Tag Archive for: The Steady State

How Do You Know You’re Living in an Autocracy? Just Look Around You.

An often-asked question since January 21, 2025, “Is America really in danger of slipping into authoritarianism?” On July 4, 2025, I wrote an essay outlining indicators of the slide toward an autocratic government, which was expanded upon in an August 8 essay. In October, it felt to me as if the authoritarianism we fear was already upon us, and I compared what I was observing to the Jim Crow era that I grew up in.

As the first anniversary of this administration approaches, I’ve been reflecting on recent events and see nothing to contradict my conclusion from October. I am convinced that the United States is now an elected autocracy closely resembling Viktor Orban of Hungary, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, Narendra Modi of India, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, and, lest we forget, the man recently deposed by the U.S., Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela. These are (or were, in Maduro’s case) leaders who gained power through elections (sometimes even honest elections), but who rule through manipulation and repression, and who, once in power, dismantle democratic processes and institutions. We’re not yet a full-blown dictatorship, but the signs are ever clear that this is where we could end up if the trend is not reversed.

As hard as it might be for Americans to accept that this country falls into that category, it behooves us to take a hard look at what has happened in the last year and evaluate it against the key characteristics of authoritarianism.

Concentration of Power. Since day one, the Trump administration has sought to expand the power of the executive branch, weaken institutional checks and balances, and undermine the independence of the judiciary. From the dismantling of USAID to an executive order ending birthright citizenship, actions that have been challenged in court, but not yet decided, Trump and his advisors have continued to assert that his power over the executive branch is unlimited and unquestionable. The capstone of his quest for power, and his views on limitations on his power, were highlighted in a January 8, 2026, interview with The New York Times, when he said, in answer to a question if there were any limits on his global powers, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law.”

Restriction of Civil Liberties. In the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, he went full bore in undoing decades of civil rights work, including eliminating diversity initiatives across all federal agencies, firing staffers of agencies working on civil rights issues, and pushing to roll back provisions of the Civil Rights Act; dismantling laws intended to protect people from discrimination in schools, the workplace, and at the voting polls. In a January 11, 2026, article in The New York Times, Trump’s views on civil rights were summed up in his remarks that white people were ‘very badly treated’ by civil rights-era protections.

Political Repression. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to punish his political opponents. As of November 26, 2025, a Reuters tally indicated that at least 470 Americans, individuals, institutions, and organizations had been targeted for retribution. The list included prosecutors who investigated his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, media organizations he deemed hostile, law firms associated with opponents, and government employees who questioned his policies. On January 11, 2026, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell received a subpoena and a threat of criminal indictment from the DOJ regarding his 2025 congressional testimony on renovations to the Federal Reserve’s buildings. In a video statement, Powell said the subpoena was an effort to undermine the Fed’s independence when it comes to setting interest rates. Trump has denied knowledge of the case but has clashed with Powell (whom he appointed during his first term) over interest rates, which he seeks to manipulate for political reasons, whereas Powell insists on using economic indicators to make that call.

Manipulation of Democratic Processes. While many of Trump’s early actions by executive order have been challenged in the courts, and some of those orders have been declared unconstitutional, he continues to look for workarounds and loopholes in the law to implement the proposals in the Heritage Foundation’s 900-page Project 2025, a blueprint for placing the federal bureaucracy under direct presidential control without Congressional or Judicial Branch oversight. He has tried eliminating job protections for federal employees and has weaponized federal agencies against his political opponents, overwhelming the courts—and the public—with constant policy changes, in an effort to normalize authoritarian governance through the sheer volume of controversial actions.

Use of Propaganda and Control of Information. Control of the media and use of propaganda to shape public perception is right out of the authoritarian playbook, and this has been Trump’s tactic from the start of his second administration. Even now, he continues the ‘big lie’ that the 2020 election was ‘stolen’; he denigrates and mocks opponents with ad hominem attacks; and he uses threats and intimidation to force the media to hew to his line. A prime example of the use of propaganda (outright lies) to shape public opinion and control the narrative was Trump’s comments after an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Ncole Good in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 7, 2026. Despite video evidence showing that Good was turning her car away from the agents when the first shot was fired, and the next two shots were fired through the left front window, Trump, in a statement to The New York Times, accused the victim of “trying to run over policemen…”

Institutional Support. During his first administration, Trump, who was new to the federal government scene, appointed officials who, in many cases, placed their oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution’ over personal loyalty to him. Thus, he was restrained in some of his worst impulses, such as his desire to deploy the army to DC to deal with the demonstrations after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman. In his second administration, however, he appointed only loyalists to key positions, such as the DOJ, the FBI, and the DOD, which has led to National Guard deployments, primarily to Democratic-run cities and states, until the courts ordered them out of California, Oregon, and Illinois. Because he has more direct control over the DC National Guard, troops remain in the capital, and at the request of Louisiana’s Republican governor, in New Orleans. Until his raid on Venezuela and abduction of its president and his wife, and the DOJ subpoena to Fed Chair Powell, the Republican-led Congress has, for the most part, either supported his actions or looked the other way. Democratic legislators’ efforts to rein him in have been blocked by the Republican majority. The Venezuela crisis, the attack on the Fed, and his obsession with taking over Greenland, however, have exposed cracks in Congressional support that have yet to stop his actions—but they offer hope. Right-wing media outlets have been consistently supportive, or silent on his abuses of power, and his efforts to bring the rest of the media in line continue.

