Evidence shows that an increasing number of Americans from all walks of life and from various economic sectors and political identities disapprove of — and are refusing to accept — mounting abuses of power and anti-democratic actions by the Trump administration. These signs, whether small and subtle or vivid and public, indicate that the political winds are shifting. Just a few examples include:
- Veterans and military families from Ohio and other parts of the country roundly criticizing National Guard deployments in large, Democratic-majority cities as unnecessary and harmful to national security.
- Businesses denouncing abusive immigration enforcement policies for harming the bottom line.
- Disney shareholders criticizing the company’s politically motivated suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! as constituting a potential breach of fiduciary duty that was harming stakeholders’ financial interests.
- Cattle ranchers across regions expressing disapproval of the administration’s plan to import Argentine beef as a betrayal of campaign promises.
- The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which as a body has been largely silent on democracy issues, issuing a rare public statement saying they “oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people” and appealing for “an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement.”.
- Airport officials refusing to show a politicized Department of Homeland Security video.
- An influential GOP fundraiser abandoning the party over what he says is its “increasingly corrupt and authoritarian” trajectory, and other Republicans distancing themselves from the administration following the party’s poor performance in November’s election.
- JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon announcing that the company would not contribute to the White House’s ballroom construction, citing the potential risks of “doing anything that looks like buying favors.”
- A few congressional Republicans criticizing a recent U.S.-Russia peace proposal for the war in Ukraine that heavily favored Russia, and some beginning to express concern over U.S. military strikes on boats off Venezuela’s coast, suggesting, as many experts have determined, that they may be illegal.
- Public opinion polling showing increasing disapproval of actions by President Donald Trump and his administration not only over rising costs for ordinary Americans but also over the use – and abuse – of executive authority.
These signals of discontent and many more acts of noncooperation, particularly involving members of the Trump-aligned Make America Great (MAGA) movement, indicate cracks in the administration’s power base. The shifts show that a broad swath of people view their rights, liberties, and economic interests as being compromised. Their actions are significant at a time when many members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and loyalists installed in the federal bureaucracy are unwilling or unable to resist attacks on democratic governance, and when a range of former U.S. intelligence officials have warned of accelerating authoritarian dynamics in the country.
Stopping democratic backsliding in the United States will require not only sustained action from large numbers of people. It will also require an “economy of effort,” by which individuals draw on their specific skills, resources, and dispositions to both engage with and pressure the sources of support for authoritarian directions.
Expanding Resistance
Mass protests have widened across the country, including deep inside GOP stronghold areas. The Crowd Counting Consortium reported more than 2,150 protests across all 50 states, with between 2 million and 4.8 million participants in June 2025. The “No Kings” protests in October, possibly the largest single-day demonstration in U.S. history, occurred in 2,700 locations with an estimated 5 million to 7 million participants, including in deeply red areas.
Traditional institutional mechanisms such as voting, litigation, and advocacy remain important for countering abuses of power. However, because multiple political institutions have been compromised, broad-based civil resistance can serve as one of the most effective defenses against the intentional tearing down of democratic norms and systems. Civil resistance works in part because it draws in more diverse and larger numbers of participants into a nonviolent struggle against authoritarianism, including those whose support is crucial for autocratic regimes to maintain and consolidate their power.
A central mechanism linking civil resistance to success involves defections by key “pillars of support.” Governments depend upon the strength, resources, and legitimacy provided by an array of social, political, and economic groups and institutions. Security forces carry out orders, bureaucrats administer policies, businesses provide campaign contributions and market signals, media outlets shape public opinion, religious leaders provide spiritual legitimacy, local civic leaders and organizations confer credibility, and so on. Some especially significant pillars of the Trump administration include officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CPB); anti-immigration media; select Evangelical churches and Christian organizations; businesses like Amazon, Palantir, and the GEO Group; and donor networks and far-right political action committees.
Small loyalty shifts within the pillars of support — which are made up of individuals with a range of interests and identities — can bring about large changes. Among elements of the security and bureaucracy pillars, for example, even slight changes in their perception of the government’s ability to pay public-sector salaries can motivate decisive shifts.
Engaging Strategically for Democracy
Sustained, efficient, and strategic efforts will be critical to stopping authoritarian encroachment and to providing on-ramps for people to be a part of a movement that embraces fairness and a level playing field. There is no one-size-fits-all formula for effective individual and collective action — much will depend upon one’s position in and relationships with the various pillars of support. The Horizons Project, where we work, and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University recently published a report (authored by one of us, Adam) that discusses five questions that can help orient pro-democratic actors within key pillars.
