential campaigns (e.g. did they canvass for him, donate, etc.). Candidates tended to be young and inexperienced, and were asked to prove their loyalty such as by consenting to have their social media examined. Job competence appears to have been a secondary consideration, if it was even considered at all. Experienced staffers reported being similarly questioned about their personal loyalty to Trump, many of whom were fired if they were deemed insufficiently loyal.[34] This bodes very, very badly for the various functions of the administration’s staff, including, among other things, the formation of sound foreign and economic policies, federal crime investigations, and national security matters.
A cancerous tumor of inept Trump loyalists now permeates all levels of the White House staff. From the lowest level staffers up to the highest, even including all of Trump’s cabinet members in charge of the various federal departments and agencies. Among them, Trump’s chief job requirement has been rigorously ensured: loyalty to King Trump above all else.
…
Thus, a team of loyal sycophants now permeates the executive branch. In a future article in this series, we’ll explore how the same loyalty has corrupted not only the entire Republican Party, but the legislative branch of Congress under loyalist Republican control as well. Before we examine Congress, in part three of this series we’ll wrap up the executive branch’s autocratic transformation. Trump has been positioned by all we’ve discussed thus far to set his will upon two of the nation’s highest law and order agencies: the FBI and the Department of Justice. He has not only loyalized them, but has taken a page right out of the authoritarian’s figurative playbook and corruptly weaponized them both. The FBI and the DOJ no longer serve the country or law and order first and foremost, as they are supposed to. Instead, they now personally serve Donald Trump first and foremost.
We’ll explore the weaponization of government next time.
Sources
1. George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Secker & Warburg (1949: London).
2. Tara Copp and Lolita C. Baldor, “Gen. Milley delivers defense of democracy and swipes at Trump in farewell address,” Associated Press, Sept. 29, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e (accessed May 10, 2025).
3. Tim Reid, Stephanie Kelly, and Jeff Mason, “Trump meets definition of a fascist, his former chief of staff says,” Reuters, Oct. 23, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-prefers-dictator-approach-former-chief-staff-says-2024-10-23/ (accessed May 10, 2025).
4. Megan Lebowitz, “13 former Trump administration officials sign open letter backing up John Kelly’s criticism of Trump,” NBC News, Oct. 25, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/13-former-trump-administration-officials-sign-open-letter-backing-john-rcna177227 (accessed May 10, 2025).
5. Zeke Miller, Eric Tucker, and Will Weissert, “Trump uses mass firing to remove independent inspectors general at a series of agencies,” Associated Press, Jan. 25, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-inspectors-general-fired-congress-unlawful-4e8bc57e132c3f9a7f1c2a3754359993 (accessed May 10, 2025).
6. Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, “Mission,” Oversight.gov, https://www.oversight.gov/about/inspectors-general (accessed May 10, 2025).
7. Miller, Tucker, and Weissert, “Trump uses mass firing to remove…”
8. James Comey, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership (NY: Flatiron Books, 2018).
9. Comey, A Higher Loyalty
10. Ibid.
11. Dominic Montanaro, “Suspicious Timing And Convenient Reasoning For Trump’s Firing Of Comey,” National Public Radio, May 10, 2017, https://www.npr.org/2017/05/10/527744909/suspicious-timing-and-convenient-reasoning-for-trumps-firing-of-comey (accessed May 1, 2025).
12. CBS Miami, “Trump’s Aides Stole His Papers ‘To Protect The Country,’ According To Bob Woodward’s New Book,” CBS News, Sept. 4, 2018, https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/trumps-aides-stole-his-papers-to-protect-the-country-according-to-bob-woodwards-new-book/ (accessed May 1, 2025).
13. Tim Reid, Stephanie Kelly and Jeff Mason, “Trump meets definition of a fascist, his former chief of staff says,” Reuters, Oct. 23, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-prefers-dictator-approach-former-chief-staff-says-2024-10-23/ (accessed May 1, 2025).
14. Tara Copp and Lolita C. Baldor, “Gen. Milley delivers defense of democracy and swipes at Trump in farewell address,” Associated Press, Sept. 29, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/milley-trump-biden-democracy-military-d2abb76858291c87ae856f91e9556d8e (accessed May 1, 2025).
