According to historian author Tim Snyder, the answer to this question in his April post is “midterm elections” or possibly “a pretext for the next coup.” Tim Snyder is well known for his 2017 book On Tyranny and his 2024 follow up On Freedom. Snyder is a scholar and political analyst who focuses on authoritarianism, healthcare, democracy and freedom. His expertise is in Central and Eastern European history, particularly the history of the Soviet Union, and the Holocaust. He draws on this knowledge to explain modern parallels and threats to democracy. His earlier books Bloodlands (showing the links between Nazi and Soviet mass murders) and Black Earth (a re-examination of the Holocaust) are highly regarded. I read the Bloodlands, and despite lots of previous reading on the subject, visits to multiple concentration camps, various museums, and most of the countries involved, I learned a lot.

While nobody can predict the future, a historian with Snyder’s expertise provides valuable insight into modern parallels and the potential outcomes. In his April substack post “The Next Coup Attempt,” Snyder outlines the risks to the midterms that he sees as heightened in light of the Iran war. Here are the 5 possible avenues to a(nother) coup that he identifies:

The Steady Hand. Some leaders use war as a justification to reduce instability by keeping the current powers in place. George W. Bush used this argument in his bid against John Kerry. People voted FDR into a 4th term based on this justification (and up to that point, the 2-term limit was an informal tradition). While no leader in the US to date has successfully ignored elections based on this argument, that doesn’t mean it won’t be attempted as it has in many other countries that are weaker democracies. In a true democracy, the only steady hand is the hand of justice.

Bonapartism. This tactic uses the domestic desire for democracy as a justification to wage war against non-democratic countries, to prove our commitment to democracy by imposing it on others. This is the same tactic that Napoleon used to claim the mantle of democracy (in newly democratic France) while actually undoing the rights of citizens and forcing them into imperial wars. Consider that domestic programs are being defunded while the military budget is being given a 50% increase. This is one way to bribe the military into doing the will of the executive, while removing benefits from the populace at large to pay for it.

Bismarckian Unification. The focus the leader uses is on bringing the nation together. Unification is achieved through fiat or appointment, not elections (which divide) nor revolutions (which involve conflict). This seems unlikely to succeed or be a chosen model as our country continues to become even more divided, although if you apply this model to the ways executive power has been modified so that anyone can be fired without cause, including experts who run highly complex arms of the government, and replaced with lackeys and cronies as a reward for loyalty, bribes and who knows what, well, this model fits a lot more.

Fascist Sacrifice. In this model, the fascist leader kills enough of his own people to convince everyone that the world is so insecure that the struggle is the point. This is an ideological approach that doesn’t accord at all with Trump’s notion of the world, so far as I can see. He doesn’t possess an ideology for the populace at large, instead sitting back and letting the religious right (via the Heritage Foundation) create that narrative. Does he believe it? Nah. He occasionally may say he’s for the little guy, but we all see that the money and protections are going to the oligarchs. Putin employs this “fascist sacrifice” approach with quite a lot of success in how he explains the Ukraine war to his constituents. The fact that their sons and fathers are being sent to a pointless land grab war to die can’t have been in vain, so the argument goes. They are participating in the great struggle for Mother Russia.

Exploitation of Terror. This is a path that Snyder finds particularly likely and troublesome. By kicking the hornet’s nest in Iran, the US becomes a more likely target of a terrorist attack which benefits the leader by uniting the country behind a protector. On the upside, Iran doesn’t seem to be taking the bait. Snyder doesn’t rule out the possiblity of a false flag terrorist operation, but also points out that such an attempt requires conspiratorial skills that are sorely lacking in the current administration. Someone would leak. It would probably be found out. Putin successfully staged a terrorist attack by bombing apartment buildings in 1999 in his own country, then claiming it was done by terrorists. Even so, there were leaks and mistakes. And Trump is no Putin, despite his admiration for him. He doesn’t have the skills, control or network that Putin has. Putin truly only got away with that because of his stranglehold on state media, and because it was 1999. Such a thing would not work here in 2026. ICE is untrained, unpopular, and chaotic. The military is not used to operating in this way and even though Hegseth is rapidly firing leaders of principle, including women and people of color disproportionately, it’s hard to imagine the military would so quickly go against its own principles. The honor and discipline instilled in those serving in the military may be discarded by some, but the majority? Less likely, if possible.

What I found helpful in this article was the history lesson of how power has worked in other regimes throughout recent history. It makes it easier to recognize when it’s happening in front of our eyes if we know how it’s been done before. But even more, I appreciated that Snyder seemed somewhat hopeful that these types of efforts will fail due to various factors: the temperament of Trump, lack of coherent ideology, the will of the people who are increasingly unwilling to agree (even some GOP lawmakers), the fact that the media still exists, the lack of skill among several key cabinet members, etc. It’s also important to remember that past behavior isn’t a recipe for future behavior or actions. Things can unfold in many unforeseen ways.

Some of what we know right now that makes me nervous:

  • Increasing the military budget by 50% seems like an obvious way to bribe the military or gain their compliance, especially given the firings among leadership and the changes to mission–but bribing them doesn’t mean they are willing to do the thing you really hope they are willing to do like implement martial law or intimidate voters or sieze voting machines to overthrow results the leader doesn’t like.
  • Trump is surrounded by people who have financially benefited from the Iran war, including his own family, lawmakers, CEOs, and other heads of state. I hate the fact that Congress refuses to check itself when it comes to insider trading, something I was always told in my business career would result in jail time after the SEC came in and rained justice down on your head, but apparently none of that applies to the country’s elites: legislators, jurists and executives are all complicit.
  • Trump’s push to pass the SAVE Act which would wreak havoc on elections integrity and access to the polls, disenfranchising many voters and creating insurmountable obstacles to others. It would also override states’ rights, which is another pearl of hypocrisy. It doesn’t look like the GOP will pass it, so here’s hoping that holds.
  • Trump telegraphs constantly that he’s going to interfere in the elections. It’s one thing that he seems fully committed to, and like a velociraptor keeps testing the fence to find the weak points.

This isn’t a very religious post, and I’m doubtless going to draw out the usual complaints from the far-right flank of commenters. I still don’t quite fathom why there is so much Mormon support for this administration. I recently finished reading the book The Testaments which is about the fall of the fictional Gilead, a right-wing theocracy that stages a coup and takes over the country. At the end of the novel, a future historian (voiced by the excellent Derek Jacobi in the audiobook) explains how Gilead fell according to the trial records and other historical artifacts that are found. I nearly did a spit take when part of the explanation of post-Gilead included an uprising in the former state of Utah due to resentment over the purging of Mormons that Gilead did as soon as they took over. I would call that a spoiler, but as far as I know, it’s the only mention of Mormons in the entire series, and it’s kind of a throwaway line. Even Margaret Atwood can see how little regard the religious right has for Mormons. Maybe if they got out more, they would see it too.

  • Have you read any of Timothy Snyder’s books?
  • Do you find any parallels to these 5 historical models for coups in our modern situation?
  • Are you worried about the integrity of the midterm elections?
  • Do you have confidence in the military’s ability to uphold its values?
  • How do you see the Iran war ending?
  • Do the MAGA Mormons you know believe they are respected by the non-LDS people in the MAGA movement? Do you think they are?

Discuss.