How is this? In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire as a pretext to seize emergency powers, suspending civil liberties and centralizing authority under the guise of protecting national security. The Reichstag Fire Decree gutted constitutional protections — from habeas corpus to freedom of speech and assembly — and allowed the Reich government to override state sovereignty, setting the stage for a totalitarian regime.
A comparable dynamic arises when national leaders use real or manufactured crises to justify unilateral actions that bypass or override state authority. For example, Donald Trump’s 2020 threat to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles against the will of California Governor Gavin Newsom echoed this troubling pattern. While governors normally control the National Guard within their states, Trump signaled his intent to invoke federal authority — overriding local governance — in response to protests against police brutality. Such moves challenge the balance of federalism enshrined in the Constitution and risk militarizing civil unrest rather than de-escalating it.
Similarly, Trump’s aggressive use of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and his consideration of the Insurrection Act to suppress protests represent steps toward consolidating executive power under the banner of law and order. These actions may not be equivalent to 1933 Germany in scope or intent, but they reflect the same dangerous principle: using fear and crisis as tools to erode civil liberties, sideline constitutional protections, and concentrate power in the executive branch.
History warns us that democracy doesn’t disappear all at once — it erodes incrementally when leaders justify extraordinary powers as necessary for public safety. In 1933, Germans were told their freedoms had to be suspended to prevent chaos. Today, we must ask whether actions that override state control, weaponize federal forces, or bypass judicial oversight are echoes of that same rationale — and whether we’re paying attention before it’s too late.
