Donald Trump’s second term shows how fragile even the most enduring democratic norms can be. For Hawaiʻi, which depends heavily on federal funding for social services, disaster recovery and infrastructure, the stakes are high.

The president has threatened to condition disaster aid on changes to voting rules, demanded personal loyalty from civil servants and recently suggested revoking broadcasters’ licenses for unfavorable coverage. Together, they reveal an authoritarian drift that bends federal power to punish enemies and reward friends.

For states like Hawaiʻi, the risk is that Washington’s support turns on political favor instead of need. Hawaiʻi’s own history under World War II martial law shows how quickly federal authority can override local institutions when restraint is abandoned.

That danger is part of a broader story. Democracy requires more than constitutions and elections. As political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue, it depends on two unwritten norms. The first is mutual toleration: recognizing political opponents as legitimate rivals rather than enemies. The second is forbearance: choosing restraint even when greater power is legally available.

When those norms erode, laws remain on the books, but their meaning shifts in practice. Courts can be packed. Enforcement can be weaponized. Funding can be delayed. Each tactic helps allies and punishes rivals while the rules appear unchanged.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat opinion writers are closely following efforts to bring more transparency and accountability to government and other institutions. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

How Democracies Erode

Contemporary democracies rarely collapse in a single moment. They erode gradually, often through technically legal means. Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is a cautionary case. Its institutions remain, but rules have been bent to entrench power, creating the “illiberal democracy” Orbán celebrates.

The United States is not immune. Freedom House has lowered America’s rating on political rights and civil liberties in recent years. Polarization has left Congress and the courts unwilling to check the executive. Republicans and Democrats increasingly treat each other as existential enemies. And they look the other way when presidents of their own party bend the rules.

What scholars call “constitutional hardball” – the use of legal powers in ways that push the boundaries of long-standing norms – has become common. Combined with weakened restraint across institutions, these practices accelerate the breakdown of democracy.

Hawaiʻi’s Exposure

For Hawaiʻi, the erosion of democratic norms is not abstract. The state receives far more in federal money than it contributes in taxes, a reminder of its vulnerability if funds are delayed or politicized. That reliance touches nearly every sector of daily life. Hospitals and clinics rely on Medicaid reimbursements and federal health grants. The University of Hawaiʻi and public schools depend on education programs that have already seen cuts. Military spending sustains local contractors and businesses. And disaster recovery hinges on the speed of federal payments.

Tourism, Hawaiʻi’s largest industry, is just as dependent on federal decisions. Air routes, customs policy and visa rules all fall under Washington’s control, and shifts in these areas ripple through the visitor economy.

In a recent Visitor Satisfaction and Activity Survey, nearly half of Canadian visitors cited the U.S. political climate as a reason to stay away, a reminder that even the president’s tone can directly affect local businesses.

Preparing for Delay

If Hawaiʻi cannot assume the White House will act with restraint, it should prepare for delay and administrative pressure. The likeliest tools are not changes to the law itself but tactics such as compliance reviews, prolonged approvals and slowed reimbursements. These tactics are legal on paper, yet they can choke off resources just as effectively as outright cuts.

Preparation starts with a contingency reserve to cover shortfalls for a limited period. Even bridge funding for health care, education and nutritional assistance could prevent cascading crises in hospitals, schools and social services.

The Legislature could also adopt rapid reallocation procedures so funds can be shifted quickly when reimbursements lag. Legal complications would certainly arise when substituting state for federal funds, but those issues can be anticipated and managed.

Planning must also include Hawaiʻi’s nonprofit sector. Many essential services, from food distribution to primary care to homeless support, rely on federal dollars. These organizations often lack reserves. Mapping which providers are most exposed would allow the state and philanthropic partners to target support when federal funds are delayed or conditioned. Keeping these programs afloat can mean the difference between stability and crisis for thousands of local families.

The Limits of Federalism

Federalism still provides defenses. Hawaiʻi can litigate, coordinate with other states and use administrative channels to raise the cost of arbitrary federal actions. Yet decades of interdependence have made states reliant on Washington’s rules and money. When norms are respected, this works. When they are not, financial dependence magnifies federal leverage.

Washington may remain a reliable ally. But hope is not a strategy. Preparing as if the partnership will falter is prudent governance: contingency reserves, streamlined budget rules, nonprofit mapping and multistate alliances are steps that can protect people’s lives and livelihoods.

Hawaiʻi cannot, on its own, stop democratic backsliding in the White House. But it does have strengths. The state remains less polarized than much of the mainland, and its history of pragmatic, consensus-driven politics improves our resilience. By building on those advantages and planning for federal uncertainty, Hawaiʻi’s government will be best positioned to protect residents.

That preparation is about more than fiscal prudence. It is resistance. It is a defense of the expectation that government remain fair, restrained and accountable. Without these norms, democracy cannot endure.