The political trajectory of the United States under former President Donald Trump bears striking resemblances to the illiberal transformation witnessed in Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Far from isolated incidents, Trump’s actions often echo a well-established “playbook” of consolidating power and eroding democratic norms, a strategy perfected by Orban in his pursuit of an “illiberal Christian democracy.” This emerging pattern demands critical examination, offering a potential blueprint for understanding the future challenges facing US democracy.
Orban’s rise in Hungary provides a chilling precursory example of this authoritarian playbook. Capitalizing on the Syrian refugee crisis in 2011, he skillfully transformed a humanitarian issue into an existential threat, demonizing migrants as an “Islamic invasion” to galvanize Hungarian nationalism to xenophobic heights. This strategic manipulation of public fear for political gain finds clear echoes in Donald Trump’s rhetoric, particularly his warnings of an “invasion” at the U.S. border, demonstrating a shared understanding of leveraging fear to unify a base and control the narrative.
A core element of this political strategy involves fabricating external threats to distract citizens while quietly weakening internal democratic checks and balances. Both leaders have demonstrated a penchant for undermining legislative and judicial authorities, alongside reducing the operational budgets of critical government agencies. This calculated erosion of institutional power, often rationalized by the claim that democratic governments are too slow or bureaucratic, is a hallmark of the illiberal democracy model championed by Orban and seemingly adopted by Trump.
Beyond domestic maneuvers, both Orban and Trump have displayed a shared skepticism towards international alliances and longstanding diplomatic frameworks. Despite Hungary benefiting from organizations like the European Union and NATO, Orban increasingly portrays their guidelines as infringements on national sovereignty. Similarly, Donald Trump has consistently questioned and even dismantled provisions of established treaties and trade agreements, arguing they impede American interests. The U.S. withdrawal of allegiance from the International Criminal Court, following Hungary’s lead, further underscores this parallel in abandoning global cooperation.
Another disturbing parallel lies in the systematic quashing of dissent and critical voices, particularly within educational institutions. Orban’s slow strangulation of the Central European University in Budapest, founded by George Soros, through bureaucratic regulations, forced its relocation. While a physical move is impossible for American universities, institutions like the University of Virginia, Harvard, and Columbia have faced significant pressure and attacks under the Trump administration, leading to resignations, fines, and restrictions on academic freedom, mirroring Orban’s tactics to control intellectual discourse.
Furthermore, the control of historical narratives and public information is a shared component of this authoritarian playbook. Trump’s instructions to institutions like the Smithsonian and the National Park Service to remove exhibits or website content that challenges a predetermined “patriotic” narrative reflects Orban’s broader efforts to curate a historical memory that supports his nationalist agenda. This deliberate expurgation of complex or inconvenient truths signals a desire to shape public understanding through selective historical representation, bolstering a specific ideological viewpoint.
The deep affinity Donald Trump evidently holds for Viktor Orban is not merely anecdotal; it is a profound ideological alignment that has translated into tangible policy approaches within the White House. Understanding Orban’s strategies in Hungary, particularly his success in establishing an illiberal democracy through systematic consolidation of power, offers a critical lens through which to forecast the potential future direction of the United States. Observing Hungary provides an invaluable insight into the consequences of adopting such a nationalist and executive-driven political strategy.
