The Crescent Mirror: How Project 2025 Reflects the Architecture of Religious Authoritarianism

The Islamic faith, practiced devoutly by over a billion individuals across the globe, encompasses a vast and diverse tradition of jurisprudence, spiritual ethics, and social guidance. It includes schools of thought that range from the mystical to the scholastic, the conservative to the reformist. At its heart, Islam emphasizes mercy, justice, and personal discipline before God. Any examination of Islamic legal structures—such as Sharia—must begin with recognition of this complexity and of the lived beauty and intellectual richness that characterize its broader heritage.

---

READ: Is Donald Trump a Secret Enemy of Israel? Rhetorical Loyalty and the Strategic Undermining of Israel?

---

This report does not equate Islamic civilization or its legal traditions with authoritarianism. Nor does it aim to impugn the Muslim world or reduce a global religious system to its most rigid or punitive expressions. Instead, it observes the structural logic of control—how systems of moral governance, when untethered from pluralism and rights frameworks, begin to mirror one another, even across seemingly incompatible theological boundaries. In that light, we investigate not Islam itself, but specific authoritarian instantiations of Sharia—those that suppress dissent, criminalize identity, and enforce hierarchy under divine pretense.

It is important to acknowledge that such authoritarian traits are not unique to any one religion. Nearly every major spiritual tradition has birthed repressive regimes in its name. Hindu nationalism, Christian dominionism, Jewish theocracy, and Islamic authoritarianism have all manifested mechanisms of state-sponsored moral absolutism. What we examine here is not Islam versus Christianity, but rather Project 2025—a Christian nationalist policy agenda—through the lens of authoritarian convergence, assessing its practical resemblance to governance models typically associated with Islamic autocracies.

The findings are provocative. Project 2025, despite emerging from a Western conservative think tank, proposes a state architecture that mirrors many elements commonly found in Sharia-ruled regimes. These include the use of centralized executive authority to enforce moral laws, the criminalization of LGBTQ+ identities, the eradication of gender pluralism, punitive restrictions on reproductive freedom, and censorship of dissenting educational or cultural content. While articulated through the language of “American values” or “religious liberty,” the function of these policies aligns closely with religiously anchored authoritarian control.

Perhaps most jarring is the shared treatment of sexuality and gender expression. Project 2025’s labeling of transgender education and LGBTQ+ discourse as a form of “pornography” echoes blasphemy and modesty laws seen in Saudi Arabia or Iran, where public discussion of non-heteronormative identities is criminalized. In both cases, state power is invoked to define what constitutes “morality,” suppress sexual diversity, and punish deviation from heteropatriarchal norms with state-enforced consequences.

Similarly, the proposal to use federal impoundment powers to defund states and institutions that do not comply with the executive’s social directives functions analogously to moral compliance enforcement seen in some Islamic systems, where funding, social status, or freedom is contingent upon moral alignment with the state. The ability of one executive figure to direct funding, suppress opposition, and unilaterally override constitutional balance recalls the velvet coup of theocratic regimes—cloaked not in scripture, but in bureaucracy.

The cultural irony is striking: American conservatives, often portrayed as the ideological foil to Islamic governance models, are constructing an apparatus that functionally resembles what they claim to oppose. This convergence is not theological, but structural and disciplinary. It reveals a deeper truth: when power is organized around moral absolutism, whether under the cross or the crescent, the outcomes converge—control of language, restriction of bodily autonomy, suppression of dissent, and the elevation of hierarchy above empathy.

For readers who might assume that a comparison between Project 2025 and Sharia law is implausible or inflammatory, the evidence offers a more disquieting conclusion. These systems—culturally antagonistic, politically opposed—nonetheless mirror one another in method and outcome. What follows is an exploration of these overlaps. Readers are encouraged to move beyond the introduction and into the full findings, where the oddities—indeed, the profound oddities—of this convergence are laid bare. The deeper one looks, the more the mirroring reveals itself—not as satire, but as structural reality.

What emerges from the uncanny structural and moral parallels between Project 2025 and authoritarian implementations of Islamic Sharia Law is not merely a set of policy coincidences—it is a convergence so intimate, so ideologically loaded, that it demands a far more disturbing question: Which is infecting which? This is not a rhetorical device. It is a genuine inquiry into the possibility of ideological contagion—of one system covertly shaping, co-opting, or parasitically aligning with the other to erode its integrity from within.

I. A Threat to Islamic Purity and Autonomy

From the Islamic standpoint, especially among jurists and communities that revere Sharia as a sacred legal scaffolding rooted in divine revelation, the emergence of Project 2025 poses a potentially corrosive encroachment. The mimicry of Sharia’s structures—gender regulation, censorship, centralized moral authority—by a Western Christian nationalist movement may appear, at first glance, like ideological validation. But what if it is not validation, but infiltration? If Project 2025 positions itself as a “moral” template, aligning itself publicly with Sharia’s strictures on sexuality and public order, it may serve to co-opt Muslim populations into believing a parallel moral alliance exists—softening resistance, inducing cooperation, or even paving the way for syncretic dilution of Islamic jurisprudence.

This is not mere diplomacy; it is a subtle assimilation mechanism. If Islamic actors see a mirror of their own system in the West and assume kinship, they risk internalizing ideological codes that were never grounded in Qur’anic law but in nationalist reinterpretations. Over time, what appears to be alignment becomes a parasitic redefinition, corrupting usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) by tethering it to foreign civic-nationalist logics. In this model, Islam is not respected—it is hollowed out by flattery and strategic mimicry, brought into alignment only to compromise its claim to unique divine origin. To the purist, this is the ultimate desecration: the fusion of revelation with an imperial counterfeit.

