{{Short description|none}} {{Use mdy dates|date=June 2022}} {{Use American English|date=June 2022}} {{Split|Democratic backsliding in the United States|Trump and authoritarianism|discuss=Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States#Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism"|date=April 2026}} [[File:V-Dem Electoral and Liberal Democracy Indices for the United States since 1900.svg |thumb |upright=1.35 |The V-Dem Institute said in 2026 that "the speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history".<ref name=VDEM_Report_2026/> The institute noted executive overreach undermining the rule of law, suppression and intimidation of the media and dissenting voices, loss of legislative constraints, and declining civil rights, equality, and freedom of expression.<ref name=VDEM_Report_2026>{{cite web |title=Democracy Report 2026 / Unraveling The Democratic Era? |url=https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf |publisher=V-Dem Institute |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260320121434/https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf |archive-date=20 March 2026 |page=33 In Focus: Autocratization in the USA |date=March 2026 |url-status=live}}<br>●{{nbsp}}Raw data presented at: {{cite web |title=Country Graph |url=https://www.v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/ |publisher=V-Dem Institute |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260301172546/https://www.v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/ |archive-date=1 March 2026 |date=March 2026 |url-status=live}} (Choose "United States of America" and select "Election Democracy Index" and "Liberal Democracy Index".)</ref>]] {{Democratic backsliding during the second Trump administration sidebar}} Democratic backsliding has been identified as a trend in the United States at the state and national levels in various indices and analyses, primarily during the Jim Crow era, and in the 21st century under Donald Trump.<ref name="p867">{{cite web |last=Langfitt |first=Frank |title=Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism |website=NPR |date=April 22, 2025 |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist |access-date=March 24, 2026}}</ref><ref name="x851">{{cite web |last=Selker |first=Kate |title=Democracy in 2025: Harvard professors on rising authoritarianism in the United States |website=Harvard Kennedy School |date=January 7, 2026 |url=https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/democracy-governance/democracy-2025-harvard-professors-rising |access-date=March 24, 2026}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Understanding democratic decline in the United States |url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/ |access-date=2025-06-18 |website=Brookings |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Staff |first=N. P. R. |date=2026-01-23 |title=How President Trump has challenged a constitutional foundation |url=https://www.npr.org/2026/01/23/g-s1-106562/trump-democracy-constitution-executive-power |access-date=2026-05-09 |work=NPR |language=en |quote=In his first year back in the White House, President Trump has presided over a sweeping expansion of executive power while eroding democratic norms. Many scholars of democracy say that these moves are unprecedented in U.S. history and that Trump has pushed the United States toward authoritarianism.}}</ref> It is "a process of regime change towards autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive, and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cassani |first1=Andrea |last2=Tomini |first2=Luca |title=Autocratization in post-Cold War Political Regimes |date=2019 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-030-03125-1 |pages=15–35 |language=en |chapter=What Autocratization Is}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |author=Walder, D. |author2=Lust, E. |date=2018|title=Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|volume=21|issue=1|pages=93–113|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628|doi-access=free|quote=Backsliding entails a deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance, within any regime. In democratic regimes, it is a decline in the quality of democracy; in autocracies, it is a decline in democratic qualities of governance.}}</ref>
The Jim Crow era is among the most-cited historical examples of democratic backsliding, with Black Americans in particular seeing their rights eroded dramatically, especially in the Southern United States. Backsliding in the 21st century has been discussed as largely a Republican-led phenomenon, with particular emphasis placed on the administrations of Donald Trump. Drivers include decisions made by the Supreme Court (especially those regarding money in politics and gerrymandering), attempts at election subversion, the concentration of political power, and a growing interest in political violence, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, and white identity politics.{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=first section}}{{sfn|Rowland|2021|p=158}} A paper published in ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science'' said, "Trump undermined faith in elections, encouraged political violence, vilified the mainstream media, [and] positioned himself as a law-and-order strongman challenging immigrants and suppressing protests."{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=first section}}
These developments have resulted in a number of indices and experts ceasing to classify the country as a democracy. The Polity data series classified the United States as an "anocracy" following the attempted self-coup by Trump in the January 6 United States Capitol attack of 2021; in 2024 and 2025, it was further downgraded, and by October 2025 described as "no longer [...] a democracy" and lying "at the cusp of autocracy".<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=October 2025 |title=index |url=https://www.systemicpeace.org/ |access-date=2025-11-07 |website=Polity data series |quote=NOTE: The USA dropped below the "democracy threshold" (+6) on the POLITY scale in 2020 and was considered an anocracy (+5) at the end of the year 2020; the USA score for 2021 returned to democracy (+8). Beginning on 1 July 2024, due to the US Supreme Court ruling granting the US Presidency broad, legal immunity, the USA is noted by the Polity Project as experiencing a regime transition through, at least, 20 January 2025. As of the latter date, the USA is coded EXREC=8, "Competitive Elections"; EXCONST=1 "Unlimited Executive Authority"; and POLCOMP=6 "Factional/Restricted Competition." Polity scores: DEMOC=4; AUTOC=4; POLITY=0. The USA is no longer considered a democracy and lies at the cusp of autocracy; it has experienced a Presidential Coup and an Adverse Regime Change event (8-point drop in its POLITY score).}}</ref> Bright Line Watch made similar statements in September 2025, describing expert ratings of the country as "closer to those of a mixed or illiberal democracy than a full democracy".<ref name=":8" /> In the V-Dem Institute's democracy report published in 2026, which describes the year 2025, the U.S. was classified as an "electoral democracy" for the first time in over 50 years, losing its status as a liberal democracy.<ref name="VDEM_Report_2026" />
==Jim Crow era== {{Main|Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era|Nadir of American race relations|Jim Crow laws}}
{{Further|Reconstruction era|Voting rights in the United States|Black Codes (United States)}}
