Rule by Crisis: Trumpism and the Attack on Democracy, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D. June 19, 2026

Rule by Crisis: Trumpism and the Attack on Democracy

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

June 19, 2026

Link to article

Darrell M. West’s 2022 Brookings Institution essay, “Trump is not the only threat to democracy,” upon which I build from yesterday's blog, reads today less like a warning than a framework for understanding what has now come to fruition. 

Written in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection, West’s central point was that Donald Trump represents an existential threat to democracy, but not the only one. The deeper danger lies in the political ecosystem—and echo chamber—that has learned from him, copied him, enabled him, and built governing machinery around authoritarian impulses (West, 2022).

West identified several interlocking threats: "copycat candidates, legal coups, a toxic information ecosystem, the decline of authoritative institutions, and the widespread prevalence of counter-majoritarianism in our political system" (West, 2022). Since Trump’s return to office, these dangers are no longer theoretical. They have become governing strategies. 

As The Washington Post reported, Trump’s first week back in power was designed to “flood the zone,” moving rapidly through executive actions, pardons, security-clearance revocations, and a detailed policy blueprint that reflected a far more organized operation than his first administration (Arnsdorf & Morse, 2025).

This is where Project 2025 matters. Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership gives institutional form to this anti-democratic project. It translates grievance into governance by pairing policy proposals with personnel pipelines, executive-branch restructuring, and a theory of presidential power that would make dissent within government difficult (Dans & Groves, 2023). The level of planning is all still quite chilling.

Even as Trump and his advisers attempted during the campaign to distance themselves from it, The Washington Post reported that several top officials in the incoming administration had ties to the Project 2025 coalition, including Stephen Miller, Russell Vought, and Tom Homan (Arnsdorf & Morse, 2025).

What we are witnessing, then, is not simply Trump’s personal grievance politics. It is the institutionalization of those grievances into executive action, budget policy, personnel decisions, ideological discipline, and attacks on the very institutions that make democratic accountability possible.

West’s warning about “legal coups” is especially important. The danger is not always dramatic. It can arrive through emergency declarations, executive orders, manipulated funding streams, attacks on courts, and legal theories that stretch presidential power beyond democratic limits. 

Trump’s executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship effectively placed a long-settled constitutional guarantee under direct challenge (Sacchetti et al., 2025). The Post has also reported that emergency powers have become central to Trump’s governing style, with critics warning that the administration is invoking crises to justify extraordinary executive authority (Bendavid, 2025).

The ill-fated Iran War—as we must all surely know by now—is another manifestation of this same anti-democratic pattern. This is not simply a foreign policy issue. It is a constitutional issue. Congress, not the president alone, holds the power to declare war. 

Yet Meyer & Alfaro (2026) reported that the House passed a war powers resolution seeking to push Trump to end a conflict that Congress had not authorized, while the Senate considered similar measures amid growing impatience over the administration’s unilateral conduct of the war. Days later, the Republican-led Senate rejected a resolution that would have blocked Trump from ordering further strikes on Iran, underscoring the degree to which congressional checks on war-making power have weakened under partisan pressure (Meyer, 2026).

That matters because democracy is not only about elections. It is also about whether constitutional limits mean anything when the executive branch claims emergency authority, bypasses Congress, and then dares the other branches to stop it. 

War concentrates power. It disciplines dissent. It shifts public attention away from domestic accountability. These are useful ploys for tyrants as these can be used to rally obedience, punish critics, and normalize rule by crisis. In this sense, the Iran War fits West’s warning about legal coups and emergency powers: authoritarianism often advances not by openly abolishing democracy, but by hollowing out the institutions that restrain executive power.

The attack on higher education fits squarely within West’s concern about the decline of authoritative institutions. Universities, news organizations, nonprofits, courts, think tanks, and professional associations are essential to democratic life because they produce knowledge, preserve evidence, hold power accountable, and teach people to think critically. That is precisely why they are under attack.

