the perpetrators. But even in those first stunned hours, one thing was apparent: this would change our world, and not for the better. A quarter-century later, it’s easier to assess the damage. The 9/11 attacks marked the beginning of the end of American global leadership, launching us into a state of permanent fear and emergency that, in turn, helped enable the precipitous decline of our democracy. The events of 9/11 themselves, and al-Qaeda more generally, did not pose an existential threat to the United States. The richest country on Earth could, and did, shrug off the economic impact, and from a cold actuarial perspective, in a nation so large—one that routinely loses 15,000-20,000 people a year to homicide—the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, however tragic, weren’t likely to cripple the country. It was our predictable overreaction that did us in. Less than a month after 9/11 President George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan, starting a war that would last for 20 years and kill more than 6,000 American military personnel and contractors before its ignominious end. Six weeks after the attacks Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, permitting a previously undreamt-of expansion of government surveillance and detention authorities. Within six months Mr Bush signed a directive declaring the Geneva Conventions inapplicable to the conflict with al- Qaeda. A year after that we went to war in Iraq as well, relying on false claims that its dictator, Saddam Hussein, possessed weapons of mass destruction and was aiding al-Qaeda. That war would leave more than 8,000 American troops and contractors dead. By the end of 2004 the surge of global goodwill America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 had evaporated. Too many dead bodies had piled up, for one thing: in addition to the thousands of American and allied military personnel killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung outposts of the global war on terror, hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis were dead. By overseeing the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects and the use of torture, the Bush administration had also squandered any claims to moral leadership: once viewed, images of naked Iraqi prisoners piled into human pyramids couldn’t easily be unseen.
But the self-inflicted damage continued after Mr Bush left office. Although President Barack Obama rolled back many of the Bush administration’s most egregious policies, such as the use of torture, the “forever war” proved difficult to end. Mr Obama acknowledged that playing whack-a- mole with terrorists wasn’t a sustainable strategy, but he couldn’t seem to stop; he expanded the use of drone strikes and other targeted killings of terrorist suspects around the world. Like the Bush administration’s use of torture, the targeted killings programme, which continued under Donald Trump and Joe Biden, was notably lacking in meaningful due process. The executive branch insisted it had the right to kill anyone, anywhere, at any time based on classified evidence it declined to disclose, essentially declaring itself judge, jury and executioner. The 9/11 attacks reverberated domestically as well. The 2001 PATRIOT Act was just the beginning: surveillance and detention authorities continued to expand, and surveillance technologies developed on the battlefield were later adopted by police at the federal, state and local levels. Legal doctrines developed in the context of national-security-related issues increasingly found their way into ordinary civil and criminal cases. As a quiescent Congress ceded ever more power to the executive branch, “emergency” authorities granted in the wake of 9/11 became permanent. Just as perniciously, America became a nation defined by fear and mutual suspicion. Jolted out of their pre-9/11 sense of invulnerability, citizens turned on one another. Islamophobia and xenophobia rose. Conspiracy theories spread: the attacks were an inside job, or an Israeli plot, or planned by Wall Street elites who profited from insider trading. Political polarisation increased, too. By 2014 more than a quarter of Democrats and more than a third of Republicans saw the other political party as a “threat to the nation’s well-being”. Far-right and white-nationalist groups gained traction. Of course, 9/11 wasn’t the sole cause of America’s democratic decline, but it helped create the legal, political and psychological conditions in which that decline accelerated. By 2015, when a certain New York reality-TV phenomenon began his rise to power, we were already a nation ripe for authoritarian takeover from within. Weakened by internal division, with a populace habituated to executive overreach and violations of due-process
