Patterns of Kleptocracy
From the moment that he returned to the White House, Donald Trump and his administration have moved quickly and aggressively to make drastic—and often illegal—reforms to the federal government.
A clear pattern has emerged: the Trump administration is converting the US political system into a kleptocracy. A kleptocracy is a “government for thieves, by thieves,” instead of a “government for the people, by the people.”
We’ve seen this before.
Whether it’s Venezuela, Russia, or Equatorial Guinea, once kleptocracy takes hold, corruption and intimidation become how the country is run. The government no longer represents its people. Instead, the leader and his allies use the power of the government to make themselves richer. What was once unthinkable in the US at the start of Trump’s second term is getting more real every day. Treating what’s happening as “normal politics” allows kleptocracy to take root.
Explore the key elements of a kleptocracy and how the Trump administration’s actions follow these patterns.
Creating or maintaining loyalty-based patronage networks through bribes, pardons, favors, selective enforcement, coercion, or implicit threats. This includes using state resources or regulatory powers to reward allies and punish non-allies in ways that entrench personal power. This category requires a loyalty mechanism: a reward or punishment tied to political allegiance.
Actions that remove institutional independence without establishing or reinforcing loyalty networks fall under “Get rid of independent checks on power” (see next category for details). This category does not include media suppression, dismantling oversight bodies, or geopolitical coordination unless they directly maintain a patronage network.
Weakening or eliminating institutions designed to constrain executive power, such as courts, legislatures, inspectors general, civil service protections, watchdog agencies, or professional norms that ensure accountability. This includes actions that strip autonomy, authority, or oversight capacity from other levels of government (i.e. state, local, and independent agencies).
If the primary effect is reducing an institution’s ability to act independently of the executive, it is classified under this category, even if financial tools, threats, or political pressure are used. This is about removing oversight, not shaping public narratives or constructing patronage networks.
Intentionally amplifying social, cultural, or identity-based divisions to polarize the public, distract from corruption, or weaken collective action against the regime. This category captures societal polarization, not institutional weakening or foreign alignment.
Restricting, distorting, or dominating information flows, including suppressing independent media, retaliating against journalists or watchdogs, manipulating public data, or promoting state-aligned propaganda. This category centers on controlling the information environment. It also covers actions targeting data systems, information infrastructure, or public records when the purpose is to control, distort, or suppress information rather than to alter institutional power balances.
When an action concerns international broadcasting, foreign influence operations, or alignment with authoritarian propaganda, it falls under “Coordinate with kleptocrats abroad” instead.
Distorting the electoral process itself, including how votes are cast, counted, or translated into representation. This category focuses on interventions in the mechanics or rules of elections, such as manipulating voting procedures, districting, vote counting, or election administration. It does not include broader political persuasion, media control, or governance actions unless they directly target electoral mechanics.
Strengthening ties with foreign kleptocratic or authoritarian actors, including alignment on policy, economic arrangements, security cooperation, or diplomatic moves that enable kleptocratic practices at home or abroad. This category includes actions that weaken monitoring, enforcement, or transparency mechanisms related to foreign authoritarian states or international corruption. This includes foreign influence operations, sanctions policy, international broadcasting, or global anti-corruption frameworks. When the primary effect of an action concerns the United States’ posture toward foreign autocrats—even through domestic institutions—it will fall under this category.
This category excludes domestic patronage or media manipulation unless these actions directly relate to foreign kleptocratic coordination.