Notwithstanding Trump's Compact for higher education (Austin American-Statesman Editorial Board (2025), the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against universities makes this clear. 

Columbia University’s compliance with federal demands under threat of losing $400 million in federal funding generated widespread concern over academic freedom, shared governance, student protest rights, and government intrusion into curriculum (Powers & Brown, 2025). Columbia later reached a settlement with the Trump administration: the university agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government and $21 million to resolve related employment claims, while regaining access to much of its federal research funding—a resolution critics viewed as a dangerous precedent for federal coercion of universities (Office of the President, 2025; Reuters, 2025)

Harvard, by contrast, publicly resisted federal demands that reached into governance, hiring, admissions, DEI programming, student protest policy, and the intellectual life of the university. Federal officials responded in April 2025 by freezing billions in research funds. Although U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs later ruled the freeze unlawful and the administration reinstated grants and contracts previously awarded to Harvard, the Trump administration appealed the ruling and continued its broader legal campaign against the university (Raymond, 2025; Raymond & Stempel, 2026; also see Guardian Staff and Agencies).

The Widener Library at Harvard University, Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, in Cambridge, 

Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) via Associated Press

For those of us in Texas, none of this feels distant. We have already witnessed the state-level version of this same project through attacks on DEI, tenure, shared governance, ethnic studies, gender studies, and academic freedom. What is happening nationally under Trump is connected to what we have seen in Texas, Florida, and other states: the effort to narrow what can be taught, who can belong, which histories count, and which institutions are permitted to challenge power.

West also warned about attacks on the information ecosystem. Here, too, his concerns have been borne out. Trump’s escalating lawsuits against media organizations—including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the BBC, and others—must be understood not only as legal actions, but as intimidation strategies aimed at independent journalism (Wagner & Nover, 2026). A democracy cannot function when journalists are chilled, universities are threatened, lawyers are punished, and public servants are expected to demonstrate loyalty to a person rather than to the Constitution.

The attack on law firms is similarly alarming. The Washington Post has reported on executive orders targeting major law firms, including measures affecting contracts, security clearances, and access to federal buildings. These actions strike at the independence of the legal profession and the right to representation—both foundational to the rule of law (Berman & Stein, 2026). When lawyers fear representing disfavored clients, democracy itself is weakened.

Finally, West’s point about counter-majoritarianism remains crucial. The United States already has political structures that allow minority rule: the Electoral College, the Senate, gerrymandered districts, voter suppression, and a judiciary shaped by presidents who did not always win the popular vote. Trumpism exploits these structures. It does not need majority support to govern aggressively. It needs institutional leverage, fear, disinformation, and compliance.

This is why West’s essay remains so urgent. Trump is dangerous, but Trumpism is larger than Trump. It is a political infrastructure. It is a governing style. It is a movement that seeks to discipline universities, intimidate journalists, weaken courts, punish dissent, restrict voting, erase histories, bypass Congress, and turn public institutions into instruments of ideological control.

The work before us, then, is not only electoral. It is educational, institutional, legal, cultural, and moral. We must defend academic freedom, public education, independent journalism, voting rights, civil rights, Ethnic Studies, DEI, congressional war powers, and the right to dissent. We must refuse the normalization of intimidation. And we must insist that democracy is not simply the act of voting; it is the entire ecology of institutions, rights, knowledge, and public trust that makes self-government possible.

Darrell West warned us in 2022 that Trump was not the only threat to democracy. Today, we can see the full force of that warning. The threat is not only a man. It is a machinery. And naming that machinery clearly is part of how we begin to resist it.