norms, what chance did American democracy have against an authoritarian in the White House? By the time a violent right-wing mob stormed the Capitol on January 6th 2021, it had become clear that the gravest, most existential threat to American democracy wasn’t a vicious and homicidal band of Islamist extremists. It was our own citizens, goaded by an autocratic president to whom we had handed vast powers. In 1776 the American colonists rebelled against what they saw as the arbitrary and tyrannical British monarchy. As we approach America’s 250th birthday, it’s hard not to imagine Mad King George gazing out at Donald Trump’s America—and laughing. ■ Rosa Brooks is the Scott K. Ginsburg chair in law and policy at Georgetown University. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//essay/2026/06/02/how-the-war-on-terror-primed-america- for-autocracy
The World Cup will test Mexico’s control over its territory What happens when a presidential vote is a dead heat? Techno-libertarians are flocking to the Caribbean
The World Cup will test Mexico’s control over its territory Donald Trump, who says the government is too weak to combat the drug gangs, will be watching June 11th 2026 When the World Cup kicks off on June 11th, Guadalajara is eager to show visitors more than tequila, mariachi and tortas ahogadas, the spicy sandwich for which the city is known. The capital of Jalisco state—motto: “Jalisco is Mexico”—it is also a hub for technology, innovation and foreign investment. “We know Guadalajara is currently in the world’s spotlight,” says Monserrat Hidalgo, head of the local organising committee for the competition. The tournament will be the most-watched sporting event ever, with 104 matches spread across 16 cities in three countries. The United States will host 78 matches, with only 13 each in Canada and Mexico. Mexico, which
will host matches in Monterrey and Mexico City, as well as Guadalajara, is attracting particular scrutiny. The country is one of the world’s most violent. Criminal groups control territory, extort money from businesses and are capable of paralysing entire cities. In February, after special forces killed Mexico’s most-wanted drug boss, Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes— better known as El Mencho, the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel —gangsters brought parts of Guadalajara to a standstill, blocking the roads with burning lorries. Mexico is the third-most-dangerous country ever to host the competition, after South Africa and Brazil. Forty-four people were murdered on average every day in May. Despite these facts, the gangs themselves are not the biggest security risk facing the tournament. Criminal groups have little incentive to disrupt it, says Eduardo Guerrero of Lantia, a consultancy in Mexico City. An attack on a stadium would provoke a response not just from Mexico but perhaps from the United States as well. That would be bad for business. The gangs will certainly be cashing in, but quietly, through fraud, prostitution and other illicit activities. Criminals everywhere “see the World Cup and they see dollar signs”, says Craig Timm, a former official at the US Department of Justice. General Román Villalvazo Barrios, who is overseeing the government’s World Cup security preparations, says his officials are preparing for a broad range of threats that go well beyond the gangs. The plan includes roughly 100,000 soldiers, police officers and private security guards, alongside surveillance technology and extensive cordons around stadiums and fan zones. Security planners worry most about soft targets. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank in Washington, argues that the most plausible terrorist threat to the competition comes from a lone attacker or small group targeting fan zones, transport hubs, hotel districts, restaurants or queues outside stadiums. But such attacks are rare in Mexico, where spectacular violence is usually caused by gangsters rather than by terrorists. They are more common in the United States, where it is easier to get guns. Drones are another concern. The host countries have developed a joint strategy to detect and counter unauthorised aircraft around stadiums and fan
events. Officials worry not only about sophisticated attacks but also about amateur operators causing disruption or panic. Other risks are less dramatic but potentially just as disruptive. The three countries have developed common health protocols to watch for the spread of Ebola, measles and other diseases. Border crossings, visa procedures and immigration enforcement could also complicate travel for fans and teams. Donald Trump has already created uncertainty. After he suggested Iran’s football team could play matches in American territory but not stay in the country overnight, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, offered to host the team instead. Mexico faces additional logistical challenges. Its infrastructure is weaker than its northern neighbours’. The main airport in Mexico City (which will host five matches) has been given a facelift, but has long been too small for the country’s needs. Traffic remains notoriously bad. Protests may well cause disruption. On June 1st security forces fired tear gas at teachers demonstrating in Mexico City who were demanding salary increases; the teachers are planning more protests around the World Cup matches. Relatives of the large numbers of people who have disappeared in Mexico, probably killed or forcibly recruited by drug gangs, also hope to use the tournament to draw attention to their cause.