- The real threat to democracy isn’t that Trump will become a king. It’s that he will, or already has, become a kleptocrat.
“No Kings Day” brought out huge crowds in protest of the Trump regime. But in a lot of ways, the nationwide series of events was misnamed. The real threat to democracy isn’t that Trump will become a king. It’s that he will, or already has, become a kleptocrat.
A kleptocracy is a system of government in which those in power exploit national resources and steal from the public treasury to enrich themselves, their families, or their allies. The word comes from the Greek roots kleptes (thief) and kratos (rule or power), literally meaning “rule by thieves.”
In such regimes, political leaders use state institutions for personal gain rather than public service. Corruption becomes systemic, laws are manipulated to protect the ruling elite, and wealth is hidden through shell companies, real estate, and offshore accounts.
As Anne Applebaum writes in Autocracy, Inc., modern kleptocracies like Putin’s Russia merge dictatorial control with globalized corruption, creating a system built not just on repression but on greed, secrecy, and the international financial networks that sustain it. That framework helps explain the danger of Trump’s second presidency far better than any royal metaphor ever could.
Applebaum never calls Trump a carbon copy of foreign dictators, but she identifies the same traits.
The first is the normalization of impunity—the belief that laws, norms, and even shame no longer apply.
Trump has treated government as a personal shield, pressuring the Justice Department to investigate his critics while protecting his allies. He has called for “retribution” and promised to use the DOJ against political opponents. He has refused legitimate oversight, from tax disclosures to the handling of classified documents, acting as though no court or constitution can touch him.
Then there is the marriage of kleptocracy and politics.
Like Putin’s Russia, Trumpism fuses wealth and power. He blurred public and private interests, using the presidency to benefit Trump Organization properties and cultivating a culture of cronyism and loyalty. Applebaum noted that “one in five condos in Trump-branded buildings is owned anonymously.” The system of secrecy, offshore accounts, and favors that sustains autocrats abroad now sustains the American right’s leading figure.
Trump’s disdain for the rule of law is also unmistakable.
Applebaum draws a distinction between the rule of law—where everyone is accountable—and what autocrats call rule by law, where legal mechanisms are used selectively to target enemies. Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” and his promises to “lock up” rivals embody that shift. Law, in his world, serves power; it does not constrain it.
Applebaum’s concept of the “fire hose of falsehoods” perfectly captures Trump’s communication style: constant, blatant lying not to persuade, but to exhaust.
The goal isn’t belief—it’s nihilism.
“If you can’t understand what’s going on, you won’t join a movement for democracy,” she writes. Trump’s torrent of conspiracy theories about election fraud and the “deep state” is designed to erode trust until citizens stop trying to discern truth at all.
Modern autocrats, Applebaum notes, also hide theft behind outrage.
Leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán—a far better model for Trump than any monarch—use culture wars to distract from corruption and frame critics as enemies of national identity.
Orbán has rewritten Hungary’s constitution, captured the media, and stoked moral panic about immigration, gender, and religion while consolidating power. Trump’s America follows the same pattern: polarization as cover for self-enrichment.
Both leaders demonstrate Applebaum’s central observation about censorship.
“Unlike their twentieth-century predecessors, today’s autocrats cannot impose censorship easily or effectively,” she writes. “Instead, they focus on winning audiences—building support by channeling resentment, hatred, and the desire for superiority.”
Modern authoritarianism doesn’t silence speech; it drowns it in noise. The objective is not to forbid truth but to make truth meaningless.
That dynamic is visible in the meme circulating online: “Reminder: A king would not allow a protest called ‘No Kings.’”
On the surface it sounds clever, even harmless. But it’s a small piece of propaganda, a reactionary defense of power disguised as common sense. Its subtext says: “If you can protest, you’re free—so stop complaining.” It reframes dissent as self-contradictory and mocks the very idea of protest. That’s how cynicism spreads: by teaching people that resistance is pointless.
This is what Applebaum calls the victory of irony.
Autocrats no longer need to ban books or imprison every critic; they simply make protest sound absurd. The meme doesn’t defend monarchy—it teaches passivity. It tells citizens that permission is freedom, that they should be grateful for their leash. When this kind of cynicism becomes normal, democracy begins to hollow out from within.
The real threat isn’t a king who abolishes protest; it’s a leader who convinces people protest doesn’t matter.
That is the essence of Orbánism—and the trajectory Trump is following. Applebaum describes how Orbán keeps elections and courts intact but drains them of meaning, using patronage, propaganda, and disinformation to dominate public life. Elections still happen, but only one side can win. The press still exists, but only to echo power. That’s not monarchy—it’s managed democracy, autocracy in democratic clothing.
