As Donald Trump continued his chaotic and destructive march through a second term, the New York Times had a few choice words for what he’s doing, as they promoted an audio offering.

Ready?

“Trump’s New Charm Offensive.” I posted the full headline on social media, asking “Really, NYT?” and one respondent said she was so upset when she saw it earlier that day, she canceled her subscription over it.

That seems extreme since the Times has done a lot of very good reporting in recent weeks. But the headline does seem quite unhinged from reality, and it makes me wonder why no one stopped to question or change it. It represents the soft-focus presentation we see all too often that may well be an intentional business strategy on the part of the Times — everybody invited in to the big tent.

Here’s another over a David Sanger piece about how Trump’s policies supposedly would restore America’s manufacturing economy. (Sanger is excellent and deeply experienced, and the piece itself — mostly about Trump’s tariffs — is well reported.) The headline: “Trump’s Big Bet: Americans Will Tolerate Economic Downturn to Restore Manufacturing.”

As one Times reader aptly commented: “The headline here is misleading — none of Trump’s current policies will do anything to bring back manufacturing (quite the opposite) so treating Trump’s hypothesis as even remotely plausible is a massive disservice.” Here’s a gift version of the article; judge for yourself, and do scan the scathing comments.

Why does The Times too often normalize Trump like this, even now? Readers, your thoughts? Let me know. I have some theories, hinted at above and probably to be further developed in a separate post.

Separately, I want to share with you my Q&A with a remarkable person I met last week who has useful insight into what’s happening in the United States. Stefania Kapronczay — who is living in New York City as an Obama Foundation Scholar at Columbia University — is a Hungarian attorney who spent more than a decade directing the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. As you probably know, Hungary’s fragile democracy has been backsliding into authoritarianism under Viktor Orban, the prime minister.

After we chatted on campus in person, Stefania responded by email to my questions. I’ve boldfaced some sections I thought particularly germane.

1. What similarities do you see between the current political situation in the U.S. and what you have experienced in Hungary? What differences? What has your reaction been?

It feels very familiar, though the rapid pace and all-encompassing nature of the overhaul in the U.S. make my head spin. In Hungary, the first four years of the Orbán government focused on restructuring the constitutional system—adopting a new constitution, curbing the jurisdiction of independent institutions, and filling them with political loyalists. While the first term included some "easter eggs," the second term concentrated on solidifying control over the media, sidelining independent civil society, and scapegoating minorities, especially migrants and LGBTQ people. Authoritarians follow a similar playbook.

In addition, what feels similar—and why we must prepare for a long game—is the widespread disillusionment with democracy and the political system itself. A 2022 New York Times poll revealed that six in ten people believe the constitutional order needs major reforms. In 2023, Pew Research found that only 4% of Americans think the political system is working very well. Data shows democracies often fail to alleviate inequality, which is a major concern for most people. The dissatisfaction with "the way things were" points directly to inequality as a driving force.

However, there are two key factors in America that can serve as leverage. Its vibrant civic culture and long tradition of public participation. While under threat, the U.S. system of checks and balances remains complex, multi-layered and not easily dismantled.

2. Why is it so important for authoritarian-leaning politicians to try to control the message?

They aim to control every aspect of life—government institutions to centralize power, citizens’ bodies, and public opinion through narratives. Controlling the message is about shaping public perception, even by defining what constitutes legitimate political action. It’s part of an "us vs. them" strategy: actions aligned with their political views are deemed legitimate, while those that challenge or hold them accountable are branded as illegitimate. Authoritarian-leaning politicians not only want to control the message but oversimplify it as well.

3. How should the reality-based press respond to this movement?

Building on my earlier point, it’s crucial not to let authoritarian leaders dominate the narrative. In Hungary, I witnessed how the government’s mastery of controlling the news cycle led to limited capacity for journalists to report beyond what the prime minister said each day. Calling out lies is essential—but even more important is exploring why those lies resonate with people. During Trump’s first presidency, Amanda Ripley wrote about “Complicating the Narrative.” I think journalists could achieve this by being on the ground, listening to people and identifying common threads without giving into simplicity.