References

Arnsdorf, I., & Morse, C. E. (2025, January 25). Trump’s first-week strategy: “Flood the zone.” Repeat. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/25/trump-week-one-flood-the-zone/

American-Statesman Editorial Board. (2025, October 30). Trump’s compact would put UT’s academic excellence at risk, Austin American-Statesman. https://www.statesman.com/opinion/editorials/article/editorial-trump-s-compact-put-ut-s-academic-21126977.php

Bendavid, N. (2025, June 9). For Trump, seizing emergency powers has become central to governing, The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/09/trump-emergencies-protests-deportations-tariffs/

Berman, M., & Stein, P. (2026, March 2). Justice Dept. abandons defense of orders targeting law firms. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/02/trump-law-firms-appeal/

Columbia University Office of the President. (2025, July 23). Resolution of federal investigations and restoration of the University’s research funding, Columbia University. https://president.columbia.edu/news/resolution-federal-investigations-and-restoration-universitys-research-funding

Dans, P., & Groves, S. (Eds.). (2023). Mandate for leadership: The conservative promise. Project 2025, The Heritage Foundation. https://www.mandateforleadership.org/

Guardian Staff and Agencies. (2025, April 14). Trump officials cut billions in Harvard funds after university defies demands,The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/trump-harvard-funding-freeze

Meyer, T. (2026, June 16). Senate rejects resolution to block Trump from further strikes on Iran, The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/16/senate-rejects-resolution-block-trump-further-strikes-iran/

Meyer, T. & Alfaro, M. (2026, June 4). House votes to block Trump from ordering more strikes on Iran, The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/03/house-passes-war-powers-resolution-push-trump-end-iran-war/

Powers, M., & Brown, C. (2025, March 24). Fallout from Columbia capitulation fuels fears about academic freedom, The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/03/24/fallout-columbia-capitulation-fuels-fears-about-academic-freedom/

Raymond, N. (2025, December 19). US appeals Harvard court victory on $2 billion funding freeze. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-harvard-court-victory-2-billion-funding-freeze-2025-12-19/

Reuters. (2025, July 24). White House touts Columbia deal, critics see dangerous precedent. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-touts-columbia-deal-critics-see-dangerous-precedent-2025-07-24/

Sacchetti, M., Hernández, A. R., & Lamothe, D. (2025, January 20). Trump signs executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship,The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/01/20/trump-immigration-executive-orders/

Wagner, L. & Nover, S. (2026, January 25). Trump has ramped up lawsuits against the media. Here’s where they stand, The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/01/25/trump-media-lawsuits/

West, D. M. (2022, July 25). Trump is not the only threat to democracy, Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-is-not-the-only-threat-to-democracy/

Why academic freedom challenges are dangerous for democracy Darrell M. West September 8, 2022 | Brookings

Friends,

I want to call attention to this important Brookings Press article by Darrell M. West on academic freedom and democracy. West’s central point is one we urgently need to take seriously in Texas: attacks on academic freedom are not only attacks on faculty or universities. They are attacks on democracy itself.

West argues that democracies require more than elections, rules, and courts. They also require a vibrant civil society and an independent knowledge sector where educators, researchers, journalists, nonprofit leaders, and students can ask hard questions, challenge authority, and engage evidence without fear of political punishment. 

When public officials begin dictating what can and cannot be taught, when scholars fear retaliation for their expertise, and when censorship becomes normalized, democratic life itself begins to erode.

That is precisely why the crisis at The University of Texas at Austin matters far beyond campus. SB 17, SB 18, the dismantling of DEI infrastructure, threats to tenure, weakened shared governance, and the consolidation of fields like Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, African and African Diaspora Studies, American Studies, and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies are not isolated policy choices. 

Together, they reflect a broader attempt—animated in part by Christian nationalism and its hostility to pluralism—to narrow the boundaries of knowledge, discipline faculty, and make certain histories, identities, and critiques less visible.

West reminds us that authoritarianism often begins by discrediting independent experts and weakening institutions that hold power accountable. That should give us pause. A public university that cannot protect the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn cannot fully serve students, democracy, or the public good.