===Lead-up to Jim Crow=== The first Reconstruction era started with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.{{Sfn|McPherson|1978|p=140}} In the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, the federal government of the United States initially took an active role in reducing racial discrimination.{{Sfn|McPherson|1978|p=135}} Between 1865 and 1870, three Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution were passed to address racial inequality in the South: the Thirteenth (which abolished most forms of slavery), the Fourteenth (which addressed Citizenship Rights and equal protection under the law) and the Fifteenth (which made it illegal to deny the right to vote on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude").<ref name="dates">{{Cite web |title=All Amendments to the United States Constitution |url=http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201230082417/http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm |archive-date=December 30, 2020 |website=University of Minnesota Human Rights Library}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Reconstruction Amendments |work=Slavery by Another Name |publisher=PBS |url=https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/reconstruction-amendments/ |access-date=2024-02-22 |language=en}}</ref> With this, the number of African American men who could vote went from 0.5% in 1866 to 70% in 1872.{{Sfn|McPherson|1978|p=138}} These amendments would have offered more sweeping protections, but some Republican lawmakers wanted to limit their impact so that they would not apply to immigrants or poorer people in their districts.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 3}}</ref>
By the late 1870s, however, white backlash against the social, economic and political gains of Black people (exemplified by the violence and persecution they faced from terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan){{Sfn|McPherson|1978|p=140}} contributed to the Compromise of 1877, wherein the Democratic Party (then dominated by Southern white supremacists){{Sfn|McPherson|1978|pp=136–137}} agreed to let Republicans win the 1876 presidential election, in exchange for removing federal troops from the South and, in the words of historian James M. McPherson, "the abandonment of the black man to his fate."{{Sfn|McPherson|1978|p=135}} Former supporters of Reconstruction-era policies began to argue that the government had made "too many changes too fast", and a White conservative movement within the Republican Party also started to gain influence.{{Sfn|McPherson|1978|p=143}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Heersink |first1=Boris |last2=Jenkins |first2=Jeffery A. |date=April 2020 |title=Whiteness and the Emergence of the Republican Party in the Early Twentieth-Century South |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-american-political-development/article/abs/whiteness-and-the-emergence-of-the-republican-party-in-the-early-twentiethcentury-south/899B4B98A78353683C3C6050DFA5771B |journal=Studies in American Political Development |language=en |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=71–90 |doi=10.1017/S0898588X19000208 |issn=0898-588X |s2cid=213551748|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
===Jim Crow era=== In November 1898, white supremacist Democrats in North Carolina orchestrated a coup in Wilmington, deploying armed paramilitary groups to burn the ''Daily Record'' newspaper office, as it was Black-owned. They also terrorised Black neighbourhoods, and forced the resignation at gunpoint of the elected biracial city government, which they successfully replaced with their own appointees. In the months that followed, they entrenched their victory through a new state constitutional amendment imposing various measures, such as poll taxes, literacy tests. These disenfranchised almost all African Americans and many poor whites for nearly seventy years, ushering in a region‑wide Jim Crow order of racial segregation and white‑supremacist authoritarian rule.{{sfn|Lieberman|Mettler|2023}}
The Jim Crow era saw an erosion of political and civil rights that would span decades; between the 1890s and 1910s, Southern governments passed Jim Crow laws, which instituted poll taxes, literacy tests and other discriminatory systems, barring many Black and impoverished White Americans from voting. By 1913, this disenfranchisement extended into the federal government, as the Wilson Administration introduced segregation there as well. Jim Crow policies have been described as a democratic breakdown (or backsliding).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Olson |first=Michael P. |date=2024 |title="Restoration" and representation: Legislative consequences of Black disfranchisement in the American South, 1879–1916 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12868 |journal=American Journal of Political Science |volume=69 |issue=2 |pages=387–405 |language=en |doi=10.1111/ajps.12868 |issn=0092-5853|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Parker |first1=Christopher Sebastian |last2=Towler |first2=Christopher C. |date=2019-05-11 |title=Race and Authoritarianism in American Politics |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |language=en |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=503–519 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-064519 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Grumbach |first=Jacob M. |date=August 2023 |title=Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=117 |issue=3 |pages=967–984 |doi=10.1017/S0003055422000934 |issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free}}</ref>
==21st century== {{See also|Election denial movement in the United States||}}[[File:Countries democratizing or autocratizing substantially and significantly 2010–2020.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|Countries autocratizing (red) or democratizing (blue) substantially and significantly (2010–2020) according to the V-Dem Institute; the remainder are substantially unchanged.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Nazifa |last1=Alizada |first2=Rowan |last2=Cole |first3=Lisa |last3=Gastaldi |first4=Sandra |last4=Grahn |first5=Sebastian |last5=Hellmeier |first6=Palina |last6=Kolvani |first7=Jean |last7=Lachapelle |first8=Anna |last8=Lührmann |first9=Seraphine F. |last9=Maerz |first10=Shreeya |last10=Pillai |first11=Staffan I. |last11=Lindberg |year=2021 |url=https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf|url-status=live |title=Autocratization Turns Viral. Democracy Report 2021|location=University of Gothenburg|publisher=V-Dem Institute|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf|archive-date=2021-09-14|access-date=2022-11-13}}</ref>]] The 21st century saw the erosion of voting rights and the rise of partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures.{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=first section}} The first presidency of Donald Trump accelerated the undermining of democratic norms.{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=first section}}{{sfn|Rowland|2021|p=158}} A paper published in ''The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science'' said, "Trump undermined faith in elections, encouraged political violence, vilified the mainstream media, [and] positioned himself as a law-and-order strongman challenging immigrants and suppressing protests."{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=first section}}
