As the Trump administration deepens its assault on constitutional rights and the rule of law, how can people effectively respond? Some people focus on political institutions, such as federal courts or opposition-led state governments, to act as bulwarks against autocracy. Others hope that Democrats will retake Congress in 2026—if the elections are sufficiently free and fair. Still others believe that Trump’s economic mismanagement or attacks on “third rails” like Social Security and Medicaid will undermine the administration’s support.
Yet many recognize that institutional and electoral levers alone may fall short. For that reason, there is a growing interest in how civil society and civil society organizations (CSOs)—that is, groups standing between the individual and state, including everything from chambers of commerce to community groups, environmental organizations, bowling leagues, and more—can restrain rising autocracy in the United States.
The consequences of civil society’s actions are thought to be quite far-reaching—from promoting democracy in developing societies to curing that which ails more developed ones, like individualism or political disengagement. Antonio Gramsci argued that in modern states the ruling class exerts dominance and leadership over the subordinate masses less through coercion and more on the consent of civil society—what he called “hegemony.”
Yet civil society can be an unwieldy concept. Its boundaries and specific strengths are sometimes left unclear. More worryingly, since the 1990s some scholars have argued that CSOs are in steep decline, with citizens increasingly content to go “bowling alone.” So, how exactly can civil society protect Americans from authoritarianism?
A framework known as the pillars of support can help answer this pressing question.
What Is a Pillar of Support?
Most closely associated with Robert L. Helvey, author of On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals, the pillars of support metaphor both enlarges the concept of civil society and provides a set of mechanisms that link social and political institutions to democratic resilience. Like the columns of a building, pillars are so named because they provide resources and legitimacy that hold up the “roof” of government.
Like the columns of a building, pillars [of support] are so named because they provide resources and legitimacy that hold up the “roof” of government.
Known for his work advising the 1990s Burmese pro-democracy movement, Helvey identified nine pillars—religious organizations, civil servants, police, military, media, youth, business, workers, and nongovernmental organizations—which, collectively, provide the state with coercive power, tax revenue, administrative expertise, and moral authority, among other things.
Before we move on, a few clarifications are in order. First, the pillars framework includes state institutions—notably the security forces—and employees, while CSOs are usually seen as independent of the state. However, many CSOs focus their energies on public policy. For example, unions may seek greater legal protection while businesses legally resist unionization. Second, the pillars of support can be internally quite diverse. The faith pillar includes countless denominations and sects, while the media includes public and private outlets with varying stances toward the government.
Both democratic and autocratic governments critically depend upon the pillars of support, especially as autocrats have increasingly come to power through free and fair elections, supplanting the previous importance of the military coup d’état.
Autocrats and would-be autocrats, in short, need a broad social base to secure and maintain power. Consider the historical importance of the business pillar in supporting Adolph Hitler and Augusto Pinochet, or the role that the faith pillar has played in supporting Viktor Orbán and Narendra Modi. Because almost everyone participates in one or more pillars—as workers, congregants, students, veterans, and so on—this affords them real influence over political outcomes.
If the pillars (or elements thereof) can be persuaded to “defect”—withdrawing or redirecting their support away from the incumbent government—then even the most authoritarian leaders will struggle to maintain their power and legitimacy.
Put another way, once the number of defections reaches a critical mass, the roof of government will collapse. Conversely, and following Helvey, “Until the [regime’s] primary pillars…are undermined, neutralized or destroyed, there is little prospect of political reform.”
During Myanmar’s 2007 Saffron Revolution, for example, students served as a key pillar of opposition to the military junta. Meanwhile, Buddhist monks defected from their previous position of support, refusing to accept spiritual offerings or engage in “merit-making” rituals to legitimize the junta. However, securing defections from other pillars proved difficult, arguably contributing to the revolution’s suppression.
Applying the Framework to the United States
To see how the pillars framework illustrates both the sources and fragility of US authoritarianism, consider Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. It is true that Hegseth wields significant institutional power as department secretary. At the same time, Hegseth, a former Army National Guard officer and arguably a Christian nationalist, derives significant support and legitimacy from the faith and veterans pillars. This includes not only religious and veterans’ organizations that actively support him, but also those who remain silent in the face of his misconduct.
Autocrats have increasingly come to power through free and fair elections.
Countering Hegseth will thus require action on multiple fronts: public oversight and accountability measures to formally check the abuse of power, visible speech and action from anti-MAGA elements of the faith and veterans’ pillars, and defections from people in pro-MAGA pillars. Such efforts would serve to undermine Hegseth’s standing as a “legitimate” Christian or patriot.
More generally, thinking in terms of the pillars of support underscores the diversity of Trump’s social base and points to where pushback may be most effective.
Much attention has focused on disaggregating the business pillar into its technological, financial, industrial, and energy segments. And indeed, the administration’s tariff and anti-immigrant policies have already weakened business unity.
Similar scrutiny should be applied to the faith pillar—not only Evangelical Baptists but nondenominational Evangelicals, Pentecostals, conservative Catholics, Latter-day Saints, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus.