Fear and Violence. Finally, there is the use of fear and violence to manipulate and control the population. One need look no further than the aggressive and militarized tactics that ICE uses in its raids, and the demographics of those being detained and deported to conclude that instilling fear is as much—if not more—a goal of the administration as its stated goal of removing the worst and most dangerous undocumented alien criminals. Targets of these raids have increasingly been those with no ‘criminal’ record, legal permanent residents, and even U.S. citizens.

It is maybe premature to call the U.S. a full-blown autocracy, but it’s hard to deny that we are no longer ‘approaching’ that status. We’re now a hybrid, perhaps still more free than unfree, but the move to dictatorship seems to be accelerating each day, and one can only wonder when we’ll reach the point at which a U-turn becomes difficult.

Charles A. Ray served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

[Re-Play] Hands Off the Fed: Why Central Bank Independence Is Vital for Economic Stability and National Security

Federal Reserve leaves interest rates ...

As the administration threatens criminal indictment of Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, here is a replay for those who might have this, originally published on The Steady State Substack, August 3, 2025.

When President Donald Trump suggested he might fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over disagreements about interest rate policy, it wasn’t just a breach of political decorum—it was a threat to a cornerstone of American economic stability. The Federal Reserve’s independence has long been a bipartisan norm, respected by presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. While leaders have always expressed opinions on interest rates—some more vocally than others—rarely have they implied the Fed should act at their behest, or worse, that the Fed chair should be removed for disobedience. The consequences of such political interference would be far-reaching—and potentially devastating.

At its core, the Federal Reserve exists to manage the U.S. money supply, stabilize prices, and maintain employment—all while ensuring the financial system operates smoothly. To do this effectively, the Fed must be free to act based on economic indicators and long-term interests, not the electoral calendar or political popularity. If a central bank becomes a political tool, it risks losing the credibility that underpins its effectiveness. And once that credibility is lost, restoring it would be very difficult if not impossible.

Economic Volatility and the Cost of Political Influence

Imagine a world where interest rates are set not according to inflation data or economic output, but by a president trying to goose the economy before an election. In the short term, such politically motivated rate cuts might stimulate spending. But the long-term consequences would be inflation, currency instability, and increased uncertainty for investors and businesses alike. No prudent investor or business owner likes uncertainty. And a weak jobs report followed by the President firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics simply because he didn’t like the news exacerbates those doubts.

A politically captured Fed could also delay raising rates even when inflation surges, for fear of triggering a recession during an election year. No need to imagine that, it’s exactly what played out in the 1970s, when political pressure on the Fed helped fuel a decade of stagflation—high inflation combined with stagnant growth. Only with the painful but necessary rate hikes in the 1980s did the Fed tame inflation and restore credibility. But those hikes triggered a deep recession, which could have been avoided had the Fed been allowed to act earlier and independently.

Markets function best when they can predict, to some degree, the likely response of central banks to economic developments. An independent Fed sends clear signals based on data and deliberation. A politicized Fed, by contrast, introduces a dangerous element of unpredictability. Investors, both domestic and foreign, become less certain about the future of inflation, interest rates, and the value of the dollar. Over time, this uncertainty raises borrowing costs and weakens the economic foundation of the country.

The Dollar’s Role—and the National Security Risk

Beyond economics, there’s a powerful national security argument for defending the Fed’s independence. The U.S. dollar serves as the world’s primary reserve currency. More than 50% of global trade is conducted in dollars, and central banks around the world hold over $6 trillion in dollar-denominated reserves. This “exorbitant privilege,” as former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing once called it, gives the U.S. enormous geopolitical leverage.

That leverage depends on global trust—trust in the rule of law, in the independence of institutions, and in the predictability of U.S. monetary policy. If the rest of the world begins to see the Fed as a tool of partisan politics, that trust begins to erode. Central banks in Beijing, Frankfurt, or Brasília may start to reduce their exposure to the dollar. If enough of them do, the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government would rise, potentially by hundreds of billions of dollars. Worse, the U.S. could lose its unique position in the global financial system, diminishing our ability to impose sanctions, manage crises, or even defend our economy against foreign shocks.