Another recommendation is not giving up on reaching new audiences. Of course, I want to acknowledge the challenges such as declining viewership or reduced attention spans due to social media trends. Collaboration among journalists and news outlets may be a tactic to help cover a broader range of topics from diverse perspectives.

A successful example, Partizán—a Hungarian independent online YouTube channel and news site—reached hundreds of thousands of viewers (in a country of 10 million) and gained support from tens of thousands of Hungarians. Despite justified concerns about media freedom in Hungary, Partizán has produced important reports and discussions about societal trends, often reporting from the ground. I strongly believe it contributed to creating a political environment in which a viable contender of Viktor Orban’s power could rise.

Finally—and most importantly—compromising principles will not save you. If you compromise enough for the authoritarian-leaning politicians to leave you alone, you risk becoming a mouthpiece for those in power. At that point, it’s no longer a compromise; it’s surrender.

4. How should citizens respond—and why?

It’s impossible to follow everything happening at once; trying to do so leads to overwhelm—which is part of their tactic. My advice is to pick one or two issues that matter most to you and follow them closely. Find carefully crafted newsletters or resources on those topics that offer nuanced analysis. This way you can avoid fear or panic taking over. I also recommend supporting journalists, media outlets, or organizations that provide thoughtful analysis or work on your chosen issue—whether financially or through volunteer efforts.

Do not obey in advance—and encourage others not to either. Authoritarian leaders rely on fear and compliance with assumed intentions to avoid risks. Self-censorship is a real danger here. Citizens can reach out to elected officials, but also to friends working in companies or their schools’ principal—encouraging them not to self-censor while offering community support.

Mass protests may not be effective right now unless they’re embedded into broader strategies aimed at reaching new audiences (and supported by political actors who can channel public anger). Instead, localized community actions have value. I advocate for this approach not because of the urgent need for support, but because it provides an opportunity to engage with people who hold different views and work towards finding common ground. This goes against the divisive tactics of authoritarian politicians.

5. What progress were you able to make in your role at Hungarian Civil Liberties Union?

We’ve continued achieving success in certain types of litigation—for instance, protecting freedom of expression—even if we don’t secure full exoneration every time. Standing by citizen journalists facing legal repercussions helps counteract chilling effects.

At HCLU, we sought to understand what everyday people cared about most and why they felt disillusioned about the power of their rights. This led us to expand our focus beyond traditional civil liberties topics—for example, addressing access to social services alongside our usual issues.

In an environment where authoritarianism is on the rise, governments often chip away at the procedures that are supposed to protect democracy and rights. In Hungary, for example, the decline of judicial independence and the government's refusal to implement verdicts made our reliance on litigation less effective. Recognizing this limitation, we began treating litigation as one tool among many—including mobilization efforts, storytelling campaigns, grassroots collaboration, and advocacy work.

One example: we represented elderly mothers advocating for supported living housing for their adult children with disabilities rather than mass institutionalization far from home. Though we lost at Hungary’s Supreme Court (which refused to hold the state liable), our work helped these women hone their advocacy skills while raising awareness through media coverage. Ultimately, we secured an agreement with Budapest city officials for land where they could build supported housing—creating a model for others.

6. Do you think it is possible to reverse a slide into authoritarian government? What is necessary?

I think we have to prepare for the long-game. Even if the scenarios about a fall-out on the top or the midterms changing the power dynamics come true, the damage will be here and more importantly, the root causes will not change.

Accepting there are no quick-fixes can reduce urgency-driven pressure and allow us to focus on systemic solutions that address root causes over time instead of chasing immediate results. Patience and persistence are key tools in this fight against authoritarianism.

Readers, thanks so much for your interest and your support. Thanks, too, for your insightful comments, which I always read with appreciation. Welcome to many new subscribers to this newsletter which focuses on the intersection of journalism and democracy.

Taking Stefania’s excellent advice, let’s pledge to hang in there, with patience and persistence.

Leave a comment