What would happen if a Rapist were President?

AI: What are the traits of a Rapist and Domestic abuser.

AI response: Lack of Empathy and Remorse, Entitlement and Narcissism, Controlling and Manipulative Behavior, Aggressiveness and Impulsivity, Externalizing Blame.

AI: Write a fictional story about a President who displayed those traits:

President David Taylor’s leadership style left few allies and even fewer dissenters unscathed. Even as his public speeches and televised addresses radiated an unwavering certainty about his vision for the country, behind the scenes, his decisions were frequently driven by personal grievance and a disregard for legal processes. Over time, his governance took on an increasingly autocratic tone, with actions that affected every corner of the executive branch—from immigration policy to law enforcement and the management of major federal agencies.

One of the most controversial aspects of Taylor’s presidency was his handling of immigration. Early in his term, he announced sweeping changes to the nation’s immigration policies, positioning himself as the sole arbiter of who should be allowed to call the country home. In a series of rapid executive orders, he restructured the immigration system. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was given an expanded mandate to enforce strict border controls, and the newly reformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was tasked with unprecedented authority. Large detention centers were quickly erected near the border, and families were separated as officials hurried to detain individuals deemed “undesirable” by the administration. An intimidated media dismissed these actions as necessary measures for national security. At the same time, critics decried them as inhumane and excessively punitive.

Within the halls of power, key figures at agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) found themselves coerced into aligning with Taylor’s unilateral vision or summarily dismissed. At the DOJ, a series of internal memos revealed that senior officials had been ordered to prioritize investigations into any dissent or protest regarding the administration’s policies—even when those protests were peaceful demonstrations by immigrant communities. At the EPA, funding was redirected from environmental monitoring to surveillance of areas known to house migrant communities, ostensibly to prevent any unauthorized crossings or civil unrest.

In one particularly charged episode, an armed convoy of law enforcement officers, under direct orders from the president, set out to secure a detention center that had unexpectedly become a focal point for immigrant protests. The law enforcement branch of the executive, including agents from the Secret Service and local police forces that had been co-opted into federal initiatives, executed the order with an intensity that left the nation reeling. Videos leaked to the press showed officers forming lines of command outside the facility. In the ensuing chaos, a group of protestors was forcibly dispersed. The images of tear gas and the shouts of detained families sent shockwaves across the nation. They ignited widespread debate over the balance between security and civil liberties.

Despite the turmoil, Taylor remained unyielding in his approach. In a nationally broadcast address following the incident, he first denied knowing about it before dismissing public outrage as mere “misinterpretations of necessary action.” He painted the protestors as agents of disorder, manipulated by nefarious forces intent on destabilizing his administration’s efforts to safeguard national interests. His rhetoric was both inflammatory and dismissive, leaving little room for dialogue or compromise. His cabinet of hand-picked sycophants had no public qualms about the human cost of his policies; he retorted that the burden of leadership sometimes required sacrifices that only true patriots could understand.

The consolidation of power didn’t stop with immigration and law enforcement. Under Taylor’s orders, every major agency underwent a drastic reorganization to fit the mold of his centralized, top-down management style. The FBI, long an institution known for its methodical approach to crime and justice, was reoriented to focus almost exclusively on internal dissent. Long-standing investigative practices were sidelined in favor of a more politically charged agenda that sought to root out any opposition to Taylor’s policies. Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) saw its programs repurposed to bolster initiatives that, according to Taylor, were “crucial for the rejuvenation of our national identity,” even as these programs left vulnerable populations without adequate support.

Taylor’s interactions with these agencies were characterized by abrupt meetings, unilateral orders, and an insistence on immediate results. In a closed-door session with the heads of major agencies, he instructed them to ensure that every department acted in concert with his overarching vision for the nation. “There is no room for debate,” he declared, his tone brooking no argument. “If your department cannot align with the new direction, it has no place in my government.” The message was clear: loyalty was non-negotiable, and any deviation from his directives would be met with swift retribution.

The president’s approach to law enforcement was equally uncompromising. The executive branch’s law enforcement apparatus was reconfigured to act as the president’s personal enforcer, with rapid-response units deployed to quell any signs of civil disobedience. In one notable instance, after a local community center hosted a peaceful rally in support of immigrant rights, law enforcement officers were dispatched en masse. The rally, which had attracted a diverse cross-section of citizens, was abruptly terminated by the presence of heavily armed federal agents. The president later justified the action by asserting that the event posed an “unnecessary risk to national stability,” even though the demonstrators had done nothing more than exercise their constitutional rights.

These actions had a cascading effect throughout the federal government. The major agencies, now operating under constant scrutiny and top-down control, saw morale plummet. Mid-level officials who had once been champions of innovative policies were now forced to toe the line, fearing the president’s swift punishments for any sign of dissent. In many ways, the entire structure of government began to reflect the president’s own rigid worldview—a landscape where order was maintained not through dialogue or collaboration but through strict obedience and the suppression of any voices that might challenge the status quo.

Amid these sweeping changes, the immigrant community became an emblem of resistance and victimhood. Grassroots organizations mobilized, organizing legal challenges and peaceful demonstrations to counter the executive’s policies. Many immigrant advocates risked arrest and even physical harm in their pursuit of justice. Stories emerged of families torn apart, of individuals detained under harsh conditions, and of communities living in the shadow of a government that had once promised freedom and opportunity. Yet even as these stories gained national attention, Taylor’s administration consistently deflected responsibility, attributing any negative outcomes to external saboteurs and misguided local officials rather than its own policies.

In the final months of his presidency, as protests intensified and the nation’s institutions strained under the weight of his reforms, the legacy of President Taylor became a subject of fierce debate. A series of high-profile investigations were launched into the conduct of his administration. Testimonies from within the corridors of power painted a picture of a leader who had remade the federal government in his own image—centralized, uncompromising, and dangerously disconnected from the human realities his policies impacted. Yet even in the face of mounting evidence, Taylor maintained his narrative of being an embattled visionary, one whose decisions, however harsh, were necessary for the survival of the nation.