While executive orders are a routine instrument of governance, in the context of democratic backsliding, they become a tool for concentrating authority and circumventing oversight. This prediction foresees a sharp uptick in the use of unilateral directives to enact major policy changes, particularly in areas where legislation has failed or court rulings have imposed constraints.
Legal advisors may promote novel or radical readings of constitutional power — such as the unitary executive theory, non-enforcement doctrines, or expansive interpretations of the Insurrection or Emergency Powers Acts. Judicial pushback may be framed as partisan sabotage, and Congress is painted as gridlocked or illegitimate, providing rhetorical justification for permanent executive initiative.
Historical parallels include Fujimori’s Peru, where decrees replaced congressional authority; Orbán’s Hungary, where emergency laws rendered parliament symbolic; and Germany, where Article 48 emergency decrees were used to bypass democratic governance altogether.
What to Watch For
- Executive orders addressing major national policy without congressional support
- Presidential declarations of national emergency tied to crime, immigration, or civil unrest
- Legal memos from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel redefining limits on presidential authority
- Public dismissals of court decisions as “unenforceable,” “illegitimate,” or “politically motivated”
- Legislative gridlock used rhetorically to justify permanent executive governance
- Bypassing standard rulemaking procedures through emergency powers