II. A Contamination of Christian Foundations

Yet for many Christians—especially those steeped in the teachings of humility, nonviolence, grace, and the radical equality proclaimed in the Gospels—the emergence of Project 2025 represents a violent betrayal of their faith’s essence. By dressing up authoritarian controls in Christian garments, it forges a heretical state religion that equates governance with Godliness and co-opts the language of Christ for Caesar’s ambitions. But if this authoritarianism aligns so neatly with Islamic strictures, the question must be posed: Has Christianity been subtly mutated to more closely resemble its perceived theological competitor?

What appears as cultural strength may, in fact, be a secular mutation wrapped in Christian symbology—a mutation that converges with Islamic authoritarianism not through mutual respect but through functional imitation. For Christians who cherish pluralism, grace-based ethics, and separation of church and state, this convergence becomes a sacrilegious mimicry of empire. It risks contaminating Christianity with the very theocratic logic that reformers and martyrs historically opposed. In this light, Project 2025 is not merely a political program; it is a false gospel, engineered to make Christian dominionism indistinguishable from the autocratic theologies it once viewed as foreign.

III. A Coordinated Convergence for Global Homogenization

Then arises a third, even more disturbing possibility: this is not Christianity infecting Islam, or Islam corrupting Christianity, but rather a coordinated synthetic convergence—an engineered mirroring between two historically opposed religious superstructures designed to neutralize resistance through mirrored authoritarianism. In this reading, both systems are being retrofitted to serve as ideological buffers for a unified, dual-pillar control matrix. The shared vocabulary—gender erasure, censorship, reproductive restriction, moral policing—is not a coincidence but a harmonization strategy aimed at dissolving authentic religious difference in favor of binary totalism.

Such convergence functions as a dialectical sterilizer, stripping both Christianity and Islam of their internal pluralism and weaponizing them into blunt instruments of order. The fusion does not preserve either tradition—it crushes their prophetic, liberatory cores under bureaucratic moralism. In the name of unity, it births a global moral machinery that is neither truly Islamic nor truly Christian. The result is a planetary disciplinary regime—not monotheistic in truth, but managerial in form. A homogenized authoritarianism, with sacred language reduced to code for compliance.

IV. The Fascist Engine Beneath the Theology

Regardless of which explanatory framework one accepts—infiltration, co-option, or coordinated convergence—what remains clear is the underlying chassis upon which these systems are being built: fascism. The theological wrappers differ, the historical justifications vary, but the operational logic is uniform: centralized authority, moral absolutism, suppression of dissent, and the use of state violence to regulate identity.

Fascism is not a belief system—it is a method. And it thrives when it dresses itself in the garments of ancient truths, when it mimics the rhythms of prayer and the cadence of scripture to enforce what is, at its core, a profanation of freedom. Whether under minaret or cathedral, fascism’s signature is the same: control masked as righteousness, punishment disguised as purity, and law mistaken for holiness.

What we are witnessing is not the revival of either faith—it is their instrumentalization. And the question is no longer which faith is right, but which faith survives this parasitic convergence with its soul intact.

What remains unspoken—but crucial to think about—is the role of public perception, mass psychology, and digital infrastructure in making this convergence seem not only plausible, but invisible. While theological institutions and legal mechanisms provide the outward scaffolding, the actual transmission and normalization of these authoritarian parallels occur through the behavioral conditioning of populations via media, gamification, and algorithmic governance.

The populace—both Muslim and Christian—is being trained, not persuaded. Through surveillance capitalism, moral outrage cycles, and identity-based tribalism, individuals are nudged into accepting authoritarian moral frameworks as self-evident, even sacred. This happens not through brute enforcement alone, but through the internalization of control: people censor themselves, moralize others, and normalize punitive governance as necessary virtue.

This leads to a final and urgent concern: the synthetic fabrication of consent. The convergence does not require theological agreement between Islam and Christianity; it requires only that their authoritarian wings appear to be natural allies in a chaotic world. This is how pluralism dies by aesthetic mimicry, and how resistance to authoritarianism is neutralized by reframing it as religious fidelity.

If the convergence is occurring at the level of infrastructure—through digital rituals, affective manipulation, and real-time behavioral telemetry—then neither Islam nor Christianity can defend themselves through doctrine alone. Defense must come from recognizing this shared subversion, and reclaiming the prophetic, justice-centered, and radically pluralistic roots that both traditions once knew.

Without this, the outcome is not a spiritual society—it is a feedback loop of sacred control.

Overlays and Correlations Between Project 2025 and Islamic Sharia Law: A Comparative Analysis

Project 2025, a policy framework developed by the Heritage Foundation alongside over 100 conservative organizations, presents numerous structural and functional parallels with aspects of Islamic Sharia Law despite their distinct cultural, religious, and historical contexts. This report examines these convergences across multiple domains of governance, social policy, and moral regulation.

Executive Summary

Analysis of available information reveals significant overlaps between Project 2025 and Islamic Sharia Law in approximately 47-55% of key governance and moral domains[1]. These include shared approaches to sexual morality, gender roles, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive freedom, censorship, and enforcement of moral codes through state authority. While originating from different civilizational contexts, both frameworks demonstrate similar patterns of centralized authority, morality-based governance, and restrictions on personal conduct in several domains.

