The Year 2025: A Historical Analysis of American Democracy Under Stress

Setting the Context

The historian speaking on December 30, 2025, reflects on a transformative year for the United States that followed Donald Trump's November 2024 election victory. Despite winning less than 50% of the vote, Trump claimed an "unprecedented and powerful mandate" to change America. Many voters who supported him did not anticipate the sweeping changes that would follow, believing his more extreme campaign promises were rhetorical rather than literal plans.

The administration that took power in January 2025 operated on a fundamentally different principle than previous American governments. Rather than simply breaking laws or pushing legal boundaries, the Trump administration acted as if laws and the Constitution did not exist. This represents a shift from working within a legal framework to operating entirely outside it, an approach that many observers initially struggled to comprehend.

November 2024: Immediate Post-Election Signals

The Family Portrait Incident

The day after Trump's re-election, the Trump family took an official portrait. Notably absent was Melania Trump. In her place stood Elon Musk, a billionaire who had contributed approximately $190 million to Trump's campaign and had purchased Twitter (renamed X) to support Trump's political goals. This symbolic positioning foreshadowed Musk's unprecedented role in the incoming administration.

Historical Context: The replacement of the First Lady with a major donor in official family imagery was unprecedented and signaled an administration built on billionaire influence rather than traditional political structures.

"Novus Ordo Seclorum" Declaration

Trump's first post-election social media post declared "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (Latin for "a new order of the ages" or "a new world order"). This declaration signaled an intention to fundamentally restructure American governance.

January 2025: Establishing Extra-Constitutional Power

Creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Trump appointed Elon Musk, an unelected billionaire, to head a newly created Department of Government Efficiency. The legal status of this department was never clarified, nor was it clear whether the department itself was legally constituted. Musk announced plans to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget.

Operational Impact:

• The department eliminated approximately 9% of federal government employees
• Despite significant personnel cuts, federal spending did not decrease proportionally
• The libertarian Cato Institute later confirmed that DOGE failed to achieve its stated cost-saving goals

Database Creation and Privacy Violations:

• DOGE staffers entered most federal agencies and extracted private information about American citizens from government databases
• This information was compiled into a federal database intended for various purposes, including the identification and deportation of undocumented immigrants
• The legal authority of these staffers was unclear, as was their chain of command
• Numerous lawsuits followed these privacy violations
• Many DOGE personnel remained embedded in federal agencies months later, with their reporting structure still undefined

Constitutional Significance: The Department of Government Efficiency represented a direct challenge to congressional authority over federal spending. The Constitution, legal precedent, and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act all establish that Congress holds the "power of the purse." The president has no constitutional authority to refuse spending appropriated by Congress. The president's role is solely to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Through DOGE and the Office of Management and Budget (directed by Russell Vought, a key author of Project 2025), the executive branch seized control over spending decisions that constitutionally belong to Congress. The Republican-controlled Senate notably failed to challenge this usurpation of their constitutional powers.

The Emergency Declaration Strategy

Rather than pursuing legislation through the Republican-controlled Congress (a "trifecta" with control of the House, Senate, and White House), Trump chose to govern through emergency declarations. Between taking office and mid-November 2025, Trump declared nine separate national emergencies.

Strategic Purpose: Emergency declarations grant presidents extraordinary powers intended for genuine crises requiring immediate action without congressional deliberation. Trump used this mechanism to bypass normal legislative processes entirely, even when he theoretically had the votes to pass legislation.

Theoretical Foundation: This approach aligns with political theorist Carl Schmitt's philosophy, popular in Nazi Germany, which argued that true governmental power flows not from constitutional provisions but to those who can exploit emergencies to create exceptions to constitutional constraints. Schmitt's famous formulation holds that "there is no law, there is just power."

Vice President JD Vance has publicly endorsed Schmitt's theories. Other influential figures on the American right promoting these ideas include Curtis Yarvin (also known as Mencius Moldbug), a key figure in the "Dark Enlightenment" movement that explicitly advocates for replacing democracy with authoritarian governance.

