Shapiro: 'Trump is trying to become a tyrant' — review finds contested executive moves that critics say restrict liberties, but not proof of an authoritarian takeover

What was claimed: On CNN’s State of the Union (reported July 5, 2026), Gov. Josh Shapiro said President Donald Trump "is trying to restrict our liberty" and warned that the president is "trying to become a tyrant." Breitbart amplified and highlighted those remarks. Shapiro’s sentence is an explicit normative judgment about the president’s intent and political project. What the documentary record shows: Since the president’s second inauguration in January 2025, the administration has signed a series of executive orders, proclamations, and policy changes that critics say restrict civil liberties or place new conditions on rights previously treated as broadly protected. Examples documented by reputable organizations and primary sources include an executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" (EO 14160), orders rolling back federal DEI programs, a State Department passport policy affecting transgender, intersex, and nonbinary applicants, and expanded travel and entry restrictions affecting nationals of many countries. These actions have produced litigation and public criticism by civil-rights groups, national human-rights organizations, and legal observers. Evidence that critics’ concerns are grounded: Human Rights Watch’s 2026 World Report characterizes the second Trump administration as taking steps that set back protections across multiple rights areas and cites removal or restriction of federal civil-rights initiatives. The ACLU sued over the State Department/passport policy after the administration changed passport processing for transgender and nonbinary people and the Supreme Court allowed portions of the policy to be enforced while litigation proceeds. The Congressional Research Service and legal analysts have tracked proclamations that restrict entry to the United States for nationals of dozens of countries. These are concrete, checkable acts showing the administration pursued policies that opponents argue curtail liberty for identifiable groups. Evidence that complicates the "tyrant" label: Many of the administration’s actions have been challenged in court. The federal judiciary — including the Supreme Court on June 30, 2026 — has acted as a check in several high-profile matters: the Court rejected the executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming constitutional protections. Courts, agencies, and Congress (where applicable) remain active institutional constraints; some policies have been enjoined or narrowed by litigation. That legal pushback indicates the presence of functioning checks on executive action, which is relevant when evaluating claims of a successful or nearly successful slide to authoritarian rule. Assessment and verdict reasoning: Shapiro’s statement mixes an evaluative political judgment with factual claims about the president’s actions. The factual component — that the Trump administration pursued controversial executive policies affecting civil liberties and particular populations — is supported by primary documents and by reporting from rights organizations and legal filings. The stronger interpretive claim — that the president is "trying to become a tyrant" — asserts intent and a course toward autocratic seizure of power, which is not established by the evidentiary record in a way that demonstrates a completed or uncontested move to authoritarian rule. Because the claim blends verifiable facts with a broader normative conclusion that overstates what the record proves, the appropriate public verdict is "misleading." What readers should understand: The administration’s record contains multiple specific actions that have, according to NGOs, civil-rights plaintiffs, and legal analysts, narrowed or targeted rights for particular groups; those actions are properly the subject of civic scrutiny and legal challenge. But allegations that a president is "trying to become a tyrant" are consequential and require more direct, corroborated evidence of intent to dismantle constitutional checks and permanently remove opposition — evidence that the public record does not conclusively provide as of this report. Readers should weigh both the documented policy actions and the fact that courts and other institutions have intervened as they form judgments.