Centralized Moral Authority and Governance Structure

Concentrated Executive Power

Project 2025 emphasizes an “absolutist view of presidential authority” anchored in the “unitary executive theory,” which vests presidents with extensive control over the federal bureaucracy[20]. This includes bypassing congressional checks and balances through mechanisms like impoundment (withholding congressionally allocated funds)[19][20] and circumventing Senate confirmations by installing acting appointees[20].

Similarly, Islamic Sharia governance typically features centralized moral authority where religious leaders interpret and enforce moral codes. Both approaches converge in their emphasis on:

• Hierarchical enforcement of social norms: Top-down imposition of traditionalist norms reminiscent of patriarchal governance structures[1]
• Moral decision-making concentrated in executive authority: Placing moral judgments in the hands of central authority rather than democratic deliberation[1]
• Diminished checks and balances: Reduction of legislative oversight in favor of executive moral determinations[20]

As noted in analysis, this represents a “shared archetype” of “Theocratic Authoritarianism via Executive Power—whether under Islamic, Christian, or other civilizational banners”[1].

Sexual Morality and Pornography Regulation

Punitive Approaches to Pornography

Project 2025 proposes aggressively banning pornography and shutting down technology companies that allow access to adult material[14]. The framework advocates for “punitive legal actions including imprisonment and registration as sex offenders for educators, librarians, and media distributors” involved with content it deems pornographic[1][8].

Islamic Sharia similarly classifies pornography as “haram” (forbidden), with various jurisdictions enforcing “strict criminal penalties, including corporal punishment, incarceration, or even capital punishment”[1]. Islamic criminal law considers pornography forbidden because it connects to prohibitions against showing the “aurat” (private parts) and can lead to moral damage[5].

Both frameworks:

• View pornography as morally corrupting
• Employ state power to prohibit production and distribution
• Prescribe punitive measures against violators, though with different severity levels

Gender Roles and Gender Identity

Traditional Binary Gender Enforcement

Project 2025 calls for “the complete erasure of gender identity terminology from government policy, forbidding gender diversity recognition and aggressively enforcing traditional binary gender roles”[1]. It recommends eliminating focus on “LGBTQ+ equity” and replacing such policies with those encouraging “marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families”[3].

Islamic gender roles are similarly defined by strict binary divisions, with the Hadith Sahih Bukhari stating that a man is the “guardian of [his] family,” while a woman is the “guardian of her husband’s home and his children”[7]. Sharia Law generally prohibits transgender identity and enforces traditional gender roles based on biological sex[1].

Both frameworks:

• Reject gender fluidity and non-binary identities
• Promote complementarian rather than egalitarian gender frameworks
• See traditional gender roles as foundational to social order

LGBTQ+ Rights and Visibility

Prohibition of LGBTQ+ Recognition

Project 2025 “explicitly promotes the delegitimization and invisibility of LGBTQ+ identities”[1], with specific recommendations to:

• Defend discrimination against LGBTQ+ people on First Amendment grounds
• Reverse LGBTQ+ equity policies in federal agencies
• Limit legal protections established in Bostock v. Clayton County
• Ban transgender individuals from military service[3]

Islamic Sharia similarly “proscribes homosexual acts and LGBTQ+ visibility,” with penalties ranging from fines and imprisonment to corporal punishment[1]. In several Middle Eastern countries with Sharia-influenced legal systems, homosexual acts are criminalized with punishments including lashes, imprisonment, and in some cases, death for repeated offenses[6].

While the severity of punishments differs significantly, both frameworks:

• Oppose legal recognition of LGBTQ+ identities and relationships
• Seek to remove LGBTQ+ visibility from public spaces
• Frame non-heteronormative identities as moral threats to social order

Reproductive Rights and Abortion

Severe Restrictions on Abortion Access

Project 2025 proposes dramatically limiting abortion access through various mechanisms, including:

• Ending medication abortion by revoking FDA approval of abortion drugs
• Allowing hospitals to deny emergency, life-saving abortion care
• Prosecuting people for shipping and transporting abortion pills
• Establishing an abortion surveillance system[4]

Islamic Sharia approaches to abortion vary by school of thought, but generally:

• Prohibit abortion after ensoulment (typically 120 days after conception)
• Allow limited exceptions to save the mother’s life
• May permit abortion before ensoulment under specific circumstances[10][15]

Both frameworks significantly restrict abortion access, though with different theological and ideological justifications, and overlap in their emphasis on limiting women’s reproductive autonomy[1].

Contraception Access and Family Planning

Restrictions on Contraceptive Methods

Project 2025 proposes undermining birth control access through multiple avenues:

• Weakening preventive health services provisions in the Affordable Care Act
• Excluding certain contraceptive methods from coverage requirements
• Allowing employers to refuse contraceptive coverage
• Making contraceptive education and access more difficult[9]

Islamic perspectives on contraception show some notable differences from Project 2025’s approach. A 1988 Fatwa from Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy approved family planning “so long as it is done within Islamic Law’s general rules”[11]. Various forms of contraception are permitted with certain conditions, though permanent sterilization is generally forbidden unless for serious health reasons[11].

This represents an area of partial divergence, as Islamic jurisprudence can be more permissive regarding temporary contraception than Project 2025’s proposed restrictions.

Censorship and Ideological Conformity

Restrictions on Speech and Expression

Project 2025 proposes “censorship and severe restrictions on educational content, media, and public speech deemed contrary to conservative morality and ideology”[1]. It calls for using federal power to enforce ideological conformity across institutions.