Financial Backing: Peter Thiel, a billionaire technology entrepreneur, has been the primary financial supporter of Curtis Yarvin and his anti-democratic philosophy. Thiel and Musk share the belief that federal regulations and taxes prevent wealthy technologists from improving society as rapidly as they could without such constraints.

April 2025: Liberation Day and the Tariff Wars

April 2nd: Tariff Emergency Declaration

Trump declared a national emergency and used this declaration to implement sweeping tariffs, which he termed "Liberation Day."

Constitutional Violation: The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to levy tariffs. While emergency legislation allows presidential action during genuine crises, no emergency existed. Trump simply declared one to claim powers reserved to Congress.

Congressional Complicity: When Congress can challenge an emergency declaration, a 15-day waiting period is required before voting. House Speaker Mike Johnson declared that for the remainder of the congressional session, no days would pass for purposes of this law. This extraordinary maneuver meant emergency declarations could never be challenged, effectively suspending the legislative check on executive emergency powers.

Historical Context: The assertion that Congress could simply stop the passage of time to prevent statutory requirements from being triggered represents an unprecedented abandonment of legislative oversight responsibility.

March 2025: The Cecot Prison Incident

Deportation to El Salvador's Terrorist Prison

The administration sent more than 200 undocumented immigrants to Cecot, a notorious terrorist prison in El Salvador known for torture. This action occurred after a federal judge had explicitly ordered the administration not to proceed with these deportations.

Key Development: When Judge Bosberg issued the order against these deportations, the administration ignored it. The judge began systematic questioning of administration officials: What decisions were made? Who authorized them? This marked the beginning of serious judicial pushback against the administration's lawlessness.

The Kilmar Obregon Garcia Case:

Among those sent to Cecot was Kilmar Obregon Garcia, a Maryland resident. A judge had previously ruled that Garcia could not be returned to El Salvador due to substantial risk to his life. The administration initially claimed his deportation was an "administrative error" but then refused to correct it.

Judge Paula Xinis ordered Garcia's return. The administration engaged in what the historian describes as "smarmy" evasion, characteristic of the administration's approach to judicial orders. The case escalated to the Supreme Court, which also ordered Garcia's return. The administration continued to delay.

Turning Point Impact: The Garcia case crystallized public understanding of the administration's lawlessness. Many Americans who had been willing to overlook DOGE's activities as combating "waste, fraud, and abuse" could not ignore the administration's defiance of multiple court orders, including from the Supreme Court. The case demonstrated that the administration genuinely did not care what laws or courts required.

Resolution: Garcia was eventually returned after Tennessee indicted Border Patrol official Brian Garcia for transporting migrants. This indictment was subsequently dismissed.

Legal Clarification: The deportations to third countries where individuals have not been convicted or sentenced are technically "renditions" rather than deportations. Sending people to a prison notorious for torture without trial or conviction violates multiple legal standards.

April 5, 2025: The Hands Off Rallies

Large-scale public protests occurred across the country on April 5, marking a significant escalation in organized resistance. These "Hands Off" rallies followed earlier "Tesla Takedowns" that had targeted Musk.

Significance: The public protests served a crucial function beyond expressing opposition. They reasserted the fundamental principle of American governance: the government belongs to the people, not to those who temporarily hold power. The protests forced a direct confrontation over whether the United States would continue as a constitutional democracy or accept extra-constitutional authority.

Spring 2025: Deportation Sweeps

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Border Patrol, under leadership of Greg Bovino, conducted highly publicized deportation sweeps. These operations targeted people living openly in communities who had no criminal warrants.

Tactical Pattern: The sweeps consistently targeted vulnerable populations: people at food stands, nurses, parents dropping children at school. Gang members and actual criminals, who would be dangerous to apprehend, were not the focus.