Texas is one of the most diverse states in the nation. Its future depends on whether our institutions can educate students honestly about the world they are inheriting. To censor or suppress scholarship on race, gender, inequality, immigration, Indigenous histories, or democracy is not neutrality. It is political interference masquerading as reform.

At UT Austin, we should be expanding intellectual inquiry, not shrinking it. We should be strengthening shared governance, not bypassing it. We should be protecting faculty expertise, not intimidating it. And we should be investing in the fields of study that help students understand Texas in all its complexity, beauty, and contradiction.

West’s warning is clear: when academic freedom is weakened, democracy is weakened with it. Texas leaders should heed that warning before more damage is done.

-Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D

Why academic freedom challenges are dangerous for democracy

Darrell M. West  September 8, 2022 | Brookings

Students walk past Wilson Library on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S., September 20, 2018. Picture taken on September 20, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake

Legislation recently signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis challenges academic freedom in fundamental respects. His “Stop WOKE Act” restricts public higher education institutions, and others, from teaching about racial injustice, therefore impinging on traditional faculty prerogatives to teach courses based on their substantive expertise. In addition, provisions in the bill that allow administrators to fire professors who fail to comply with newly enacted pedagogic restrictions threaten the job security of those working in public universities.

Less understood, though, is how these threats to academic freedom also endanger democracy itself. Many analysts worrying about democracy today focus on procedural protections, such as voting rights, institutional rules, due process, and the rule of law, among other things. These features are basic requirements of functioning democracies and are the bedrock of our political system.

Yet one of the overlooked ingredients of democracy is a vibrant civil society with a knowledge sector that is free of political interference and the ability to train students in independent analysis and critical thinking. As argued in my new Brookings Institution Press book, “Power Politics: Trump and the Assault on American Democracy,” I cite a number of current threats to civil society in general and the knowledge sector in particular that are very dangerous for the United States. Democratic systems require the free flow of information, mechanisms to hold leaders accountable, and healthy civic discourse. Many of these features are under attack right now in the knowledge sector, with ominous consequences for universities, nonprofits, and think tanks.

The Value of Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is one of the reasons the United States’ higher education system has long been the envy of the world. Providing teachers and professors with the freedom to teach important ideas and encourage critical thinking among students is key to freedom, economic prosperity, and innovation. People need independence and liberty to challenge authorities, question leadership, and develop new ideas.

The scope and benefits of academic freedom, naturally, have been challenged and debated over the years. For example, conservatives have long argued that the academic freedom on college campuses is a veneer that creates a hostile environment against conservative scholars and values. In response to these arguments, some universities have created free speech zones in order to encourage an open flow of ideas. Other places have developed courses, lecture series, conferences, workshops, and academic enterprises designed to promote out-of-the-box thinking or a diversity of viewpoints. Yet, current efforts to outright silence scholars and teaching marks an important, and dangerous, escalation of this issue.

Recognizing the moral authority of independent experts, when despots come to power, one of the first things they do is discredit authoritative institutions who hold leaders accountable and encourage an informed citizenry. In Hungary, for example, government authorities attacked the Central European University that operated in Budapest and forced its relocation to Vienna, Austria. Having independent educators was deemed incompatible with an illiberal political regime. It is easy to slide into authoritarianism when fact-checkers and independent analysts are discredited and civil society organizations are weak in their capacity to question political leaders. If academic experts are discredited and lack legitimacy with the general public, it is hard for them to be effective in civic discussions. And if they worry about prosecution or selective law enforcement, it will limit their ability to challenge government authorities.

The Risk of Intimidation

In recent years, we have seen a number of cases where political leaders upset about criticism have challenged professors and sought to intimidate them into silence. One example took place in Virginia when GOP party chair Rich Anderson asked the University of Virginia to investigate Professor Larry Sabato after he tweeted “Trump, who governed on the edge of insanity for four long years, has gone over the edge. Yet millions of people and 90%+ of GOP members of Congress, still genuflect before this false god.”

