The US currently has a president who tries to be a dictator, but that's not the same thing. And it has a congress that doesn't bother to check the president, but that's still not a dictatorship. And, as someone who lives in the US, the difference really matters.
The difference between this and a real dictatorship is the courts. If we lose that, we're in trouble.
Does it though? If it quacks like a dictator and everybody lets him, it sounds like a dictatorship to me. Are you waiting for him to say "I declare this government to be a dictatorship" for it to be official? When the courts either ignore his illegal executive orders or make them legal, will you just say "well it's legal so not a dictatorship"? The red line you have in mind doesn't exist, because dictatorships are insidious.
We don’t have to lose the courts to be in trouble, especially when the executive simply flouts inconvenient court orders with impunity.
We have a functional dictatorship with institutions which on paper have the authority and responsibility for constraining it which are either inactive because they tacitly support both the goals and dictatorial methods of the dictatorship (Congress) or too often, but not entirely, ineffective when they act (the courts). The difference between this and strongly-established dictatorship without a surviving formal basis for constraint is small and, historically, sometimes crossed rapidly and with very little additional warning.
If you mean that he's succeeded in making what he wanted happen despite the court order, then not so fast. We're still thrashing through the process of determining whether he will succeed in doing that.
I agree that he is dangerously close to running over the last remaining checks and balances.
How many times can the Republicans "stop time" on appeals to executive orders?
They've already done this once to stop dead appeals to the courts in regards the "emergency tariff" executive orders with a simple rider to declare that "Each day [..] shall not constitute a calendar day" and thus bypassing a constraint that demanded an appeal be heard within a fixed number of calendar days.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358343
Is there no limit to checking the legal checks and balances and rendering them moot?
That ‘yet’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting, really. For practical purposes he can’t be removed from office. Like, at this point, it’s hard to come to any conclusion but that the system has failed.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judg...
I concur that there is still, barely, a difference between this and a dictatorship. But it's really, really, really tiny, and can vanish on a moment's notice. We're "in trouble" now.
They already ignored a judges's order https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judg...
A republic is an empire of laws, not men.
This executive is insisting he doesn't have to follow laws he doesn't personally like. A retroactive veto. It's contrary to the oath of office, and the duty to uphold the law. It's stated in the text.
This Congress is already merely decoration, serving an emperor, not their state's interests.
We have many examples of dictatorships with functioning courts.
The Legislature creates the laws.
The Judicial interprets those laws.
The Executive carries out and acts on those laws.
It doesn't matter what the courts say if no one is willing to enforce it, or actively tries not to.
This eventually leads to a "make me" moment, such as when DOGE showed up and physically started pushing people out.
Ultimately this is a "the state is the monopoly of violence" discussion, which is the ultimate form of "make me". If no one is enforcing a court ruling, then someone will have to step up, to either carry it out, or to compel the Executive to do so.
Trump admin has ignored judge's orders regarding deportation. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-ignores-judges-order-b...
Trump and his partners are already ignoring the courts, so by your own definition we're in big trouble.