Historical Parallel: This pattern mirrors dynamics throughout U.S. indigenous history, where military actions against Native populations consistently targeted women, children, and elderly people because they were "low-hanging fruit" rather than armed warriors.

Public Realization: These visible sweeps contradicted Trump's campaign promises to deport only "the worst of the worst" murderers and rapists. The reality that the administration intended to deport all undocumented people, regardless of their community ties or lack of criminal history, began to register with voters who had believed the more limited campaign rhetoric.

Community Impact: The sweeps threatened to tear apart families, communities, hospitals, and childcare facilities by removing essential workers and community members.

Psychological Analysis: The historian notes that these operations represent "cosplay" by individuals who want to appear powerful and military-like but avoided actual dangerous deployments like Fallujah, instead choosing to demonstrate force against vulnerable populations in suburban Chicago and similar locations.

June 14, 2025: Trump's Birthday and the No Kings Movement

Trump's 79th birthday coincided with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. Trump planned a military parade nominally honoring the Army, but most observers understood it was primarily self-celebration.

First Major "No Kings Day": Organizers created a counter-event called "Stand Against Kings" day. While earlier events had used this language, June 14 marked the first large-scale articulation of resistance framed explicitly as "No Kings."

Conceptual Shift: The "No Kings" framing represented a crucial rhetorical move. Rather than simply opposing policies or protesting Trump personally, the movement explicitly defended the American constitutional principle that the nation operates under laws and popular sovereignty, not monarchical or authoritarian rule.

The language deliberately connected to Revolutionary-era principles while making clear that this was conservative in the true sense: conserving American constitutional democracy against those trying to overthrow it.

Summer 2025: Federalized Troops in Democratic Cities

Trump increasingly sent federalized National Guard troops and, in the case of Los Angeles, Marines into Democratic-controlled cities including:

• Los Angeles
• Portland, Oregon
• Chicago
• Nashville
• Multiple other locations

Intended Effect: These deployments were designed to intimidate urban populations and demonstrate federal power over jurisdictions governed by political opposition.

Actual Effect: Rather than creating fear and compliance, the military presence hardened opposition to a government that would deploy armed forces against its own cities without genuine emergency justification.

Casualties: During a performance-oriented deployment in Washington D.C., one National Guard member was killed and another badly injured. These deaths from what was essentially political theater generated significant anger, particularly among National Guard personnel and their communities.

Constitutional Concern: The use of military forces for domestic political purposes violated fundamental American principles limiting military involvement in civilian governance.

July 2025: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)

Congress passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which Republicans initially promoted with this title. The legislation implemented the core Republican ideological agenda that had been articulated since the 1980s and 1990s.

Key Provisions:

• Extended the 2017 tax cuts from Trump's first term, which overwhelmingly benefited wealthy individuals and corporations
• Slashed Medicaid funding
• Cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• Allowed the expiration of subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act
• Eliminated numerous programs benefiting ordinary Americans while protecting and expanding benefits for the wealthy and corporate interests

Critical Political Detail: The legislation received zero Democratic votes. This became significant later as Republicans attempted to share blame with Democrats for the bill's consequences.

Timing Significance: The bill passed in July, but as the historian notes, "the world has changed a lot since July." Republicans have since tried to distance themselves from legislation they unanimously supported.

First Half of 2025: Systematic Self-Enrichment

Throughout the first six months of 2025, Trump and his associates engaged in extensive efforts to personally profit from their government positions.

Methods of Enrichment:

• Leveraging tariff threats and implementations
• Cryptocurrency schemes
• Selling presidential pardons
• Various other mechanisms to transfer billions of dollars into their personal accounts

Scale: The self-dealing involved billions of dollars flowing to Trump and his close associates.

February 2024-Spring 2025: The Democratic Attorneys General Strategy

Beginning in February 2024, before the November election, Democratic attorneys general from multiple states began meeting to prepare for a potential Trump second term.

