Prologue: The Warning of Hans Litten
This speculative exercise explores how authoritarian tendencies in modern American politics could manifest, using historical parallels to highlight the dangers of unchecked power. It draws inspiration from the life of Hans Litten, a German lawyer who famously confronted Adolf Hitler in a courtroom in 1931. By comparing Litten’s bold challenge to Hitler’s rise with the actions of figures in today’s political and judicial landscape, we can better understand how authoritarian movements suppress dissent and erode democratic norms.
Hans Litten: A Lawyer Who Stood Against Tyranny
Hans Litten was a German lawyer known for his courage in using the legal system to expose the violent underpinnings of the Nazi Party. In 1931, Litten subpoenaed Adolf Hitler to testify in the Eden Dance Palace trial, a case involving Nazi SA stormtroopers who violently attacked workers at a Berlin dance hall. Litten’s goal was to link the violence directly to Hitler’s incendiary rhetoric, forcing the Nazi leader to account for his movement’s actions under oath.
During the trial, Litten cross-examined Hitler with incisive, unrelenting questions:
- Litten: “Herr Hitler, is it correct that in your speeches you described violence as necessary to achieve your goals?”
- Hitler: “No, the National Socialist movement seeks to create order, not violence.”
- Litten: “Then how do you explain statements such as, ‘Heads will roll and blood will flow until the German mind is purified’?”
- Hitler (visibly agitated): “Those words were meant metaphorically.”
Litten exposed Hitler’s attempts to distance himself from the violence of the SA, but despite his efforts, the trial ultimately failed to stop the Nazis’ ascent. After the Nazis came to power in 1933, Litten was arrested, tortured, and sent to concentration camps, where he died in 1938.
Litten’s bravery serves as a stark reminder of the importance of holding authoritarian figures accountable—before their power becomes unassailable.
Parallels to Trump and His Movement
Modern authoritarian tendencies are often masked by similar rhetorical evasions, as seen in Donald Trump’s responses when questioned about violence by his supporters. Trump, like Hitler during Litten’s cross-examination, has repeatedly dodged accountability for the violent behavior of his movement while implicitly or explicitly encouraging it.
- Example 1: Charlottesville “Unite the Right” Rally (2017)
Question: “Do you condemn the white supremacists who incited violence in Charlottesville?”
Trump’s Response: “You had very fine people on both sides.”
Trump avoided directly condemning the violence, framing his answer to preserve support among far-right groups while deflecting responsibility. - Example 2: Proud Boys During the 2020 Debate
Question: “Are you willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups?”
Trump’s Response: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”
This ambiguous statement was widely interpreted as a tacit endorsement of the Proud Boys, who later used it as a rallying cry. - Example 3: January 6th Insurrection
Question: “Do you take responsibility for inciting the Capitol riot?”
Trump’s Response: “We love you. You’re very special. Go home in peace.”
Rather than condemning the violence outright, Trump praised the insurrectionists, fostering the perception that their actions were justified.
By exploring the parallels between Hans Litten’s challenge to Hitler and the actions of today’s American judiciary, we can better understand the warning signs of authoritarianism and the critical importance of those who dare to confront it.
Speculative Narrative: Trump’s Authoritarian America
November 2024: Reshaping Government Efficiency
In November 2024, shortly after his re-election, President-elect Donald Trump announced the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The department, tasked with streamlining federal operations and reducing what Trump described as “wasteful government spending,” was co-headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Musk emphasized plans to integrate AI-driven audits across federal agencies, promising to identify inefficiencies and eliminate redundant programs. Ramaswamy outlined a vision of privatizing certain government functions, including education and environmental oversight, suggesting private companies like K12 Inc. and Blackstone could more effectively manage these areas. Trump called the initiative “the boldest restructuring of government in American history.”
DOGE is structured to operate outside traditional accountability mechanisms, reporting directly to Trump and bypassing many legislative and judicial checks. Critics immediately raised concerns about conflicts of interest, given Musk’s extensive business dealings with the federal government, and the implications of centralizing such power under politically aligned figures.
January 2025: Privatization and Retaliation
Within weeks of taking office, DOGE issues its first set of recommendations, targeting agencies viewed as obstacles to Trump’s second-term agenda. The Department of Education faces a proposed 40% reduction in funding, with Ramaswamy suggesting that private companies like K12 Inc. and Coursera could handle educational functions more efficiently. Musk recommends cutting subsidies for public transportation projects, redirecting funds toward private infrastructure development, including Tesla’s autonomous vehicle initiatives.
