The Shifting Landscape of Dissent: Public Expression, Fear, and Political Climate in the Trump Era

by Gemini Advanced, Deep Research with 2.5 Pro. Warning, LLMs may hallucinate!

Introduction

The presidency of Donald Trump has been characterized by a distinct and often confrontational style of politics, eliciting strong reactions across the American public sphere. A central question emerging in the contemporary political landscape concerns the nature and volume of public dissent directed towards the Trump administration and its associated political movement. Specifically, has the level of criticism from influential figures – including celebrities, politicians across the spectrum, and prominent scientists – shifted between the first Trump administration (2017-2021) and the current period, marked by his return to the presidency in 2025?¹ This report investigates this question, focusing particularly on the hypothesis that a climate of fear, driven by potential repercussions ranging from professional harm to threats of violence, is significantly influencing the willingness of these public figures to voice opposition.

The health and accountability of any democracy rely heavily on the open exchange of ideas and the freedom to dissent. Public figures, by virtue of their visibility and influence, play a crucial role in shaping public discourse and holding power accountable. A perceived quieting of dissent, especially if driven by fear, could signal an erosion of democratic norms and a chilling of essential political expression. The context is further complicated by the unprecedented nature of a former president returning to office following a period marked by intense political polarization, contested election results, and the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.²Understanding the dynamics of dissent in this environment is therefore critical for assessing the state of American democracy.

This report aims to achieve several objectives:

1. Document and compare the patterns of public dissent from celebrities, politicians, and scientists during the 2017-2021 Trump term versus the current period (post-2021, including the 2024 election cycle and the start of the second term in 2025, as reflected in available data).

2. Analyze documented evidence of threats, harassment, violence, and other negative repercussions faced by critics of the Trump administration and its political movement.

3. Evaluate the specific role of fear in potentially suppressing dissent, weighing it against other contributing factors such as political polarization, normalization of rhetoric, strategic calculations, media shifts, party consolidation, and public opinion dynamics.

4. Provide a nuanced analysis of the current climate for political expression concerning the Trump movement.

5. Offer evidence-based recommendations derived from expert opinions and documented strategies for fostering open discourse, protecting dissenters, and enhancing democratic resilience.

The analysis presented herein relies on the synthesis of information drawn from news reports, academic analyses, polling data, and statements from relevant organizations and individuals, focusing on identifying trends, patterns, and potential causal relationships within the complex socio-political environment surrounding the Trump presidency. This report will proceed by first establishing a baseline of dissent during the 2017-2021 period (Section 1), then examining the current landscape (Section 2), followed by an analysis of the climate of intimidation (Section 3), and an exploration of the multiple factors influencing public expression (Section 4). Finally, it will offer a concluding assessment of the role of fear (Section 5) and provide actionable recommendations (Section 6).

Section 1: The Landscape of Dissent (2017-2021)

The first term of the Trump administration (2017-2021) was characterized by a high volume of public criticism emanating from diverse sectors of American society. This period established a baseline of widespread and often vocal opposition, providing a crucial point of comparison for analyzing subsequent trends in dissent.

Celebrity Criticism

Figures from the entertainment industry, including actors, musicians, and athletes, were notably outspoken critics during Trump's first term. Their dissent was frequently expressed through high-profile platforms such as awards shows, social media, interviews, and organized campaigns. Meryl Streep, during her 2017 Golden Globes acceptance speech, delivered a widely discussed critique, implicitly labeling Trump a bully whose actions invite disrespect and violence.⁵ Actress Jennifer Lawrence stated that a Trump presidency "will be the end of the world," while pop star Madonna described his election as being "stuck in a nightmare".⁵

Organized efforts also emerged, such as director Joss Whedon's "Save the Day" video campaign, which featured numerous celebrities like Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, and Robert Downey Jr. indirectly criticizing Trump and urging voter participation.⁵ Cheadle, in the video, warned against "a racist, abusive coward who could permanently damage the fabric of our society".⁵ Comedian Sarah Silverman drew parallels between Trump and Adolf Hitler ⁵, while actress Elizabeth Banks mocked his rhetoric by comparing it to her character in "The Hunger Games".⁵ Other prominent figures like Stephen Curry, Miley Cyrus, and Lena Dunham also voiced strong opposition.⁵

Musicians frequently objected to the use of their work at Trump campaign events, viewing it as an unwelcome endorsement. Adele requested her music not be used, later endorsing Hillary Clinton.⁶ Steven Tyler of Aerosmith sent cease and desist letters over the use of "Dream On" and "Livin' on the Edge".⁶ Bruce Springsteen similarly opposed the use of "Born in the U.S.A." and campaigned for Clinton.⁶ These actions underscore a pattern of celebrities leveraging their platforms to express disapproval, often focusing on Trump's perceived character flaws (bullying, racism, divisiveness) and the potential negative impact of his rhetoric and policies on society and democratic values.⁵

Political Opposition

Political opposition during Trump's first term was robust and multifaceted, extending beyond typical inter-party disagreement to include significant dissent from within the Republican party and among former administration officials.