Strategic Planning: The attorneys general divided responsibility for anticipated Trump administration policies, with each state taking lead on specific issues. This allowed coordinated, immediate legal responses.

Implementation: As soon as Trump began issuing executive orders, Democratic attorneys general filed lawsuits challenging them. Cases moved through local courts into the federal court system.

Judicial Response: Federal district and appeals courts began ruling against the administration with increasing frequency, slowing implementation of many policies. The Supreme Court largely sided with the administration, but lower courts created significant legal obstacles.

Significance: The legal strategy prevented the administration from operating entirely outside legal constraints. While they attempted to ignore the law, the law "began to sink its teeth in."

August 2025: Presidential Power Declaration

Trump made a public statement asserting: "I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the president of the United States. If I think our country is in danger, and it is in danger in the cities, I can do it."

Theoretical Foundation: This statement directly reflects Carl Schmitt's theory that sovereign power belongs to whoever can declare and exploit states of exception, operating above normal legal constraints.

Late Summer 2025: Trump's Health Decline

Labor Day Disappearance

Trump disappeared from public view for several days over Labor Day weekend. No explanation was provided for this absence, generating widespread speculation.

Prior Indicators: Trump had been showing mental and physical weakness for an extended period, including:

• Difficulty concentrating
• Falling asleep in meetings
• Increasingly incoherent speech patterns that lack logical sentence structure
• Sentences that cannot be predicted or transcribed because they lack normal grammatical or logical flow

Visible Symptoms: Bruising appeared on both of Trump's hands and became increasingly noticeable through September and beyond.

Post-Labor Day Deterioration: After his reappearance, Trump showed dramatically worsened ability to function, concentrate, and speak coherently.

October 2025: The Momentum Shift

Curtis Yarvin's Assessment

Curtis Yarvin, the Dark Enlightenment theorist who had been advocating for rapid destruction of American democracy, published a significant post acknowledging defeat. He stated that the transformation was "going too slowly" and that "they're not going to win."

Strategic Theory: Yarvin had previously compared the necessary approach to a scene from Star Wars involving a dead starship. The theory was that applying full power to a dormant system would either make it "go faster than the speed of light and do something phenomenal, or it's going to blow up the ship."

Failed Execution: According to Yarvin's analysis, the "jumpstart" strategy had failed. The faster the administration tried to work outside the law, the more the law caught up with them. More importantly, the American people caught up.

Personal Response: Yarvin announced he was considering leaving the United States, effectively conceding that the authoritarian project had failed.

October 18, 2025: Second No Kings Day

The second major No Kings Day drew between seven and eight million counted participants, not including uncounted sympathizers.

Historical Significance: This demonstration made visible to the nation and world that the American people had awakened to the threat and that momentum had shifted from the administration to the citizenry.

Beneath the Surface: The historian notes that extensive organizing had been happening that mainstream sources never covered. Thousands of people were participating in groups like:

• Visibility Bro Brigade
• The Card Campaign
• Liberal Rocks
• Numerous other grassroots organizations

None of these groups had received New York Times coverage despite involving thousands of participants each.

Visible Manifestation: While this organizing had been building momentum throughout the year, No Kings Day made the movement's strength undeniable and visible.

Post-No Kings Day: The White House Demolition

Days after the second No Kings Day demonstration, Trump ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House.

Circumstances:

• No permits were obtained
• No environmental impact statement was completed to check for contaminants before demolition
• No plan existed for what would replace the demolished structure (no plan existed even two months later)

Psychological Interpretation: The historian argues this was an act of rage. Unable to hurt individual protesters, Trump chose to hurt the symbolic property of the American people by destroying part of the White House.

Symbolic Meaning: The destruction of part of the White House represented an attack on American heritage and institutions by someone who temporarily controlled but did not own them.

Late October-December 2025: Desperate Symbolic Actions

Following the No Kings Day demonstration and the failed momentum of his authoritarian project, Trump engaged in increasingly desperate attempts to assert importance through symbolic gestures:

The "Arct Triumph"

Trump announced plans for an "Arct Triumph" (mixing French "Arc" with English "Triumph") to be placed between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The historian expresses doubt this will occur given its numerous problems.