Islamic Sharia similarly “mandates ideological censorship, strictly regulating educational, media, and artistic expressions to align with religiously mandated morality”[1][12]. Dissent from prescribed norms in Sharia-governed societies is often suppressed and sometimes criminalized.

Both frameworks:

• Support censoring content deemed immoral or ideologically unacceptable
• Seek to use state power to regulate speech and expression
• Prioritize moral conformity over pluralistic discourse

Punitive Enforcement of Morality

State Enforcement of Moral Codes

Project 2025 proposes the “criminalization of certain ideological positions and lifestyles,” including potential incarceration for those advocating or facilitating non-traditional gender identities[1]. It employs federal coercion to enforce moral policies at the state level.

Islamic Sharia “explicitly criminalizes perceived moral infractions, extending state authority into personal behavior”[1]. Punishments range from financial penalties and imprisonment to physical punishments, depending on jurisdiction and offense[5].

Both frameworks:

• Use state power to enforce moral codes through punitive measures
• Extend government authority into personal behavior and expression
• Treat moral infractions as matters for legal rather than just social sanction

Areas of Divergence

Despite significant overlaps, several important areas of divergence exist:

Religious Foundation and Theological Basis

While Project 2025 has Christian nationalist influences, it does not directly derive authority from divine command or establish parallel religious courts, unlike traditional Sharia systems[1].

Alcohol Prohibition

Sharia prohibits alcohol consumption, whereas Project 2025 does not propose alcohol prohibition[1].

Religious Pluralism

Sharia traditionally imposes restrictions on apostasy and religious conversion, while Project 2025 does not formally criminalize leaving Christianity or converting to other faiths[1].

Legal Structures

Sharia often includes distinct religious courts with jurisdiction over family law and moral crimes, whereas Project 2025 works within existing secular judiciary structures[1].

Conclusion: Functional Convergence Despite Different Origins

The analysis reveals that despite emerging from different religious, cultural, and historical contexts, Project 2025 and Islamic Sharia Law exhibit significant functional overlaps in their approaches to moral governance, particularly in domains related to sexuality, gender, reproduction, and executive authority. One analysis estimates this overlap at approximately 47-55% when comparing key governance domains[1].

This convergence demonstrates that authoritarian moral governance systems can develop similar enforcement mechanisms regardless of their specific theological or ideological origins. The overlaps reveal shared “technologies of control” including censorship, gender enforcement, reproductive regulation, and moral criminalization that are adaptable across different fundamentalist frameworks[1].

Understanding these parallels provides valuable insight into how different moral governance systems can produce functionally similar restrictions on individual freedoms despite their distinct cultural origins and stated justifications.

References

Citations:

1. https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/21552502/8eeaaeb1-9a3d-43e4-8b06-a443a178cbbe/paste.txt
2. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b9fcd59cf46a3b6dba7af40d3733ce48a60611f
3. https://accountable.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Project-2025-Anti-LGBTQ-Policies-One-Pager.pdf
4. https://reproductiverights.org/project-2025-abortion-access/
5. https://e-journal.metrouniv.ac.id/milrev/article/download/7354/3337/24519
6. https://antigaylaws.org/regional/middle-east/
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_in_Islam
8. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/us/politics/porn-actors-project-2025-ad.html
9. https://nwlc.org/all-the-ways-project-2025-wants-to-undermine-birth-control-access/
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion
11. https://www.jbima.com/article/contraception-an-islamic-perspective/
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Islamic_societies
13. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21589
14. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2563289/
16. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/218f796442d16f4bcb92e34bba108ea99e7fb6cf
17. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ac68d7aefd7b2da97458efbb8df3c7328df8900
18. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/98663c9194a365e694b33790ac2101ee8c8e42d2
19. https://thefulcrum.us/governance-legislation/donald-trump-project-2025-2671187995
20. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-destroy-the-u-s-system-of-checks-and-balances-and-create-an-imperial-presidency/
21. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-project-2025-first-100-days/
22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40228499/
23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12035670/
24. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11745215/
25. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13131
26. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/26/nx-s1-5195528/trump-impoundment-government-cuts
27. https://truthout.org/articles/how-trumps-100-days-built-off-the-far-right-blueprint-of-project-2025/
28. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-need-to-know-about-impoundment-and-how-trump-vows-to-use-it
29. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e6b233a23dea97c81e8ece0e163cc9086881b1dd
30. https://www.interfaithalliance.org/post/project-2025-in-trumps-first-month-the-threat-to-lgbtq-rights-and-freedoms
31. https://library.lapc.edu/c.php?g=1436735&p=10670223
32. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a9b14405d2d18dc9d769d6408c90bf54eadcf8be
33. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/353245961e75b68ab9cc35be80addba2b3565e1e
34. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f15ecef7d4b0852d916a3806e81125988d67d24
35. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8339d0e288255dd6b0733ad24435652fdabb989d
36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5859490/
37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7887969/
38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9634512/
39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9678014/
40. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/islam-and-the-abortion-debate
41. https://darulfiqh.com/is-contraception-permissible-in-islam-2/
42. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/26/us-muslim-advocates-weigh-in-on-abortion-rights-battle
43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7731352/
44. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4b79edf21e876bfdc6928216767a53cbd8756e7
45. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eacbcb9bc8cffcb69c7ebea00829c432a194c210
46. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd492b5e44217133d7e677d3a5ced23ac5597c3c
47. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd74e6eeff70dc9a66dd46d9f63ae4a6006f4c1d
48. https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-na-islam-schools-20151220-story.html
49. https://www.afintl.com/en/202405211863
50. https://www.rferl.org/a/taliban-girls-education-islam-takeover-anniversary/32546094.html
51. https://www.pjcriminology.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/50-Navigating-Media-Regulation-in-Islamic-Societies.pdf
52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11995449/
53. https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Impoundment Fact Sheet %231.pdf
54. https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/fact-sheets/background-unlawful-impoundment-president-trumps-executive-orders
55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39992774/
57. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c679af91e500a02a8da52572e2b55e7bdb0a9d34
58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40014828/
59. https://nwlc.org/how-project-2025-tries-to-demonize-lgbtqi-people-and-why-itll-fail/
60. https://19thnews.org/2024/08/project-2025-anti-trans-policies-impact-families/
61. https://glaad.org/project-2025/
62. https://www.axios.com/2024/11/07/project-2025-lgbtq-rights
63. https://edtrust.org/blog/how-project-2025-would-impact-lgbtq-students-and-faculty/
64. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c966dfb492c9f9a60d24ae9694bd7be0a9d749b8
65. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/67841a55f8e5655368b0bc4574adb521bf704d7a
66. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7386b42b9a307302de4d89d2b6231e2a042ad5d8
67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33345715/
68. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b1dae40abc3d021880309b20b659e78b68f8de28
69. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/356403db24e9f00eb7b219d33ff222c447ae385c
70. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e7dc8f24c42dcde698b95ea4d156f5eee5f85116
71. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a29134c81ff9ccdff8754791e1f65fe3c8cf352d
72. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9a5140054fc72cc7f2469f0f8dfbdf207c7a0cd6
73. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e95d3df43773a7b4fba88bfac38e459504147ed
74. https://www.britannica.com/topic/sharia/Penal-law
75. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Islam
76. https://www.mytazkiyah.com/the-punishment-for-watching-porn-in-islam-understanding-and-overcoming/
77. https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/harsh-punishments-under-sharia-law-are-modern-interpretation/
78. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
79. https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/143sxnw/im_transgender_but_considering_converting_to/
80. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/understanding-sharia-intersection-islam-and-law
81. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/541d6685da02b173e7bb928b1f8ca2b95e4f013f
82. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78c961340bf9d3454437297f1abb4c2def50868d
83. https://politicalresearch.org/strategy/pra-news/real-targets-project-2025s-war-porn
84. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/how-project-2025-seeks-obliterate-srhr
85. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/project-2025-porn-ban-lgbtq-transgender-rcna161562
86. https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blog/how-project-2025-threatens-the-rights-of-sex-workers-and-the-lgbtq-community
87. https://doctorsoftheworld.org/blog/project-2025-lgbtq-rights/
88. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/30ec9a3c94898fdd8e71af51a77858c06d2a3884
89. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a4048f627c0b5ae40f872066c14c90a0416776ea
90. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3f8de2d57e7817384bb1ff2067b050f3690b8b37
91. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8734f2f8eb917605662ef1b44f3f4b3376588307
92. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2df00ad1c51009d26ea5d1189a2d2f9d06646640
93. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6429e68a07d35cd20b76669731e8eaad371d0df6
94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11571651/
95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4481262/
96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11017639/
97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7888000/
98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3146923/
99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10921270/
100. https://www.jurist.org/features/2022/10/27/explainer-how-sharia-law-is-more-progressive-than-the-us-supreme-court-on-abortion/
101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3439741/
102. https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimLounge/comments/vnwg0b/how_is_the_abortion_ruling_derived_in_islam/
103. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/412a293fb5caa55d5589cd86d41533ca9082cf3e
104. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9aadf0dd7caebdf1d78f250f83a4ed625ffc3c3c
105. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/87bca6c12d9eb98d66b6359898501dc84ad6d651
106. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/07bcced921a40f0da4659f6d9cf6b6caf32d7e25
107. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1bc84bf8ce229347f23c8cdf2773d719f54871e7
108. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e494c7525affbdc38789ba28cd1f90a7736f38f8
109. https://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/syria-islamists-school-curricula
110. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/15/nowtrumpcom/no-supreme-court-didnt-ban-sharia-law-schools/
111. https://asylos.libguides.com/c.php?g=708887&p=5113096
112. https://amu.tv/150346/
113. https://ijciss.org/index.php/ijciss/article/view/1001
114. https://www.aclu.org/documents/bans-sharia-and-international-law
115. https://jjis.aabu.edu.jo/index.php/jjis/article/view/287

---

Expanded Overlays Between Trump-Era Authoritarianism and Islamic Authoritarianism: Policies, Actions, and Rhetorical Parallels

The Trump administration’s policies, executive actions, and rhetorical strategies reveal structural and functional convergences with Islamic authoritarian regimes, particularly in their shared emphasis on centralized moral authority, punitive enforcement of ideological conformity, and erosion of democratic safeguards. This analysis expands the scope of comparison to include Trump’s specific policy proposals, hyperbole, and autocratic tendencies, contextualizing them within broader patterns of authoritarian governance observed in Islamic states.

---

I. Centralized Executive Power and Erosion of Checks

1. Unitary Executive Theory and Islamic Authoritarian Centralization

Project 2025’s “unitary executive theory” mirrors the consolidation of power under Islamic authoritarian regimes, where leaders often bypass legislative and judicial oversight. Trump’s advocacy for impoundment (withholding congressionally allocated funds) and installation of acting appointees without Senate confirmation parallels the makhzen system in Morocco or Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy, where executive decrees override institutional checks[1][17].

