[[link removed]]

THE KIMMEL SAGA: EVIDENCE THE TIDE MAY BE TURNING  
[[link removed]]


 

Paul Krugman
September 24, 2025
Paul Krugman Substack
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ It's clear that Trump is rushing to lock in permanent power. But
there is hard evidence that he may not enjoy the success that Vladimir
Putin and Victor Orban did. Is the Jimmy Kimmel affair the harbinger
of a failed Trumpian putsch? _

,

 

It’s irrefutable now: Trump is nakedly following the playbook of
autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban. As his poll numbers
fall, he is rushing to lock in permanent power by punishing his
opponents and intimidating everyone else into submission. Craven
congressional Republicans and a complicit Supreme Court have abetted
Trump’s destruction of our democratic safeguards and norms.

Yet Trump has a significant problem that neither Putin nor Orban
faced. When Putin and Orban were consolidating their autocratics, they
were genuinely popular. They were perceived by the public as effective
and competent leaders. Just nine months into his presidency, Trump, by
contrast, is deeply unpopular. He is increasingly seen as chaotic and
inept. As David Frum
[[link removed]] says,
this means that he is in a race against time. Can he consolidate power
before he loses his aura of inevitability? Will those who run major
institutions – particularly corporate CEOs – understand that we
are at a crucial juncture, and that by accommodating Trump they have
more to lose than by standing up to him?

To put it bluntly, is the Jimmy Kimmel affair the harbinger of a
failed Trumpian putsch?

Before I address that question, I want to offer some historical
comparisons that illustrate how poorly Trump is doing compared with
his role models, Putin and Orban. I wrote about this
[[link removed]] a
couple of weeks ago, but I think the point deserves further
elaboration.

First, Russia. Putin appears to have been extremely popular in the
early 2000s, as he was consolidating power. His net approval —
approval minus disapproval — was consistently above 50 percent
[[link removed]].

Why was Putin so popular? Kitchen table issues. The Russian economy
performed very badly for years after the fall of Communism,
culminating in a devastating financial crisis in 1998. But Putin got
to preside over a rapid economic recovery: Real GDP per capita doubled
between 1998 and 2008:

[A graph showing the growth of the russian federation AI-generated
content may be incorrect.]
[[link removed]]

Viktor Orban has never been as popular as Putin at his peak.
Nonetheless, for most of the 2010s, as he consolidated power, his net
approval
[[link removed]] was
strongly positive, often by 10 points or more. Again, the main
explanation was probably his perceived economic success. Orban took
power at a time when Hungary’s economy was deeply depressed by
austerity policies, and was able to preside over a large decline in
unemployment:

[A graph showing the growth of unemployment rate AI-generated content
may be incorrect.]
[[link removed]]

Trump’s net approval, by contrast, turned negative within weeks
after taking office and has just continued to fall:

[[link removed]]

Source: Strength in Numbers
[[link removed]]

As G. Elliott Morris points out, his position looks even worse when
you consider intensity. Almost half the public disapproves
“strongly,” twice the share with strong approval.

Some of the public’s disdain for Trump reflects alarm over his
assault on democracy, the spectacle of abductions by masked secret
police, his attacks on education and public health, his destruction of
key agencies like the FBI, and more. Yet, as always, economics plays a
key role in Trump’s cratering popularity.

People have not forgotten that Trump made big promises during the
campaign: He would end inflation on day one, reduce the price of
groceries, and cut electricity prices in half. None of that is
remotely happening. Moreover, more economic pain is coming as the full
inflationary impact of tariffs and deportations will soon be felt. Not
surprisingly, consumer sentiment has plunged. It’s almost as low as
it was in the summer of 2022, when Covid-induced supply-chain
inflation was at its peak:

[[link removed]]

Source: University of Michigan

It’s clear that if Trump were subject to normal political
constraints, obliged to follow the rule of law and accept election
results, he would already be a political lame duck. His future
influence and those of his minions would be greatly reduced by his
unpopularity. But at this juncture he is a quasi-autocrat. He is the
leader of a party that accommodates his every whim, backed by a
corrupt Supreme Court prepared to validate whatever he does, no matter
how clearly it violates the law.

As a result, Trump has been able to use the vast power of the federal
government to deliver punishments and rewards in a completely
unprecedented way. He has arbitrarily cut off funding to universities,
refused to spend Congressionally-mandated funds, threatened to take
away broadcast licenses, fired officials who are supposed to have job
security, pardoned J6 insurrectionists, defied the lower courts,
retaliated against those who have tried to hold him accountable, and
enriched his family. This has created a climate of intimidation, with
many institutions preemptively capitulating to Trump’s demands as if
he already had total power.

But the fact is that Trump has not yet locked in his autocracy. Timid
institutions are failing to understand
[[link removed]] not
only how unpopular Trump is, but also how severe a backlash they are
likely to face for surrendering without a fight.

They _should_ understand, because some major corporations have
already seen the costs of surrendering to Trump. Notably, Target’s
decision to appease Trump by ending its commitment to DEI
[[link removed]] led
to a large decline in sales and a falling stock price amid a rising
market, and eventually cost the CEO his job. Law firms who have
capitulated to Trump have lost clients and partners to law firms that
stood up to him. And need we talk about the popularity of Tesla cars
and cybertrucks?

Yet Disney was evidently completely unprepared for the backlash caused
by its decision to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air, a backlash so costly
that the company reversed course after just five days — too late to
avoid probably irreparable damage to its brand. And this time I hope
and believe that other institutions will take notice.

It’s important to understand that Trump’s push to destroy
democracy depends largely on creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Behind closed doors, business leaders bemoan the destruction that
Trump is wreaking on the economy. But they capitulate to his demands
because they expect him to consolidate autocratic power — which,
given his unpopularity, he can only do if businesses and other
institutions continue to capitulate.

If this smoke-and-mirrors juggernaut starts to falter, the perception
of inevitability will collapse and Trump’s autocracy putsch may very
well fall apart.

So how can we make a Trump implosion more likely? The public can help
by doing what Target’s customers and Disney’s audience did —
make it clear that they will stop paying money to institutions that
lend aid and comfort to the authoritarian project.

Like a schoolyard bully, Trump understands that effective intimidation
relies upon picking off his opponents one-by-one. So institutions
(such as law firms) can help by cooperating to resist Trump’s
demands rather than simply looking out for their own interests. They
should understand that there is no reward for appeasing MAGA with
performative displays of cowardice.

And last but not least, Democrats should begin making it loud and
clear that if and when MAGA is dethroned, those who broke the law,
those who corrupted our democracy out of deference to
Trump _will_ be held accountable. For example, corporate mergers
that hurt consumers but enriched Trump’s toadies can and will be
re-examined by future Democratic administrations.

It’s ironic, but thanks in part to a late-night comedian, it’s
becoming clear that America is not yet lost.

_I [Paul Krugman) am an economist by training, and still a college
professor; my major appointments, with some interim breaks, were at
MIT from 1980 to 2000, Princeton from 2000 to 2015, and since 2015 at
the City University of New York’s Graduate Center. I won 3rd prize
in the local Optimist’s club oratorical contest when in high school;
also a Nobel Prize in 2008 for my research on international trade and
economic geography._

_However, most people probably know me for my side gig as a New York
Times opinion writer from 2000 to 2024. I left the Times in December
2024, and have mostly been writing here since._

_Subscribe or upgrade subscription [[link removed]]
to Paul Krugman's Substack  column._

* Jimmy Kimmel
[[link removed]]
* Donald Trump
[[link removed]]
* Vladimir Putin
[[link removed]]
* Victor Orban
[[link removed]]
* authoritarian regimes
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]