Rose Garden Paving

Trump ordered the White House Rose Garden paved over.

Eisenhower Executive Office Complex

Trump attempted to repaint the gray granite Eisenhower Executive Office Building (dating from the 1880s) white. Preemptive lawsuits stopped this desecration.

Kennedy Center Renaming

Trump illegally renamed the Kennedy Center. The historian notes this action has no legal validity: "you and I could go put our names on it and it would be just as legal." The Kennedy Center remains legally the Kennedy Center.

Presidential Portrait Plaques

Trump placed his own text under portraits of other presidents throughout the White House, creating his version of their presidencies.

Psychological Assessment: The historian characterizes these actions as "freaking childish" and "desperate," comparing Trump's behavior to that of a two-year-old seeking attention.

November 2025: The Epstein Files

The Discharge Petition

Representative Thomas Massie (Republican, Kentucky) and Representative Ro Khanna (Democrat, California) worked to obtain signatures for a discharge petition. This procedural maneuver would force Speaker Johnson to allow a vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act despite his opposition.

They obtained the necessary votes in mid-November.

November 19: Legislative Victory

The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming support. It then passed the Senate with similar margins.

Republican Motivation: Multiple factors drove Republicans to break with Trump on this issue:

1. Trump had tanked the economy
2. Deportation policies had generated widespread anger
3. The White House demolition and other actions had alienated supporters
4. The child rape issue was particularly important to MAGA voters

Trump's refusal to acknowledge problems with the Epstein files and his attempts to hide them were destroying Republican popularity even among their own base supporters.

Legal Mandate: The Act required release of the Epstein files by December 19, 2025 (30 days after passage).

Symbolic Significance: The passage demonstrated that "the law is catching up" to Trump and his administration.

Trump's Characterization: Trump recently referred to the file release as something that would "embarrass people." The historian sharply corrects this characterization: the files contain evidence of crimes, specifically the sexual abuse of children, that will "put people in jail," not merely cause embarrassment.

Power Dynamics: The files reveal how privileged individuals, primarily men but also some women, exploited society's most vulnerable members through child sexual abuse.

December 2025: Current Status

As the year ends, Trump faces multiple compounding crises:

• Severe mental and physical health decline
• The Epstein files hanging over the administration
• Declining popularity
• Desperate attempts to secure some kind of deal for Putin (apparently promised in 2016)
• Frantic efforts to get his name permanently attached to something to establish his importance

Continuing Danger: The historian emphasizes that Trump and the MAGA movement remain "extraordinarily dangerous" and should not be underestimated.

Historical Framework: 2025 as Proof of Democratic Concept

The historian argues that 2025 represents a test and validation of American democratic principles, with parallels to the Revolutionary era.

January's Starting Point

Extraordinarily powerful and wealthy individuals asserted they need not follow laws or the Constitution. Their position was even more extreme than the relationship between Parliament/King George III and the American colonies, as even British monarchs were bound by constraints like the Magna Carta.

March-Summer Response

Americans began asserting their rights, not as revolutionaries seeking to create something entirely new, but as people defending established constitutional rights. This mirrors the colonial position in the 1760s-1770s, when colonists claimed they weren't revolutionaries but rather people defending their rights as Englishmen.

Key American Demands

Citizens increasingly asserted constitutional rights:

• Due process (denied to Kilmar Obregon Garcia)
• Congressional control over federal spending (Constitution, Article I)
• Congressional authority over foreign trade and tariffs (Constitution)
• Protection from military arrest on the streets (Bill of Rights and legal protections)

The Core Principle

Americans increasingly articulated a simple position: "We stand firm on our Constitution and the rule of law."

Political Leadership Failure

The historian notes that many political leaders "failed us" by not pushing back sufficiently, not speaking up, and not stopping Trump's actions. This created space for popular resistance.