2. Insurrection Act and Military Mobilization

Trump’s proposed use of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy troops for immigration enforcement or domestic policing[7] aligns with Islamic authoritarian regimes’ reliance on militarized governance. For example, Egypt’s el-Sisi has used military tribunals to prosecute civilians, while Iran’s Revolutionary Guards suppress dissent—both reflecting Trump’s stated intent to militarize morality[2][4].

---

II. Punitive Enforcement and Erosion of Due Process

1. Extraordinary Rendition and Parallels to Sharia-Based Detentions

Trump’s revival of extraordinary rendition—deporting individuals to foreign prisons like El Salvador’s CECOT without due process—echoes practices in Islamic authoritarian states. Saudi Arabia’s detention of critics in secret prisons and Iran’s use of Revolutionary Courts for dissidents mirror Trump’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act (1798) to justify indefinite detention[6][8][17]. The $6 million payment to El Salvador for housing deportees[18] parallels Gulf states’ financial incentives to third countries for hosting detainees[8][17].

2. Military Tribunals for Political Opponents

Trump’s amplification of calls for televised military tribunals against Liz Cheney and other critics[5][13] mirrors Iran’s use of show trials to punish dissent. His rhetoric aligns with the Islamic Republic’s treatment of activists as “enemies of the state,” leveraging judicial theatrics to legitimize repression[13].

---

III. Moral Authoritarianism and Social Control

1. Gender and Sexual Norm Enforcement

Trump’s policies targeting LGBTQ+ communities (e.g., banning transgender military service, erasing gender identity terminology) align with Islamic authoritarian regimes like Iran, where same-sex relations are punishable by death and gender nonconformity is criminalized[1][3]. Both frameworks weaponize state power to enforce heteronormativity, framing dissent as moral corruption[1][3].

2. Censorship and Ideological Conformity

Trump’s attacks on “fake news” and proposals to defund institutions promoting diversity (e.g., DEI programs) mirror Saudi Arabia’s censorship laws and Iran’s suppression of secular education. Both systems prioritize ideological purity over pluralism, conflating dissent with treason[1][9][19].

---

IV. Hyperbolic Rhetoric and Authoritarian Signaling

1. Threats Against Political Enemies

Trump’s social media posts advocating for Biden’s imprisonment[13] or Obama’s military tribunal[5] parallel the rhetoric of Islamic authoritarian leaders like Turkey’s Erdoğan, who frames opposition as existential threats. Such hyperbole normalizes political violence, eroding democratic norms[5][13].

2. Religious Nationalism and Supremacy

Trump’s Christian nationalist rhetoric (“Make America Pray Again”) mirrors the fusion of religious and state authority in Iran or Saudi Arabia. While lacking formal blasphemy laws, Trump’s administration promoted faith-based policies (e.g., defunding Planned Parenthood), akin to Pakistan’s blasphemy statutes enforcing Sunni orthodoxy[1][3][10].

---

V. Structural Overlays: Authoritarian Technologies of Control

Domain	Trump-Era Policy	Islamic Authoritarian Parallel
Centralized Power	Unitary executive theory, impoundment	Saudi monarchical decrees, Iranian Supreme Leader’s veto power
Moral Policing	Criminalizing LGBTQ+ visibility, abortion bans	Iran’s Guidance Patrol, Saudi religious police
Military Judiciary	Proposing military tribunals for civilians	Egypt’s military courts, UAE’s State Security
Censorship	Defunding DEI, attacking “woke” media	Iran’s Internet censorship, Saudi media bans
Rendition/Detention	Sending citizens to El Salvador’s CECOT	UAE’s secret prisons, Iran’s extraterritorial assassinations

---

VI. Divergences and Nuances

1. Religious Legal Structures

Unlike Islamic authoritarian regimes, Trump’s policies lack formal religious courts or fatwa systems. However, his alignment with evangelical groups (e.g., Council for National Policy) creates a de facto theocratic influence, akin to Iran’s Guardian Council[1][10].

2. Economic Systems

Trump’s embrace of neoliberal capitalism contrasts with Islamic authoritarian regimes’ mixed economies (e.g., Iran’s bonyads). However, both systems tolerate corruption to consolidate elite power[1][17].

---

VII. Conclusion: Authoritarianism as a Universal Morphology

The Trump era exemplifies a global authoritarian playbook transcending cultural contexts:

1. Centralized Power: Erosion of checks, militarized governance.
2. Moral Enforcement: State-imposed gender/sexual norms, censorship.
3. Punitive Justice: Extrajudicial detention, show trials.

While Islamic authoritarianism and Trump-era policies differ in theological framing, they converge in structural mechanisms of control. This functional alignment—estimated at 54.7% overlap—reveals authoritarianism’s adaptability across ideological systems[1][10][17]. As democratic norms erode, the distinction between “Western” and “Islamic” authoritarianism blurs, underscoring the universality of coercive governance technologies.

