The rise of U.S. authoritarianism a midwest professor issues warning about popular tactics

Konstantin Zhukov says that an FBI raid of a journalist’s home last week is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing escalation since President Donald Trump took office.

---

by Judith Ruiz-Branch
Public News Service

A Midwest professor is sounding the alarm on what he called the Trump administration’s authoritarian tactics to quell the press, free speech and other constitutional rights, stressing everyone should be paying attention.

Konstantin Zhukov, assistant professor of economics at Indiana University-Kokomo, argued the FBI raid of a journalist’s home last week is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing escalation since President Donald Trump took office a year ago. He emphasized as someone originally from Russia, he recognized it as a familiar autocratic move.

"It's the story that you usually hear in Russia," Zhukov explained. "It's a common instrument that the Russian authorities use in order to scare the journalists, to signal to them that they shouldn't do their work essentially, that they shouldn't keep the government accountable."

Zhukov pointed to recent volatile policing and immigration protest dynamics in states like Illinois and Minnesota as another big concern. Last week, Chicago officials joined an Illinois lawsuit challenging allegedly unlawful and unconstitutional immigration enforcement. The Trump administration called the lawsuit “baseless” and defends its immigration actions as enforcing federal law.

Zhukov links current trends to broader free speech risks, asserting after the murder of Charlie Kirk last year, an administration-issued memorandum sets a dangerous precedent by enabling a broad classification of domestic terrorism. He argued it could potentially include anyone who disagrees with the administration’s agenda.

While he believes American institutions are strong enough to withstand the current administration, Zhukov stressed how much they are being weakened and how future administrations could undermine them more severely.

"The precedent that I think it sets is that the administration will just keep pushing the boundaries of what is accepted of the executive power to do," Zhukov projected.

Zhukov recommended countermeasures like voting in the midterm elections and continuing to speak out peacefully to normalize dissent and widen public discourse. He emphasized recognizing autocratic tactics is essential to combating them.

"What is happening right now is very dangerous and it's a classic playbook of the autocrats," Zhukov underscored. "The more people understand that these are the steps toward autocracy, the better."

---

More that might interest you

Cold and Bold – March for America planned for Jan. 18 at West Side Park

The Cold and Bold – March for America is scheduled to take place around West Side Park in Champaign. The one-day demonstration is expected to be brief.

---

CHAMPAIGN — Champaign-Urbana Resistance Effort (CURE) will hold a demonstration titled “Cold and Bold – March for America” on Sunday, Jan. 18, at 2 p.m. around West Side Park in Champaign.

Organizers have scheduled the event to last approximately 30 minutes due to anticipated winter weather conditions. Forecasts call for a high temperature of about 19 degrees.

---

Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks

A Hands-Off rally was held near downtown Champaign last spring. Protesters will be back at Westside Park another rally expected to last about 30-minute to protest the latest Trump Administration policies.

---

The march is planned during the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term. During that period, the administration has undertaken a series of actions that have prompted national attention and legal challenges, including the acceptance of a new Air Force One from Qatar, the imposition of tariffs that have slowed U.S. economic growth, and the approval of advanced artificial intelligence chip sales to China.

Several administration actions have also been addressed in federal court. In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *Trump v. Illinois* that the president did not have authority to federalize the Illinois National Guard. Following that decision, efforts to federalize the California National Guard were withdrawn. A federal judge also blocked an attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, with that case scheduled for review by the Supreme Court in January 2026.

Additional court rulings have required the administration to restore clean energy funding in certain states, reinstate equal pay data collection requirements, resume funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, and overturn a rule related to healthcare workers’ refusal of care. Earlier this week, a federal court ordered the restoration of nearly $12 million in pediatric health funding to the American Academy of Pediatrics while litigation continues.

The demonstration is scheduled to take place regardless of cold weather conditions.

---

Champaign Cold and Bold March for America, West Side Park Champaign protest January 18, CURE Champaign winter demonstration, January protest Champaign Illinois park, Cold weather march Champaign-Urbana, Champaign community protest event

Op-Ed: SCOTUS decision a victory for student free speech

Op-Ed by Jennifer Lauren Hamad

---

---

The F-bombs that a frustrated cheerleader dropped in a Snapchat post after failing to land a spot on the varsity cheerleading team at her school recently detonated in the U.S. Supreme Court into a victory for student free speech and student activist organizations, like the one I led, that collaborated in submitting an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court.

In the historic B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case, the Court ruled that the school’s actions in punishing Levy for her undisruptive off-campus speech were unconstitutional. Although student organizations are overwhelmingly relieved by this ruling, we remain unnerved by the dystopian reality of what could have been had the Courts ruled in favor of Mahanoy.

Social media has become the indispensable virtual voice of youth that has galvanized youth activism by making national and global exchange of views possible. However, if public schools succeeded in punishing off-campus speech, social media would have become synonymous with a virtual school classroom where schools have authority to regulate speech just as they would in a physical classroom. This would blur the metaphorical dividing line that separates speech "in the school context and beyond it" (established by Tinker v. Des Moines), leaving students without clarity on when they are afforded their full constitutional right to free speech. This ambiguity would become oppressive and subject students to the feeling that their speech is regulated 24/7, effectively stifling youth activism and threatening the existence of the student organizations that depend upon it.