15. U.S. Constitution, 14th amendment, sec. 3.
16. U.S. Constitution, 25th amendment, sec. 4.
17. David Folkenflik, “Trump taps 19 Fox pundits, personalities and producers for second term,” National Public Radio, Jan. 20, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/nx-s1-5268791/fox-news-trump-inauguration (accessed May 1, 2025).
18. Luke Barr, “Reagan FBI director urges caution against Gabbard, Patel,” ABC News, Dec. 28, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/reagan-fbi-director-urges-caution-gabbard-patel/story?id=117166000 (accessed May 1, 2025).
19. Mary Louise Kelly, Connor Donevan, and Courtney Dorning, “Is Trump pick Pete Hegseth ready to run Defense? A former defense secretary weighs in,” National Public Radio, Nov. 20, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/11/20/g-s1-34899/is-trump-pick-pete-hegseth-ready-to-run-defense-a-former-defense-secretary-weighs-in (accessed May 1, 2025).
20. Lisa Mascaro, Mary Clare Jalonick, and Farnoush Amiri, “Hegseth confirmed as Trump’s defense secretary in tie-breaking vote despite turmoil over his conduct,” Associated Press, Jan. 24, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-defense-secretary-trump-cabinet-confirmation-12491935023692bce0a04d149663e784 (accessed May 1, 2025).
21. Mascaro, Jalonick, and Amiri, “Hegseth confirmed as Trump’s defense secretary…”
22. Ibid.
23. Chuck Hagel, “Chuck Hagel: Why I’m Worried About Our Military,” The New York Times, Nov. 15, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/opinion/trump-military-politics.html?partner=slack&smid=sl-share (accessed May 1, 2025).
24. “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility Use (SCIF) Policy,” U.S. General Services Administration, Dec. 14, 2020, https://www.gsa.gov/directives-library/sensitive-compartmented-information-facility-use-scif-policy (accessed May 1, 2025).
25. Leila Fadel, “Just how secure is the messaging app Signal?,” National Public Radio, Mar. 26, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/nx-s1-5340741/just-how-secure-is-the-messaging-app-signal (accessed May 1, 2025).
26. Tara Copp, “The Atlantic releases the Signal chat showing Hegseth’s detailed attack plans against the Houthis,”Associated Press, Mar. 26, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-atlantic-war-plans-signal-yemen-houthis-c0addd08c627ab01a37ea63621cb695e (accessed May 1, 2025).
27. Steve Inskeep and Obed Manuel, “Hegseth 2nd Signal chat cause for ‘worry’ about nation’s security, says Rep. Jim Himes,” National Public Radio, Apr. 21, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/04/21/nx-s1-5370690/hegseth-signal-chat-jim-himes (accessed May 1, 2025).
28. Michel Martin, Obed Manuel, “Signal leak put lives of military personnel ‘at stake,’ says House Democrat,” National Public Radio, Mar. 27, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/03/27/nx-s1-5341452/signal-leak-hegseth-house-democrats (accessed May 1, 2025).
29. Quil Lawrence, “Trump officials downplay the Signal leak. Some military members see a double standard,” National Public Radio, Mar. 27, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/03/27/nx-s1-5341552/signal-leak-military-double-standard (accessed May 1, 2025).
30. Franco Ordoñez, “White House says it’s ‘case closed’ on the Signal group chat review,” National Public Radio, Mar. 31, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5345865/white-house-signal-group-chat-review (accessed May 1, 2025).
31. Ordoñez, “White House says it’s ‘case closed’…”
32. Franco Ordoñez, Tamara Keith, and Asma Khalid, “Trump is sending his national security adviser Mike Waltz to the UN in a shakeup,” National Public Radio, May 1, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/05/01/nx-s1-5339845/trump-waltz-rubio (accessed May 1, 2025).
33. Tom Bowman, Quil Lawrence, “New senior staff announced as White House looks to ‘right the ship’ at the Pentagon,” National Public Radio, Apr. 25, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/04/25/nx-s1-5377395/hegseth-defense-department (accessed May 1, 2025).
34. Matthew Lee, Aamer Madhani and Jill Colvin, “Loyalty tests and MAGA checks: Inside the Trump White House’s intense screening of job-seekers,” Associated Press, Jan. 25, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-loyalty-white-house-maga-vetting-jobs-768fa5cbcf175652655c86203222f47c (accessed May 1, 2025).
What's Wrong? 