Authoritarian regimes around the world already exploit chaos and dysfunction in democratic institutions to bolster their own narratives. A Fed that looks like an extension of the Oval Office hands them another propaganda tool. It also makes coordinated economic diplomacy far more difficult. Allies may begin to hedge their bets, moving away from the dollar and U.S.-led institutions in favor of more neutral alternatives.

Guardrails for the Future

Preserving the Fed’s independence is not just about economic orthodoxy—it’s about protecting the long-term stability and security of the United States. Presidents may always grumble about interest rates. That’s part of the democratic process. But when those complaints turn into threats or outright interference, it’s time to draw a bright line and call it what it is: a recipe for economic disaster. Central bank independence isn’t a luxury—it’s a pillar of modern governance, a guarantor of prosperity, and a shield against the erosion of American leadership in the world.

Bruce Berton served as a U.S. diplomat for over three decades, ultimately rising to the senior ranks of the Foreign Service, including two years as Ambassador and Head of Mission at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. He is a native of the Pacific Northwest and a graduate of Pacific Lutheran University. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 300 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

America Once Knew How to Name Fascism

A newspaper with text on it AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Over the past several months, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security have become unusually active in communicating directly with the American public, particularly through social-media platforms. Much of this material shares a common aesthetic and rhetorical profile: a romanticized vision of a homogeneous American past, heavy reliance on martial symbolism, and language that frames politics as an existential struggle between insiders and enemies. Many observers have noted that this style bears an uncomfortable resemblance to official propaganda produced by authoritarian regimes in the twentieth century—most notably Germany in the 1930s.

In March 1945, just weeks before the defeat of Nazi Germany, the U.S. War Department issued Army Talk 64, a pamphlet with a blunt, one-word title: “FASCISM!” It was part of a broader series—Army Talks—distributed to American service members in the European theater. The purpose was not morale-boosting or cheerleading. It was civic education.

As historian Heather Cox Richardson recently explained, the Army Talks were designed to help soldiers “become better-informed men and women and therefore better soldiers.” The War Department understood that fighting fascism required more than weapons. It required clarity—about what fascism is, how it operates, and why it poses a mortal threat to democratic societies.

What is striking about Army Talk 64 is not merely its historical provenance, but its enduring relevance. The pamphlet warned that fascism does not announce itself with a single uniform or symbol. It grows gradually, exploiting fear, resentment, and nostalgia. It thrives, the document cautioned, on indifference and ignorance.

The pamphlet reminded American soldiers that freedom is not self-executing. It requires vigilance—not only against foreign enemies, but against domestic practices that corrode democratic norms. “If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob anyone of his democratic rights,” the authors warned, “our own freedom and all democracy is threatened.”

This was not radical language. It was official U.S. government doctrine.

The men and women reading Army Talk 64 were preparing to liberate Europe from fascist rule. But the War Department understood that the ideology they were fighting was not confined to foreign soil. Fascism, the pamphlet made clear, is a recurring political disease. It can emerge anywhere citizens lose the habit of critical thinking or surrender democratic responsibility in exchange for a promise of restored greatness.

That clarity stands in stark contrast to our present moment.

Today, public discourse often treats “fascism” as either an insult or a taboo—too inflammatory to name, too dangerous to define. Yet the United States once insisted that its soldiers confront the concept directly, analytically, and without euphemism. The government trusted Americans to understand the warning.

Re-engaging with Army Talk 64 would not be an act of nostalgia. It would be an act of democratic self-respect. The document is not partisan. It does not target any individual or movement by name. Instead, it offers a framework—rooted in American experience—for recognizing when political culture begins to slide toward authoritarianism.

The lesson is simple and unsettling: democracies do not fail only because of force. They fail when citizens stop paying attention.

Nearly eighty years ago, the United States told its soldiers that the defense of freedom begins with understanding what threatens it. That message was true in 1945. It is no less true today.

The question is whether we are still willing to hear it.

Steven A. Cash served as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office before joining the CIA in 1994 as Assistant General counsel and subsequently serving as an intelligence officer in the Directorate of Operations. In 2001 he joined the Senate Select committee on Intelligence as Counsel and designee-staffer to Senator Diane Feinstein). He later served as a senior staffer in the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security and the Department of Energy. In the private sector he has advised on national security, counterintelligence, and technology policy and served on the Biological Sciences Experts Group under the Director of National Intelligence. Mr. Cash is currently the Executive Director of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Sentinel Podcast:An Existential Threat to the Republic

The Steady State Executive Director Steven Cash draws on decades of experience watching foreign democracies fail to highlight the existential risks the United States faces under President Donald Trump. Award-winning CIA operative James Lawler conducts this provocative discussion about encroaching dictatorship in the United States.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

THE STEADY STATE SENTINEL PODCAST: “An Existential Threat to The Republic”

The Steady State Sentinel is produced by The Steady State, a community of former national security professionals who spent their careers safeguarding the United States at home and abroad. Today, we continue that mission by staying true to our oaths to defend the Constitution, uphold democracy, and protect national security. Each episode features expert hosts in conversation with accomplished guests whose experience sheds light on the crises and challenges facing the nation.

