Illiberation in US Society Under Trump’s Second Term (2025)

April 27, 2025

Introduction

By Grok under supervision of Dr. Williams

Illiberation, defined as a state of immobility, self-oppression, or internalized fear or silence due to actual or perceived threats, is a critical public health issue that manifests across various sectors in the United States in 2025 under President Donald Trump’s second term. This phenomenon, as described by Public Health Liberation, arises when individuals or collectives face conflicts with existential needs—such as employment, safety, or access to resources—leading to cognitive dissonance, moral injury, or complicity in harmful actions. In the current political climate, illiberation is evident among political leaders, business executives, federal workers, academics, and the general public, driven by fears of retaliation, both professional and personal. This report compiles instances from early 2025 news, supported by direct quotes, to illustrate how illiberation constrains discourse and impacts public health outcomes.

Conceptual Framework

Illiberation is characterized by an environmentally conditioned and internally maintained state where individuals normalize suffering, accept harm as inevitable, or engage in actions against their values due to fear of consequences. Unlike internalized oppression, which focuses on historically marginalized groups, illiberation is ubiquitous, affecting even those in positions of power. In the context of Trump’s second term, this manifests as fear of political, physical, or social repercussions, silencing dissent and limiting advocacy for equitable policies. This report examines illiberation across three key groups: political leaders, business leaders, and the general public, including activists and marginalized communities.

Methodology

The analysis draws on news articles and reports from early 2025, sourced from reputable outlets such as The Atlantic, POLITICO, The Guardian, The New York Times, NPR, and The Washington Post. The focus is on identifying instances where individuals or groups express fear, self-censorship, or silence due to the political environment under Trump’s administration. Specific quotes and anecdotes are prioritized to align with the user’s request for examples akin to Senator Lisa Murkowski’s admission of fear. The scope includes political leaders, business executives, and the public, ensuring a comprehensive view of illiberation’s impact.

Instances of Illiberation in 2025

Political Leaders

Republican politicians face significant pressure to align with Trump’s agenda, driven by fears of political and physical retaliation. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), speaking at a conference in Anchorage on April 14, 2025, admitted, “We are all afraid... I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real” (POLITICO). Her comments reflect a broader climate where GOP members fear consequences ranging from political ostracism to personal safety threats. Murkowski highlighted anecdotes of constituents and federal workers fired without notice, underscoring the pervasive anxiety.

Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) further corroborated this, stating in a February 2025 webinar, “I have a lot of friends who are Republicans... They are terrified of being the tallest poppy in the field... It’s their personal safety that they’re afraid of, and they have spouses and family members saying, ‘Do not do this, it’s not worth it, it will change our lives forever. We will have to hire around-the-clock security’” (The Guardian). Swalwell noted that public criticism from Trump or allies like Elon Musk can lead to life-altering threats, requiring significant security measures.

Specific cases include Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), who faced “credible death threats” when considering voting against Trump’s nominee Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary, ultimately supporting the nomination (Vanity Fair). Similarly, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) deleted an X post after Trump’s public dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, reflecting self-censorship to avoid backlash (The New York Times). These examples illustrate how fear of retaliation—both political and physical—leads to silence, aligning with illiberation’s definition of immobility and self-oppression.

Business Leaders

Business executives and CEOs are equally affected, particularly in response to Trump’s economic policies like tariffs. A public affairs operative stated, “There is zero incentive for any company or brand to be remotely critical of this administration” (POLITICO). This sentiment is driven by fears of being targeted, as seen in the case of Matthew Levatich, former CEO of Harley-Davidson, who was forced out after White House criticism during Trump’s first term (The Atlantic). Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale professor, noted that CEOs “fear being targeted and forced from their positions,” only willing to speak out if the market drops significantly, such as by 20% (The Atlantic).

Lobbyists and business leaders are advised to “soften their tone” and negotiate behind closed doors to avoid antagonizing the administration, which is perceived to maintain a “list” of critics (POLITICO). Despite economic concerns, no major trade group had filed litigation against Trump’s 10% baseline tariff on imported goods by April 2025, indicating a strategic choice to avoid public confrontation. However, an exception is Ford CEO Jim Farley, who criticized tariffs and secured a one-month pause on a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican cars, though this required direct engagement with Trump (The New York Times). This cautious approach reflects illiberation, where fear of professional repercussions leads to self-censorship and compliance.

Federal Workers and Academics

Federal workers and academics face similar pressures. Fired federal employees, worried about losing their homes, refuse to be quoted by name, fearing further repercussions (The New York Times). University presidents, concerned about losing millions in federal funding, remain silent on controversial issues. For example, Columbia University’s administration made concessions to avoid Trump’s executive orders, such as severing ties with the League of United Latin American Citizens (The Atlantic). A Columbia professor expressed reluctance to share critical thoughts via text or email, stating, “I better not. They may be reviewing it,” indicating fear of surveillance (The Guardian).

