For most of modern American history, the United States operated in a way that political theorists would unmistakably classify as legal-rational. That simply means authority comes from rules and institutions rather than from any one individual. Presidents mattered, but institutions mattered more. Cabinet secretaries executed policy within statutory constraints. Civil servants were protected precisely to prevent political dependence. Courts ruled against sitting presidents without their legitimacy being widely questioned. Political parties organized around ideological platforms and coalitions that outlived any single leader.

The system was not perfect. It was partisan, polarized, often gridlocked. But structurally, it was impersonal. Loyalty was owed to the Constitution and the office, not to the person occupying it.

Since 2016, that balance has shifted.

Sociologist Max Weber described a different kind of authority called “patrimonial.” In this system, power becomes personal. Loyalty to a leader begins to matter more than loyalty to rules. Institutions still exist, but they revolve around the individual instead of operating independently. Patrimonialism isn’t about eliminating courts or elections. It’s about shifting power so that personal loyalty to a leader matters more than rules and institutions.

Under President Trump, loyalty became a visible political test. Officials were labeled loyal or disloyal. Cabinet members who publicly disagreed with the president were dismissed or sidelined. Political rhetoric often suggested that support for the individual leader determined credibility.

In a legal-rational system, that should not be the central question. Offices are designed to function through procedure, not personal allegiance. When loyalty to a person becomes politically decisive, authority begins to migrate from institution to individual.

There were also signs of strain within the administrative system. Proposals to reclassify federal employees so they could be removed more easily, heavy use of acting officials, and frustration with bureaucratic independence suggested discomfort with limits on executive control. Legal-rational systems rely on stable and independent administrators. Systems centered on personal power rely on dependence.

The lines between public office and private networks also became less clear. Family members held senior advisory roles. Official events were hosted at properties owned by the president. Political identity became closely tied to personal brand. While previous presidents were not free from ethical concerns, there was generally a clearer understanding that public office should remain symbolically separate from private business.

Political parties changed as well. Before 2016, party identity focused mainly on policy positions and ideology. In recent years, alignment has increasingly centered on loyalty to a specific leader. Primary elections often functioned as loyalty tests. Endorsements became tools for rewarding supporters and disciplining critics.

Perhaps most significant was how independent institutions were treated when they disagreed with presidential preferences. Courts, election officials, intelligence agencies, and the press were frequently described as illegitimate when their conclusions conflicted with the president’s position. In a system built on rules, legitimacy comes from process. In a leader-centered system, legitimacy flows from closeness to the leader.

It is important to be precise. The United States did not stop being a constitutional democracy. Courts issued rulings. Elections were held. Power was transferred.

But systems do not change only through sudden collapse. They can shift gradually. Through repetition. Through normalization. Through the steady replacement of institutional loyalty with personal loyalty.

The most significant change since 2016 has been cultural. The growing assumption that political authority is tied to the individual in office rather than to the office itself. The United States remains structured as a legal-rational system. The question is whether its political culture is becoming more leader-centered.

If that trend continues across parties and administrations, the transformation may not feel dramatic. It may feel incremental.

And that is how systems change.