In 2019, political scientists Robert R. Kaufman and Stephan Haggard saw "striking parallels in terms of democratic dysfunction, polarization, the nature of autocratic appeals, and the processes through which autocratic incumbents sought to exploit elected office" in the United States under Trump compared to other backsliding countries (Venezuela, Turkey, and Hungary).{{sfn|Kaufman|Haggard|2019|p=417}} They argued that a transition to competitive authoritarianism is possible but unlikely.{{sfn|Kaufman|Haggard|2019|p=417}} In 2020, Kurt Weyland presented a qualitative model for assessing democratic continuity and reversal using historical data from the experience of other countries. His study concluded that the United States is immune to democratic reversal.{{sfn|Weyland|2020}} In 2021, political scientists Matias López and Juan Pablo Luna criticized his methodology and selection of parameters and argued that both democratic continuity and reversal are possible. With regard to the state of scholarly research on the subject, they wrote that "the probability of observing democratic backsliding in the United States remains an open and important question".{{sfn|López|Luna|2021|p=421}} According to some Canadian security experts, Canada may reevaluate historically close Canada–United States relations in response to democratic backsliding in the U.S., which could bring instability to the region and compromise Canada's greatest source of intelligence, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has openly said that U.S.–Canadian relations have entered a new chapter wherein the United States will no longer be seen as a trustworthy partner.{{sfn|Gillies|2022|p=}}<ref name="CBC 2022">{{cite web |last=Tunney |first=Catharine |date=19 May 2022 |title=Canada should rethink relationship with U.S. as democratic 'backsliding' worsens: security experts |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-security-us-fox-news-threat-report-1.6459660 |access-date=29 May 2022 |work=CBC News}}</ref><ref name="Carney Statements">{{cite news |last1=Sullivan |first1=Rory |title=Era of close US-Canadian relations is 'over', warns Prime Minister Mark Carney |url=https://www.euronews.com/2025/03/28/era-of-close-us-canadian-relations-is-over-warns-prime-minister-mark-carney? |access-date= 13 January 2026 |agency=Euro News |date=28 March 2025}}</ref>
[[File:Trump Truth Social Wordcloud.png|thumb|right|250px|In 2023, Donald Trump posted a wordcloud to his Truth Social account summarizing a ''Daily Mail'' poll of words voters associated with him.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Guilfoil|first=Kyla|date=December 27, 2023|title=Trump posts word cloud boasting voters associate 'revenge' and 'dictatorship' with a second term|work=NBC News|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-posts-word-cloud-boasting-voters-associate-revenge-dictatorship-rcna131294|access-date=March 22, 2026}}</ref>]] Quickly after resuming office for his second term in 2025, Trump became increasingly criticized by political scientists, scholars, and other significant figures for the threat he poses to American democracy. Early on, many cited the expansion of executive power and the reduction of agency workforces and regulations by the Department of Government Efficiency as an example of such threats.<ref>{{cite news|work=The Guardian|title='This is a coup': Trump and Musk's purge is cutting more than costs, say experts|date=17 February 2025|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/17/trump-musk-government-cost-cutting-coup}}</ref> Freedom House described the pardon of January 6 United States Capitol attack defendants as an attempt to "excuse a violent assault on a key element of democracy".<ref>{{cite web|work=Freedom House|title=United States: Clemency Actions Cast Shadow over Democracy on Inauguration Day|date=January 21, 2025|url=https://freedomhouse.org/article/united-states-clemency-actions-cast-shadow-over-democracy-inauguration-day}}</ref> Steven Levitsky found the first two months of the second Trump administration to be the most aggressively and openly authoritarian case of democratic backsliding that he has seen, expressing particular concern about attacks on the courts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Taub |first=Amanda |date=March 20, 2025 |title=The Interpreter: 'This is worse': Trump's judicial defiance veers beyond the autocrat playbook |url=https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/dynamic/render?uri=nyt://newsletter/4a8cee74-5706-5102-a863-be2eb586dd2f&sendId=193981&productCode=INT&paid_regi=1&isViewInBrowser=true |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=The New York Times}}</ref> In September 2025, Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater Associates, has warned that the United States was heading towards 1930s-style authoritarian policies.<ref>{{cite news |title=The US is transforming into a 1930s-style autocracy, says billionaire Ray Dalio |url=https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/02/business/trump-us-autocracy-ray-dalio-intl}}</ref>
===Origins=== thumb|Inequality after taxes and transfers Some have linked the war on terror and the Iraq War, started during the presidency of George W. Bush, as enabling later democratic backsliding under the first Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sky |first=Emma |date=April 2023 |title=The Iraq Invasion at Twenty: The Iraq War and Democratic Backsliding |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/886938 |journal=Journal of Democracy |language=en |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=135–149 |doi=10.1353/jod.2023.0023 |issn=1086-3214 |s2cid=258184706|url-access=subscription}}</ref>{{sfn|Greenberg|2021|pp=6–7}}
A resurgence of authoritarian, white-ethnic identity politics has been cited as well.{{sfn|Huq|2022|p=50}} Some have linked that rise to social media, Google, YouTube and other algorithms of the attention economy that prioritize more sensational content.<ref>{{Cite news |date=February 20, 2017 |title='#Republic' Author Describes How Social Media Hurts Democracy |url=https://www.npr.org/2017/02/20/516292286/-republic-author-describes-how-social-media-hurts-democracy |work=NPR}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hull |first=Gordon |date=2017-11-06 |title=Why social media may not be so good for democracy |url=http://theconversation.com/why-social-media-may-not-be-so-good-for-democracy-86285 |access-date=2024-07-14 |website=The Conversation |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-05-31 |title=What's driving America's partisan divide and what might be done to reverse it |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whats-driving-americas-partisan-divide-and-what-might-be-done-to-reverse-it |access-date=2024-07-14 |website=PBS News |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Goo |first=Sara Kehaulani |date=Jun 28, 2022 |title=Nobelist Maria Ressa: Social media is corroding U.S. democracy |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/06/28/maria-ressa-social-media-democracy |work=Axios}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=Molla |first=Rani |date=2020-11-10 |title=Social media is making a bad political situation worse |url=https://www.vox.com/recode/21534345/polarization-election-social-media-filter-bubble |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=November 4, 2017 |title=Once considered a boon to democracy, social media have started to look like its nemesis |url=https://www.economist.com/briefing/2017/11/04/once-considered-a-boon-to-democracy-social-media-have-started-to-look-like-its-nemesis |access-date=2024-07-15 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> The changing media landscape has also resulted in a loss of journalists, with local journalism<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bauder |first=David |date=2019-01-30 |title=Loss of newspapers contributes to political polarization |url=https://apnews.com/article/ecf440606c824f9d9671f2fb22a2ffce |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Angelucci |first1=Charles |last2=Cagé |first2=Julia |last3=Sinkinson |first3=Michael |date=2024-05-01 |title=Media Competition and News Diets |url=https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/mic.20220163 |journal=American Economic Journal: Microeconomics |language=en |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=62–102 |doi=10.1257/mic.20220163 |issn=1945-7669|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Dunaway |first1=Johanna |last2=Darr |first2=Joshua P. |last3=Hitt |first3=Matthew P. |date=2021-05-27 |title=Local newspapers can help reduce polarization with opinion pages that focus on local issues |url=http://theconversation.com/local-newspapers-can-help-reduce-polarization-with-opinion-pages-that-focus-on-local-issues-158834 |access-date=2024-07-15 |website=The Conversation |language=en-US}}</ref> being offered as a partial solution for political polarization.{{Citation needed|date=April 2026}}
====Inequality and the role of money in politics==== {{See also|Plutocracy in the United States|Lobbying in the United States}}
Political scientists including Wendy Brown and H.A. Giroux argued that the United States has been de-democratizing since the 1980s because of neoconservatism and neoliberalism.{{sfn|Brown|2006|p=690}}<ref>{{Citation |last=Giroux |first=Henry A. |chapter=The Conservative Assault on America |date=2006 |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781403984364_2 |title=America on the Edge |pages=23–41 |access-date=2023-10-28 |place=New York |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |language=en |doi=10.1057/9781403984364_2 |isbn=978-1-349-53303-9|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Aziz Huq and Behrouz Alikhani cited the growing political influence of the wealthiest classes and global corporations, related to the loosening of campaign finance laws, especially the ''Citizens United'' Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed corporate personhood.{{sfn|Alikhani|2017|pp=196–198}}{{sfn|Huq|2022|p=50}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Totenberg |first=Nina |title=When Did Companies Become People? Excavating The Legal Evolution |url=https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution |website=NPR |access-date=21 March 2026 |date=28 July 2014}}</ref>
====Undemocratic institutions==== {{See also|Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives|United States congressional apportionment}} Huq also cited the inadequate democratization of national institutions since 1787.{{sfn|Huq|2022|p=50}} Levitsky and Ziblatt agree, finding 2016–2021 to be a period of democratic backsliding<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |pages=4}}</ref> due largely to the inability to reform minoritarian institutions like the Electoral College and Senate that enabled reactionary xenophobic candidates to win office much more easily than in other democracies that had successfully reformed their institutions in the 20th century to be more representative.<ref name=":3" /> Tom Ginsburg and Bridgette Baldwin made similar arguments, citing the Supreme Court's role in shifting political power enough to enable authoritarianism.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ginsburg |first=Tom |date=2018 |title=Democratic Backsliding and the Rule of Law |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13786&context=journal_articles |journal=Ohio Northern University Law Review |volume=44 |pages=351–369}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Baldwin |first=Bridgette |date=April 24, 2015 |title=Backsliding: The United States Supreme Court, Shelby County v. Holder and the Dismantling of Voting Rights Act of 1965 |url=https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/jrge/vol7/iss1/25/ |journal=Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity |volume=7 |issue=1}}</ref> ''The Economist'' argues that the American constitution is more vulnerable to backsliding than parliamentary democracies, pointing to examples throughout history of backsliding to countries that copied the American model.<ref>{{Cite news |date=May 16, 2024 |title=Why America is vulnerable to a despot |url=https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/05/16/americas-democratic-system-is-not-as-robust-as-it-seems |access-date=2024-07-16 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult in the world to amend "by a lot" and that this helps explain why the U.S. still has so many undemocratic institutions that most or all other democracies have reformed.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 7}}</ref> Ari Berman criticized Article Five of the constitution, citing how as of 2024, 7% of U.S. citizens in the 13 least populous states can block any constitutional amendment.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Berman |first=Ari |title=Minority rule: the right-wing attack on the will of the people - and the fight to resist it |date=2024 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |isbn=978-0-374-60021-1 |location=New York |chapter=Epilogue}}</ref> Richard Albert says amending the U.S. Constitution is virtually impossible and that it consistently ranks among the most difficult to amend.<ref name=":02">{{Cite web |last=Albert |first=Richard |date=December 2022 |title=The World's Most Difficult Constitution to Amend? |url=https://www.californialawreview.org/print/the-worlds-most-difficult-constitution-to-amend/ |access-date=2024-10-18 |website=California Law Review |language=en-US}}</ref> He cites partisan division as an explanation for how it was able to be amended at certain times and not others.<ref name=":02" /> He argues that instead of constitutional amendments, judges, legislatures and the executive have all taken new powers to implement changes they want to see made. He also wishes that the founders had opted for a different path during their discussions on Article V.<ref name=":02" /> Dan Balz and Clara Ence Morse criticized Article Five as having "proved to be virtually impossible to change" despite being designed to be updated. Jill Lepore says that amending the Constitution is a form of peaceful revolution, but when a constitution becomes so brittle and fixed, it could lead to an insurrection.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-08-18 |title=American democracy is cracking. These forces help explain why. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/18/american-democracy-political-system-failures/ |access-date=2024-10-18 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en}}</ref>
===Redistricting and gerrymandering=== {{main|Gerrymandering in the United States}} Gerrymandering, the process of redistricting a state with unusual shapes specifically to give an advantage to one political party over another based on voter preference, has been an issue in American politics since as early as 1789, and impacting the representation of the state at the U.S. House of Representatives. Gerrymandering, whether for partisan purposes or racial discrimination, violates the U.S. Constitution, but the court systems have struggled with how to properly quantify when a constitutional violation has occurred. Because of the difficulty in enforcement, gerrymandering remained an effective tactic for political parties to control their representation in the House for over 200 years, but up through 2012, has typically been a back-and-forth conflict between the Republicans and Democrats.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://apnews.com/article/gerrymandering-congress-house-districts-election-12983c6d3d04e9e141d6bb28c79078ca |title=The US has a long history of changing voting districts for political reasons. Is it legal? |first=David |last=Lieb |date=April 22, 2026 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=Associated Press}}</ref>
====Partisan gerrymandering==== After winning power in several states in 2010, the Republicans pushed for state redistricting using the results of the 2010 United States census. They implemented the Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP, which was aimed to redistrict states where Republicans were in control of the district maps to push for stronger Republican representation, typically through partisan gerrymandering. This was a contributing factor to the Republicans gaining control of the U.S. House by winning over 33 seats in the 2012 United States House of Representatives elections.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/11/20857934/republican-gerrymandering-north-carolina-michigan |title=The cracks in the GOP's gerrymandering firewall |first=Ian |last=Millhauser |date=September 11, 2019 |accessdate=August 12, 2023 |work=Vox |archive-url=https://archive.today/20190911232232/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/11/20857934/republican-gerrymandering-north-carolina-michigan|archive-date=2019-09-11|url-status=live}}</ref>
These new Republican-drawn district maps were met by several lawsuits challenging their validity, reaching the Supreme Court across multiple cases. The Roberts Court has never struck down an election law for infringing suffrage or Equal Protection rights.
Early cases focused on partisan gerrymandering, culminating with ''Rucho v. Common Cause'' (2019) where the Court determined that while partisan gerrymandering was still illegal, determination when this occurred was too difficult to assess, and ruled partisan gerrymandering cases were beyond the justiciability of the federal courts.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gerrymandering.html |title=Supreme Court Bars Challenges to Partisan Gerrymandering |first=Adam |last=Liptak |date=June 27, 2019 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> Following the 2020 Census, following ''Rucho'', at least 18 Republican controlled states, some that gained an extra seat from the census, made efforts to create partisan gerrymanders, at times, seeking to prevent or eliminate majority-minority districts, to gain more Republican seats and flip the U.S. House with the 2022 general election. Several Democratic states with partisan redistricting committees, including New York, Illinois and Maryland, made their own efforts to create partisan gerrymanders to offset the seats gained by Republicans in other states and maintain Democratic control of the House.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/politics/gerrymander-census-democrats-republicans.html |title=The Gerrymander Battles Loom, as G.O.P. Looks to Press Its Advantage |first1=Reid |last1=Epstein |first2=Nick |last2=Corasaniti |date=February 1, 2026 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> The net result was that the Republicans were able to take the majority of the House, but holding only a narrow, single-digit margin following the 2022 election.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/11/16/1133125177/republicans-control-house-of-representatives |title=Republicans narrowly retake control of the House, setting up divided government |first=Deidre |last=Walsh |date=November 16, 2022 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=PBS}}</ref>
====Racial gerrymandering==== Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to coding constitutional voting protections for minority voters and combat institutional racism in state voting laws, primarily for states in the southeastern United States. When the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymanders could not be decided in federal courts in ''Rucho'', new challenges to these maps arose from claims of racial gerrymandering, where Republcian states often used "cracking and packing" to minimize the influence of minority voters who are more likely to vote Democratic.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/590605-redistricting-101-cracking-and-packing/ |title=Redistricting 101: 'Cracking' and 'packing' |date=January 20, 2022 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=The Hill}}</ref> Chief Justice John Roberts had been keen on weakening the VRA since his nomination in 2005, saying "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race".<ref name="cnn roberts callais">{{cite news |url=https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/30/politics/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-race-protections |title=John Roberts' effort to gut the Voting Rights Act is complete |first=Joan |last=Biskupic |date=April 30, 2026 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=CNN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Gersen |first=Jeannie Suk |date=2026-05-02 |title=How the Supreme Court demolished the Voting Rights Act |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/how-the-supreme-court-demolished-the-voting-rights-act |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=2026-05-03 |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref> In ''Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard'' (2023), Roberts led the court to determine affirmative action projects at colleges violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which became a precursor to other devisions to weaken the VRA.<ref name="cnn roberts callais"/>
The Supreme Court discontinued the pre-clearance regime defined by Section 5 of the VRA in ''Shelby County v. Holder'' (2013), which existed to prevent disenfranchisement by states, most in the southern US.{{sfn|Huq|2022|loc=Enabling Durable Minority Entrenchment}} As a whole, according to Huq, these changes shift the institutional equilibrium to "enable the replication of the system of one-party dominance akin to one that characterized the American South for much of the twentieth century".{{sfn|Huq|2022|loc=Enabling Durable Minority Entrenchment}}
Multiple racial gerrymandering cases were heard following the 2020 redistricting. In June 2023, the court ruled 5–4 to uphold rulings of the lower court which used Section 2 of the VRA to instruct the state of Alabama to draw a second majority-Black congressional district, which was hailed as a win for voting rights advocates.<ref>{{Cite web |first=Caroline |last=Sullivan |access-date=27 February 2024 |url=https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/two-weeks-later-allen-v-milligan-has-impacted-these-states/|title=Two Weeks Later, Allen v. Milligan Has Impacted These States|date=June 22, 2023|website=Democracy Docket}}</ref> The court ruled 6–3 that state courts can adjudicate matters related to federal elections held in their state and the North Carolina Supreme Court was allowed to adjudicate whether the congressional map drawn by the North Carolina Legislature complied with the state constitution, because the United States Constitution "does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review". The court rejected the independent state legislature theory, which contended that state legislatures have "effectively unchecked authority" to draw maps according to their wishes.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/27/23775378/supreme-court-moore-harper-john-roberts-independent-state-legislature-north-carolina-bush-gore |access-date=27 February 2024 |title=The Supreme Court decides not to destroy democracy in the United States |first=Ian |last=Millhiser |date=June 27, 2023 |website=Vox}}</ref>
During his second term, Trump has openly encouraged Republican-led states to redistrict to gain more Republican seats in the House, igniting a nationwide mid-decade gerrymandering push. In August, the Texas Senate approved a new map aiming to add five Republican seats. This led Governor Gavin Newsom of California to redistrict the state in a way that would directly counter the new Texas map.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-30 |title=Why California and Texas are at the centre of a redistricting battle |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxydpr1zz2o |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=www.bbc.com |language=en-GB}}</ref> In late September, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a new map into law.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lieb |first=David a |date=2025-09-28 |title=Missouri governor signs Trump-backed plan aimed at helping Republicans win another US House seat |url=https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-gerrymander-trump-missouri-936e8daecadb32556fcfbd2eb9f7457b |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref> The new map was challenged as being racially driven, which a three-judge panel at the district court decided was the case and had blocked the maps, but the Supreme Court ordered a stay on this in December 2025, allowing these maps to be used in 2026.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wang |first1=Hansi Lo |title=Supreme Court lets Texas use gerrymandered map that could give GOP 5 more House seats |work=NPR |date=December 4, 2025 |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/12/04/nx-s1-5619692/supreme-court-texas-redistricting-map}}</ref> During this period, the Court heard ''Louisiana v. Callais'' (2026), involving whether a second majority-minority district was required in the state due to the new census data, following Section 2 of the VRA. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that while the VRA was still constitutional, Section 2 could not be used to create districting maps based on race under the 14th and 15th Amendments, limiting the ability to challenge racial gerrymanders. The ruling, which many commentators said effectively ended the VRA, is expected to allow the southern states to eliminate most of the majority-minority districts and swing the states towards more likely complete Republican representation in the House.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-louisiana-alabama-4e3225083caccda5ec73a98533a79add |title=Supreme Court hollows out a landmark law that had protected minority voting rights for 6 decades |first1=Gary |last1=Fields |first2=Kim |last2=Chandler |date=April 30, 2026 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=Associated Press News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/how-redistricting-supreme-court-have-cut-voters-out-us-house-races-2026-05-03/ |title=How redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races |first=Joseph |last=Ax |date=May 3, 2026 |accessdate=May 3, 2026 |work=Reuters}}</ref>
===Supreme Court=== {{See also|Supreme Court of the United States#Criticism and controversies|Trump v. United States|Bush v. Gore|Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson}} [[File:Supreme Court of the United States - Roberts Court 2022.jpg|alt=group photograph of the Roberts Supreme Court following the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson|thumb|Roberts Court]] [[File:Butterfly Ballot, Florida 2000 (large).jpg|alt=2000 Butterfly Ballot|thumb|Butterfly ballot]]
In addition to decisions on gerrymandering,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=2019-06-27 |title=The Supreme Court's gerrymandering decision reveals a profound threat to democracy |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18761166/supreme-court-gerrymandering-republicans-democracy |access-date=2024-06-12 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref>{{sfn|Huq|2022|loc=Enabling Durable Minority Entrenchment}} Thomas M. Keck argues that because the Court has historically not served as a strong bulwark for democracy, the Roberts Court has the opportunity to go down in history as a defender of democracy. However, he believes that if the court shields Trump from criminal prosecution (after ensuring his access to the ballot), then the risks that come with an anti-democratic status quo of the current court will outweigh the dangers that come from court reform (including court packing).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Keck |first=Thomas M. |date=February 2024 |title=The U.S. Supreme Court and Democratic Backsliding |journal=Law & Policy |language=en |location=Rochester, NY |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=197–218 |doi=10.1111/lapo.12237 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Aziz Z. Huq points to the blocking progress of democratizing institutions, increasing the disparity in wealth and power, and empowering an authoritarian white nationalist movement, as evidence that the Supreme Court has created a "permanent minority" incapable of democratic defeat.{{sfn|Huq|2022}}
In a 2024 ''Vox'' article, Ian Millhiser describes the court as having become a partisan institution, giving itself more and more power to decide political questions. He worries that the court, especially if it adds more Republican appointees, could permanently entrench Republican rule.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |date=2024-06-10 |title=Justices Sotomayor and Kagan must retire now |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/354381/supreme-court-sotomayor-kagan-retire-now |access-date=2024-06-13 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref>
The Supreme Court has increased its power over the bureaucracy through the major questions doctrine and overruling the Chevron doctrine as well as over lower courts with ''Trump v. CASA'' and its expanded use of the shadow docket. The Supreme Court under Roberts has also made a number of decisions that support the unitary executive theory, that the President has sole power over the executive branch, allowing Trump to fire commissioners on several independent agencies.<ref>{{cite web |title=As Trump plans to steal $230 million from taxpayers, we can thank John Roberts |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/10/donald-trump-justice-department-compensation-legal/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Romoser |first=James |title=The Supreme Court's Temporary Rulings Are Having Long-Term Effects |website=The Wall Street Journal |date=December 28, 2025 |url=https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/the-supreme-courts-temporary-rulings-are-having-long-term-effects-d5243e2c |access-date=December 31, 2025}}</ref>
===Election subversion=== {{See also|Election subversion#United States|Ballot Security Task Force|Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election|Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election|Republican Party efforts to disrupt voting after the 2024 United States presidential election}}
By 2020, most state legislatures were controlled by the Republican Party, though some of those states had Democratic governors.<ref>{{Cite web |title=State Partisan Composition |url=https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx |website=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref> As part of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, many Republican legislators in seven battleground states won by Joe Biden created fraudulent certificates of ascertainment composed of "alternate electors" to declare Donald Trump had actually won their states, thereby overruling the will of voters. They hoped to pass these fraudulent certificates to vice president Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, so he would reverse Biden's election and certify Trump as the winner, a scheme which became known as the Pence Card. Pence instead counted the authentic slates of electors and properly declared Biden the victor. By June 2022, participants in the alternate electors scheme began receiving subpoenas from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack and the United States Department of Justice.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 28, 2022 |title=January 6 committee subpoenas 14 individuals who acted as 'alternate electors' |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alternate-electors-house-january-6-committee-subpoenas/ |website=CBS News |first=Ellis |last=Kim}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |first1=Zachary |last1=Cohen |first2=Sara |last2=Murray |first3=Katelyn |last3=Polantz |first4=Evan |last4=Perez |first5=Marshall |last5=Cohen |date=June 23, 2022 |title=DOJ subpoenas Georgia Republican Party chairman as it expands Trump fake elector probe |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/22/politics/justice-department-subpoenas-david-shafer-georgia-fake-trump-electors/index.html |website=CNN}}</ref> Investigations into a Trump fake electors plot ensued.