The security pillar must also be disaggregated into the military and police, opaque agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and informal militias that intimidate the administration’s opponents. Of course, encouraging anti-authoritarian action—let alone defections—from some of these elements will be unlikely. This points to the imperative of identifying receptive actors and audiences within each pillar.
What exactly can members of the various pillars do to resist autocracy? To answer this, it is crucial to look for inspiration both outside of the United States and across US history.
Current authoritarian trends predate the Trump administration, especially in Republican-controlled states that have undermined voting rights since 2013, not to mention the persistence of Jim Crow in the US South from the post-Reconstruction period through the early 1970s. And across the world, different pillars have recently resisted the actions of (would-be) autocrats in places as diverse as Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Bolivia, and South Korea—often through collective action, noncooperation, and the forging of cross-pillar coalitions.
How Does Civil Society Resistance Work in Practice?
This sounds promising, but to better understand the dynamics of effective resistance, a team of researchers with the Horizons Project and Johns Hopkins University’s Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute compiled more than 40 historical and contemporary case studies of pro-democracy action.
The cases span over 15 countries—both democracies and autocracies—across five pillars of support: businesses, unions, security forces and veterans, professional associations (such as nonprofits), and faith organizations.
This formula—size, diversity, and tactical innovation—can overwhelm autocrats and their supporters, frustrate attempts to neutralize…dissent, and encourage defections.
Each case illustrates the unique power and legitimacy that different pillars can wield as well as their ability to undermine authoritarian leaders and movements. For example, in Poland, bishops have criticized the right-wing Law and Justice Party’s (PiS) illiberal, anti-immigrant policies as “lacking the spirit of Christ.” Polish judges responded to efforts to forcibly retire them by hosting teach-ins at schools, nurseries, and rock festivals, drawing attention to how the erosion of judicial autonomy harms democracy.
In Germany, businesses have criticized the far-right Alternative for Germany Party’s (AfD’s) anti-immigrant policies as harming the macroeconomy, while also running weekly pro-democracy advertisements in local newspapers and hosting trainings for employees on topics like misinformation. My August 2024 report summarizes key findings from this research.
Both domestically and internationally, pro-democracy action across the pillars of support has involved a wide array of creative tactics—not only protests, strikes, and boycotts, but other established (if less well-known) methods like judicial noncooperation, deliberate inefficiency by enforcement agents, and the overloading of administrative systems. These latter tactics will be essential for resisting the Trump administration’s efforts to override court rulings, withhold congressionally appropriated funds, and eliminate governmental departments and agencies.
Ultimately, successful pro-democracy movements have built large and diverse coalitions, while deploying a range of tactics. This formula—size, diversity, and tactical innovation—can overwhelm autocrats and their supporters, frustrate attempts to neutralize specific forms of dissent, and encourage defections among holdouts who recognize that the momentum has shifted against them.
In the United States, this formula has a high chance of yielding success both because a clear majority of Americans do not support authoritarianism and because Trump’s social base—while somewhat expanded in 2024—remains relatively narrow, drawing disproportionately from White, Christian, and rural voters.
Addressing the Challenges
Saying that the chances to avoid an authoritarian triumph in the United States are good does not mean that restraining authoritarianism is easy.
Building a broad, cross-pillar coalition for democracy is highly likely to be a difficult and risky endeavor. As the Los Angeles protesters have seen, one risk is state repression. However, repression can backfire, increasing public sympathy and protest turnout, and further undermining the Trump administration’s legitimacy. Misinformation—for example, false claims that recent mass action has been violent—poses an additional challenge. Those who expose the administration’s authoritarian abuses may be dismissed or discredited by their peers, making it harder to build mass support.
Defection away from the MAGA movement will itself carry significant costs, likely being viewed as a serious violation—even treasonous—by members of one’s “in group.” It is additionally difficult to be a “first mover” who defects before others.
Saying that the chances to avoid an authoritarian triumph in the United States are good does not mean that restraining authoritarianism is easy.
More generally, there is no unified movement for defectors to join. Indeed, pro-democracy efforts to date remain somewhat fragmented. Organizations disagree about the nature of the threat Trump poses as well as strategies for resisting it.
Similarly, many perceive mainstream political parties or specific CSOs as unable to meet the authoritarian challenge. All of this creates uncertainty about whether pro-democracy action will be successful.
In spite of these challenges, strategic, coordinated action across the pillars of support has succeeded in undermining or ousting authoritarian governments that have been far more repressive than the Trump administration.
Effective resistance will require more than just faith in US institutions or electoral outcomes. It will require innovative and often courageous action—not only from judges, legislators, and governors—but from business leaders, police chiefs, nonprofits, pastors, and many others.
As Gramsci argued, the task is to build a “counter-hegemonic” movement, one that directs its attention not only at the authoritarian state but at its “wider system of defenses.” Domestic and international movements have defeated authoritarians by undermining their power and legitimacy, pillar by pillar. Americans, too, have the capacity to not only resist Trump’s authoritarianism but to build a more inclusive and democratic polity.