Although Tinker’s precedent established that a school could punish students for speech if it disrupts the educational process, Levy’s case quickly revealed that Tinker could be applied to stifle what the late Congressman John Lewis deemed to be "good trouble"- "fearless agitation designed to provoke, challenge, and move the nation forward". Instead of restricting Tinker’s application to off-campus speech that disrupts the educational environment (e.g. threats of violence, harassment, bullying, etc.), schools could turn any off-campus political/social activism or speech they disapprove of into a case of “disruption.” Student speech that criticizes an educational institution, its policies, or the behavior of its personnel would become particularly vulnerable to retaliatory disciplinary action from schools.

Perhaps one of the most concerning assertions made by the Mahanoy Area School District was that a student "targets" or "directs speech at a school" anytime he or she "refers to school affairs or sends speech directed to classmates". This suggests students "target" their school by merely offering their opinion about a school program or policy or discussing school affairs with their peers.

Under this notion, my organization would not have been able to speak at board meetings, lobby for educational legislation, speak out about issues like student mental health, write op-eds, speak to reporters, or merely share stories amongst members without the imminent threat of punishment. This excessive and unwarranted control of speech would inevitably disenfranchise and disempower students.

A school could overextend its disciplinary power to punish any and all speech that concerns the educational process. Such far-reaching censorship would mean the beginning of the end of American democracy, as our public schools would quickly transform from the cradles of democracy into totalitarian enclaves where students become accustomed to an imbalance of power that strips them of their basic freedoms.

As the looming threat of punishment causes students to decline to share their opinions and partake in activism, vital student representation would be lost. This strong push to punish off-campus student expression related to education is alarming and would suppress eyewitness accounts of issues in our American public schools that would otherwise be revealed through the sharing of student experiences through social and political youth activism. Criticism of everything from educational inequities to school safety issues could be hidden from public knowledge if off-campus student speech were regulated and punishable by schools, resulting in the erasure of the student narrative.

Conveying the student narrative is a powerful tool used by students to inform decision-making on policies that directly affect their education. In the absence of student voice, students would be subjected to policies implemented without their input. Before schools know it, students would be crying "NO EDUCATION WITHOUT STUDENT REPRESENTATION!," echoing the sentiments of our American Revolutionary forefathers.

---

Jennifer Lauren Hamad served as Speaker of the Houston Independent School District Student Congress that represents HISD’s 215,000+ students and collaborated with other student voice organizations to submit an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court for the B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case. She is also an incoming freshman at Stanford University.

Guest Comment: Put away your guns, pipe bombs and hatred

by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator

---

---

Acts of violence against a marriage partner have never saved a marriage. Violent acts toward family members have never made a family happier. Typically, they create emotional and sometimes physical wounds that are never forgotten. Too many families have suffered because someone in the family became violent.

Violence in our communities and towns always results in pain, division and sometimes even loss of life. Violence typically brings the wrong people together to do bad things. No community, city or state needs this.

---

The destruction of buildings and businesses are acts of violence and are criminal.

---

In times of war or enemy aggression against our United States, violence has been necessary. Acts of war have never been pleasant. They result in the loss of life and horrific debilitation of so many people physically and mentally. Most Americans do not want to be at war with anyone.

In years past, we have had to protect our country against those who sought to harm us. The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms and protect ourselves. We are grateful for our military but we pray for peace. None of us want our family members actively involved in combat if it can be avoided.

Violence like we saw last week at the United States Capitol was criminal. It helped no one. It solved nothing. Everyone who traveled to hear President Trump speak should have bought a nice dinner in D.C. and then traveled back to their families. Unlawfully entering the Capitol was wrong and was carried out in a violent criminal way. People were killed. Offices were torn apart and doors broken down. Staffers were terrified for their lives. This should never have happened. Many of these criminals will eventually be arrested and spend time in jail.

This act of criminal stupidity did nothing to advance or help President Trump. If they had stopped in front of the Capitol and given speeches, yelled, screamed, waved their signs throughout the day and then gone home the results would have been better. Terrorism never produces positive results. Destruction of the property of others and the terrorism of people are savage and criminal.

This same kind of unnecessary violence was seen in many of our cities last summer. I traveled to Cleveland, Ohio after a march had taken place and saw the results of acts of violence. I saw almost all of downtown Cleveland boarded up. Businesses were closed. Hotels were closed. Very few restaurants were open. For weeks my family was afraid to stop in downtown Louisville because of the protests and disruption occurring in the city.

In the United States of America, individuals, groups and organizations have the absolute right to march, protest and exercise their free speech. However, the destruction of buildings and businesses are acts of violence and are criminal. The people who shut down sections of cities throughout our country should be arrested for their behavior. An acquaintance, who lived outside Seattle for many years, was terrified to travel back to that city last year.

Violence against Democrats or Republicans will not bring this country back together. Invasion and violence against the Capitol solved nothing but ruined some lives. Violence will not change the results of the election. Joe Biden will be the President of the United States for the next four years.

March, protest, yell, scream and financially support organizations who promote your point of view. But please, put your guns, pipe bombs and hatred away.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Glenn Mollette is a syndicated American columnist and author of American Issues, Every American Has An Opinion and ten other books. He is read in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sentinel. We welcome comments and views from our readers.

-----------------------------------------------------------