How External Threats Become a Pretext for Authoritarianism

Trump, Yoon, and Lessons on Fear and Power Grabs

On December 3rd of last year, South Korea’s democracy had a near-death experience. Then President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, citing nebulous “anti-state forces” in parliament allied with Pyongyang. In a stunning rhetorical turn, Yoon argued that martial law was necessary “to guarantee the people’s freedom” and “protect free constitutional order.”

Within hours, the opposition-controlled National Assembly had managed to vote to overturn martial law, stopping Yoon’s coup in its tracks. In the months to come, the embattled Yoon would double down, claiming that Beijing and Pyongyang were working in concert, and that China had directly interfered in the parliamentary elections that had brought the opposition to power the year before.

His arguments increasingly carry weight with South Korean voters— by February popular support for Yoon’s removal had declined to only 57%, down from 75% two months before. Yoon supporters bring “Chinese Communist Party OUT” signs to rallies.

Yoon’s case illustrates a worrying trend in the democratic world—would-be autocrats are using external threats as pretext for their power grabs. In the name of defending democracy and national security, they empower themselves and make their countries more authoritarian.

As I wrote about last week, the Trump Administration is attempting to revoke Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, threatening the visa status of its nearly 7000 international students. The measure was aimed to “hold Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party” on its campus. Harvard is currently challenging the administration in court, but in the meantime the White House has now severed all financial ties with the university.

To be clear, it is not my intention to defend the decisions of Harvard’s administrators. I have always found the university’s relationship with China a bit… strange. Harvard is known as the finishing school for the children of the CCP elite, and its alumni include Xi Jinping’s own daughter, Xi Mingze, who attended under a pseudonym. Last year, the university drew criticism when it platformed Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng, allowed him to speak without taking audience questions, and then seemingly condoned the behavior of a Chinese student who forcibly removed other students who were protesting the event. Harvard also has a history of being quite cozy with authoritarian money, and has a record of receiving large gifts from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

I would recommend Sophie Richardson’s writing on this issue. Sophie and her team at Human Rights Watch developed a code of conduct for U.S. universities which should be taken more seriously at U.S. universities. There are important ethical questions here, and room for an honest conversation about how universities are interacting with the authoritarian world.

I do not find the actions of the White House reflective of an honest conversation. It is no secret that the Trump/Vance faction of the GOP sees universities as ideological enemies—Vance quite literally said as much during a 2021 address at the National Conservatism Conference. These measures have nothing to do with curbing antisemitism or CCP influence. They are meant to hobble a hub of science and independent thought, a power center for the liberal opposition. They are wildly out of proportion to whatever wrongdoing is happening at Harvard.

We should be wary of any democratically elected leader that uses the language of foreign threat to justify measures that remove our civil liberties, discredit civil society organizations, or erode political competition. This is a core strategy in the authoritarian toolkit.

When we look across the set of democracies that have degraded in the last twenty years, nearly every leader involved had some external enemy they used to justify their own illiberal tactics. Viktor Orbán lambasted the influence of George Soros and the EU as he crippled the Central European University (CEU). Rodrigo Duterte’s consolidation of power in the Philippines was framed as a response to transnational drug cartels. Nayib Bukele—a new friend of the Trump administration— also used transnational gang violence as justification for declaring a state of emergency in 2022, in turn arresting over 75,000 people without normal legal processes.

Trump is simultaneously activating three external threats at once— China, Palestine, and illegal immigrants. This threat trifecta plays into enduring tropes in the collective American foreign policy psyche: a great power “communist” rival, Islamic terrorism, and crime coming directly over the border. This is an effective combination. Political science research suggests Americans are more likely to support infringements on their liberties when they feel anxious and threatened. Perceived threats also make Americans more prone to authoritarian attitudes and deference to strong leaders.

At a time when over 70% of the world’s population is under some form of authoritarian rule, there are no easy answers for democracies. We cannot wall ourselves off from the outside world. Countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are increasing their influence through seemingly every channel possible. They make political donations, they buy into sports teams, they remake international institutions, and they engage in hard espionage and societal infiltration. We cannot pretend that these actors are benign, or their actions do not have consequences.

There is a new book coming out from Alexander Cooley and Alexander Dukalskis about this exact issue. After reading it, I’ve come to believe one of the central political challenges of the next decade is how the democratic world can manage the influence of these actors and stand up for democratic values, while not overreacting and coming to mimic the very systems we seek to oppose.

With Trump, as with Yoon, it is quite clear that “threats” are being used instrumentally as the pretext for illiberalism at home. And we need to call that what it is.

That’s all for this week. Thanks for as always reading and supporting my work. Please share with someone if you found it useful.

Rory