Applebaum’s recent “Open Letters” essay, “Kleptocracy, Inc.,” warns that this transformation is already underway in the United States.
She points to the dismantling of ethics and oversight systems, the gutting of agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the rollback of anti-corruption laws.
“The old administrative state, based on meritocracy and loyalty to the Constitution, is being replaced by a kleptocratic one,” she writes. American policy—foreign, domestic, and economic—is slowly being remade not to serve the public but to serve the ruler, his family, and his friends.
That is why the language of “No Kings” misses the point. Trump doesn’t need a crown; he already has impunity.
What he seeks is what Applebaum calls Autocracy, Inc.—a network of strongmen and enablers who trade favors, launder wealth, and normalize corruption under the banner of nationalism. His threat is not medieval but modern: the hollowing of democratic institutions from within, the conversion of government into a mechanism for personal gain, and the corrosion of public faith until cynicism replaces citizenship.
Trump has already promised to invoke the Insurrection Act, sending military forces into Democratic-led cities and imposing martial law under the pretext of restoring order. He has already deployed masked ICE agents into neighborhoods, provoking the kind of clashes that could justify such a declaration. The Insurrection Act could not be better tailored for abuse by a brazen authoritarian like Trump—and he knows it.
So yes, a king would not allow a protest called “No Kings.” But that’s not what’s coming.
The threat is subtler and more modern. It’s a kleptocrat who lets you march while he drains the institutions beneath your feet, who leaves the forms of democracy intact but hollows them out until only loyalty remains. That’s how freedom dies—not with a crown, but with applause and indifference.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“The real threat to democracy isn’t that Trump will become a king. It’s that he will, or already has, become a kleptocrat.”
Now Trump is a kleptocrat?
I thought the real threat was that Trump was going to put you in a Gulag?
The funny thing is if there was ever a kleptocrat as President it was probably Joe Biden.
He and his son Hunter along with much of the Biden family were often accused of enriching themselves using Joe’s position as “the brand” and creating the impression of access to power.
And then there’s Nancy Pelosi, when she entered office in 1987, her family’s net worth was reported to be around $165,000 to where now the Pelosi’s net worth is estimated to be over $270 million in 2025. . Pelosi has made numerous timely trades in tech companies, often drawing scrutiny. Examples include trades in Nvidia, Apple, and Google, some of which occurred around the time of congressional activity related to the tech industry.
Did you hear who may run to replace Pelosi?
Scott Weiner
God help us!
I didn’t think it possible but Weiner actually makes Pelosi look good.
Yikes!
From article: “The real threat isn’t a king who abolishes protest; it’s a leader who convinces people protest doesn’t matter.”
Interesting – I’m already convinced of that. (I was thinking of asking how the gigantic waste of time and energy went yesterday – for those who attended.)
The same anti-Trump feelings existed prior to his election, but he won anyway. (Granted, he’s more aggressive this time around.)
All I can say is, “they’re eating the cats . . . they’re eating the dogs”. (And yet – won anyway.)
I’d never vote for the guy, but have to admit that I find the entire thing somewhat amusing, in regard to how upset some people are.
Perhaps my “least favorite thing” about Trump is how he goes after his former friends/political enemies. Then again, he experienced that himself, as well. But if they’re not guilty, then they likely will be found as such (after spending a lot of money and energy defending themselves).
I suggest, however, that the nihilism and hopelessness extends throughout the political system itself. In other words, it did not originate with Trump.
Special interests/lobbyists control the entire political system; it is only loosely-accountable to the public at large.
Perhaps the resulting frustration is best-uncovered by looking at the public reaction of the shooting of the United Healthcare CEO. (Different than Charlie Kirk’s shooting, since the CEO is more-representative of “quiet” underlying systemic corruption.)
Normal “public servants” can’t survive the political weeding-out process, as a result of the involvement of corruptive interests.
One might argue that Trump is simply the logical, more-blatant outcome of the existing system. (In some ways, however, he actually harasses those interests more-effectively than anyone else. Perhaps the first major politician “in charge of” those interests, rather than the other-way around. He is, after all, willing to oppose or support anyone or anything in a manner unseen before.)
“I was thinking of asking how the gigantic waste of time and energy went yesterday – for those who attended.”
It went very well. Aside from a couple of medical incidents (2 ambulance calls, neither serious), the only glitch I observed was that the crowd exceeded the original estimate by so much that PD requested (insisted?) that the remainder of the crowd exiting the park be turned back rather than allowed to continue onto the streets.
I had heard predictions of 5 million people nationwide, but I think it ended up being several hundred thousand.