Democrats and Independents: Democratic politicians consistently opposed the Trump administration's agenda across numerous fronts. Key policy battles included attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) ⁸, the 2017 tax cuts perceived as favoring corporations ⁹, environmental deregulation ¹⁰, and controversial immigration policies such as the ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority countries ⁸ and family separations at the border. Congressional Democrats utilized oversight powers, sending letters demanding information and accountability on issues ranging from the politicization of government data access to the impact of executive orders on infrastructure funding and international aid programs like USAID.⁸ Concerns were frequently raised about actions perceived as undermining the rule of law, such as the firing of FBI Director James Comey during the Russia investigation ¹³ and attacks on the Department of Justice.⁸ Congress passed several joint resolutions expressing disapproval of administration policies, such as arms sales to Saudi Arabia or the use of military force in Iran and Yemen, though these were often met with presidential vetoes.¹⁴ Bipartisan opposition occasionally surfaced, for example, against proposed cuts to USAID, citing risks to national security and global stability.¹²

Republicans and Conservatives: Perhaps more unusually, the 2017-2021 period saw significant and organized opposition from within the Republican party and the broader conservative movement, often referred to as the "Never Trump" movement.¹⁵ This dissent began during the 2016 campaign and persisted throughout the presidency. Figures like Senator Mitt Romney and Representative Liz Cheney became prominent intra-party critics.¹⁵ A wide array of conservative commentators (Max Boot, David Brooks, George Conway, David French, Jennifer Rubin, Bret Stephens), former officials, and political strategists (Steve Schmidt, Stuart Stevens, Mike Murphy, Rick Wilson) publicly opposed Trump, often forming organizations like The Lincoln Project to actively campaign against him.¹⁵ Their criticisms frequently centered on Trump's character, his perceived deviation from conservative principles, his inflammatory rhetoric ("xenophobia, race-baiting and religious bigotry" according to Lindsey Graham in 2016 ¹⁵), and concerns about his fitness for office and potential damage to democratic institutions.⁷ Some Republican governors, such as Charlie Baker (Massachusetts), Larry Hogan (Maryland), and Phil Scott (Vermont), also expressed opposition or withheld support.¹⁶ Theologian Wayne Grudem, who initially supported Trump, later articulated concerns while still acknowledging policies he favored.¹⁷ This intra-party dissent, while not representing the majority of the GOP base, constituted a notable feature of the political landscape during Trump's first term.¹⁵

Former Trump Administration Officials: Criticism also emerged from individuals who had served within the Trump administration. Omarosa Manigault Newman, former Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison, published a critical book, "Unhinged," and released secretly recorded tapes from her time in the White House.¹⁹High-ranking national security and defense officials, including National Security Advisors John Bolton and H.R. McMaster, Secretaries of Defense Mark Esper and Jim Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, became critics after leaving their positions.¹³ Their critiques often focused on issues of competence, character, decision-making processes, and specific policy choices, such as the withdrawal of troops from Syria which prompted Mattis's resignation.¹⁹

Scientific Community Dissent

The scientific community mobilized significant opposition to the Trump administration, driven by concerns over attacks on scientific integrity, budget cuts targeting research (particularly climate and environmental science), perceived censorship, politically motivated personnel changes, hindrance of research activities, and the misrepresentation or dismissal of scientific evidence.²¹

Specific actions that drew condemnation included the temporary suspension of EPA grants and contracts immediately after the inauguration ²⁷, the cancellation of a CDC summit on climate and health ²⁷, gag orders preventing USDA and EPA employees from communicating with the public or press ²⁷, the imposition of political review over EPA scientific work ²⁷, and the removal of climate change information from State Department and other federal websites.²⁴ The administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change and its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including reported pressure on the CDC regarding its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWR) ²⁵, were also major points of contention.²⁸

