Donald Trump has defended his hardline security policies, saying some Americans might prefer authoritarian leadership.
He also signed an order targeting flag-burning, drawing renewed criticism over his democratic credentials.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday, August 25, suggested that certain Americans might welcome authoritarian-style leadership as he defended his administration’s use of federal force in Washington, D.C., and his push to criminalize flag-burning.
Speaking during an 80-minute Oval Office briefing, Trump lashed out at critics and the media, arguing that his hardline measures on crime and immigration were not getting due recognition.
“They keep saying, ‘We don’t need him. Freedom, freedom. He’s a dictator.’ And many are saying, ‘Maybe a dictator isn’t so bad,’” Trump told reporters. He quickly clarified his stance, insisting: “I don’t see myself as a dictator. I’m not one. I’m simply a person with strong judgment and intelligence.”
The remarks stood out given Trump’s contentious history with democratic norms. After losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden, he falsely claimed widespread fraud and tried to overturn the outcome, actions that culminated in the January 6 Capitol riot. He had also previously remarked that he would act as a “dictator on day one” if re-elected, fueling accusations of autocratic ambitions.
Recently, Trump ordered the National Guard into Washington and assumed federal oversight of the city’s police, citing surging crime. He hinted at extending such measures to Democratic-led cities like Chicago and Baltimore, recalling his earlier decision to send troops into Los Angeles despite opposition from local leaders.
He specifically criticized Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, accusing him of obstructing federal security operations. “When our cities are in chaos and we step in, instead of being thanked, they call it a takeover of the Republic. That’s twisted thinking,” Trump said.
Trump also signed an executive order on Monday directing federal prosecutors to pursue flag-burning cases, a move that challenges a 1989 Supreme Court ruling protecting the act as free speech.