According to a news account, the prominent commentator wrote this after Trump claimed in 2021 he soon would be reinstated as president. Anderson made the investigation request on the grounds that the educator’s statements “appear to violate the university’s mission statement and faculty code of ethics” and that they represented “bitter partisanship.” Fortunately, university officials defended academic freedom by putting out a statement reminding people “there is nothing in the university’s code of conduct that limits faculty from engaging in expression that is protected under the First Amendment.” That ended the matter in terms of this particular intimidation, except for whatever distraction the GOP critique caused the well-known commentator.

Other examples can be found in the area of teaching critical race theory. In a number of states, Republican legislators have introduced bills that banned or restricted the teaching of America’s racial injustices in public educational institutions. Some of these bills enacted in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and elsewhere explicitly banned instruction of the New York Times’ “1619 Project” that took a critical stance on the way America dealt with slavery.

A survey analysis undertaken by UCLA researchers found that 894 K-12 school districts across the country (one-third of the study’s sample) have seen efforts to restrict teaching about America’s racial history or racial equity in general. Many educators reported a “newly hostile environment for discussing issues of race, racism, and racial inequality and more broadly diversity, equity, and inclusion” and felt high levels of threats and intimidation.

These and other reactions demonstrate what a dangerous time it is for university and K-12 educators. Rather than have pedagogic autonomy and be free of political interference, legislators are directly placing restrictions on what can be said and taught within the classroom. In the same way other American institutions are being undermined and delegitimized, K-12 schools and universities are being weakened through restrictions on course content and teaching approach.

Silencing Expertise

Experts are vital to democracy because they bring in-depth knowledge to civic discourse. Yet some public officials don’t like it when expertise is used against their own policy decisions. For example, several University of Florida election experts discovered this when they were asked to testify concerning the impact of new election laws on minority voters. Worried about possible voter suppression, these scholars agreed to share their views about the harmful effects of new restrictions, only to be informed by their dean they would not be able to testify. It took lengthy negotiations and negative news stories about the university before educational administrators reversed their stance and allowed the experts to testify.

Endangering Independence

Having independent authorities who can operate freely is important, but a recent episode illustrates how scholar independence has been challenged in new ways. At Yale University, Beverly Gage, the director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy, came under fire from top donors to her program. After one of her program’s professors wrote an opinion piece entitled “How to Protect America From the Next Donald Trump,” founding donor Nicholas Brady complained to university officials about the article and is quoted as saying “this is not what Charles Johnson and I signed up for.”

In response, Yale set up a new advisory board composed mainly of conservative Republicans, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and Brady indicated he wanted someone to observe program courses and report back on what was being taught. At that point, Gage asked the university to protect her academic freedom and argued, “It’s very difficult to teach effectively or creatively in a situation where you are being second-guessed and undermined and not protected.”. Yet, unlike the University of Virginia case where a professor under attack was supported by high-level administrators, Gage did not feel she received adequate support from her deans. So she resigned “saying the university failed to stand up for academic freedom amid inappropriate efforts by its donors to influence its curriculum and faculty hiring.”

Weaponizing Libel and Defamation Laws

With academic freedom and scholar independence being challenged, libel laws and defamation lawsuits are getting weaponized and personal investigations are becoming more common. People from several different organizations have faced political or legal risks from expressing their viewpoints as time-worn protections based on freedom of speech and freedom of expression have started to unravel.

For example, Donald Trump has made a practice of weaponizing libel laws by suing opinion writers who penned commentary critical of him. In 2020, for example, his campaign lawyers filed lawsuits against writers for the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN, claiming op-ed articles had impugned Trump’s character by arguing there was a “quid pro quo” between Russia and the billionaire to aid his 2016 election.

