The rate at which Trump and his fascist thugs are installing an autocratic regime in the United States is breathtaking. Federal forces are deployed in cities with the instruction to use ‘maximum force’ against Americans, every institution that is not MAGA is attacked, and brown people are kidnapped off the streets by gestapo ICE agents by the hundreds. Every American who values democracy knows this is the fight of their lives.

The economic fallout of Trump’s policies is already visible. Tourism is struggling. Farmers are hurting. Ordinary people are seeing their spending power decline. Yet the stock market has held up surprisingly well since Trump took office. Certain sectors, especially tech, have enjoyed gains, even as volatility has spiked due to trade wars, tariffs, inflation risks, and global uncertainty.

Everyone understands America is facing serious long-term risks. Markets, however, are biased toward the short term: they price in near-term, quantifiable changes like tax or regulatory shifts. Longer-term and systemic risks – climate change, for example – are notoriously underpriced because they are difficult to time or quantify.

Authoritarianism, like climate change, unfolds gradually. Its costs are diffuse, slow to appear, and thus rarely priced in until too late. America’s drift toward authoritarianism under Trump is almost certainly underestimated by investors. Over time, it will be bad for U.S. companies and markets:

● Investors demand higher returns for exposure to countries where the rule of law is undermined.

● Arbitrary executive actions (e.g., against companies critical of the regime) would raise uncertainty and financing costs.

● Independent courts, regulators, and agencies provide predictability and contract enforcement. Authoritarian consolidation erodes these safeguards.

● Without reliable institutions, companies face a higher risk of politicized regulations, favoritism, or selective enforcement.

● Global capital depends on confidence in U.S. democratic stability. Authoritarian drift could lead to capital outflows, reduced foreign direct investment, and a weaker dollar as investors seek safer jurisdictions.

● Authoritarian systems often mean policy changes on a whim, benefiting allies and punishing opponents. That increases volatility, discourages long-term business planning, and incentivizes short-termism over innovation.

● U.S. authoritarianism could strain alliances (this is already happening), trigger retaliatory trade policies, and weaken American leadership in global standard-setting.

● U.S. competitiveness relies on being a magnet for global talent. An authoritarian shift could reduce immigration, drive skilled workers abroad (this is already happening), and create a climate of fear and censorship that stifles innovation and entrepreneurship.

● Institutional investors and consumers worldwide are increasingly guided by environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. A U.S. move toward authoritarianism would damage its ESG profile, pushing pension funds and global asset managers to divest.

Historical Comparisons
Other countries that consolidated authoritarian rule show a clear pattern: markets initially underprice the risk, only to suffer later when the costs become undeniable.

Russia (Putin):
In the early 2000s, Russia was attractive to foreign investors. But once Putin consolidated power, arbitrary interventions like the Yukos oil seizure scared off capital. Valuations remained permanently discounted due to ‘Kremlin risk’. By 2022, geopolitical aggression fueled by authoritarian control triggered massive capital flight, sanctions, and an investment collapse.

Turkey (Erdogan):
Turkey was once an emerging-market success story. As Erdogan weakened central bank independence and concentrated power, the lira collapsed, inflation soared (up to 84%), and foreign direct investment dried up. Unpredictable regulations, cronyism, and politicized courts continue to suppress growth.

Hungary (Orban):
Orban’s erosion of rule of law and press freedom led investors to see Hungary as politically risky compared to peers like Poland or the Czech Republic. Reliance on EU subsidies deepened as private capital inflows shrank.

Venezuela (Chávez/Maduro):
An extreme case. Venezuela was once South America’s wealthiest nation. But authoritarian populism led to expropriations, collapse of the private sector, and irreversible capital flight. Markets underestimated the risks until it was too late.

Will Trump’s attempt succeed?
The jury’s still out on this one. Crucial will be the mid-term elections from next year where democrats can win back dominance in the House of Representatives and part of congress. I am personally very pessimistic about this. Trump will not allow the democrats to win and rig the election any way he can. I have a hard time seeing any other scenario than violent revolution to turn this nightmare around and undo the untold damage Trump is causing.