Some will most effectively defend their freedoms by speaking out, especially those in positions of power and visibility, such as politicians, media personalities, faith leaders, and business leaders. Others will be most effective by engaging in public action to stem the tide of executive overreach — for example campaigning for pro-democracy Republicans in primaries or participating in No Kings demonstrations. Still others will maximize their efforts by standing in the way and refusing to comply with coercive pressure. Think of businesses barring ICE agents from their establishments or police officers refusing to carry out politically motivated arrests.
Apart from strategic questions about speech, action, and noncooperation, there is a separate question regarding whether to act within — or outside of — groups or institutions of which one is a part. It can also be conceptualized as “binding” within versus “breaking” from an organization. Breaking tactics can include refusing to work in jobs that further coercive agendas. For example, Social Security Administration employees resigned rather than complying with DOGE requests for access to sensitive government records. When Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff called on the Trump administration to deploy the National Guard to San Francisco, a wave of criticism followed, including from Salesforce staff and alumni, along with Ron Conway, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, who resigned from the board of Salesforce’s philanthropic arm in protest. Benioff later apologized and retracted his statement.
Binding can involve persuading one’s colleagues (or fellow congregationists or union members) behind closed doors to withdraw their support from leaders who abuse their constitutional power. For example, Ohio National Guard members recently have been communicating with each other through encrypted group chats, discussing their concerns about — and even unwillingness to participate in — politicized deployments. Binding tends to be less visible than breaking, but it is no less important. These tactics complement each other well: Insiders can quietly organize colleagues, gather information on the government’s abuses, and strategize about incentives and potential wedges within specific pillars. Meanwhile, outsiders can draw public attention and escalate pressure.
Building Broad Alliances
The larger and more representative a pro-democracy movement, the greater its chances of encouraging shifts in loyalty among key pillars of support to autocratic actions and regimes. Growth will be facilitated by the building of “unlikely allies,” who may disagree strongly about policy goals but agree on the need to preserve representative, accountable government. Even conservative-leaning constituencies in deep blue Los Angeles County, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, the Sheriff’s Office, veterans organizations, and faith groups, broke with the Trump administration over ICE raids and National Guard deployments. Their actions have included police protecting protesters, Chamber of Commerce statements condemning ICE activity and affirming the role of immigrants in LA’s economy, farmworker labor strikes, lawsuits against ICE raids at houses of worship, and an alliance between the LA Archdiocese and local businesses to provide critical services to immigrant families.
Unlikely alliances are possible in part because pillars are not monolithic. Dialogue and engagement with specific elements of pillars can increase the likelihood of defections. This was a key strategy of the Otpor movement in Serbia, which actively fraternized with state security forces as part of a broad-based movement to remove autocrat Slobodan Milosevic from power. The incentives for pillars to cooperate – or not — with anti-democratic forces can also shift as a result of sustained pressure, as evidenced by Disney’s decision to put Jimmy Kimmel Live! back on the air following a targeted consumer boycott and mobilization by fandoms, entertainers, and shareholders.
Facilitating Loyalty Shifts and Inclusion
Although there are challenges to shifting loyalties away from authoritarianism, ranging from retaliation from an administration to threats and harassment, there is plenty of evidence that defections need not be ruinous. The climate is shifting and there is strength in numbers. As the movement to protect constitutional government grows, so too will the incentives for acting courageously.
This highlights the importance of welcoming defectors without shaming them about their previous allegiances or asking them to give up their conservatism. Those considering withdrawing their support from authoritarian leaders and movements may find encouragement in knowing that they will be joining a movement grounded in widely shared values: freedom, self-rule, and constitutional government. And from a standpoint of pure self-interest, permitting the erosion of rights today sets a dangerous precedent that future leaders of any party can exploit, putting all at risk of retaliation.
While encouraging principled action is important, showing people that an alternative pathway is viable, and supporting them morally and materially along their journey, is perhaps even more important. People need to feel like they are joining a movement ready to provide support and celebrate them, notwithstanding political and ideological differences. Faith leaders, businesspeople, and conservative workers and professionals need to know that there will be spiritual, social, and financial backing to help them weather storms when they shift support away from a corrupt and abusive regime. They should believe they are contributing to a bigger project and will thrive in a world without authoritarian governance. This type of solidarity action and big-tent organizing is gaining strength, and is the way to normalize pro-democratic behavior.
While ideological and policy disagreement will be inevitable within the big tent, lowering the barriers to entry and welcoming in those who are newly ready to take action is the way to hand power back to “we the people.”
