Fighting the Trump Regime’s Use of Fear and Intimidation: Rules for Responding to Tyranny

Introduction

Fear and intimidation have emerged as central weapons in the Trump-Vance-Musk regime’s governance strategy. According to recent analyses, the administration is systematically using fear—of deportation, job loss, imprisonment, and other consequences—to silence critics and consolidate power.

This pattern mirrors tactics used by authoritarian regimes throughout history but represents an alarming departure from American democratic norms.

Research from historians, political scientists, and resistance experts suggests there are effective strategies to counter these intimidation tactics.

FAF examines three foundational rules for responding to tyrannical fear and intimidation and broader resistance frameworks drawn from historical precedents and contemporary analysis.

The Power of Fear as a Political Weapon

Fear has consistently been a favored instrument for Donald Trump, who once told journalists, “True power is — I hesitate even to say it — fear.” This acknowledgment reveals a governance philosophy built around intimidation rather than democratic consent.

Trump constructed his real estate empire through threats and legal battles, solidified his grip on the Republican Party by silencing dissenters, and now extends these tactics to critical, independent institutions like the judiciary, businesses, higher education, and media.

The regime’s strategic use of fear serves a specific purpose: to dissuade elected officials, judges, executives, journalists, and ordinary citizens from carrying out responsibilities that might challenge or hold the administration accountable.

Recent examples include the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate and legal resident, for peacefully protesting; deportations carried out in defiance of court orders; and threats against universities to change their policies or lose federal funding.

Understanding the Mechanics of Intimidation

Fear works through a predictable mechanism. When citizens preemptively self-censor or institutions abandon their oversight roles, they effectively grant expanded authority to those in power.

As historian Timothy Snyder notes, “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked”.

This voluntary surrender to intimidation creates a self-reinforcing cycle that accelerates the erosion of democratic safeguards.

Three Rules for Fighting Tyrannical Fear and Intimidation

Rule 1: Do Not Give In to Fear

The first and most fundamental rule for countering the regime’s intimidation tactics is simple but powerful: “If at all possible, do not give in to it. Fear works only if people are intimidated. Intimidation is effective only if people surrender to it”.

This principle recognizes that authoritarian power depends substantially on psychological control rather than physical force.

While not everyone can risk their livelihood or freedom, those in relative security and influence positions have a special responsibility.

As Reich notes, “At a time like this, people who occupy positions of power and visibility — members of Congress, university presidents, top editors and CEOs of major media enterprises, senior partners in major law firms — must not cow to Trump’s threats.”

When influential figures resist intimidation, they serve as “exemplars of democratic courage” that inspire broader resistance.

Surrendering to intimidation only invites more aggressive demands. Suppose civil servants self-censor from speaking the truth. In that case, journalists avoid reporting facts, or law firms decline to represent those targeted by the regime; they effectively validate and strengthen the very tactics used against them.

Historical examples from authoritarian regimes consistently show that appeasing intimidation rarely provides lasting protection.

Rule 2: Build Solidarity Across Boundaries

Effective resistance requires crossing social and ideological boundaries to create broader coalitions. “For resistance to succeed, two boundaries must be crossed. First, ideas about change must engage people of various backgrounds who do not agree about everything.

Second, people must find themselves in places that are not their homes and among groups that were not previously their friends. “

This principle of solidarity prevents the regime from isolating and targeting specific groups. Poland’s Solidarity movement succeeded against communist rule precisely because it united workers, professionals, religious groups, and secular organizations in a cohesive resistance front.

When targeted communities stand alone, they become vulnerable, but when diverse constituencies unite in mutual defense, the effectiveness of intimidation tactics diminishes substantially.

The practical application of this rule involves

Creating cross-sector alliances between academic, business, legal, media, and community organizations

Supporting those directly targeted, even when they don’t share all your values

Physically showing up in unfamiliar spaces with unfamiliar people

Building relationships across traditional political divides around shared democratic principles

Rule 3: Exercise Strategic Courage

The third rule acknowledges that effective resistance requires courage but emphasizes that this courage must be strategic rather than merely symbolic: “Be as courageous as you can. If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny.”

