The American Democratic Restoration Initiative

Art and self-expression cannot exist in the absence of freedom. Without the liberty to create what and how one desires, how can one truly express themselves? The past few years have shown an extremely disturbing authoritarian trend in the United States of America: elected officials have publicly contested valid election results (despite being unable to provide any substantive proof of the same), billions of taxpayer dollars have been “lost”, misallocated or distributed to businesses held by friends or relatives of those responsible for protecting and fairly distributing those funds, the executive branch has published—on a government website—lists of “media offenders” after repeatedly referring to those individuals as “enemies of the people”, masked federal agents are deployed to cities governed by the opposition party and granted protection and clemency as they gun down American citizens, etc.

Denial of these trends amounts to civic gross negligence. It is every citizen’s responsibility to stand up and protect the liberty that allows the people of this nation to think and create freely. We will do our part : this page will host articles outlining specific laws and reforms that we hope will reach the ears of the lawmakers who enter Congress at the end of this year. Our aim with the Initiative is to establish a symbiotic relationship between our art and our policies. When someone visits this site to view the works of a specific creator-partner, they may see a policy that they support and pass it along. Likewise, if a reader of political theory comes to this site to review some of these policies, certain art may catch their eye—particularly because many artists with whom we partner have drawn inspiration from the events of the past two years.

We know politics is polarizing. We also know many will stamp their feet and shout about “keeping politics out of art”. But we refuse to sit idly and watch the country that has given us the opportunity to be creators fall into the hands of a small group of power-hungry sociopaths that wish to control both the wealth and opinions of the American people. We ask for your help in this fight.

2026 Colorado Midterm Voting Guide

We believe every voter has a right to make an informed decision about each issue on the ballot. To that end, we’ve compiled a set of slides that summarize each ballot issue. We hope this helps cut through the self-interested “educational” content shoved down the throats of Colorado voters and allows them to understand whether each ballot measure is in their actual interest.

United States: Authoritarianism on the Rise

To see the word “authoritarianism” in the same sentence as the United States seems a fundamental blasphemy against the founding principles of this country. Yet, the actions we’ve seen from the Trump Administration have clearly followed a pattern reflecting those taken by foreign dictators ascending to the throne and dismantling the pillars upholding liberal democracy. To document the steps taken by the Trump Administration, we’ve used the eight mechanisms of authoritarian power consolidation identified by Professor Martin K. Dimitrov, a leading scholar at Tulane University (Why Communism Did Not Collapse, 2013; Dictatorship and Information, 2023), member of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations’ Public Intellectuals Program, Sources have been provided throughout.

Mechanisms of Authoritarian Power Consolidation

A historical comparison using mechanisms synthesized from the research of political scientist Martin K. Dimitrov. Contemporary examples concern the Trump administration's second term, 2025–2026.

Mobile users: Swipe horizontally to view the complete table.