In contrast, Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University, publicly criticized Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric, supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives despite risks (The Washington Post). However, such voices are rare, with most academics and institutions practicing self-censorship to protect funding and operations, a clear manifestation of illiberation’s internalized fear.

General Public and Activists

The general public, including educators, scientists, and marginalized communities, experiences illiberation through fear of professional or social consequences. A high school history teacher, identified only as E., shared, “When students make connections to events in history that don’t frame the current administration in a positive light and then ask questions, it gives me pause. I’ve had to hold back, sometimes changing the subject abruptly, telling them that I can’t comment” (NPR). This self-censorship stems from fear of being reported via a new Department of Education online portal for complaints about diversity, equity, and inclusion lessons.

Scientists are scrubbing reports and grant applications of words banned by the administration, reflecting a broader chilling effect on academic freedom (NPR). Student activists, particularly those involved in protests, fear deportation, which limits their willingness to engage in public dissent (NPR).

Marginalized communities, such as transgender individuals, face heightened fear due to executive orders rolling back rights. May Anderson, a 29-year-old trans woman, stated, “I had expected that President Donald Trump would target transgender people upon taking office... Still, nothing prepared me for the breadth of anti-trans policies that Trump’s administration either proposed or enacted during his first days in office” (The Washington Post). This fear leads to proactive measures like expediting legal documents, but also to anxiety and a sense of powerlessness, aligning with illiberation’s concept of accepting harm as inevitable.

Public protests, such as those on April 19, 2025, in cities like Washington, D.C., and Miami, demonstrate resistance to Trump’s policies (NPR). However, the need for such actions highlights the underlying fear and the risks activists face, including potential legal or social repercussions. The ACLU has expressed concerns about Project 2025’s plans to target political adversaries and marginalized groups, noting that “fear is real” but urging resistance over despair (ACLU).

Public Health Implications

Illiberation has profound implications for public health. The fear of retaliation stifles advocacy for policies addressing health inequities, such as maintaining funding for federal health agencies or opposing environmental policy rollbacks. For instance, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and removal of climate reports from federal websites (TIME) could exacerbate health risks from climate-related disasters, yet fear prevents robust opposition. The psychological toll of living in a climate of fear—evidenced by Murkowski’s anxiety, Swalwell’s security costs, and public distress—contributes to moral injury and mental health challenges, aligning with illiberation’s impact on well-being.

This silence also affects marginalized communities disproportionately. Transgender individuals, facing policy-driven discrimination, may experience reduced access to healthcare, increasing health disparities. Teachers and scientists, unable to discuss critical issues freely, may limit public health education, hindering community resilience. The broader chilling effect on dissent, as noted by Harvard professor Steven Levitsky, risks an authoritarian slide, undermining democratic mechanisms that support public health equity (The New York Times).

Controversy and Counterarguments

The extent of fear and its legitimacy are debated. Some, like a University of Melbourne expert, argue that constitutional checks limit Trump’s power, suggesting fears of authoritarianism are overstated (Pursuit). A White House spokesperson claimed, “President Trump’s only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people” (Reuters). Critics on X, such as @kylenabecker, dismissed Murkowski’s fears as exaggerated, labeling her a “drama queen” (X Post). These perspectives suggest that fear may be politically motivated or overstated, complicating the narrative around illiberation. However, the consistent reports of anxiety and self-censorship across sectors indicate a significant impact, regardless of differing views.

Comparative Analysis

The following table summarizes key instances of illiberation, their details, quotes, and sources:

Discussion

Illiberation in 2025 under Trump’s second term is a pervasive issue, affecting political leaders, business executives, federal workers, academics, and the public. The fear of retaliation—whether through political ostracism, physical threats, professional consequences, or social harassment—creates a climate where dissent is stifled. Political leaders like Murkowski and Tillis demonstrate how even those in power experience illiberation, while business leaders’ silence on tariffs reflects strategic self-oppression to protect economic interests. Federal workers and academics, fearing loss of livelihood or funding, limit their engagement, and the public, including teachers and marginalized groups, faces daily constraints on free expression.

The controversy surrounding these fears highlights the complexity of illiberation. While some argue that constitutional checks and Trump’s focus on “success” mitigate concerns, the consistent reports of anxiety and self-censorship suggest a significant impact. The psychological and systemic effects align with illiberation’s definition, where fear leads to normalization of harm and acceptance of inequitable conditions. This has direct public health implications, as silenced voices cannot effectively advocate for health equity, mental health support, or environmental protections.

Conclusion

In 2025, illiberation manifests across US society under Trump’s second term, driven by a climate of fear and retaliation. From Senator Lisa Murkowski’s admission of anxiety to teachers’ self-censorship and transgender individuals’ fear of discrimination, the evidence points to a widespread state of immobility and silence. These instances underscore the need for research and action to address illiberation as a barrier to public health and democratic engagement. Encouraging safe spaces for dissent and protecting civil liberties, as urged by the ACLU and others, is crucial to overcoming this challenge and fostering a healthier public discourse.