Strategic courage means

Recognizing when to take public stands and when to work behind the scenes

Understanding that episodic symbolic protests are insufficient without sustained campaigns

Choosing tactics that impose actual costs on the regime rather than merely expressing outrage

Balancing personal risk with effective action

As demonstrated by successful resistance movements globally, courage must be channeled into strategic frameworks that build power over time.

The Global Nonviolent Action Database documents at least 40 cases where dictators were overthrown through strategic nonviolent struggle, even when those leaders controlled violent means of repression.

These movements succeeded not through ideological commitment to nonviolence but through disciplined strategies that systematically undermined the regime’s support pillars.

Strategic Frameworks for Effective Resistance

Beyond these three core rules, research on successful resistance to authoritarian regimes suggests several complementary strategic frameworks.

Defending Democratic Institutions

A critical pathway for resistance involves defending the institutions that sustain democratic governance. “Defend institutions. It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of ‘our institutions’ unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf”.

This institutional defense requires

Supporting civil servants who resist illegal orders

Celebrating those fired for upholding democratic principles

Providing external backing for internal resistance

Maintaining vocal support for judicial independence

Institutions do not defend themselves—they require active citizenship to preserve their role as checks on power.

When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic senators “so easily surrender to Trump and Republicans on a continuing resolution to fund the government,” they weaken institutional guardrails against further authoritarian actions.

Withholding Consent and Cooperation

Political theorist Gene Sharp’s influential work on nonviolent resistance emphasizes that governments fundamentally depend on the cooperation and obedience of those they govern. “When people refuse their cooperation, withhold help, and persist in their disobedience and defiance,”

Sharp wrote, “They deny their opponent the basic human assistance and cooperation that any government or hierarchical system requires.”

Research suggests that significant political change becomes possible when approximately 3.5% of a population actively participates in sustained nonviolent resistance. This approach moves beyond symbolic protest to strategic noncooperation through:

Mass strikes and work stoppages

Tax resistance

Consumer boycotts

Other forms of mass civil disobedience

Documenting Everything

In the disinformation age, maintaining factual records becomes an act of resistance. The Trump administration actively works to “destroy Americans’ sense of reality” through “alternative facts.” Counteracting this requires meticulous documentation of government actions, human rights abuses, and resistance efforts.

This documentation serves multiple purposes:

Creating accountability mechanisms

Supporting legal challenges

Preserving historical memory

Countering propaganda efforts

Historical Precedents and Lessons

History offers numerous examples of successful resistance to authoritarian regimes through nonviolent means.

The Global Nonviolent Action Database details cases from countries as diverse as Serbia, Egypt, and the Philippines, where entrenched dictators fell to coordinated nonviolent campaigns.

These historical examples demonstrate that dictators, despite controlling state violence, can be defeated through strategic nonviolent action.

In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak ruled for 29 years with extensive police powers, censorship, and media control before being removed through a nonviolent uprising.

This historical record contradicts the widespread assumption that violence can only overcome dictators.

Key lessons from these precedents include

Movements succeeded by focusing on tactics that imposed actual costs on regimes rather than merely symbolic protests

Successful resistance required sustained campaigns of escalating, connected actions rather than episodic demonstrations

Strategic nonviolent discipline proved more effective than ideological commitments to nonviolence

Creating visible symbols of resistance (like Norway’s paperclip pins during Nazi occupation) helped build solidarity and courage

Conclusion

Confronting the Trump regime’s use of fear and intimidation requires a multifaceted approach grounded in historical lessons and strategic frameworks. The three core rules—do not give in to fear, build solidarity across boundaries, and exercise strategic courage—provide a foundation for effective resistance.

Citizens can counter the regime's attempts to rule through fear by refusing to surrender to intimidation, creating broad coalitions, and channeling courage into strategic action.

Beyond these rules, defending democratic institutions, withholding consent through noncooperation, and documenting abuses offer complementary strategies.

The historical record provides encouraging evidence that even entrenched dictators with violent means at their disposal have fallen to disciplined, nonviolent resistance movements.

One resistance expert notes that “authoritarianism isn’t going away no matter the election results.” Therefore, the response must focus not merely on opposing specific policies but on preserving the fundamental conditions for democracy itself.

This requires sustained commitment, strategic discipline, and the courage to stand firm against intimidation—recognizing that, as history teaches, “giving in to intimidation only invites more intimidation.”