The first four months of US President Donald Trump’s second administration have stretched the boundaries of disbelief among even his harshest pre-election critics. He is seen as seeking to fundamentally alter the American democratic legal and constitutional order.
Those trying to define Trump’s approach to governance have described it as a form of ‘elected dictatorship.’ Under this model, those who have won an electoral mandate assume that they are entitled to exercise absolute power for the duration of that mandate.
In the case of President Trump, this behaviour has taken many forms. At its core has been a governance model grounded in the issuance and attempted implementation of Executive Orders widely thought to reach far beyond any authority granted the President by the US Constitution or Congress. Initiatives putatively enabled by these measures have included the tariff-based trade wars initiated against much of the rest of the world (including Canada), the activities of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the dismantling of environmental and climate protections, and the arrest and deportation of alleged illegal immigrants.
Behind this, there has been a wider disregard for any boundaries on executive authority, or any ethical or legal norms in relation to what authority a President may have. Last week, for example, Mr. Trump indicated his intention to accept a luxuriously appointed 747, apparently to be the new Air Force One, from the Qatari government. Acceptance of such a gift is widely seen to be expressly forbidden by the Foreign Emoluments Clause (Art 1, Section 9, Clause 8) of the US Constitution.
Beyond this there have been aggressive attacks on the authority and independence of the courts, and growing fears about the use of the US Department of Justice to pursue critics. The mainstream non-conservative media have become a target as well, given their willingness to fact-check and challenge the narratives constructed by the administration. Universities have also drawn the administration’s attention, not just around DEI policies and programs, but core teaching and research activities to which the administration objects.
There have been strong suggestions that the Trump administration’s approach to governance has been heavily influenced by the models of the likes of Hungary’s Viktor Orban, and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Both regimes have been labelled as reflecting a model of ‘authoritarian populism.’
All of which brings us to Doug Ford’s Ontario. Ford’s approach to governance was initially labelled a form of ‘market populism,’ emphasizing the interests of ‘the people’ vs elites, the need to cut ‘red tape’ and ‘get it done.’ Concerns that the Ford government’s style seemed to reflect an understanding of its mandate as an ‘electoral dictatorship’ emerged early. At one point, Ford asserted that he had “final sign-off on everything in this province.”
In office, the Ford government has been noted for its disregard for limits on executive authority; the systemic elimination of requirements for public consultation, transparency, accountability in decision-making in the name of eliminating ‘red tape;’ decision-making models that seem more based on access and connections than evidence or democratic processes; the increasingly assertive use of state power to favour private interests, particularly in areas like urban development, energy and resource extraction; and the pursuit of increasingly costly and questionable infrastructure projects with little or no meaningful public review.
These behavours have accelerated dramatically following the February 2025 provincial election, under a banner of ‘Protect Ontario.’ Consistent with its previous style, the government has taken an assertive interpretation of its electoral mandate, although, as in 2022, its legislative majority actually flows from the votes of less than 20% of eligible voters in the province (43% of popular vote with 45.4% voter turnout).
The pursuit of infrastructure projects with costs running into the $10s and even $100s of billions with thin to near non-existent rationales was reinforced by last week’s provincial budget. Prominent examples have included proposals to bury the 401 Highway in Toronto, and new nuclear power plants at Darlington, Bruce and Wesleyville.
Consistent with a disregard for boundaries on executive authority, the legitimacy of judicial reviews of government decisions has been challenged in a manner seen as reminiscent of Trump’s responses to similar reviews. The government’s response to the granting of an injunction against the government’s attempt to remove bike lanes in Toronto has been a notable example.
But perhaps the best illustration of the province’s post-election assertiveness is Bill 5 – the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act. The most notable feature of the Bill is provisions that would allow for the creation of ‘special economic zones’ anywhere in the province. Within these zones, economic activities could be excluded, by the provincial cabinet, from any applicable provincial or municipal legislation, regulations, by-laws or rules (e.g. environment, public health, safety, labour, human rights, planning, and building codes). The province’s Endangered Species Act would be effectively repealed, and the already fragile regulatory regime for mining further weakened as well.
Although notionally aimed at facilitating the ‘ring of fire’ mineral deposit in Northern Ontario, “special economic zones” could be designated anywhere in the province, including the middle of cities. It has been noted that these kinds of zones are a common feature of authoritarian regimes, like China's, or jurisdictions in deep economic distress.
The legislation has prompted vociferous responses from the province’s Indigenous leaders. They have pointed out that their Treaty and Indigenous rights cannot be overridden by provincial legislation. The same point applies to federal legislation and requirements, although Ottawa has so far been silent on the bill.
For others, the response is one of near despair, asking “is this what the Ontario government has come to?” in mirroring Mr. Trump’s authoritarian governance style in the name of resisting the US President.
Whether the post-election Ford government’s behaviour constitutes a full move in the direction of an ‘authoritarian populist’ mode of governance remains to be seen. But Its actions so far are suggestive of having little real idea of how to deal with the Trump threat other than to indicate that there is no floor to how low the province will go to attract investment. Surely we can do better than that.