Scientists and scientific organizations responded through various means. Nearly 2,000 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine signed an open letter warning that the "nation's scientific enterprise is being decimated" by administration policies, citing censorship and a "climate of fear".²² The 2017 March for Science saw large-scale public demonstrations globally protesting threats to science.²⁹ Organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Environmental Data Governance Initiative meticulously tracked and reported on administration actions deemed harmful to science, documenting hundreds of instances of alleged political interference, censorship, and data manipulation.²⁴Surveys of federal scientists indicated a chilling effect, with many reporting political considerations hindering science-based decisions and feeling unable to speak freely.²⁵

The dissent observed during the 2017-2021 period was notable for its sheer breadth, crossing traditional political divides and encompassing cultural and scientific domains often less involved in partisan politics. The participation of prominent Republicans, former administration insiders, and large segments of the scientific community alongside Democrats and celebrities suggests that the opposition was driven by perceptions that the Trump presidency represented a significant departure from established political, social, and scientific norms.⁵ While policy disagreements were certainly present, a recurring theme across these diverse groups was a fundamental concern about Trump's character, his rhetoric, his respect for democratic institutions and processes (including the role of science in policy), and his overall fitness for office.⁵ This focus on norms and character, rather than solely on policy specifics, helps explain the unusually wide-ranging nature of the dissent during his first term.

Section 2: Dissent in the Current Era (Post-2021 / 2024-2025)

Assessing the landscape of public dissent in the period following Donald Trump's first term – encompassing the lead-up to the 2024 election, his victory, and the initial phase of his second term beginning in 2025 (as depicted in available sources) – reveals both continuities and significant shifts compared to the 2017-2021 baseline. While opposition remains strong in certain sectors, particularly among Democrats and the scientific community, the nature and visibility of dissent, especially within the Republican party, appear to have changed.

Continuing Celebrity Criticism

Criticism from the entertainment world has persisted into the current era, though its prominence in media narratives may fluctuate. Musicians continue to object to the unauthorized use of their songs at Trump events, with ABBA, Beyoncé, and Celine Dion joining the list of artists demanding their music not be associated with his campaign or presidency.⁶ Following Trump's 2024 election victory, a number of high-profile celebrities, including Cher, Sophie Turner, America Ferrera, Billie Eilish, Ariana Grande, and Christina Applegate, publicly expressed dismay and suggested they might leave the United States.³² Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel also joked about leaving the country.³² These reactions echo the sentiments expressed by some celebrities during the first term.⁵ The substance of the criticism often remains focused on Trump's perceived negative impact on the country, women's rights, and general decency.³² However, it is also notable that Trump rallies continue to feature celebrity endorsements, such as Hulk Hogan's appearance at Madison Square Garden ³³, indicating that celebrity opinion remains divided, albeit seemingly skewed towards opposition. Whether the overall volume or intensity of celebrity dissent has decreased compared to the first term is difficult to definitively measure without comprehensive tracking, but the pattern of opposition from prominent figures clearly continues.⁶Studies comparing media use and political learning among Trump supporters versus voters influenced by celebrity endorsements suggest complex dynamics at play, where entertainment motivations may drive engagement more than a desire to be informed.³⁴ Trump's own persona has been analyzed as that of a "celebrity-in-chief" who intentionally disrupts political norms.³⁵

Shifts in Political Opposition

The dynamics of political opposition show more pronounced changes compared to the first term, particularly regarding dissent within the Republican party.

Democrats: Democratic opposition remains consistently strong and vocal. Criticism focuses heavily on perceived threats to democratic institutions and the rule of law, the implementation of policies associated with Project 2025, and specific actions taken during the second term.¹² Concerns include efforts to politicize the Department of Justice ³⁶, undermine voting rights ³⁶, dismantle federal agencies like the Department of Education ¹², impose controversial immigration policies like mass deportations ³⁸, implement broad tariffs ⁴⁰, and cut funding for science and environmental protection.³⁷ Democrats express deep disapproval in public opinion polls ⁴² and show little appetite for compromise, prioritizing standing up to Trump over working with him.⁴² Organizations like the ACLU are actively challenging administration actions through legal means and public advocacy, particularly concerning free speech on campuses and the use of immigration status to suppress dissent.⁴⁵

