Hardy Merriman, assistant professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (Medford, Massachusetts) from 2016 to 2018, thinker and activist, long chaired the NGO International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC).
From abroad, what is striking is not only the scale of the cultural offensive carried out by the Trump administration, but also the relatively limited visibility of the resistance in the world of arts and culture. Should we see this as a series of symbolic controversies, or a more structural phenomenon?
What we are observing today clearly corresponds to a process of democratic decline, even democratic disintegration, in the United States. This type of situation occurs when an aspiring autocrat and a small circle around him deliberately decide to follow a strategy aimed at weakening democracy in order to consolidate their power. This strategy mobilizes different levers, economic, cultural, social and political, and culture is an integral part of it. We are faced, not with a succession of isolated episodes, but with a coherent set of actions
This strategy also involves a desire to impose a narrow reading of history, culture and national identity. To what extent is this ideological simplification characteristic of authoritarian systems?
They seek to simplify. The United States is a huge country, with more than 330 million people and considerable diversity. To govern authoritarianly, this complexity must be reduced to two camps: their supporters on one side, and those they don’t like on the other. To achieve this, we must crush complex thinking, disturbing questions, intellectual independence. Long, nuanced stories do not lend themselves to repetition. Authoritarians operate in binary oppositions, good and evil, and they label their side as “good” while the others are so “bad” that it becomes acceptable to attack them. This is how the conditions for democratic decline are created
What also seems new is the move from indirect pressures, appointments, funding, to a direct imposition of a cultural and historical vision, as at the Kennedy Center (cultural center and performance venue of which Donald Trump took over as president in March 2025). Is this new?
On this scale, yes. We have not seen this level of suppression of viewpoints and dissent in at least a generation or two in the United States. Some compare the situation to McCarthyism (1950s), when the state claimed to fight against communist ideas. But since this period, nothing equivalent has happened
In this context, we have seen the emergence of several initiatives: Committee for the First Amendment (created in 1947 in reaction to McCarthyism, relaunched in 2025), Collective Courage (May 2025), Don’t Delete Art (created in 2020), Fall of Freedom (fall 2025). Are these simple symbolic gestures or real forms of resistance?
These are very important resistance nodes. Take Jimmy Kimmel for example. We could say that it was a conflict around a host of late show. But in reality, it was a battle over the First Amendment and freedom of speech. If a president can decide who gets to make jokes, then what else can he decide about what viewpoints are allowed? Especially since, in this case, he had already succeeded in putting pressure on (television channel) CBS so that (host and comedian) Stephen Colbert would be ousted. Who would have been next?
You described Jimmy Kimmel’s return to the air as a form of “active non-cooperation.” Why is this more threatening to those in power than protest alone?
Protests are essential. For many people, participating is the first step toward broader political engagement. They promote organization and, when they remain non-violent, they also influence electoral behavior. But protests are not enough. What authoritarians fear most are acts of non-cooperation: boycotts, strikes, slowdowns, divestments, massive changes in economic, social or cultural behavior.
In the case of Jimmy Kimmel, the target was not only the state, but a private company, here Disney, which bowed to political pressure. The massive unsubscribes, estimated at 1.7 million in one or two weeks, represented, by my calculations, hundreds of millions of dollars in annualized losses. This shows that there is a real cost to collaborating with authoritarianism
The “No Kings” protests brought together up to 7 million people last October. What do they say about the state of resistance today?
If the figures are confirmed, it would be the largest mobilization in a single day in American history, or a little more than 2% of the population. But what is striking is their geographic dispersion: more than 2,700 locations, including in conservative regions. The protest then becomes a powerful symbol, people realize that they can come together, that their numbers are greater than they thought. Acts of courage are contagious. In a context of massive disinformation online, seeing your neighbors, or people you know, mobilize, makes things much more concrete. And the fact that 7 million people protested without a single incident of violence, in a peaceful, disciplined and organized manner, goes directly against the authoritarian narrative
Why do cultural institutions have so much difficulty resisting?
Much of the repression carried out today takes an administrative form, such as funding changes, new rules, increased control. It is easier than physical repression, less expensive, and very effective. And it is difficult to ensure that this type of repression turns against those who exercise it.
At the same time, the rules of the game have changed very quickly. In a stable democracy, we assume that public opinion constitutes a safeguard. In a democracy in decline, this is no longer the case. The new safeguard is collective mobilization. However, many institutions are not used to operating in this way
So what would truly effective cultural resistance look like?
Two elements are essential: building alliances and acts of courage. We must first create unity within the same sector, then build broader coalitions, with teachers, unions, universities, religious communities. Statements not followed by actions have little impact. In today’s media environment, it’s acts of courage that count. Being discreet does not protect you: authoritarians always end up testing everyone. What sets them back is when repression turns against them
Do you think that cultural resistance will strengthen?
Some forms of resistance dependent on large funding may decline. But movements that resist authoritarianism also include extremely creative and innovative people. New forms will emerge, provided individuals are prepared to act with courage.
