#384 — Stress Testing Our Democracy

Under the direction of the Brennan Center's Democracy Futures Project, experts including Barton Gellman have participated in tabletop exercises simulating the potential threats posed by an authoritarian presidency and the responses available to pro-democracy advocates.

The Brennan Center's Democracy Futures Project conducted tabletop exercises to simulate how an authoritarian president could abuse federal power and how pro-democracy advocates might respond

Participants in the Brennan Center’s exercises included former officials and leaders from across the political spectrum. They undertook various roles such as cabinet members, supportive governors, judges, and executive agencies, all surrounding an authoritarian president.

The exercises involved former officials and leaders from across the political spectrum playing the roles of the authoritarian president, their cabinet and supporters, and those seeking to restrain the president's abuses

Barton Gellman details that they tested scenarios involving the president using federal agencies and law enforcement to target political enemies, utilizing the Department of Justice, the power of antitrust against companies, and the IRS against nonprofits.

Additionally, they explored the potential use of military force against protesters and the mass expulsion of migrants by deploying federal law enforcement in cities for mass arrests.

The exercises tested scenarios such as the president using federal agencies and law enforcement to target political enemies, deploy the military against protesters, and mass expel undocumented immigrants

Gellman indicates that an authoritarian president might use his power in alarming ways including the prosecution of political enemies and unfolding repressive tactics against dissent and immigration.

Participants playing supportive roles for the authoritarian figure showcased a keen ability to exercise power, while those in opposition sought ways to mitigate their actions.

The exercises revealed that while there are some ways to slow down or mitigate an authoritarian's actions, there are often no clear legal mechanisms to outright stop them

The outcomes of these exercises ...

In the face of potential executive overreach from the presidency, the role of state and local authorities becomes increasingly vital. However, the exact bounds of their power in challenging federal overreach remain murky, requiring careful navigation and understanding.

Governors, state attorneys general, and other state/local officials have important powers to resist federal overreach, but the boundaries of their authority are often unclear

Conversations in tabletop exercises have underscored the lack of clear precedent or understanding regarding the powers state authorities hold. One such conversation pointed to governors’ potential ability to challenge the president's federalization of the National Guard. However, uncertainties in legal principles stand in the way.

Governors may be able to refuse to deploy the National Guard or limit the actions of federal agents in their states, but the precedents and legal principles are murky

Barton Gellman speaks of an exercise involving former governor of New Jersey Christie Todd Whitman, who sought ways to prevent the president from federalizing the National Guard against her will. This scenario illustrates the ambiguity surrounding a governor's capacity to counteract presidential authority in such matters.

State and local officials need to thoroughly understand the extent of their legal powers to push back against an authoritarian president's misuse of federal authority

State officials, particularly governors and state attorneys general, must do their ...

Barton Gellman and Sam Harris discuss disturbing trends that indicate the election process in the United States may be under threat due to partisan motivations.

There are growing efforts by Republican state legislators and election officials to insert more partisan control over the certification of election results

Gellman underscores the movement by some Republican state legislators and election officials to gain more partisan control over the certification process of election results.

New laws and rules in some states allow partisan election boards to refuse to certify results or launch dubious "investigations" that could delay or undermine the will of voters

Gellman highlights moves in several states, particularly in Georgia, where political control over the certification of election results is intensifying through new legislation. For example, an Elections Board member in Georgia refused to certify the results of a primary election and instead demanded investigatory power—even though he supported the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. The governor also appointed three Republicans to the state election board, which has adopted a rule allowing county election officials to decline certification in favor of their own investigations.

This threatens to create chaos and potential for an outright coup attempt if a losing candidate refuses to accept defeat

Gellman emphasizes that historically, the certification role was ministerial and non-partisan, with disputes traditionally resolved in the courts. New rules allowing partisan officials to potentially delay or even overturn election results pose a real threat to democracy, risking chaos and coup attempts if candidates refuse to accept defeat.

While Democrats are working to counter these efforts legally and legislatively, there is a risk that both sides may refuse to accept a narrow loss, leading to instability and unrest

Landslide victories by either side could potentially short-circuit these concerns, but the electoral map points to very close, contested results in swing states

Gellman agrees with Sam Harris that a landslide victory could alleviate worries about election integrity and the possibility of protests or riots, as the clear result would overshadow small controversies.

Preparing for potential post-election turmoil, from protests to violence, is a major focus for pro-democracy advocates

Nevertheless, Gellman notes that the election is expected to be determined by a thin margin in a few key states, suggesting tight and hotly disputed outcomes. This potential for narrow results has pro-democracy advocates concerned and preparing for possible post-election unrest.

Throughout the conversation, Gellma ...