How Donald Trump is Channeling Machiavelli
This past weekend, Donald Trump and JD Vance accused their Democratic opponents of plotting to kill Trump, implicitly threatening to prosecute them should they win. As shocking as it sounds, it was unremarkable since personal threats are a common and menacing feature of their campaign. Since Trump announced his bid for a second term, he has threatened to investigate and jail President Joe Biden and his family, Vice President Kamala Harris, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Secretary of State John Kerry, former Representative Liz Cheney, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Representatives Adam Schiff and Ilhan Omar, plus his perennial target Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 race.
That’s only the beginning. Trump threatened to convene a military tribunal to try former President Barack Obama, imprison Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder and CEO, for life, and bring conspiracy and racketeering charges against Attorney General Merrick Garland, Special Counsel Jack Smith, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Judge Arthur Engoron, Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, and the members of the Select House Committee that investigated the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
He also launched a broad threat to jail “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials” who have been “involved in unscrupulous behavior,” along with millions of “illegal immigrants” whom he vows to deport. And he doesn’t hide his motive. Recently, he reposted a word cloud from his speeches, and “revenge” was the most frequently uttered word.
Trump’s threats are more than a dark schtick, entertainment for his rallies. They reflect a view of the president as a strongman who determines the law. Nicolo Machiavelli, the Renaissance chronicler of power, nailed Donald Trump a long time ago: A strongman ruler should display “the fearlessness of a being who makes and executes his own law” and by issuing threats to punish anyone as he sees fit, he “gathers in his person the power to awe his subjects.”
By instinct, Trump also heeds Machiavelli’s counsel that a “memorable execution”—or at least the suggestion of one—helps a strongman intimidate the people. That’s the specter Trump raised by charging that General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, committed “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.” Milley’s crime: In the aftermath of the January 6 attack, he called a high-ranking Chinese official to reassure him that the assault on the Capitol by Trump’s followers did not represent a threat to Beijing. Trump has also publicly contemplated other executions, calling for Obama’s prosecution by a military tribunal for capital murder, the civilian prosecution of Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC host, for murder, and the claim that pro-choice doctors and nurses are executing newborns.
Beyond intimidation, awe, and revenge, the former president’s litany of threats constitutes a strategy of scapegoating his critics. This recalls Machiavelli’s advice to strong rulers in The Prince, his 1532 exegeses on power that is still a relevant guide for would-be strongmen. By excoriating Haitians for “eating the pets,” pledging to bar Muslims from the country, stating Jews would be to blame if he loses, and railing that migrants are murdering innocent Americans, he reassures his overwhelmingly white, Christian, native-born supporters that they are safe and protected—with an implicit warning that they too should stay in line.
The stumbling block to Trump’s thirst for threats and condemnation is that courts alone retain the authority to mete out punishment. As president, Trump followed his predecessors by nominating all-out supporters for seats on the federal bench—but with a difference. While previous presidents chose ideologically aligned jurists, Trump expected what he calls “his” judges and “his” justices to protect him personally from civil and criminal prosecution.
So, when even those confirmed jurists he selected failed to do so, Trump threatened them, too. The Brennan Center for Justice has documented many of Trump’s responses to uncooperative judges and courts. This goes even more so for judges nominated by Democrats. When he was president, Trump demanded that Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayor recuse themselves from all cases involving him. He pressed Ginsburg to resign for “incompetence.” During his first term, the 45th president charged that the judge presiding over the trials and convictions of his political operatives and friends, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, with “blatant bias.”
Trump also regularly singles out jurists who question his insistence on exercising what he claims are unilateral powers, especially when he wants to punish immigrants. As president, he called the federal courts “unfair and broken” when a judge blocked his order to unilaterally terminate the DACA program for Dreamers. He called another federal judge “a disgrace” and “unfair” for ruling that he lacked legal authority to summarily reject the applications of asylum seekers who failed to enter the country at a designated port of entry.
In fairness, Biden kept that policy in place with an exception for asylum seekers who use a Customs and Border Protection app to schedule an appointment. However, when the Covid 19 emergency ended in 2023, Biden ended Trump’s policy of refusing asylum seekers at the southern border because they might spread infectious diseases. He also ended Trump’s order that asylum seekers remain in Mexico while their claims are adjudicated, often under dangerous conditions and for more than two years.
Turning to court decision around religion, Trump also called three federal judges and the Ninth Circuit “ridiculous” and “political” for blocking his 2017 ban on Muslims entering the country. In that case, he also questioned the judicial authority to review his executive orders and suggested that the judges who did should be blamed for future terror attacks.
When he was in office, Trump also denounced a federal judge for ruling that he could not summarily deny congressionally appropriated funds to sanctuary cities, those that do not use their police to help the federal authorities round up unauthorized immigrants. In that case, he branded the judge’s decision “a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking.”
Trump’s menacing bluster hasn’t been effective since judges and courts still have the final say in those matters, and they’ve stood up to the threats. Furthermore, most Americans retain confidence in them, despite Trump’s bullying. Even so, Trump’s ambition to remake the presidency into an autocrat’s perch—the unspoken goal behind years of threatened punishment for those who oppose or annoy him—seems to have swayed the court that counts most.
In this year’s decision on presidential immunity, Trump’s three appointed Justices and three more, including the two most radical conservatives and the chief justice, held that whatever a president does as president is above the law. Equally important, they endorsed the radical view of the president as a “unitary executive” with plenary authority over every part of the Executive Branch, including prosecutions pursued by the Department of Justice.
By this holding, lawful governance now rests on the character of unfettered presidents, including one convicted of 34 felonies and held liable for large-scale fraud and sexual assault.
So, the court’s ruling will allow Trump to carry out his threats if he’s reelected. In a second term, he could direct the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute those he has vowed to punish. Using his Supreme Court-given authority, the 78-year-old also could direct federal law enforcement to carry out his threats to round up and imprison or deport millions of immigrants, whether legal or undocumented. And if the judiciary were to hold that he lacks such legal authority, Trump could press ahead, knowing he can’t be held liable.
That’s rule with the power to carry out threats, just as Machiavelli proscribed.
This essay appeared originally in Washington Monthly.