Maybe a better question would be – what percentage of the people who attended voted for Trump, or whether or not the protests are changing anyone’s mind.
No one knows if Trump would win the same election, today. Twice, now – he’s won – when very few (including myself) thought it was possible. (Especially after the January 6th riot and subsequent, unrelated convictions.)
But we do know that the same type of outrage existed prior to his recent election, as well. I remember a massive pink “cat-in-the-hat” protest, right after he won the first time.
(As a side note, I understand that some of the books from that author have been banned in some settings.)
I don’t know why Proposition 50 is being framed as “anti-Trump”, since it presumably wouldn’t have much impact until after Trump leaves office.
In any case, perhaps if “I” attended – it would change all of the outcomes. :-)
But truth be told, I mostly see a lot of white people at these protests (a lot of times, “older” white people) who were opposed to Trump the entire time.
Seriously, I don’t see a lot of people from other races/skin colors in these crowds. They seem under-represented.
We learned a new vocabulary word today, children. Kleptocracy: the fresh and more sophisticated term for the danger Trump poses. That won’t catch on. Never mind that the term predates this article by decades, or that it has applied to nearly every government in history when power and money intersect. The author ridicules the “No Kings” framing for being simplistic (I agree!), yet seems oblivious to the fact that chanting “kleptocrat” at a political opponent is just as shallow, and too complex for most people who would chant, the lowest form of communication.. We can all agree “No Kings” is a silly slogan — but swapping one slogan for another does nothing to elevate the conversation.
Plus, there’s selective amnesia. If enriching allies, ignoring oversight, and turning government into a patronage machine define a kleptocracy, what exactly was Solyndra? What was the revolving door between Democratic administrations and defense contractors, or the sweetheart deals for donor-connected green energy firms and the mega-acres of Biden-era wind farms? This article speaks as if corruption was born in 2016 and will die when one man leaves the stage. Yet members of Congress have enriched themselves on insider trades forever. Administrations have steered contracts to friends. Presidents have shielded their allies from scrutiny. Let us not pretend this systemic abuse is a one-party or one-man novelty.
The piece’s fatal flaw is its refusal to apply its own standard to anyone but the main target. It mocks a protest slogan for missing the point, then proceeds to miss it itself. The real threat to democracy is not one man’s narcissism or one party’s corruption. It is the bipartisan normalization of using public power for private gain, all while insisting the other side is the sole offender. Until political writers, such as DG here, are willing to look honestly at their own team’s record, their warnings ring hollow.
“I had heard predictions of 5 million people nationwide, but I think it ended up being several hundred thousand.”
The organizers say 7 million. BBC just said “millions.”
74 million voted for Trump.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson:
“If President Trump was a king, the government would be open right now.”
“If President Trump was a king, they would not have been able to engage in that free speech exercise out on the mall, by the way, which was open because President Trump hasn’t closed it.”
“which was open because President Trump hasn’t closed it.” — said the Speaker without a trace of irony.
The speaker said that because during the 2013 federal government shutdown, President Barack Obama’s administration closed the National Mall, including barricading open-air memorials.
So did Obama act like a king closing the mall?
I always find it amusing when government officials try to close the “outdoors” (federal lands) during government shutdowns. The best they can do is to close the parking lots. (Vehicles are always an “achilles heel” in regard to individuals and government enforcements.
Plus, it’s a well-known “fact” that government rangers can’t operate beyond 20 feet of their own vehicle – as they depend on it as a source of personal energy. Most of them have never even seen anything beyond that radius.)
“Plus, it’s a well-known “fact” that government rangers can’t operate beyond 20 feet of their own vehicle – as they depend on it as a source of personal energy. Most of them have never even seen anything beyond that radius.)”
I guess you’ve never been out on the trails in a National Park. Backcountry rangers spend their days hiking, usually miles (often many miles) from the nearest road. A couple of years ago I encountered one about 7 miles in carrying a full-size shovel, because there were fires in the general area and he needed to be prepared. Your comment isn’t just ignorant, it’s an insult to a large group of very hard-working and dedicated people.
Well, you got me on that – though I was mostly joking. Though I wasn’t referring to backcountry rangers – I was referring to law enforcement rangers (the one who enforce parking regulations, etc.). And yes, I’m sure that most of them aren’t powered by their own vehicles.
I did get challenged by a backcountry ranger once, for not having a permit. I had inadvertently ventured off the trail into a wilderness zone, where a permit was required. As such, I did not see the sign. (Not sure if he believed me, but it was the truth.)
But truth be told, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be seriously “insulted” regarding that type of joke. People make fun of cops (and donuts) for example, all the time. Cops do so, themselves.