Donald Trump faces increasing challenges to his grip on power as public discontent grows. Recent polling indicates that his approval ratings remain persistently low, with only 44.2 percent of Americans approving of his presidency as of October 20, 2025. This discontent is evident as various crises, including rising inflation and economic instability, fuel public frustration.
While Trump projects an image of strength, his actions suggest otherwise. Reports indicate that he has resorted to deploying secret police and military forces in American cities, a move interpreted by many as a desperate attempt to maintain control amidst significant political and economic challenges. This strategy appears to be a reaction to his dwindling support, as he faces accusations of breaking laws, including violations of the Hatch Act and other ethical standards.
Fear as a Tool for Control
The mechanisms Trump employs to maintain loyalty among Republican politicians rely heavily on fear. His recent indictment of long-time Republican James Comey and the pardon of convicted politician George Santos signal a clear message to party members: dissent will not be tolerated. For Trump, this strategy has proven effective so far, but it raises concerns about its sustainability.
Political analyst Jonathan Schlefer notes that historical precedents show that similar attempts to consolidate power often fail. Leaders like Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador managed to undermine democracy during times of crisis, achieving approval ratings exceeding 80 percent as they took drastic measures. In stark contrast, Trump has consistently failed to garner majority support, with his popularity never surpassing 50 percent in any election.
The consequences of his approach are beginning to show. Trump’s economic approval ratings have plummeted to 34 percent, with 62 percent of respondents expressing disapproval of his handling of economic issues. Unlike other authoritarian leaders, Trump’s base is notably smaller and lacks widespread enthusiasm, which weakens his position.
A Historical Perspective on Authority
The reliance on fear and coercion to maintain power is a precarious strategy. As noted by political scientist Erica Chenoweth, successful authoritarian regimes in wealthy nations manage to maintain control only about one in four times. Recent examples from countries such as South Korea and Brazil illustrate the potential downfall of leaders who rely on fear tactics. Both former presidents are currently imprisoned, highlighting the risks associated with such governance.
Historically, movements against oppressive leadership often arise when a critical mass of citizens takes a stand. The recent No Kings marches in the United States signify growing public dissent against Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. The turnout reflects a collective refusal to accept dictatorial governance, echoing sentiments rooted in the nation’s founding principles.
As John Adams noted, reliance on fear can ultimately trap leaders in a cycle of their own making. The American public’s historical resistance to tyranny suggests that Trump’s methods may not hold up in the long term.
In this climate of uncertainty, the American populace appears increasingly ready to challenge the status quo. The marches invoke a legacy of standing against oppression, reminding leaders that the public’s patience is not unlimited. The ongoing struggle for power between Trump and those who oppose him may reshape the political landscape in the months and years ahead, as citizens continue to assert their rights against what they perceive as an overreach of authority.
As the nation navigates these turbulent times, the question remains: how long can Trump maintain his grip on power through fear, and what will be the consequences of such a strategy in the face of growing dissent?
