 |
There’s been a lot of discussion recently about the guiding principles of President Trump’s administration. Many experts have landed on the term “patrimonial”—so today we are publishing two complementary articles about what exactly this means. The contribution below is by Steven Hanson and Jeffrey Kopstein, two of America’s leading scholars of this form of government, who guide us through some common misconceptions about patrimonial rule—and its likely consequences for the United States.
Meanwhile, Francis Fukuyama has written a post about America’s ongoing repatrimonialization over on his blog, taking a historical perspective on corruption and the perennial battle between elites and rulers. Remember: not all of his articles are automatically sent to Persuasion subscribers, so please sign up today to receive all of his content—including exclusive essays and video interviews—by clicking “Email preferences” below and toggling on the button for “Frankly Fukuyama.” And while you’re at it, why not subscribe to American Purpose, the Bookstack podcast, and Yascha Mounk’s column!
– The editors.
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his blizzard of executive orders, direct attacks on government agencies, and brazen violations of legal and constitutional norms has stunned and disoriented his political opponents. The new administration seems bent on upending not only domestic institutions but also the global order itself, sidling up to enemies and criticizing our closest friends.
It’s no wonder so many people are confused about how to make sense of Trump’s second term. On January 20, 2025, Americans experienced far more than a shift in the political party occupying the White House. Trump has initiated a change in the very nature of the American political regime. As recent research has shown, Trump is part of a global wave of leaders who are best described as “patrimonial”: they present themselves as powerful father figures who run the state itself as a family business, doling out its assets to cronies and sycophants in return for unquestioned personal loyalty.
To understand Trump’s political order, then, we need to familiarize ourselves with the standard operating procedures of patrimonialism. While this regime type may be novel for the United States, it is quite common in human history. In the 21st century, patrimonial regimes have been consolidated in countries as diverse as Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, Narendra Modi’s India, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel. Drawing lessons from regimes of this type, we can help get our bearings in what, for most Americans, is an unfamiliar new political environment.
First, in patrimonial regimes there is simply no way to distinguish between the parts of the leader’s speeches that matter politically from empty rhetoric not meant to be taken seriously. The cumulative effect of the daily storm of Trump’s announcements, social media posts, news conferences, and executive orders can be exhausting, and it’s tempting to listen to Ezra Klein when he reassures us about Trump’s statements: “Don’t Believe Him.”
But while Trump’s powers may (or may not) ultimately be limited by the courts, his stated intentions will not magically cease to matter. There are certain rules of the game in patrimonial politics. Hanging on every word of the leader is one of them. Unfortunately, then, we need to follow Trump’s communications in their entirety in order to understand where he is taking the country.
In a leader-centered political order, whatever the boss says, no matter how outlandish, sets the agenda for every underling. In fact, the willingness of subordinates to parrot and defend even the most extreme parts of his stated agenda is one of the most important signs of regime loyalty, used by the leader to decide on promotions, demotions, and in cases of open criticism, retribution. Those opposed to President Trump cannot decide, say, to ignore his social media posts about making Canada the 51st state, nor can they claim that his tariff threats are just a “bargaining chip” while focusing on his efforts to subordinate the federal bureaucracy to his will. All of these stated priorities matter, precisely because the essence of patrimonialism is the leader’s arbitrary right to treat the state as his personal property. That doesn’t mean that opponents of Trump’s regime shouldn’t pick their fights carefully, of course. But it is impossible to say in advance which of the leader’s many words merely reflect ephemeral musings, and which reveal his reasoned intentions.
Second, bitter fights among rival loyalists and their “clans” are a normal part of patrimonialism. It is a mistake to think that when such struggles are aired in public, this is necessarily a sign of regime weakness. Nor is it an indication that one faction is somehow becoming the true “power behind the throne.” In fact, patrimonial leaders benefit from internal court rivalries, as long as all sides remember who the ultimate boss is. Putin’s crony Yevgeny Prigozhin could post videos calling out the incompetence of the Russian Ministry of Defense and General Staff for months—until he organized an open mutiny against the leadership in June 2023, after which his helicopter mysteriously crashed.
Similarly, Steve Bannon can tell a journalist that he hates Elon Musk and his “technofeudalist” associates at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), as long as he concludes his interview with fulsome praise for the leader:
President Trump balances everything. He’s a common-sense conservative and a common-sense populist nationalist. In our movement, the core base of MAGA is hard-welded to Donald Trump because they admire his moral clarity. I put him at the level of President Washington and President Lincoln in this regard. This is the age of Trump.
In patrimonial regimes, that’s how disagreement is done: the children fight while deferring to the wisdom of the “good father.”
Third, the idea that various officials in a patrimonial state administration might have conflicts of interest is little more than a quaint anachronism. The phrase “conflict of interest” itself assumes that state officials are supposed to uphold the public good rather than pursue their personal self-interest. Under patrimonial rule, however, the interests of the “people” are equated with the personal interests of the ruler and his extended household, so in principle no conflict can ever arise between the two.
 |
So, if the U.S. government provides lucrative contracts to companies controlled or largely owned by Elon Musk, no problem. As a proven Trump loyalist, Musk deserves no less. Nor is this in any way a violation of the core ruling principle in a leader-based order: under patrimonialism, the word “corruption” loses its meaning over time as old norms of probity are eroded. The letter of the law matters only for those lacking connections to the ruling household. Indeed, violations of even seemingly minor statutes and regulations can be used to launch lawsuits and criminal cases designed to punish enemies of the regime.
Fourth, Trump’s otherwise inexplicable threats to purchase Greenland, retake the Panama Canal, own Gaza, and even annex Canada begin to make sense in the context of the patrimonial regime he is creating. Borders for patrimonial states tend to be historical rather than legal, based on notions of patrimony rather than law. Trump’s evident acceptance of Putin’s vision of Ukraine as part of the “Russian world” should not be surprising, as Putin’s territorial claims are entirely consistent with Trump’s own view of how relations between states should work: the bosses of great powers, like the “five families” in Mario Puzo’s The Godfather, should negotiate among themselves to divvy up the territories and economic resources of weaker states.
A world of countries with fuzzy borders, dominated by rival patrimonial elites treating their states as personal possessions, will be vastly different from the one the United States has helped to craft and defend since 1945, in which territorial boundaries were largely demarcated by international legal agreement. Trump’s attempts to make the world safe for patrimonialism will inevitably mean casting aside old allies and embracing new partnerships with other strongmen whenever this seems expedient. In such a world, we can expect a drastic increase in disputes over international borders on every continent.
And such a dramatic reordering of the global system will surely encounter violent resistance from those who find themselves the losers of this new dispensation.
President Trump’s new patrimonial regime, if he is able to consolidate it, will amount to nothing less than a revolutionary change in the American political system, as well as a paradigm shift in the global order. For those who prefer a different future—one in which leaders are constrained by the law, officials are judged by their competence and expertise rather than personal loyalty, the use of public office for private gain is prosecuted systematically, and norms of international law still matter—the years ahead will be intensely challenging. Understanding the way patrimonialism works will be vital for those who wish to resist its triumph in the United States.
Stephen E. Hanson and Jeffrey S. Kopstein are the authors of The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future.
Follow Persuasion on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube to keep up with our latest articles, podcasts, and events, as well as updates from excellent writers across our network.
And, to receive pieces like this in your inbox and support our work, subscribe below: