There's just one problem with this scenario...
All the examples used in the article are in nations that are, shall we say.... less than democratic.. with a well-established power block supported by obvious forces, amongst which the military elite. The U.S. , with all its' faults, is not like those nations, nor is it anywhere near into devolving to such a state. Nehemiah Scudder has not (yet) been born, and that particular piece of dystopia that Heinlein painted is almost impossible to come to pass in this day and age.
And yes... any POTUS has a lot of very disturbing and downright dangerous options he or she can abuse, but afaik there are some pretty strict conditions set before those even come into play. Simply lifting out a single phrase from a law and claiming that is the whole of the law is...well.... stupid.
The POTUS can't simply decide to launch a couple of nukes for shits and giggles, nor can any POTUS simply declare a national emergency, and shut down the Internet.
Besides, why would Trump, in this case, ever want to shut down the internet in the US? The happy little echo chambers on Twatter, Crapbook and other places are a perfect diversion for the Shouty People, who would otherwise do their ranting and frothing somewhere less publicly, and be a lot harder to ferret out. And then there's the multitude that doesn't give an airborne turd about anything as long as their dinner is on time, the beer is cold, and they can watch/download whatever they want to see on screen tonight.
Shut that down,and people will suddenly start paying attention to what's going on around them, and that can't possibly be the effect you're looking for if you're out to maintain your status quo.
The whole argument that a provision meant for a national crisis can by used willy-nilly is ... less than well thought out.