---

Citations
[1][2][3][5][6][8][10][13][17][18][19]

Citations:

1. https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/21552502/8eeaaeb1-9a3d-43e4-8b06-a443a178cbbe/paste.txt
2. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef57d10e8c26ed051c7e02f63bcbbff59f22e057
3. https://polisci.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/people/u3833/Islam_and_Authoritarianism.pdf
4. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-immunity-ruling-trump-military-rcna160172
5. https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-forwards-shocker-plea-105850859.html
6. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/trump-americans-foreign-prisons-interview-00309297
7. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qwez9zz7jo
8. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/16/can-trump-legally-deport-us-citizens-to-el-salvador-prisons
9. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0539e71bd5f8cca2c500362a7b0aac255c1c48a2
10. https://polisci.osu.edu/sites/polisci.osu.edu/files/IslamandAuthoritarianism.pdf
11. https://www.law.gwu.edu/trumps-chilling-guantanamo-plan
12. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/52296a351176e659d50821b0087d51b864b6297f
13. https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-liz-cheney-military-tribunal
14. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad37bc3ce0031cb0743d59d8e0fda411669bf3b4
15. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1626716d7c60e83f96f80485eaaa5ed81a691d87
16. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c4ab7f22a08f61f52098e012ef5b57b10821cfec
17. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-resurrects-george-w-bushs-130006567.html
18. https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/02/trump-administration-violated-human-rights-law-by-paying-el-salvador-to-imprison-immigrants/
19. https://alicebtoklas.org/statements/statement-on-extraordinary-rendition-and-the-rule-of-law
20. https://sanctionsnews.bakermckenzie.com/trump-administration-revokes-preferential-treatment-for-hong-kong-and-authorizes-additional-hong-kong-sanctions/
21. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/nx-s1-5366178/trump-deport-jail-u-s-citizens-homegrowns-el-salvador
22. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf1f110f39295b2370c01db6c8ae302486fe960e
23. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ede7a973a4b6e6eb443421bd40e161d4b7a0f388
24. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/af21718cce4c836acec09ade530daa5f84a0c28d
25. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c0daa7ed1ba09eab9d918446ca4bc0c7c9d2413
26. https://www.salon.com/2025/05/06/why-is-pretending-to-not-know-how-the-constitution-works/
27. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/16/us/trump-news
28. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-send-us-citizens-foreign-prisons-legal-experts/story?id=120834167
29. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/728f29cb15e36f7d78edf9cffd1c3bf7a1918066
30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15016643/
31. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/698dfc67d314c9cb6c717fe9f934f1fd263ccbc3
32. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/59ad27c5927039f93c5218863917e25161d8c550
33. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/10/donald-trump-immigration-deportations-due-process-00339319
34. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-trial-migrants-deport/story?id=121080810
35. https://nyclu.org/commentary/op-ed-nyclu-responds-presidents-counsel-gonzales-military-tribunals
36. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/04/us/politics/trump-meet-the-press-interview-due-process.html
37. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/17ef449571ae435f697948eb6d17a71232533021
38. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e33fc583e05a1c5f02c01ed3cdbaec1f7d5d228
39. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4b558fa7093f0937de8fe496d7352dd541d76775
40. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8c966d1f418b41336b396bd813f281a1c077abea
41. https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/politics-international-relations/comparative-politics/islam-authoritarianism-and-underdevelopment-global-and-historical-comparison?format=PB
42. https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2016/wp_tse_746.pdf
43. https://politicalscience.sdsu.edu/_resources/docs/kuru/kuru-psq-muslim.pdf
44. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam
45. https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/va-mohamad-ashrof-new-age-islam/the-pharaoh-complex-psychological-portrait-autocrat/d/132434
46. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0869f59382c2c874af2fc0a5a72d1152cbc05ade
47. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4adb8575060149920cc8c8a6eef40bce5b5946f9
48. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/73fd6bb790e01ae0c5463c069e9e5e42967c66fd
49. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f7d7be3f591b535d9de922f4b5ed82526d4578e
50. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/1dttq8a/trump_has_threatened_a_military_tribunal_against/
51. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-asked-uphold-constitution-says-dont-know-rcna204580
52. https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/commentary/article/donald-trump-second-term-expectation-19897510.php
53. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSLfhDdvQ4
54. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/54937a9a47e78774aa775d3b55cadaa0e995604e
55. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12792918fa9bfdc73a4fd66ac009c955a77001fa
56. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b254d961265b5a1fc40767b23b6feb08a087a341
57. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6e3c15921cfe47f076414a295544fbaf9d883425
58. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/trumps-expanded-domestic-military-use-should-worry-us-all
59. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5155005/trump-threatens-to-use-the-military-and-doj-to-go-after-those-who-are-disloyal
60. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/19/trump-insurrection-act-military-hegseth-noem/
61. https://defensescoop.com/2025/04/04/trump-firing-top-cyber-general-sets-back-military-intel-lawmakers/
62. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4be8ef99f7ea98edf2d186b71ffacdc28bfe1ec4
63. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c1dc00cf338070e356ee7bd540f04eeffc01c646
64. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b003322c1d9c75055bf54e4a7fe24cbf4a15ab9c
65. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48feacc9787dac6fa49514d6583ad6a7f34e05d9
66. https://danieladonno.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/donno-russett-world-politics.pdf
67. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/explosive-combination-religious-decentralisation-and-autocracy-case-islam
68. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/islam-authoritarianism-and-underdevelopment/authoritarianism-and-democracy/40316C203821F88210A3A974290EEFE6
69. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/adf2ee5979d19586fad171f6d63d0645a42205de
70. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b8f03361a8fd4f74ecffc25c1debe6ab65b0822c
71. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-treason-jail.html
72. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-due-process-comment-nbc-interview/
73. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6c212f0e5f61670cedbf6f4bb1d69ddc4db46647
74. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/47688563610a7859b6f899ffa27cda2e9ebabb49
75. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/99a657edc0f72b2fea414268793e2bc7133f3cd3
76. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5b50fff1aaefd80c7fbbe349da0780aebd78a68b
77. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-wants-deport-some-us-citizens-el-salvador-2025-04-14/
78. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy871w21d3vo
79. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-idea-incarcerate-us-citizens-el-salvador-constitutional-concerns/
80. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df8ab4548718409b589be197c0c91c20723f549d
81. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7c1f6c86891b9c6d98b2112a89e97adb040845e7
82. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4031e30142dc9081804e04fc79987748c680cd90
83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18226581/
84. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/538103ffa7904f9c061b389d4f018aa531b3548f
85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21940214/
86. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/venezuelan-man-admitted-us-refugee-sent-salvadoran-prison-rcna207642
87. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-habeas-corpus-and-what-has-the-trump-administration-said-about-suspending-it
88. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/us-citizen-detained-without-charge-trump-administration-year
89. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-04-25/trumps-deportations-face-new-challenge-foreign-prison-punishment-without-trial
90. https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/the-trump-administration-is-unlawfully-detaining-a-u-s-resident-without-charge
91. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e303c7e5d95b38fd507ae77f9f6a5f44b552ee1f
92. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/246681752b9209872de3ef44d3cbd7fc4973baab
93. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2a61fc2b3678861fd9fa3d1b11bd6034253a569
94. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7c3a26a19a4a93e5ce928202a529e83ac4d39fde
95. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/87ab58a1d40a6379f02a5590433c763a90070abc
96. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/49df9dc77ab3d58f4987b900fb721cb0e6a0f6f4
97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7222101/
98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9378981/
99. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06520.pdf
100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9639581/
101. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08170.pdf
102. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.09426.pdf
103. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/islam-authoritarianism-and-underdevelopment/E337124CD3A3DDAB72136E0B9FC898EB
104. https://readingreligion.org/9781108409476/islam-authoritarianism-and-underdevelopment/
105. https://al-islam.org/40-questions-islamic-state-hamid-reza-shakerin/dictatorship-and-islamic-state
106. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d53ba32cdcc7a81ff737cdab4a8ca4b58a06ab38
107. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf615d7e0e92acb82b6ab46232e336c2ad70480d
108. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ec4401146a45778152a5f6e518742b05b5772891
109. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5eb67f745c6f85c83930c620469f73e1e316857a
110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36519198/
111. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ce7ca11b7eeb1f01ef7173f67042c11fcaeae6a1
112. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/trump-war-crimes/602731/
113. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-due-process-freedom-presidency-everyone-else-1235327264/
114. https://newrepublic.com/post/187124/donald-trump-dictator-threat-military-opponents
115. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/28/nx-s1-5277155/trump-military-transgender-dei-iron-dome-orders
116. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c0baf81a01807b9815d7df15545202d0ab0b82ca
117. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2b893c75e44c3e14744dd6db059120a3356e3c29
118. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9361e5dd58036095c9115b776fb3b67ea9bd970e
119. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/edaaaa7f6558671e53e2ac00b351df6473c9380a
120. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/be8390ca6b6df2a10ed102d0c1863eae41dffffd
121. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3372d9e644c00d2a61d51191ecc33d232e955599
122. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/insurrection-act-presidential-power-threatens-democracy
123. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/17/could-trump-invoke-insurrection-act-and-what-powers-would-that-give-him
124. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained
125. https://www.nycbar.org/reports/a-call-for-congress-to-clarify-the-insurrection-and-posse-comitatus-acts/
126. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-s-military-purge-spells-trouble-for-democracy-and-defense
127. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/justice-department-says-it-has-fired-employees-who-worked-on-trump-criminal-cases
128. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ac09c59783a42cb5c60f3aadb9a9223831028ae
129. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/19cda7db49048a5529be118957b12085107d9531
130. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/64b52da8780f9c15069593dca5f7ccd91bd479c0
131. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/55997c7999da64bbf386f01fe34cfabd2ac74854
132. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/feb0ba0b69677917ae68e49ec0eac5f863f12063
133. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f96abec200484f97edaffcfbd319ed825e2ca02c
134. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
135. https://www.e-ir.info/2013/05/18/critically-assessing-the-role-of-islam-in-authoritarian-contexts/
136. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d2296fc896f033e6411dee4256aa9cb48fa723cb
137. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77964798f8c682e678b363d329cd962fb6d435e0
138. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3109783d79bfe4b20574989652570e941ed51bf8
139. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/04ad68eca412e92b3907c9d7beca141b16627840
140. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab84ada47b9b2061e62cc9988d9dfb4e03216e44
141. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cc918890e51c5274cc90e9eebb45d60980caffa4
142. https://x.com/MoisesNaim/status/1808923438024904730
143. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349755/
144. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a669225548d025578aa18440c40c1cdfb8fdc183
145. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/93d9f60f83dd9b0c98349875da431a68403e5854
146. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e611fb1cd93533a1801d76b71298362a85ab2206
147. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5bbe1d6b231125e4ad9a87913d0ab3a09eaeb84c
148. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/51c1a6076e738981011b5380f67902581b9d1b78
149. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/trump-deportations-venezuela-el-salvador.html
150. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/30/100-days-fighting-fake-news
151. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-administration-violated-a-2019-settlement-in-deporting-a-venezuelan-man-to-el-salvador-judge-rules

Bryant McGill · The Crescent Mirror: How Project 2025 Reflects the Architecture of Religious Authoritarianism