Under Siege

Authoritarianism in America

The United States faces a critical moment in its democratic trajectory, with growing concerns about the erosion of constitutional norms and the rise of competitive authoritarianism. This system, while preserving the formal architecture of democracy, subverts the fairness of institutions through the abuse of state power. At the same time, a foundational law designed to uphold the separation of powers—the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA)—is under renewed scrutiny. These dual challenges expose vulnerabilities in U.S. governance and highlight the uneasy balance between democracy, executive authority, and institutional resilience.

Toward Competitive Authoritarianism

Competitive authoritarianism is characterized by the presence of elections and formal opposition, yet incumbents manipulate the state to disadvantage rivals. The influence of this model has grown globally, with leaders in Hungary, India, and Turkey reshaping institutions to entrench themselves in power. Signs of this shift are now apparent in the United States, particularly with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025. Unlike his first term, Trump now dominates the Republican Party and has made explicit his intent to govern through loyalists and a politicized state bureaucracy.

This form of governance depends heavily on weaponizing state institutions to reward allies and punish opponents. For example, selective prosecutions, regulatory crackdowns, and targeted audits discourage dissent and create a chilling effect across civil society. Institutions like the Justice Department and IRS, designed as neutral arbiters, become tools for executive power, used strategically to bolster incumbents’ position while shrinking the space for opposition. This erosion of impartiality, once central to liberal democracy, transforms political competition into a lopsided contest where dissent grows costlier and riskier.

Another hallmark of competitive authoritarianism is the muzzling of independent voices. Investigative journalists, critical media organizations, and academic institutions often bear the brunt of government pressure. Mechanisms ranging from defamation lawsuits to funding denials undermine these democratic pillars. Similar tactics have been observed in previous U.S. administrations, including Nixon’s use of agencies like the IRS to harass opponents. However, the contemporary scale and overt support for such practices within political ranks signal a deeper departure from democratic norms.

Civil Service: Schedule F

Crucial to democratic governance is a professional civil service that ensures neutrality in executing state functions. Civil servants serve as a buffer against partisan excess, particularly in moments of political instability. However, efforts to weaken these protections have gained momentum. With the reinstatement of Schedule F, an executive order allowing tens of thousands of federal employees to be reclassified as at-will personnel, U.S. governance faces alarming risks. Stripping bureaucrats of job security enables their replacement with political loyalists and discourages officials from acting in ways that might challenge power.

Historical parallels offer sobering lessons. Hungary under Viktor Orbán, for example, saw the rapid dismantling of professionalized civil service protections. Agencies responsible for oversight were hollowed out and replaced with partisan actors, accelerating democratic backsliding. The United States risks replicating these patterns, as efforts to purge civil servants reshape what were once impartial institutions into instruments of executive will.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Against this backdrop, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 emerges as both a symbol and battleground for the separation of powers. Passed in response to President Richard Nixon’s impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds, the ICA was designed to ensure that fiscal decisions reflect legislative intent. The law prohibits the president from unilaterally withholding or canceling funds and institutes a process requiring congressional approval for proposed rescissions.

The ICA embodies the framers’ vision that Congress, as the representative body, must retain authority over public funds. Article I of the Constitution vests control of appropriations in the legislature, underscoring the principle of checks and balances. Hamilton and the founders explicitly warned against consolidating both fiscal and executive powers, as doing so could lead to unchecked force. The ICA aligns with this vision by limiting executive discretion in financial matters, reinforcing the legislature’s supremacy over the public purse.

However, contemporary challenges to the ICA question its constitutionality, with critics arguing it imposes undue restrictions on executive authority. Proponents of this perspective highlight historical episodes where presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, impounded funds for practical reasons without controversy. For instance, Jefferson spent less than Congress’s full allocation for gunboats in 1803 because the funds exceeded actual costs. Detractors claim that such examples suggest the ICA unnecessarily constrains the executive branch’s flexibility and ability to respond to changing conditions.

Mark Paoletta and other legal scholars have gone further, arguing that the Act violates the Constitution by infringing on inherent executive powers. This view reflects broader conservative frustration with ballooning federal budgets and seeks to reassert presidential discretion. If the ICA were nullified, presidents could gain sweeping authority to bypass Congress in allocating funds, effectively dismantling a key pillar of legislative oversight.