Months later, many of these suits were dismissed by judges on grounds that they lacked merit, but their mere filing ran up legal fees and contributed to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in various quarters. Writers have to worry if they author pieces critical of politicians that their personal texts and emails will be subpoenaed, their phone calls investigated, or they will get sued and be forced to spend a lot of money and endure considerable stress defending themselves.

There also has been an increase in defamation lawsuits on college campuses from aggrieved people. Graduate students who have complained about faculty members have been sued for defamation and professors have sued one another as well as outside agents for what they saw as false and defamatory statements.

Taken together, these lawsuits illustrate the threats to personal freedom that attack the very basis of civil society and the knowledge sector that is crucial to the functioning of American democracy. These activities challenge the ability of experts and nonprofit advocates to be independent, undermine their capacity to hold leaders accountable, and discourage experts from writing critical pieces about leaders and/or donors.

Without the means to question authority and work free of fear, it becomes easy for countries to slide into illiberalism or outright authoritarianism. There needs to be system-wide protections, otherwise faculty members are forced to depend on the vagaries of particular deans and high-level administrators. In today’s world, the risks are readily apparent and everyone should fear the possibility that the U.S. may follow the path of other nations that have limited academic autonomy, weakened freedom of expression, and harmed democracy itself.

Anti-immigrant campaign ads negatively impact Latinos’ mental health and make them feel unwelcome in the United States

After reading this piece in the Mexico Daily News titled, "TX governor Greg Abbott declares ‘invasion’ of migrants at US-Mexico border" and then coming across this one, I felt even more convinced than I already was that the purpose actually IS to incite anger, anxiety and dread on people who look like me. 

I'm in the count of  campaign ads making me feel as though “people do not want me here in the United States.” I would even say that these external political pressures have formed me as a person and advocate.

I am in full agreement that  anger, anxiety and dread  are important responses for studies to track in light of voluminous social science research, including my own, that finds a deep sense of alienation and not belonging when discriminated against. Much of this gets manifest structurally in limited opportunities, poorly-funded schools, disparate achievement on standardized test scores, uninspiring curricula, not being represented in either the presence of teachers of color, culturally enriching materials, and the everyday politics of dismissiveness.

I hope and pray that someday soon, what's happening along the U.S.-Mexico border gets framed as the humanitarian crisis that it is and that relations with our neighbors to the south get normalized so that we can enjoy greater peace and positive inter- and well as intra-group relations. 

Getting there requires our leadership to address the root causes of migration that reside back home whether it be Mexico, Haiti, Venezuela, Honduras, and so on. It involves ethical partnerships, equitable policies, an infusion of material resources to promote development in weaker Central and South American countries, expanding human rights, and binational institution building. 

Instead, immigrants get casually objectified and regularly dehumanized, treated like political piñatas as part of the gamesmanship of politics today. What we need is good and effective leadership that will lead the way forward with a progressive vision the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" without which we must sustain this oppression that has literally weighed on us for decades.

-Angela Valenzuela

Anti-immigrant campaign ads negatively impact Latinos’ mental health and make them feel unwelcome in the United States

As we approach the November election Americans are overwhelmed with the amount of campaign ads flooding their television and social media feeds. It is estimated that by election day over $9.7 billion will have been spent on campaign ads. Between January 6, 2021, and August 7, 2022, 2 million ads aired on national television alone.

The volume of campaign ads can unfortunately be harmful to some members of the public due to the heavy emphasis on immigration and immigrants.

While the United States has been home to an anti-immigrant political climate that has politicized Latino immigrants for several election cycles, it feels as though the volume of campaign ads that focus on border enforcement has increased this campaign season. America’s Voice has reported 700 unique paid ads that have been viewed 52.6 million times on voters’ social media feeds are anti-immigrant, divisive and/or racist. Many of these ads are generating fear and xenophobia by framing the immigration issue around an “invasion” of immigrants coming to the United States, which generates fear and anger.