===Restrictions on voting=== {{Main|Voter suppression in the United States}}
{{See also|Felony disenfranchisement in the United States|Suffrage for Americans with disabilities|}}
Despite extensive research over decades finding that voting fraud is extremely rare, many Republicans assert it is widespread and that actions must be taken to prevent it.<ref>{{cite news |title=Despite Trump claims, voter fraud is extremely rare. Here is how U.S. states keep it that way |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explainer-idINKBN2601H5/ |first1=Andy |last1=Sullivan |first2=Joseph |last2=Ax |work=Reuters |date=September 9, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Republicans Push Crackdown on Crime Wave That Doesn't Exist: Voter Fraud |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/us/politics/republican-voter-fraud.html |work=The New York Times |date=March 17, 2022 |first1=Reid J. |last1=Epstein |first2=Nick |last2=Corasaniti |access-date=27 February 2024}}</ref> Amid persistent false allegations that widespread fraud had led to Trump's 2020 election loss, Republicans in multiple states began taking actions in 2021 to gain control of state and county election apparatuses, limit ballot access and challenge votes. By June, Republicans had introduced at least 216 bills in 41 states to give legislatures more power over elections officials. Republican lawmakers had stripped authority from secretaries of state, who oversee state elections. In Georgia, Republicans removed Black Democrats from county election boards.<ref name="georgiademocrats">{{cite news |last1=Oliphant |first1=James |last2=Layne |first2=Nathan |title=Insight: Georgia Republicans purge Black Democrats from county election boards |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-republicans-purge-black-democrats-county-election-boards-2021-12-09/ |access-date=27 September 2025 |publisher=Reuters |date=9 December 2021}}</ref> In Arkansas, they stripped election control from county authorities.<ref name="auto3">Multiple sources: *{{cite news |last1=Izaguirre |first1=Anthony |title=GOP lawmakers seek greater control over local elections |url=https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-politics-legislature-local-elections-bills-73b331234cec8c966bb2308f6ed1696e |publisher=Associated Press |date=March 27, 2021}} *{{cite news |last1=Vasilogambros |first1=Matt |title=Republican Legislators Curb Authority of County, State Election Officials |url=https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/07/28/republican-legislators-curb-authority-of-county-state-election-officials |publisher=Pew Trusts |date=July 28, 2021}} *{{cite news |last1=Scanlan |first1=Quinn |title=10 new state laws shift power over elections to partisan entities |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dozen-state-laws-shift-power-elections-partisan-entities/story?id=79408455 |publisher=ABC News |date=August 16, 2021}} *{{cite news |first1=Isaac |last1=Arnsdorf |first2=Doug Bock |last2=Clark |first3=Alexandra |last3=Berzon |first4=Anjeanette |last4=Damon |title=Heeding Steve Bannon's Call, Election Deniers Organize to Seize Control of the GOP — and Reshape America's Elections |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/heeding-steve-bannons-call-election-deniers-organize-to-seize-control-of-the-gop-and-reshape-americas-elections |publisher=Pro Publica |date=September 2, 2021}} *{{cite news |last1=Epstein |first1=Reed J. |title=Wisconsin Republicans Push to Take Over the State's Elections |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/politics/wisconsin-republicans-decertify-election.html |work=The New York Times |date=November 19, 2021}} *{{cite news |last1=Przybyla |first1=Heidi |title='It's going to be an army': Tapes reveal GOP plan to contest elections |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/01/gop-contest-elections-tapes-00035758 |work=Politico |date=June 1, 2022}} *{{cite news |last1=Schouten |first1=Fredreka |title=Pro-Trump Republicans try to rewrite state election laws as a voting rights showdown looms in Congress |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/09/politics/gop-election-voting-rights-battleground-states/index.html |publisher=CNN |date=January 10, 2022}} *{{cite news |last1=Riccardi |first1=Nicholas |title='Slow-motion insurrection': How GOP seizes election power |url=https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-united-states-elections-electoral-college-election-2020-809215812f4bc6e5907573ba98247c0c |publisher=Associated Press |date=December 30, 2021}} *{{cite news |last1=Skelley |first1=Geoffrey |title=How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-republican-push-to-restrict-voting-could-affect-our-elections/ |publisher=FiveThirtyEight |date=May 17, 2021}} *{{cite news |title=More than 100 GOP primary winners back Trump's false fraud claims |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/14/more-than-100-gop-primary-winners-back-trumps-false-fraud-claims/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 14, 2022|author1=Amy Gardner|author2=Isaac Arnsdorf}} *{{cite news |title=Far-Right Republicans Press Closer to Power Over Future Elections |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/us/politics/election-deniers-midterms.html |work=The New York Times |date=June 15, 2022|author1=Reid J. Epstein|author2=Nick Corasaniti}}</ref>
Wisconsin Republicans, led by senator Ron Johnson, sought to dismantle the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, which the party had created five years earlier. In Michigan and other swing states, Republicans sought to create an "army" of poll workers and attorneys who could refer what they deemed questionable ballots to a network of friendly district attorneys to challenge. Through May 2022, Republican voters had nominated at least 108 candidates, in some 170 midterm races, who had repeated Trump's stolen election claims; at least 149 had campaigned on tightening voting procedures, despite the lack of evidence of widespread fraud. Dozens of these nominees sought offices to oversee the administration and certification of elections.<ref name="auto3"/>