Challenges and Risks

While the debate over the ICA’s constitutionality highlights tensions in the separation of powers, the stakes extend well beyond legal theory. Undermining the ICA risks tipping the balance of power further toward the executive branch, particularly in moments when democratic institutions are already under strain. Without robust fiscal oversight, future administrations could justify impoundments over ideological disagreements with Congress, bypassing legislative consensus and consolidating power.

Recent examples underscore the potential dangers. The Trump administration’s alleged withholding of educational research and closure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without congressional approval foreshadow how a weakened ICA could open the door for expansive executive impoundments. Such actions, if unchecked, could bleed into broader democratic erosion, as executives exploit fiscal control to marginalize opposition and entrench authority.

Reflections on the Implications for Democracy

The convergence of rising competitive authoritarianism and challenges to the ICA signals a precarious moment for U.S. democracy. Weaponization of state institutions undermines transparency, fairness, and accountability, while calls to dilute the ICA threaten to upset the carefully constructed balance of powers at the heart of the constitutional order. Though the U.S. retains pockets of resilience—an independent judiciary, federalism, and a tradition of civic engagement—the cumulative pressures of executive overreach and eroded norms loom large.

Ultimately, the defense of American democracy will hinge on the active participation of civil society, the judiciary’s willingness to curb excesses, and the legislature’s ability to resist encroachments on its authority. The stakes are not merely theoretical. Competitive authoritarianism, even in milder forms, has historically reshaped political landscapes in ways that leave nations struggling for decades to restore lost freedoms. For the United States, the ICA represents not just a legal mechanism but also a symbol of the broader fight to preserve democratic accountability in an era of heightened polarization and institutional fragility.

References:

• https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/path-american-authoritarianism-trump
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/briefing/can-he-do-that.html

---

Law and Constitutional Order Under Siege

---

A Critical Threat to the Rule of Law

The U.S. constitutional system, designed to balance power among three branches, faces unprecedented strain under President Trump’s second term. Trump’s actions, including bypassing federal laws, firing civil servants without congressional approval, and issuing controversial executive orders, challenge the checks and balances at the heart of American democracy. While some of these actions, like mass pardons, are technically legal, they undermine democratic norms and embolden authoritarian tendencies.

Congress, particularly Republican leaders, has largely abdicated its role as a check on executive power, leaving the judiciary as the primary counterbalance. Federal courts have blocked some of Trump’s actions, but his defiance of rulings, coupled with a 2024 Supreme Court decision granting broad presidential immunity, has emboldened further overreach. The judiciary’s reliance on the executive branch to enforce rulings creates a dangerous impasse when the executive refuses compliance.

Legal scholars debate whether the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis, but the erosion of institutional checks and disregard for court rulings signal a critical threat to the rule of law. If Trump defies a Supreme Court ruling, it would mark a collapse of the constitutional order, underscoring the urgent need for Congress, the courts, and the public to resist authoritarian encroachments.

Reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/13/opinion/trump-constitutional-crisis.html

---

How to Extinguish Flames of Darkness?

“Flames of darkness” is a powerful metaphor, evoking the idea of a destructive force that consumes not with light, but with shadow—spreading selfishness, cruelty, and greed.

The Nature of a Fire of Darkness

• Description: Unlike a regular fire that illuminates, a fire of darkness would obscure, suffocate, and spread despair. It would feed on the worst aspects of human nature—selfishness, cruelty, and greed—growing stronger as these traits are indulged. Its “flames” might not burn visibly but would instead manifest as cold, oppressive shadows that extinguish hope and empathy.
• Combustion: The “fuel” for this fire would be acts of selfishness, cruelty, and greed. It might ignite when people prioritize their own desires over the well-being of others, when empathy is abandoned, or when power is pursued at the expense of kindness.