The primaries push candidates to mobilize the more ideologically extreme segments of their respective parties. It is therefore not surprising there was a heavy use of border enforcement and anti-immigrant ads during the Republican primary. However, what is surprising is that the Southern border was used as the backdrop for campaign ads during the primary season in non-border states. This included ads suggesting weak borders were responsible for drugs and crime in states as far from the border as South Carolina and Alabama.

We are interested in how the exposure to a high number of anti-immigrant campaign ads may impact the attitudes of the Latino population.

LATINO EXPOSURE TO CAMPAIGN ADS AND THEIR IMPACT ON LATINO FAMILIES

We rely on the Abriendo Puertas/Unidos US National Latino Family Survey to get a sense of how pervasive exposure to anti-immigrant campaign advertising is among Latinos. The survey asked respondents if they have seen any campaign ads on television or online that they felt discriminated against or were intended to make the public think negatively of immigrants. Over a third (36 percent) of Latino parents or primary caregivers indicated they have seen these ads, with a higher percentage of registered voters reporting exposure.

The National Latino Family Survey asked respondents who have viewed these ads how this made them feel. As reflected in the figure below, the most commonly reported reaction among Latinos in the sample was “anger”. This was a particularly common response among foreign-born Latinos (+6 percent relative to their U.S.-born counterparts).

The next two most common reactions identified by respondents are “nervous/anxious” at 40 percent and “scared” at 27 percent. When combined these two outcomes that are often measures included in mental health studies, were mentioned by 67 percent of Latinos across the country. This is consistent with the literature documenting how the anti-immigrant politics across the country negatively impacts mental health of immigrants. The anti-immigrant sentiment was expanded by former President Trump and research has found that there is a link between Trump’s racist policies and symptoms of both depression and anxiety for Latinos.

I have found in my own work that living in states with punitive immigration policies does not only impact the health of immigrants, but Latinos overall. This helps explain why U.S.-born Latinos, who are not immigrants themselves, are more likely to report they are nervous or anxious upon seeing anti-immigrant campaign ads than immigrants in the sample (+7 percent for U.S.-born Latinos relative to the overall sample).

Another 29 percent of respondents indicated seeing these campaign ads made them feel as though “people do not want me here in the United States.” This is an important response to track, as the social science literature has found Latinos often report feelings of not belonging or feeling unvalued in society when exposed to discrimination.

Reflecting the variation in Latinos attitudes, 15 percent of the sample of Latino parents and primary caregivers said they felt the campaign ad they saw “was spot on with what needs to be done with immigration policy.”

IMPLICATIONS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

The rise in these anti-immigrant ads is indicative of wider acceptance for this extreme political rhetoric, which unfortunately suggests the Latino community will continue to be exposed to more stress-inducing political images than ever. This is an issue we should all be concerned with given the impact these ads have on Latinos’ perception that they are welcome in this country. Feeling as though you belong and are valued in society has huge implications for civic engagement. Seeing evidence that exposure to anti-immigrant campaign ads influences sense of belonging is worrisome for those interested in civic participation of Latinos, regardless of which party they choose to support.

To circumvent millions of people being exposed to this, networks should be pressured to prohibit this type of hate and fearmongering to be aired.

A way to combat these harmful ads would be to prevent them from being viewed in the first place. To circumvent millions of people being exposed to this, networks should be pressured to prohibit this type of hate and fearmongering to be aired. Whether by filing a complaint through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to implement regulations, or creating social pressure for change, networks are responsible for what they choose to broadcast and should be held accountable.

The implications of a sharp increase in anti-immigrant campaign ads on the mental health of Latino Americans are huge given the limited access to mental health services the Latino population has experienced both before and during the pandemic. Latinos have greater delays in receiving mental health care (twice as likely as white Americans) and they are less likely to receive guideline care for depression and anxiety compared to white Americans. Expanding access to quality mental health services to a wider segment of the Latino community will help address longer-term challenges this community faces in regard to mental health.