In Episode 2, The Steady State Executive Director Steven A. Cash draws on decades of experience watching foreign democracies fail to highlight the existential risks the United States faces under President Donald Trump. Award-winning CIA operative James Lawler conducts this provocative discussion about encroaching dictatorship in the United States.

Listen Here

Steven A. Cash served as a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office before joining the CIA in 1994 as Assistant General counsel and subsequently serving as an intelligence officer in the Directorate of Operations. He subsequently served in the Senate Select committee on Intelligence as Counsel and designee-staffer to Senator Diane Feinstein), as a senior staffer in House Select Committee on Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology , the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Energy. In the private sector he has advised on national security, counterintelligence, and technology policy and served on the Biological Sciences Experts Group under the Director of National Intelligence.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions. Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Fearing the Stranger: The Autocratic Logic (and the Danger) of Ending Refugee Admissions

Almost one year ago, one of the Trump Administration’s first actions on Inauguration Day was to suspend indefinitely the entry of all refugees under the US Refugee Admissions Program, a statutory body established by the 1980 Refugee Act. Refugees already approved for arrival, including Afghan allies, some of whom even had plane tickets and had sold their belongings and homes, were left stranded around the world. The State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies involved in vetting and processing these cases, suspended flights, visas, and congressionally approved funds for resettlement agencies throughout the United States and even refused to provide reimbursement for already-performed resettlement work.

As a former U.S. diplomat who served in Afghanistan and now researches the situation of the country we left behind, I saw the horror of this action at close range. I had traveled to Pakistan and Qatar in early January 2025 and heard from former judges and military officials that they faced a devastating reality. They had worked in tandem with us to pursue Taliban offenders, so they could not go back. They could not go forward to the United States, even though they had been qualified as refugees under our law. And they were no longer able to stay where they were, as most countries hosting them were not offering safety or settlement.

This action against refugees, besides ripping our national moral fabric (Statue of Liberty, anyone?) and giving potential allies every reason to refuse to help us fight terrorism, is yet another facet of authoritarianism.

First, using an Executive Order to enact a so-called suspension amounts to a permanent ban since it has no stipulated method of ending, violating the Constitution per a lawsuit (Pacito v Trump) filed February 10, 2025, on behalf of a group of refugees and resettlement nonprofits. The lawsuit challenges the suspension because it usurps Congressional power of spending and appropriations; the Executive Branch may not refuse to spend money already designated for a specific purpose.

Secondly, the U.S. is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which requires states to allow refugees seeking protection to enter the country and prohibits states from sending a refugee back to a place where they will be killed or otherwise harmed. Along with the January 2025 suspension of processing, other Executive Orders and statements by the Administration have threatened to review and revoke humanitarian asylum which has been lawfully achieved. The Refugee Act, reflecting a different and generous American response to those displaced by the Vietnam War compared to those now facing danger from our Afghanistan conflict, enshrines those obligations.

Third, the Administration is demonstrating selective compliance with rulings throughout 2025 which required it to at least resettle refugees whose cases were well advanced and particularly those who had risked everything, and sold their possessions, before being ‘frozen’. In July, a U.S. District Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case, citing the Refugee Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and constitutional principles. But the Administration has repeatedly used legal delaying tactics and tools such as defining “refugees” only to mean White Afrikaners from South Africa. It also has used other mechanisms such as a worldwide travel ban to block refugee pathways for Afghans, Haitians, and 18 other countries, mostly African, so the lawsuit process may never restore the refugee program as envisioned by Congress.

Finally, authoritarian rule thrives on nativism, as narrowly defined as possible, with the theory that self-protection during a national emergency can – and must – override constitutional principles. This idea underpinned two occasions of U.S. national shame during World War II: internment of Japanese-American citizens, and denial of safe harbor to the Saint Louis, a ship with Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II. But no national emergency could justify those actions in the past, or what is being done now to people who relied on our promise of safety. Instead, authoritarianism has come to destroy what makes America actually great, and even wonderful: our belief in the rule of law, our acceptance of our international treaty obligations, and our embrace of those “yearning to breathe free.”

Annie Pforzheimer is a retired senior U.S. diplomat who served in six foreign countries, including as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She specialized in human rights and security issues during her thirty-year career, and is currently an adjunct professor of international relations. She holds degrees from Harvard University and the National War College. She is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by