Extinguishing the Flames of Darkness

Just as a regular fire can be extinguished by removing one of its essential elements (heat, fuel, or oxygen), the fire of darkness can be put out by addressing its metaphorical components:

1. Deprive It of Air (Oxygen)
   • Metaphorically: The “air” that sustains the fire of darkness is indifference and apathy. When people turn a blind eye to selfishness, cruelty, and greed, these forces thrive.
   • Solution: Speak truth to power while showing compassion for victims and advocating against deceitful propaganda. Shine a light on injustice and refuse to let it go unnoticed. Awareness and action suffocate the fire of darkness.
2. Pour Water on It
   • Metaphorically: Water represents empathy, love, and understanding. These qualities cool the heat of anger and greed, soothing the pain and division caused by the fire of darkness.
   • Solution: Practice radical empathy—listen, understand, and connect with others, even those who seem consumed by darkness. Acts of love and forgiveness can douse the flames.
3. Burying It with Soil
   • Metaphorically: Soil represents growth, renewal, and the nurturing of better values. It also symbolizes grounding—reminding us of our shared humanity and the interconnectedness of life. The fire of darkness thrives in barren, selfish environments, but soil fosters life and community.
   • Solution: Plant seeds of hope, generosity, and collaboration. Encourage growth by nurturing relationships, fostering understanding, and building systems that prioritize collective well-being over individual greed. By burying the fire of darkness with soil, we smother its destructive force and replace it with the potential for new life and positive change.

Preventing the Fire of Darkness

• Education: Teach GOODWILL—values of kindness, cooperation, and empathy—from an early age. Knowledge and understanding are like firebreaks, preventing the spread of destructive forces.
• Community: Build strong, supportive communities where people feel connected and valued. Isolation can fuel selfishness and despair, while connection fosters generosity and care.
• Accountability: Hold individuals and systems accountable for actions that spread cruelty and greed. Justice is a powerful extinguisher of darkness.

The fire of darkness is a chilling and evocative metaphor, but it also reminds us of the power we hold to combat it. Just as light dispels shadow, acts of kindness, courage, and love can extinguish even the most consuming darkness. It’s a battle worth fighting, and every small act of goodness is a drop of water on the flames.

---

Q: Under what conditions would a fire produce more smoke and soot than light (“dark fire”)?

R: A fire produces more smoke and soot than light when it burns under conditions of incomplete combustion, a metaphor for a malformed human psyche. Just as a fire fails to burn cleanly without the right conditions, a human psyche can falter when essential elements like goodwill, kindness, and empathy are missing. This can be further illustrated thus:

1. Limited Oxygen Supply (Selfishness)

When a fire is starved of oxygen, it cannot burn cleanly, just as selfishness suffocates the flames of connection and cooperation. Without the “air” of generosity and shared purpose, the fire chokes, producing only smoke and soot—clouding the environment with negativity and obscuring the light of unity.

2. Low Temperature (Lack of Empathy and Compassion)

A fire that burns too cool struggles to fully ignite, much like a heart devoid of empathy and compassion. Without the warmth of understanding and care, the fire smolders weakly, releasing dark, heavy smoke instead of the bright, uplifting light of kindness.

3. Type of Fuel (Anger and Hatred)

The nature of the fuel determines the quality of the fire. When the fire is fed with anger and hatred, it burns erratically and inefficiently, creating thick, choking soot. These toxic fuels poison the atmosphere, leaving behind residue that stains and lingers.

4. Poor Airflow (Lack of Transparency)

A fire needs steady airflow to burn cleanly, just as transparency and honesty allow relationships and systems to thrive. When airflow is blocked—like when truth is hidden or communication is stifled—the fire falters, producing more smoke than light, clouding clarity and trust.

5. Excessive Fuel (Greed)

Overloading a fire with too much fuel overwhelms it, just as greed overwhelms balance and fairness. The fire cannot handle the excess, leading to incomplete combustion. Instead of a steady, bright flame, it produces smoke and soot, symbolizing the chaos and destruction greed leaves in its wake.

The Result

When selfishness, lack of empathy, anger, dishonesty, and greed dominate, the fire of life becomes a source of darkness rather than light. It fills the air with smoke and soot, obscuring vision, choking progress, and leaving behind a residue of despair.

To burn brightly and cleanly, a fire—and by extension, our lives—needs balance: the oxygen of selflessness, the warmth of compassion, the fuel of goodwill and understanding, the airflow of transparency, and the moderation of desires. Only then can the fire illuminate rather than obscure.

---