The U.S. Government’s Troubling History and the Ongoing Struggle for Democracy

The Myth of the Foundation: How 250 Years of Empire Shaped Modern American Authoritarianism

As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, a bitter struggle over the national narrative has moved from academic halls to the executive branch. Journalist Rebecca Nagle, creator of the podcast series “First America,” argues that the country’s current political crisis—characterized by rising authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic norms—is not a recent aberration. Instead, she posits that these tendencies are woven into the very foundation of the American project, a legacy of imperial expansion that prioritized land acquisition over the democratic ideals touted in 1776.

The Boomerang of Empire: When Colonial Tactics Come Home

The “boomerang of empire” is a political theory suggesting that the methods a nation employs to dominate and control colonized populations eventually migrate back to the domestic sphere. Nagle notes that the U.S. government spent centuries perfecting “government by force” against Native American nations—a process that involved the suspension of due process, the use of standing armies, and the unilateral seizure of territory. These practices, once reserved for the periphery, are now being deployed against domestic political opponents and marginalized groups.

This history is not buried in obscure archives; it is written into the nation’s founding documents. While the Declaration of Independence is celebrated for Enlightenment ideals of equality, it concludes with a list of grievances that specifically includes a condemnation of “merciless Indian savages.” Historians, such as those cited in Nagle’s research, highlight that this was a strategic move to justify westward expansion against the wishes of the British Crown, which had sought to limit settler encroachment via the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

According to the sources, these precedents allowed for the development of an “empire of liberty” that functioned through executive fiat rather than democratic consent. Today, those same executive powers are being leveraged by the Trump administration to reshape the federal bureaucracy and challenge the limits of presidential authority.

From Land Speculation to Modern Presidential Power

The intersection of personal profit and political policy was a hallmark of the founding era. This drive for land required a military apparatus capable of enforcing claims against Indigenous populations who had been there for millennia. Consequently, the United States developed a standing army and a centralized military structure that the founders originally feared.

This history explains the current volatility regarding presidential war powers. When modern critics argue that a president should not have the authority to initiate military action without congressional oversight, they are often unaware that the first undeclared wars fought by the U.S. were against Indigenous nations in the late 1700s. These conflicts established the baseline for executive military control that exists today. As Nagle points out, the Declaration of Independence itself served as a justification for this expansionist violence, framing the desire for Indigenous land as a patriotic mandate.

Rewriting the 250-Year Narrative

The Trump administration’s “Saving America’s Story” initiative and associated executive orders have aimed to standardize a nationalist curriculum that minimizes the darker chapters of U.S. history. By targeting museums, national parks, and educational materials, the administration seeks to reinforce a version of the past where the founders are portrayed as infallible architects of a perfect democracy. This is a direct reaction to the growing movement, exemplified by projects like “The 1619 Project,” which seek to center the roles of slavery and indigenous displacement in the national story.

The political stakes are high because, as Nagle observes, “power flows from the stories that we tell ourselves.” If the story of America is one of an inevitable, perfect progression toward democracy, then any deviation from that path is seen as an anomaly. If the story is one of an empire that built democratic structures for some while using authoritarian force against others, the current crisis becomes a predictable outcome of those unresolved “fault lines.”

Dr. Nick Estes, a historian and citizen of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, emphasizes that the failure to reckon with this history leaves the country vulnerable to repeating it. “If we don’t understand the full context in which our nation was founded, we won’t understand the full context in which our nation now finds itself,” Estes stated in his collaboration with Nagle.

The Path Forward: Interrogating the Myths

For many Americans, the desire to return to a “stable” democracy is a powerful motivator. However, Nagle argues that this desire is based on a misconception that the democracy was ever truly stable for everyone. The current political moment is forcing a confrontation with the reality that the U.S. government has historically operated as both a democracy and an empire. Recognizing this duality is essential for any effort to effectively counter modern authoritarianism.

Rather than simply defending the vote—which Nagle notes has historically been used as a tool of assimilation and land dispossession—the discourse must shift toward demanding accountability for how the state exercises power. This includes questioning the expansion of executive authority, the treatment of migrants, and the continued reliance on military force in foreign policy. The “boomerang of empire” is currently in flight; whether it continues to erode the foundations of the state depends on whether the public is willing to confront the uncomfortable history of how those foundations were laid.

How do you view the role of historical myth-making in our current political climate? Is it possible to reconcile the ideal of a democratic republic with the reality of its imperial origins, or are we destined to repeat the cycles of the past? Share your thoughts on how we might begin to bridge this divide.