By Dwight Adams
The Indiana Citizen
March 3, 2025
More than a thousand political scientists at colleges and universities across the United States and abroad have signed on to a letter accusing the Trump administration of causing “threats to the basic design of American government and democracy.”
The letter, circulated among political scientists and released during the month of February, also says the second administration of President Donald J. Trump has “in its early days … disregarded existing laws and regulations” and “threatens to undermine the division of powers and checks and balances, hallmarks of America’s constitutional order.”
On a list attached to the letter are the names of 1,202 political scientists, including 50 scholars from Indiana colleges and universities, which breaks down to 25 professors from the University of Notre Dame, nine from Indiana University, seven from Purdue University, five from Butler University, and one each from Earlham College, Valparaiso University, Manchester University and Wabash College.
When asked why she agreed to sign the list, Marjorie Hershey, professor emeritus of political science at Indiana University, said “because I thought the letter was absolutely correct. Political scientists and others who study government need to speak out when we see something that violates the design of the Constitution.”
When asked whether she was concerned about possible retaliation from the Trump administration, Hershey admitted that all of the political scientists who signed the letter must take that into account, but then said “If I don’t have the courage to stand up for what I believe in, then there’s not much point to having the training that I have had.”
The political scientists’ letter lists several ways that they think the Trump administration is undermining the U.S. government, including:
— attempting to shift “the power of the purse,” which it says is granted to Congress by the Constitution, to the executive branch;
— the firing of more than a dozen prosecutors at the Department of Justice, as well as members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for working on prosecutions of President Trump;
— the firing of 17 inspectors general, who served as “independent watchdogs” over the executive branch;
— the shuttering of an independent agency, the United States Agency for International Development;
— and the dismissal of leaders of other independent agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, before their terms were completed, actions which the letter says have not been backed by the courts.
It also assails an ongoing effort, through the actions of Trump’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, to “transfer control of federal personnel and payment systems to persons who are not officers of the United States government, are operating in secrecy, have sworn no oath to uphold the Constitution, and are not subject to federal privacy laws.”
The letter is careful to say that President Trump “won the November 2024 election fairly,” adding that it is expected that he would use his authority and electoral mandate to pursue goals, including reform of the government.
“But his victory does not grant him the right to overturn our constitutional order and legal order by fiat,” the letter says, referring to the numerous executive orders Trump has issued since he was sworn in on Jan. 20. “History tells us that actions like these by elected leaders can undermine democracies and destroy the rule of law. We urge the Administration to reverse course immediately.”
The Indiana Citizen contacted U.S. Sens. Todd Young and Jim Banks, both Republicans from Indiana, for a reaction to the political scientists’ letter. They were asked what they thought could be done to ensure the foundations of American democracy remain strong. Neither senator responded.
The letter clearly states that its contents are expressing the opinions of the individuals who signed it, not of the educational institutions where they work.
When asked why he signed the letter, James McCann, a political science professor at Purdue University, said he saw it as an “expression of my own professionalism,” adding that he thought it “comes across as a very reasonable statement that scholars could make.”
“There are well-founded concerns that political scientists would recognize, if we were talking about any generic country, if we saw this progression of events,” McCann said of the Trump administration’s actions. “I think it’s important for political scientists to express their views that are grounded on their research, their opinions. … It’s not partisanship that’s driving it, but our concerns about our democracy.”
Rhea Myerscough, an assistant professor of political science at Butler University, agreed with McCann’s assessment of the purpose of the letter, insisting that it “was not about a partisan stance, it was to just clarify what the stakes were.”
“As the letter points out, he (Trump) has the right to executive power,” she said. “What we’re challenging are the specific actions that threaten the Constitution.”
When asked whether she thought that Trump and his administration’s actions were threatening the foundations of American democracy, Hershey said “I think he’s been very clear about that. I think he’s trying to reduce, as much as possible, the separation of powers, so as to expand the powers of the White House, or, more specifically, of him.”
Myerscough also agreed with the contention that Trump’s actions were threatening American democracy and added that she was bothered by the use of “fringe constitutional language” by members of his administration to cloud those actions. “I think that is so frustrating to me,” she said, “because they’re violating the norms of democracy while using the language of democracy. That’s diluting the meaning of the Constitution and how we understand constitutional principles.”
When asked the same question, McCann said he was concerned but added that the real strength of a democracy “depends on norms and values, as much as institutions.” Still, he admitted, “We don’t know how resilient those norms are. If we stretch them, at some point we may reach a breaking point.”
When asked what he thought were the possible consequences of the Trump Administration’s actions on the lives of everyday Americans, McCann said he did think there was evidence recently of “less confidence and more jitteriness.”
“There’s enough polling data now becoming available based on the last several weeks that confidence in our government and markets is becoming shakier,” he said. “People these days seem to be living more stressful lives based on what we’ve seen over the last month.”
Myerscough said many private businesses are already being affected by the uncertainty now surrounding federal agencies and she’s worried that Americans will likely soon see changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, as well as Medicaid and other programs and services that “will make it harder for people to access them.”
