System Change on Steroids: From Checks and Balances to an Authoritarian Government. Part 1

The US political system is shifting from its renowned checks and balances towards an authoritarian system. This article is not a political analysis of the Trump administration, but rather the first of two pieces reflecting on systems change on steroids, examining the factors that accelerate this transformation and the potential backlash it faces during transition.

Speed is the key element. If Trump’s administration manages to alter power structures before significant public resistance emerges, he would potentially be able to suppress protests and continue implementing Project 2025 without major opposition.

You may be familiar with the systems principle that states: “to improve the system, you need to identify the leverage point where you can get more impact with less effort, and coordinate a series of actions around the system”. Whilst this is true, it is not enough. It was Trump who provided me with the crucial thread to pull.

Checks and Balances political system

In 1789, the “Founding Fathers” released their brand-new political system of checks and balances. They borrowed Montesquieu’s idea that the separation of powers was essential to avoid tyranny. They created a government made of three equal branches, legislative, executive and judicial, with the ability to check each other’s power. It worked reasonably well for more than 230 years, until now.

From a systems perspective, checks and balances create a very stable political structure. However, Project 2025 has provided Trump’s administration with a blueprint to coordinate actions that could replace this system with an authoritarian state, potentially leading to tyranny.

Although these coordinated actions are necessary for the system to change, they are not sufficient. It also requires a transition in who formally and informally holds power, along with changes to the fundamental structures, norms and beliefs that determine how people access and retain positions of authority.

For example, the 15M social movement in Spain emerged in 2011 as a reaction to the financial crisis, political corruption and citizens’ sense of misrepresentation within the political system. From this social movement, a new political party, Podemos, emerged, challenging the existing political establishment with the clear agenda of returning power to the people and redistributing wealth more equitably. However, once in government, they largely complied with the well-established conventions of power and capital.

Trump’s administration has nothing to do with the 15M movement, as they reached the pinnacle of US institutional power through a democratic election. However, once in power, they transferred authority from institutions to themselves through a coordinated strategy of concentrating power in the executive branch. They achieved this by transforming the Supreme and federal courts into a judicial arm that protects their interests and prosecutes their enemies. Additionally, they restricted Congress’s oversight capabilities, favoured executive orders over the legislative process, diminished its ability to allocate funding, and systematically dismantled and reduced the autonomy of independent enforcement agencies.

Trump’s administration has demonstrated a masterful command of communication machinery and propaganda through the swift deployment of its loyal speakers’ army. This has enabled them to deliver efficient damage control, as exemplified in the Signalgate scandal. However, even more effective than the propaganda has been the speed and impact of the executive orders. Most of these were shocking and, in some cases, damaged well-established partner relationships with long-standing allies. This rapid pace prevents the Democratic Party from mounting meaningful resistance.

Changing narratives, norms and structures to remain in power

One thing is to reach power, but a very different one is to remain in power. This, to me, is the essence of the systems transformations. To transfer power from the current holders to the new ones sustainably, it is necessary to modify the structures, norms and beliefs that support the current power structure.

The system of checks and balances is based on the division of power between equally important branches that can prevent each other from overstepping their responsibilities or abusing their power. An authoritarian state demands not only a weak system of accountability but also a society that is either willingly compliant or forced into submission.

Rhetoric such as “De-weaponising the Federal Government” to curtail the autonomy of the FBI and the Department of Justice, “Returning Power to the People” to justify dismantling independent agencies, or portraying Latin American immigration as an “Invasion” forms part of the narrative used to alter the core ideas and fundamental beliefs of their followers. This rhetoric, combined with restrictions on free speech, anti-diversity policies, and the crackdown on what is defined as “culturally divisive, race-centred ideology,” will erode people’s ability to resist this transfer of power.

On the other hand, the Trump administration is changing diplomacy and foreign policy norms. Their public humiliation of the Ukrainian president at the White House, the threat of taking control of Greenland followed by accusations that “Denmark is not being a good ally,” along with the tariff strategy to pressure and retaliate against trading partners, is telling allies that the US is no longer the friend they can trust.

Finally, Trump’s administration is concentrating power in the executive branch by appointing judges under his influence and weakening the power of Congress, steering the political system towards an authoritarian state.

As I mentioned above, whether Trump’s administration will succeed in delivering this system change will be determined by whether the speed of these changes can effectively prevent people and institutions from resisting or force them to accept the changes. The US political system has survived such threats before; we shall soon see if it can do so once more.

Weakening the source of power

Mapping complex problems using causal loop diagrams is a clarifying exercise. The goal of this mapping technique is to depict the obstacles that prevent a complex situation from improving, revealing the underlying feedback structures and identifying leverage points where minimal effort can yield maximum impact.

However, causal loop diagrams typically focus on the flow of influence, how one element affects another, without sufficient attention to how these feedback loops spontaneously generate incentives for people to self-organise and coordinate their actions towards specific outcomes.

For example, Trump’s new foreign policy is creating incentives for European countries to increase their military expenditure and begin negotiating a NATO framework that doesn’t include the US, effectively transforming America’s role from ally to potential adversary.

Preventing Trump from transforming the current checks and balances political system into an authoritarian one will depend on the ability of the people, institutions and countries to weaken his formal sources of power (signing executive orders, appointing judges, restricting Congress’s autonomy by dismantling independent agencies and reducing funding, and using trade tariffs to pursue his agenda) as well as his informal power (loyal fan base, control of the narrative and media, reducing diversity and social rights, and an aligned business and donor base).

In the second part of this article, I shall explore how to use the Meta Causal Loop Diagram to examine how the Trump administration is delivering massive systems change. I will analyse how emerging dynamics create potential leverage points for actors to cooperate or compete in accessing and maintaining power to establish a new state of the system.