On the latest episode of HBO’s Real Time, political satirist Bill Maher delivered a grave warning that’s sent shockwaves across the American political landscape. With his trademark blend of wit and urgency, Maher cautioned viewers about what he described as a “slow-moving coup” orchestrated by former President Donald Trump—a maneuver, he argued, that’s unfolding not with tanks or chaos, but through quieter, methodical steps that threaten the very fabric of American democracy.
“Let me just describe some of the steps—and you tell me if I’m being paranoid,” Maher began, inviting his audience to scrutinize the current state of affairs in Washington, D.C. According to BBC and The Express, Maher’s concerns center around the increasing normalization of masked federal police, the deployment of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital, and the overall militarization of urban spaces. “Get people used to looking at that. Normalize snatching people off the street. Normalize seeing the National Guard and the military on the street,” he warned, his voice tinged with both frustration and alarm.
These warnings come in the wake of recent actions by Trump, who federalized local police and dispatched federal agents and National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., following a high-profile carjacking that left Edward Coristine, a former employee of the Department of Government Efficiency, bloodied. The incident, which played out just weeks before Maher’s monologue, provided the pretext for a show of force that Maher and other critics see as deeply troubling. Trump, in his own words, declared, “We’re not playing games. We’re going to make it safe. And we’re going to then go on to other places.” He added, “I think Chicago will be our next [stop] and then we’ll help with New York.” (The Express)
Maher’s argument is that these moves are more than just responses to crime—they are calculated steps to acclimate the public to a permanent, federally controlled police presence in the capital and, potentially, other major cities. “Then start talking about crime in the capital, which has always been a fairly crime-ridden city,” Maher explained. “This is our nation’s capital, where elections are decided.” He continued, “And then because the crime is so bad, have other states start sending their troops… now at least six other states are sending their troops, which Trump can then federalize.” The result, he said, is “a sort of permanent police presence” under federal control.
The implications, Maher warned, could be dire when the next election rolls around—especially if there’s a dispute. “I just don’t think [Democrats] are ever going to take power,” he said, his tone shifting from satire to stark realism. “Because I think this coup is going to go off a lot smoother than the last one.” Here, Maher was referencing the chaotic events of January 6, 2021, but emphasizing that the current threat is more insidious, unfolding gradually and within the bounds of existing institutions.
Maher’s segment, which aired on August 24 and 25, 2025, has ignited fierce debate. Some viewers and political commentators have praised Maher for his candor and willingness to sound the alarm, while others accuse him of alarmism and partisanship. But Maher is hardly alone in his concerns. According to The Fulcrum and other outlets, political scientists and democracy scholars have long warned that democratic backsliding often happens incrementally, not in dramatic bursts but through a series of seemingly small changes that, over time, erode the guardrails of democracy.
Experts point to several mechanisms by which this backsliding occurs. Institutional capture—where loyalists are appointed to key positions such as secretaries of state or judges—can enable the manipulation of election certification or legal outcomes. Norm erosion is another danger: repeated claims of “rigged elections” and the delegitimization of political opponents can weaken public trust in democratic processes. Legal loopholes—like ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act or state-level election laws—could be exploited to contest results or install alternate slates of electors. And, as the January 6 attack on the Capitol showed, political violence can be incited and rationalized, even by mainstream figures.
Maher’s monologue was particularly pointed in its step-by-step rationale for how Trump’s “coup” might come to fruition. “If there was a slow-moving coup, let me just describe some of the steps and you tell me if I’m being paranoid,” he said. He listed the creation of a masked police force, the normalization of federal agents snatching people off the street, the regular deployment of the National Guard and military in urban centers, and the federalization of state troops. “So you’re having many state troops on the ground there, and now they’re under federal control. So you have in the capital a sort of permanent police presence,” Maher explained.
Not everyone sees it the same way. Critics—including Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a military veteran—have condemned the use of service members as “political pawns.” Others argue that U.S. institutions—courts, media, and civil society—have so far resisted attempts to overturn elections and that Maher’s framing is overly simplistic. Some suggest that focusing so intensely on Trump risks obscuring deeper, structural issues within American democracy.
Still, Maher’s warning is less about predicting a single, dramatic event and more about mapping a dangerous trajectory. He’s asking viewers to stay alert—not just to what’s happening, but to how it’s being normalized, step by incremental step. “I am just going to reiterate the one thing I think is being passed over here. He is creating an army in the nation’s capital. I just think the presence now of this army in Washington is going to have its toll taken when the next election comes around,” Maher concluded.
Whether one agrees with Maher’s framing or not, the deeper question remains: how do democracies recognize erosion before collapse? As political scientist Hugo Balta, executive editor of The Fulcrum, notes, “Maher’s warning is less about predicting a singular event and more about mapping a trajectory.” It’s a call to vigilance, to not let the slow pace of change lull the public into complacency.
As the debate rages on, one thing is certain: the questions Maher raises about power, democracy, and the normalization of extraordinary measures are not going away. For some, his warnings are a necessary wake-up call; for others, they’re a sign of deepening polarization. But in a political climate where the boundaries of normal are constantly being tested, it’s hard to deny the urgency of the conversation he’s sparked.
With the next election looming and the stakes higher than ever, Americans are left to grapple with Maher’s central challenge: to recognize the signs of democratic erosion before it’s too late—and to decide what, if anything, can be done to stop it.