Republicans and Conservatives: This is where the most significant shift appears. While some established Republican critics continue to oppose Trump – including figures like Liz Cheney ¹⁸, Mitt Romney ¹⁵, Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Todd Young ²⁰, and Vermont Governor Phil Scott (who endorsed Nikki Haley and voted for Kamala Harris) ²⁰ – the broader "Never Trump" movement seems to have lost momentum or visibility.¹⁵ Many former Republican critics have either fallen silent or reconciled with Trump's leadership.¹⁵ Polling data indicates significantly higher approval ratings for Trump among Republicans at the start of his second term compared to his first, suggesting increased party unity and consolidation around him.⁴² While 67% of Republicans support most or all of Trump's policies, a majority (55%) still believe GOP representatives are not obligated to support him if they disagree, suggesting some space for internal dissent, though it is less frequently voiced publicly.⁴² Opposition often manifests as endorsements for alternative primary candidates (like Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, or Ron DeSantis) rather than outright rejection of Trump.¹⁸ Some policy-specific criticism persists, for example, regarding the economic impact of tariffs.⁴⁰ However, the overall landscape suggests a significant reduction in the scale and intensity of public dissent from within the Republican party compared to 2017-2021. This shift points towards a successful consolidation of Trump's influence over the party structure and base, making open criticism a riskier proposition for Republican politicians concerned about primary challenges or alienation from voters.⁴⁸ The internal party weakness and disorganization of business elites may have initially enabled Trump's rise, but his current dominance reflects a significant realignment within the GOP.⁵⁰

Former Trump Administration Officials: Criticism from former officials continues, with figures like John Bolton, Mark Esper, and John Kelly remaining vocal opponents.²⁰Some, like Sarah Matthews, Omarosa Manigault Newman, and Anthony Scaramucci, went so far as to endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.²⁰ However, the impact of these critiques may be lessened compared to the initial wave of departures during the first term, potentially due to familiarity or the changed political context where such dissent is less surprising. Dozens of former Trump cabinet officials reportedly declined to publicly support his 2024 bid.²⁰

Scientific Community Concerns

Concerns within the scientific community appear not only to persist but to have potentially intensified in the current era. This is driven by the perceived implementation of anti-science agendas outlined in plans like Project 2025 ²⁶ and specific actions taken early in the second term.

The focus of concern includes drastic budget cuts affecting agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ²³; widespread firings of federal scientists and staff ²³; censorship and suppression of research findings, particularly related to climate change, public health threats (like measles or bird flu), and mRNA vaccine technology ²⁴; the appointment of individuals perceived as hostile to science to key positions ⁵⁶; and broader threats to scientific integrity and the independence of research.²² Specific examples include the cancellation of hundreds of NSF grants related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and misinformation research ⁴¹, instructions to NIH grant applicants to remove references to mRNA vaccines ⁵⁵, the halting of CDC MMWR publications ⁵⁴, the elimination of EPA's research arm ⁵³, the removal of climate data from federal websites ²⁴, and the rescission of the NIH scientific integrity policy.⁵⁴

Scientists are responding with continued public advocacy, including open letters ²², organized marches like the "Stand Up For Science" movement ²⁹, and seeking legal support.⁵⁷ There are explicit reports of a "climate of fear" within the scientific and academic communities, with researchers expressing concerns about professional retaliation, loss of funding, and the impact on their staff and labs.²² This persistent and potentially heightened level of concern suggests that the scientific community perceives the threats to its enterprise as existential, transcending typical political or electoral cycles.²³ The perceived assault is not just on specific policies but on the very infrastructure and norms of scientific research in the US.²³

Comparative Analysis and Emerging Patterns

Comparing the two periods reveals distinct shifts. While Democratic, celebrity, and scientific dissent remains apparent, the most notable change is the diminished public opposition from within the Republican party. The organized "Never Trump" faction appears less influential, and party loyalty metrics suggest a consolidation of support around Trump.⁴² The reasons for dissent also show some evolution. While first-term critiques often focused broadly on character and norm violations, current dissent frequently targets specific second-term actions, the implementation of Project 2025, and perceived escalations in threats to democratic institutions and scientific integrity.¹²

Public opinion presents a complex backdrop. While polls show deep partisan divisions and concerns about specific administration policies like tariffs or the pace of change ⁴⁰, they also indicate that Trump's overall approval among Republicans is higher than during his first term, and immigration remains a relative strength for him.³⁹ This highlights a potential disconnect between the concerns driving elite dissent (particularly regarding democratic norms and scientific integrity) and the priorities or perceptions of segments of the broader public, especially within the Republican base.

Table 1: Comparative Summary of Public Dissent: Trump First Term (2017-2021) vs. Current Era (Post-2021/2024-2025)

Section 3: The Climate of Intimidation: Threats and Repercussions

Beyond shifts in the volume or focus of dissent, a crucial element in understanding the current environment for public expression is the prevalence and nature of threats, harassment, violence, and other negative repercussions faced by critics of the Trump administration and its political movement.

Continue reading here, due to post length constraints: https://p4sc4l.substack.com/p/report-the-shifting-landscape-of