Mechanism	Historical precedent	Trump administration conduct	Legal authority / court ruling	Stated justification	Institutional effect
1. Economic populism	Hugo Chávez — Venezuela Expanded subsidized food, healthcare, and social programs that helped sustain political support. Research has examined politically selective distribution of certain benefits. Historical research ↗	DOGE dividend — proposed $5,000 Trump expressed support in February 2025 for returning a portion of anticipated federal spending savings to taxpayers. Reuters coverage ↗ Tariff dividend — proposed $2,000+ Trump proposed payments financed by tariff revenue in November 2025. Reuters coverage ↗ Election-contingent dividend — $5,000 In September 2026, Trump proposed payments to adult citizens if Republicans retained control of both chambers of Congress. Reuters report ↗ Military payment — $1,776 The administration provided a payment to eligible service members in December 2025. Reuters coverage ↗	Proposed civilian payments implicate federal spending and appropriation requirements. General campaign promises of benefits must be distinguished from individualized vote-buying. Fiscal and legal context ↗	Share federal savings and tariff receipts, reward military service, and distribute claimed economic gains to households.	The civilian dividend proposals were not established as enacted payment programs in the reviewed evidence. The September 2026 proposal expressly conditioned a future payment on a partisan election outcome.
2. Nationalistic rhetoric	Slobodan Milošević — Serbia Mobilized support through perceived threats to ethnic Serbs and national identity. Historical source ↗	Described unauthorized immigration as an invasion and national-security emergency, alongside expanded immigration enforcement. Presidential proclamation ↗	January 2025 border-security proclamations and immigration-related executive actions.	Protect national sovereignty, border security, and public safety.	Expanded immigration enforcement and invocation of national-security authorities. Individual measures have distinct legal questions and institutional consequences.
3. Restricting independent media	Viktor Orbán — Hungary Media regulation and government-aligned ownership concentration weakened independent journalism. Freedom House ↗	Restricted Associated Press access over editorial terminology and implemented new policies affecting White House press access. AP reporting ↗ Additional restrictions involving CNN, MS NOW, and Politico journalists faced court intervention in October 2026. Court coverage ↗	First Amendment and due-process litigation concerning press access.	Control access to presidential events and address perceived media bias or security concerns.	Federal courts intervened in press-access disputes, including findings concerning viewpoint discrimination. Litigation and appeals may affect final outcomes.
4. Surveillance and informant networks	East Germany — Stasi Used informants and extensive surveillance to identify perceived political opponents. German Federal Archives ↗	Expanded online-presence screening for multiple visa categories in 2025 and 2026. State Department policy ↗	Immigration and Nationality Act and State Department consular-screening guidance.	Identify inadmissibility, national-security threats, and public-safety concerns.	Expanded examination of applicants' online expression. The evidence does not establish a domestic informant network comparable to the Stasi.
5. Co-opting institutions and citizens	East Germany State-security agencies recruited collaborators through ideological loyalty, material incentives, and sometimes coercion. German Federal Archives ↗	Federal funding restrictions and administrative demands affected Harvard and other universities. Harvard documentation ↗	Federal civil-rights and grant-enforcement authorities; related university litigation.	Address alleged antisemitism, discrimination, and institutional noncompliance.	Funding and administrative pressure on universities, with federal authority and institutional independence contested through litigation.
6. Selective repression	China Political intelligence and targeted enforcement have been used against identified opponents. Dimitrov's research ↗	Executive Order 14230 targeted Perkins Coie through restrictions involving security clearances, federal contracting, and access. Executive Order ↗	Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 2025). Judicial opinion ↗	Allegations of professional misconduct, discrimination, and national-security concerns.	The district court found unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination. This is a judicial finding, distinct from unproven allegations.
7. Monitoring public dissatisfaction	Communist Bulgaria Party and security institutions monitored public grievances, rumors, and political attitudes to anticipate dissatisfaction. Dimitrov's research ↗	Expanded immigration-related monitoring of applicants' online expression. State Department policy ↗	Immigration screening authorities and consular guidance.	Assess eligibility and identify security risks.	This is a limited comparison. The evidence does not demonstrate a nationwide domestic political-grievance reporting system comparable to Bulgaria's.
8. Strategic concessions	Communist Bulgaria Authorities used information about public grievances to determine when economic or administrative concessions might reduce unrest. Dimitrov's research ↗	Proposed cash dividends and promoted economic-relief measures in response to household financial concerns. Contemporary reporting ↗	Economic policy announcements and federal appropriations requirements.	Provide financial relief and share claimed economic gains.	The initiatives demonstrate promised or announced benefits, but do not independently establish an effort to neutralize organized opposition.

Methodology and limitations: The eight mechanisms are a synthesis of research associated with Martin K. Dimitrov, not a formal eight-part list authored by him. Historical similarity does not establish identical intent, severity, or institutional consequences. Government proposals, enacted policies, allegations, and judicial findings are distinguished where possible. Links to publication homepages or search results provide background rather than verification of every specific claim. This comparison is intended as a research resource, not a determination that any particular government meets the definition of an authoritarian regime.

Foundational research: Martin K. Dimitrov, Dictatorship and Information (2023) | Dimitrov, Popular Autocrats (2009)