The Small Miracle That Is Trump's Trial, And The Challenge It Poses To His Authoritarian Personality

We are several days into Donald Trump’s courtroom drama as a jury is selected in his criminal case, so legal questions are in the news. Yes, it is unprecedented for a former U.S. president to be the subject of a criminal case that is going to trial, and yes, the narrative of “hush money” occasioned by Trump’s affair with a porn star is a “made for the media” drama.

Yet, as Norm Eisen argues, this is really an election interference case and should be framed as such. Potential jurors are being vetted less on moral grounds —what they think of a married man having a relationship with a porn star— than political ones, as judged by their news consumption and other factors.

What draws me in, as a scholar of autocracy, is the amazing and beautiful and never-to-be-taken-for-granted fact that this trial is happening at all. A similar trial could never happen in Turkey today, or in Russia, China, or Hungary —which is a big factor in Trump’s boundless admiration of the leaders of those countries. They would never be in this situation. Personality cults across the political spectrum may present the leader as “a man of the people,” but being treated as equal to those people is not an outcome authoritarians foresee.

This is why Mary Trump, who is a clinical psychologist as well as Trump’s niece, observes that “it is nearly intolerable for Donald to sit there quietly. As he continues to hear disparaging comments, as he continues to submit to somebody else’s authority, the pressure will build. In some ways, I think this experience might be worse for him than jail.”

I agree with my friend Mary. In fact, the longer this “confinement” goes on, the harder it will be for Trump to restrain himself. The narcissism and the ego needs of the strongman simply cannot bear the feeling of being constrained by others. They need to turn every space and every interaction into an opportunity to dominate and humiliate others and speak for as long as they like (the rambling rallies).

Instead, as we see from this courtroom sketch by court artist Jane Rosenberg (as posted on X by Jake Tapper), Trump is surrounded and contained by armed officers and the judge. He is not the master of this space —quite the contrary. If you have read Strongmen or other studies of authoritarian leaders, you will understand the novelty of this situation for Trump, with the judge monitoring his every outburst and warning him that he will be arrested if he violates the rules.

_________________

Some have argued that it is dangerous to prosecute Trump due to the likelihood of a vengeful response —”retribution” being a top priority for him in politics and life. In July 2022, I had weighed this view as I presented the case for prosecuting Trump, pointing out that Trump’s allies certainly want us to fear an escalation and have that fear be a deterrent. Yet, as psychiatrist and political violence expert Bandy Lee has noted, the only way to avoid violence in someone such as Trump is to place limits on their behavior.

As I wrote, “the history of authoritarianism shows that appeasing bullies and not acting due to fear of possible violence merely sets up the conditions for more violence. It allows the bully to feel empowered and righteous in his lawlessness, which triggers more feelings of omnipotence and grandiosity and more reckless actions.” And seeing his bubble of invincibility punctured with a conviction would be an unwelcome and yet powerful lesson for his followers.

This trial matters because, as I have been reflecting recently, Republicans are on a crusade to delegitimize democratic institutions, turning the public against the courts, judges, the press, and politicians who uphold the rule of law, truth, and accountability. The aim is to engender distrust in their methods, proceedings, investigations, and more. As we have seen, bad actors are modeling contempt for the elements and processes of democratic systems of justice every day now.

An ongoing example of this is the refusal to respond to subpoenas as a means of declaring that you no longer feel accountable to the institutions that issue such documents. Leonard Leo, who has overseen the far-right capture of the U.S. judiciary, is refusing to respond to a subpoena issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is investigating corruption by Leo clients such as Justice Clarence Thomas.

In the absence of a full Democratic vote to enforce the subpoena, Leo will likely pay no penalty, so it’s worth mentioning that the subpoena was issued because Leo refused to cooperate with the Senate inquiry.

This is now standard practice among Republicans, including lawmakers: Reps. Andy Biggs, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, and Mo Brooks refused to respond to subpoenas issued by the House Select Jan. 6 Committee.

And in Nov 2023, in a prelude to Leo’s action, Senator Lindsey Graham and other Republicans walked out on a vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee to authorize the subpoenas against Leo and Harlan Crow, the billionaire patron of Thomas, whose gifts Thomas failed to disclose.

So here we have obstruction against the very idea of subpoenas being issued, and then a refusal to respond to them once they are issued.

This is another sign that the Republicans have exited democracy and are acting as though they can make their own norms of judicial and other behavior —as though they already lived in an autocracy, where, of course, such subpoenas against undue influence and corruption would never be issued at all.

Modeling contempt and presenting all attempts to hold Republicans accountable as illegitimate is how you build the upside-down world of authoritarianism, as I call it, where rule of law gives way to rule by the lawless who recognize no norms or authority on their behavior. In the judicial realm, Leo acts as though he is above the law, much like Trump has in politics.

Rest assured, Trump will use any means of showing contempt for the whole trial process: he is creative and motivated, due to his rage, and Mary Trump is spot-on in her speculation that Trump’s apparent sleepiness in court sends a message that he doesn’t care about what is going on. As Mary writes, Vladimir Putin nodded off during the opening ceremony of the 2022 Beijing Olympics —right when athletes from Ukraine entered the stadium.

Seeing a parallel in Trump’s behavior, she concludes that “he is absolutely aware of the seriousness of these proceedings, so one can only infer that he has such contempt for them, and the rest of the participants, that he'd rather sleep through it all. The jury will only see how tired, pitiful, and arrogant he really is — and none of that is going to help him.”

As we go forth, an antidote to the sensationalism surrounding this legal drama will be to keep the big picture in mind. Let’s watch, and learn from, the spin Trump and his enablers will give to events that unfold, and be prepared for distractions they cook up at strategic moments. We will unpack them together.

And never forget the small miracle that is this trial, which allows a judge to oversee proceedings predicated on the democratic assumption that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, and should be treated accordingly. It is the polar opposite of authoritarianism.