In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the killing of a U.S. citizen named Renée Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent shocked the nation, triggered large protests, and raised deep questions about how the executive branch operates. The official explanations focused on the agent’s state of mind and Good’s background, but many saw the broader government response as part of a pattern that resembles how authoritarian leaders behave. According to the author, President Donald Trump appears to be adopting tactics used by strongmen like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Belarus’s Alexander Lukashenko, and this moment in Minnesota could become a turning point for American democracy.
The first pattern of behavior the author identifies is centralizing power. In classic dictatorships, leaders work to grab control of key institutions and strip away checks on their authority. In Russia and Belarus, this meant neutralizing independent courts and legislatures so their power went unchecked. The article suggests Trump has followed similar steps within the U.S. context by shaping the Supreme Court through loyal appointments and aligning Congress with his agenda. This consolidation makes it harder for traditional democratic institutions to act as real limits on presidential power. As a result, when a crisis like the Minneapolis killing occurs, there are few effective forces to slow or question how the executive branch responds.
Foreign Policy In Focus
The second pattern is refusing to step back when faced with public outrage or criticism. In authoritarian systems, leaders double down instead of retreating. Putin and Lukashenko have shown that once a leader commits to a course of action, even setbacks or public anger don’t deter them. The author argues Trump follows this logic: when protests spread after Good’s death, he did not offer apologies or show restraint. Instead, his administration increased the federal law enforcement presence in Minneapolis, deploying many more ICE agents. This escalation mirrors how some autocrats treat dissent not as a signal to change course, but as a reason to tighten control.
Foreign Policy In Focus
The third pattern is about choosing loyal supporters and sidelining others. Authoritarian regimes make sure that the people closest to power are ones who will follow orders without hesitation. Putin and Lukashenko have filled key positions with individuals whose personal loyalty matters more than competence. The article notes that under Trump’s leadership, there have been appointments of politically loyal figures over experienced professionals in various roles, including within law enforcement. This has contributed to tragic outcomes — such as Good’s killing — that might have been avoided with better-trained personnel. By prioritizing loyalty and political alignment over expertise, governance becomes more about serving the leader’s interests than protecting the public.
Foreign Policy In Focus
The fourth authoritarian pattern highlighted is the punishment of difference and dissent. In strongman systems, disagreement is treated as a threat, and even nonviolent protest can be met with heavy responses. In Belarus after mass protests in 2020, authorities brutally suppressed demonstrators and targeted ordinary citizens. In the U.S., the author sees echoes of this in how dissenting voices, critics, or protesters in cities like Minneapolis are confronted. When institutions or citizens push back — whether through protests, legal challenges, or public criticism — the reaction from on high often emphasizes force over engagement. This makes ordinary Americans feel that speaking out or organizing carries real risks and that public officials are less accountable.
Foreign Policy In Focus
The author’s underlying concern is that these patterns — consolidation of power, refusal to retreat, reliance on loyalists, and heavy-handed responses to dissent — are not isolated to Minnesota. They reflect broader political strategies that, if left unchecked, could weaken democratic norms across the United States. Rather than temporary reactions to specific events, these behaviors can become systemic, reshaping how government operates and how citizens relate to it.
Whether these trends represent a full turn toward authoritarianism or a dangerous flirtation with such tactics depends on how the public and institutions respond. The tragedy of Good’s death and the government’s handling of the aftermath have made this question urgent, pushing Americans to consider how much they value and will defend democratic processes and civil liberties in the face of concentrated power.