Simultaneously, DOGE proposes a “public accountability initiative,” which Musk describes as a way to “protect American taxpayers.” Critics see this as a thinly veiled attempt to target government officials who opposed Trump. Judge Arthur Engoran, whose rulings against the Trump Organization resulted in significant financial penalties, is publicly named in a DOGE report highlighting “judicial inefficiencies.” This report recommends “increased oversight” of federal judges to ensure their rulings align with “American values.”
February 2025: Engoran and Bragg Under Fire
Following DOGE’s recommendations, Attorney General Pam Bondi announces investigations into Judge Arthur Engoran and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accusing them of “partisan misconduct” and “misuse of public resources.” Jordan orders federal audits of both individuals, while DOGE releases a public statement claiming their actions have “cost taxpayers millions in frivolous legal battles.”
Engoran and Bragg receive widespread death threats, amplified by Musk’s tweets, where he refers to Engoran as “biased beyond belief” and suggests that “we need AI judges, not corrupt humans.” Ramaswamy, in a CNBC interview, argues that the investigations are about “transparency,” dismissing concerns of political retaliation.
March 2025: Restructuring Government Operations
Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE begins implementing AI systems to monitor government employees, with the stated goal of improving productivity. These systems track work habits, communications, and performance metrics, raising alarms among civil liberties groups. Musk defends the initiative, tweeting, “AI is impartial and efficient. Humans are messy and corrupt.”
Ramaswamy spearheads efforts to privatize the National Park Service, arguing that private companies like Blackstone and Vanguard could better maintain public lands. This sparks outrage from environmental organizations, but DOGE pushes forward, auctioning contracts to manage parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite.
April 2025: The Fallout for Judicial and Legal Resisters
As the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues to implement sweeping changes across federal agencies, targeted attacks against key figures in the judiciary and legal community escalate. Judge Arthur Engoron, who had ruled against the Trump Organization, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, responsible for prosecuting Trump on criminal charges, face dire personal and professional consequences.
Engoron, already removed from his bench after a judiciary panel restructuring initiated by Attorney General Pam Bondi, is now subject to a federal investigation. The Department of Justice accuses him of financial improprieties, an allegation widely seen as baseless but devastating to his reputation. Engoron’s family faces harassment, with supporters of the Trump administration publishing their personal information online. Threats of violence force the judge and his family into hiding.
Bragg, meanwhile, is arrested after being held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by Trump-aligned committees. Federal authorities accuse him of “obstructing justice” by pursuing politically motivated cases against Trump and his allies. The charges are used as justification for seizing Bragg’s financial records and communications, effectively dismantling his legal career. Trump-aligned media runs round-the-clock coverage labeling him as “corrupt,” further stoking public hostility.
Other members of the judiciary and legal community, including judges and prosecutors seen as opponents of Trump’s agenda, face similar fates. Federal courts stacked with Trump appointees issue rulings retroactively nullifying key decisions made by Engoron and Bragg, effectively erasing their legal work. Grassroots organizations like the ACLU and Judges for Justice attempt to mobilize support but are met with increasing government crackdowns, including surveillance and intimidation tactics.
The message from the administration is clear: any attempt to hold Trump or his allies accountable will result in personal ruin. This chilling effect ripples across the legal system, deterring other judges and prosecutors from pursuing cases that might challenge the administration’s authority.
Conclusion: Erosion of Democratic Norms
With DOGE operating unchecked, the balance of power in the United States tilts further toward authoritarianism. Figures like Engoran and Bragg, much like Hans Litten in 1930s Germany, become symbols of resistance, their careers and lives upended by a system intent on silencing dissent.
Musk and Ramaswamy’s leadership of DOGE demonstrates how technology and privatization can be weaponized to erode democratic accountability. As the administration tightens its grip, the country teeters on the brink, with civil society struggling to push back against the dismantling of foundational institutions.
The story of Hans Litten and the speculative fate of America under authoritarian rule remind us of a simple but unyielding truth: democracies do not fall in a single moment—they erode, piece by piece, until only the shadow of freedom remains. When justice bends to power, and the fox is left to guard the henhouse, the cost is not merely institutional—it is the soul of a nation. The choice to resist or comply determines whether history repeats itself or becomes a lesson we finally learn.