Introduction
CAMBRIDGE – The Trump administration’s strategy of “flooding the zone” may obscure the fact that the United States is approaching a turning point in its descent into authoritarianism. While this may be part of the strategy, which gradually erodes people’s rights and institutional checks, the killing of two U.S. citizens by ICE agents in Minneapolis this month could be precisely that turning point.
Authoritarian Regimes and Excessive Force
One hallmark of authoritarian governments is their ease in using excessive force against opponents. Although all governments employ coercive measures to maintain public order, there are clear limits. The British government can use force to disperse protests in certain areas, but a range of institutional controls and strong norms against authoritarianism make mass killing of protesters by police forces unimaginable in the UK.
In contrast, former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s violent response to Arab Spring protests was expected. It is understood that authoritarian governments will use such force against opposition, independent media, and other pillars of civil society.
Barriers to Violent Repression in Democratic Societies
In democratic or non-authoritarian societies, several barriers prevent violent repression of opposition. Firstly, it would provoke shock and indignation among other government branches and civil society, making it generally counterproductive. Secondly, the government cannot be confident that its security forces will follow such orders. During Trump’s first presidency, U.S. military leaders made it clear they would not comply.
However, ICE saw significant growth in 2025 and appears to have recruited young agents very close to the extreme end of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. It was also given an overly broad mandate, with permission to use tactics previously unimaginable for any federal agency. The Department of Justice has shown unwavering support for ICE’s likely illegal actions and even refuses to investigate them.
Symbolic Significance of the Minnesota Incident
The symbolism of what happened in Minnesota is unmistakable. ICE has already killed two innocent civilians: Renée Good, a mother of three who had just dropped off one child at school, and now Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse who was observing and recording one of their raids. It is common for law enforcement to use threats and violent tactics against protesters documenting their activities. However, the most significant aspect is that by granting ICE de facto immunity, the Trump administration has given it the green light to escalate this violence.
If not controlled, it could indeed mark a turning point, as it would set a model for other security forces, even more aligned with Trump, to use force against any opposition demonstrations. In that case, reversing the descent into authoritarianism might be difficult, as civil society would paralyze in the face of growing repression and norms against such violence would weaken.
Weakened Institutional Controls
The two government branches supposed to check the presidency (Congress and the Supreme Court) have shown excessive complacency towards Trump’s agenda. Moreover, independent institutional controls have also weakened, especially due to the president’s ease in appointing allies and sycophants to key positions. As I argue elsewhere, the administration’s overall goal is to establish a form of imperial presidency unconstrained by limits, precisely the way authoritarianism is consolidated (as seen in contemporary examples of Hungary, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Turkey, and Venezuela).
Protests as a Containment Mechanism
In January 2017, I argued that peaceful protests were the only way to contain Trump’s first administration. Even then, it was obvious that other government branches wouldn’t impose effective limits on Trump, and if they tried, he would manipulate norms to his advantage.
Although peaceful protests proved to be a powerful defense against Trump’s attempts to expand power and move towards authoritarianism, the energy that fueled them in 2017 had dissipated by 2025. One reason was that many analysts and a significant portion of the population interpreted Trump’s larger popular vote majority in the 2024 elections as a broader mandate than in 2016 (when he did not achieve this majority).
However, there was a more crucial reason: during Biden’s years, Democratic activists exhausted their legitimacy. In public functions, universities, NGOs, and even the private sector, they overstepped and lost much support by dismissing legitimate concerns about the social changes they advocated.
Thus, when Trump returned with a much more radical agenda in January 2025, he found civil society unprepared to offer significant resistance.
Minneapolis: A Potential Turning Point
Minneapolis could change this situation. The energy and solidarity shown by those helping their immigrant neighbors and protesting against ICE’s brutal tactics are harbingers of a decisive confrontation. The outcome will depend partly on how willing Trump’s allies in Congress are to accept the executive’s violence and illegality, and partly on what Trump and his small group of like-minded advisors do.
However, the most crucial factor will be civil society’s determination, starting with Minnesota.