Popular Sovereignty

When traditional representatives failed to represent, the American people asserted: "This is our government." They demanded representatives who would actually defend the American people, regardless of party affiliation.

Revolutionary Parallel

The demand for genuine representation echoes the American Revolution's core principle: what the people care about must be represented in government.

Looking Forward: The Next Phase

Immediate Outlook (Next Several Months)

The historian warns that the coming months will be "bad" and "brutal." Trump and MAGA Republicans will not relinquish power easily and will likely become worse than ever before. The possibility of successfully imposing dictatorship still exists.

Momentum Assessment

Despite ongoing dangers, the historian sees momentum shifting to "we the American people."

Philosophical Foundation

The analysis invokes the Founders' argument: only by experiencing dictatorship can people truly appreciate liberty. Only by recognizing what they're losing can people understand democracy's value.

Year's Dual Character

2025 was horrific, exhausting, and unwanted by virtually everyone, including those calling the shots (who appear to be emotionally miserable, friendless people who never smile).

The attempt to replace nearly 250 years of American government with a strongman ushering in white Christian nationalism (a theocracy favored by only about 4% of Americans) has become undeniable.

Awakening and Resistance

As the threat became impossible to ignore, people who were told in July 2024 that their rights would be taken away and dismissed such warnings as exaggeration now see it happening. This realization is driving increasing pushback.

Political Realignment

As popular support erodes, especially over the Epstein files, the analysis predicts:

• More MAGA Republican retirements
• Republicans unwilling to be in the House minority will leave
• New leaders emerging in Democratic and Republican parties, among independents, and potentially in third parties
• New policies being articulated and embraced

Representative Jamie Raskin's support for ranked-choice voting is cited as conducive to this political evolution.

Conditional Success

The reclamation of American democracy is possible but not guaranteed. Success requires specific actions.

Requirements for Building a Better Society

2026 Imperative: Articulate Vision

Americans must articulate what they want the country to look like. Individual visions will differ, which is desirable and productive.

Policy Development Process

The more people and leaders articulate new policies:

• The more these policies will be tested
• Some will rise in popularity
• Some will fall
• Through this process, a new ideology for the 21st century will emerge

Concrete Example: Artificial Intelligence

Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) recently analyzed polling showing Americans overwhelmingly hate AI, yet tech billionaires are forcing it on society for profit potential.

Questions that need public debate:

• What role should AI play in society?
• What regulations are appropriate?
• How do we balance potential benefits against public concerns?

Personal Engagement

Individuals should:

• Identify their priority issues (education, healthcare, opportunity, housing, regulation levels)
• Engage at local, state, and national levels
• Articulate desired values going forward

Natural Selection of Ideas

Through 2026, 2028, and beyond:

• Some advocated policies will rise to great importance
• Others will fade
• This process will frustrate many people (including the historian herself regarding some of her own priorities)
• This is how the American system works

Popular Empowerment

The year 2025 empowered Americans by demonstrating they have agency. This creates an obligation to articulate what they actually want rather than just opposing what they don't want.

End of Year 2025 Assessment

Survival

Surviving 2025 is "no small thing."

Opportunity Created

The year has positioned America to reorient itself for a new world. Trump's foreign policy has made the world "terribly, terribly, terribly dangerous" and dramatically changed international relations.

Urgent Priorities

1. Prevent World War III, which Trump's policies are setting up
2. Determine how the United States fits into the world going forward

Perspective on Historical Moment

While the work ahead is daunting, there is something "astonishing" about living in a moment when one can watch one world pass away and participate in building the next.

The historian acknowledges not wanting this destruction to happen, repeatedly warning it might be necessary but hoping it wouldn't occur. But now that one world order is ending, citizens have the responsibility and opportunity to build what comes next.

Final Framing

Understanding the end of 2025 as a moment of both crisis and possibility makes it "a pretty cool place to be."