“People’s lives are kind of being upended,” she said. “That sense of anxiety is occurring in the context of how we already have had the lowest confidence in government for a very long time. That will not go well for the democratic process going forward.”
When asked whether she thought Americans were facing a constitutional crisis because of the recent actions of the Trump administration, Hershey, a professor emeritus at Indiana University, said she “absolutely” would call it that.
“It’s hard to judge one crisis relative to another and I’m no historian, but my sense is the denial of rights can move very quickly,” she said. “We saw, for example, in Germany in the 1930s, that the takeover of the German government (by the Nazis) didn’t take a lot of time.”
But Hershey also pointed out that there has always been “a sizable amount of Americans who are not that fond of democracy,” and who don’t mind an autocratic government, “as long as it favors them.”
“I feel that this is a moment when we stand on the brink,” she said.
Myerscough said she thought America was “close” to a constitutional crisis, “but we’re not there yet.”
She said Trump’s executive orders were certainly creating chaos and “being used to hollow out the government,” but what will ultimately matter are lawsuits being filed now that are winding their way through the judicial system. “We’re waiting on these court actions,” she said. “A lot of this comes down to how these things are decided by the Supreme Court and what Trump’s reactions are going to be.”
McCann pointed out that there have been many times in America’s past that were “enormously divisive,” including when the nation was founded, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s and ‘60s.
“The fact that we’ve had political conflict in this country is not a new thing,” he said. “There’s no way that I would say this period compares to the one when we had a Civil War. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t concerning.”
McCann also said people can sometimes become uneasy when viewing democracy in action and up close.
“It may look extraordinarily messy,” he said. “That’s the one thing about democracy. You almost have to have a strong stomach, (because) it’s designed to have conflict.”
When asked what those Hoosiers and other Americans who don’t like what the Trump administration is doing could do to reverse the situation, all three of the political scientists had thoughts to share.
McCann observed that there is an “inherent vacillation that occurs” among members of a losing party after a disappointing election result, and he added that the work of organizing opposition is “hard and time-consuming.” However, he said similar situations have happened before, adding that “Democrats did not just go away,” after Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in the 1980 presidential election.
When asked why some people may feel overwhelmed by politics and willing to leave it all in the hands of a strong leader they trust, McCann had this to say: “The desire for someone to come in, to be above politics, is appealing, but that can be disastrous. It’s very natural, it’s almost an automatic, knee-jerk response someone might have, especially in response to stress, but that has the potential to be corrosive to democracy.”
He also said recent polling statistics “coming out from legitimate polling firms” are showing a decline in favorability ratings for President Trump after only a little over a month in office. “There seems to be a not-surprising reaction from the public to what, in many circles, is seen as a tilting too strong in one direction,” McCann said.
Myerscough said that people can attend government meetings and reach out to their representatives, so that “elected officials know that people are paying attention.” People should also strive to build more connections with others “outside of our political bubbles,” she said, which can build trust and bolster respect for democratic norms as well as lead to “broader, collective ways to govern ourselves.”
“We just need to find ways to get more involved with civic engagement,” she said. “That’s a long-term suggestion, something that we need to put more energy into.”
Hershey said that people can be more effective when they focus on a particular area of policy that affects them personally, become an expert on that subject, and then find other individuals or groups willing to fight back on that issue. They should then advocate for their concerns with Congress and organizations involved in those areas by sharing individual, real-life stories, not just statistics.
Perhaps most importantly, she said, is to not let yourself become apathetic about politics or overwhelmed by the flood of distressing news they may be seeing from their government.
“It’s sad that he (Trump) has to do so much damage, before people wake up,” Hershey said. “Cynicism and exhaustion are our worst enemies right now.”
Indiana University
Huss Banai
Jennifer Brass
Sarah Bauerle Danzman
Lucas Dagostini Gardelin
Mike Gruszczynski
Marjorie Hershey
Jeffrey C. Isaac
William E. Scheuerman
Abdulkader Sinno
University of Notre Dame
Sotirios Barber
Jaimie Bleck
Emma L. Briant
David Campbell
Michael Coppedge
Laura Gamboa
Erin Graham
Matthew E.K. Hall
Michael Hoffman
Vittorio Hosle
Victoria Hui
Eileen Hunt
Karrie Koesel
Scott Mainwaring
Emma C. Murphy
Thomas Mustillo
Susan L. Ostermann
Joseph M. Parent
Anibal Perez-Linan
Dianne Pinderhughes
Ricardo Ramirez
Ernesto Verdeja
Dana Villa
Christina Wolbrecht
Catherine Zuckert
Purdue University
Michael R. Brownstein
Valeria Sinclair Chapman
Ann Marie Clark
Rosalee Clawson
Kyle Haynes
James A. McCann
Logan Strother
Butler University
Ryan Daugherty
Nadia Eldemerdash
Rhea Myerscough S
Su-Mei Ooi
Robin L. Turner
Earlham College
B. Welling Hall
Valparaiso University
Jennifer Hora
Manchester University
Leonard Williams
Wabash College
Shamira Gelbman
This story has been updated to include the names of the political scientists at Indiana colleges and universities who signed the letter.
Dwight Adams, a freelance editor and writer based in Indianapolis, wrote this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org.