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act was first introduced into Congress by Republicans in July 2024. Among its provisions would require that a voter demonstrate proof of American citizenship prior to federal elections, based on claims of non-citizen voting fraud in recent elections which studies demonstrate to be rare.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stening |first=Tanner |date=2026-02-18 |title=SAVE Act: Will you need a photo ID to vote in the 2026 midterms? |url=https://news.northeastern.edu/2026/02/18/photo-id-2026-midterms-save-act/ |access-date=2026-03-16 |website=Northeastern Global News |language=en-US}}</ref> Such identification can be through a U.S. passport, a Real ID state driver's license that indicates citizenship, or other federal identification. Democratic politicians and voting rights groups like the Brennan Center for Justice argue these requirements create difficulty for people who have moved across state lines or changed their last names through marriage, as obtaining a birth certificate or other documentation is not always easy. This makes it easier to deny voting rights to these individuals.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-02-03 |title=New SAVE Act Bills Would Still Block Millions of Americans From Voting {{!}} Brennan Center for Justice |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-save-act-bills-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting |access-date=2026-03-16 |website=www.brennancenter.org |language=en}}</ref> Republican politicians and groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research argue the Act is necessary to advance election integrity and advances voter ID policies that are supported by most Americans.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Project 21 |date=2026-03-13 |title=If Americans Want Voter ID, Why Stall the SAVE Act? |url=https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/2026/03/13/if-americans-want-voter-id-why-stall-the-save-act/ |access-date=2026-03-16 |language=en-US}}</ref>
While the first SAVE Act expired with the end of the 2024 congressional session, it was reintroduced in 2025, and passed the House of Representatives along party lines in April 2025; due to the limited majority that the Republicans hold in the Senate, the bill is not expected to pass there unless the Senate votes to eliminate the filibuster rule.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://apnews.com/article/congress-save-act-citizenship-republicans-women-0c0ba9fd8e6a01cf144736490c71df21 |title=How the House's requirement to prove US citizenship could affect the ability to register to vote |first=Christina |last=Cassidy |date=April 10, 2025 |accessdate=April 11, 2025 |work=Associated Press News}}</ref>
===Antidemocratic, authoritarian and autocratic tendencies=== {{See also|Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration|Donald Trump's conflict with the news media|Donald Trump and fascism}} thumb |In October 2025, ''The New York Times'' editorial board created an Autocracy Index showing erosion of US democracy using various benchmarks, offering "a way to understand how much Mr. Trump is eroding American democracy" since his January 2025 inauguration. Illustrated benchmark values are those published in May 2026.<ref name=NYTimes_20260513>{{cite news |author1=The Editorial Board |title=The Iran War Worsens America’s Democratic Erosion |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/13/opinion/iran-war-democracy-america.html |date=May 13, 2026 |work=The New York Times}} The editorial board wrote that "clearest sign that a democracy has died is that a leader and his party make it impossible for their opponents to win an election and hold power".</ref> Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their 2018 book ''How Democracies Die'' analyze major modern presidential candidates against four key indicators of authoritarian behavior and found that Richard Nixon met one, George Wallace one, and Donald Trump all four.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=How Democracies Die |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2019 |publisher=Broadway Books |isbn=978-1-5247-6293-3 |edition= |location=New York |pages=62–65}}</ref> The four indicators the authors use are 1) rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules of the game, 2) denial of the legitimacy of political opponents, 3) toleration or encouragement of violence, and 4) readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents (including the media).<ref name=":0" /> In their 2023 book, ''Tyranny of the Minority'', Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that the decision by partisans when faced with an authoritarian faction on whether to stay loyal to democracy by breaking with that faction has determined the fate of a number of democracies.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 2}}</ref> They cite the Republican Accountability Project, which in 2021 estimated that 6% of national Republicans politicians consistently stood up for democracy, with many of those who did losing reelection or retiring.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition=First |location=New York |pages=130–132}}</ref>
By 2021, polling and research indicated a significant shift against democracy among Republican voters, both in terms of rhetoric and acceptance of potential political violence. The shift was most pronounced among Republicans who trusted Fox News, and more so Newsmax and One America News (OAN), who were more inclined to believe the disproven assertion that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from Trump. A November 2021 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll found that two-thirds of Republicans believed the election had been stolen, as did 82 percent of those who trusted Fox News more than any other media outlet. Ninety-seven percent of those who trusted Newsmax and OAN believed the election was stolen. Thirty percent of Republicans agreed with the statement, "true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country," rising to 40 percent among those who trust Newsmax and OAN; eleven percent of Democrats agreed.<ref name="auto2">Multiple sources: *{{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=Reid |title=Stunning survey gives grim view of flourishing anti-democratic opinions |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/579160-stunning-survey-gives-grim-view-of-flourishing-anti-democratic-opinions/ |work=The Hill |date=November 1, 2021 |access-date=27 February 2024}} *{{cite news |title=Competing Visions of America: An Evolving Identity or a Culture Under Attack? Findings from the 2021 American Values Survey |url=https://www.prri.org/research/competing-visions-of-america-an-evolving-identity-or-a-culture-under-attack/ |publisher=Public Religion Research Institute |date=November 1, 2021}} *{{cite news |title=The Republican revolt against democracy, explained in 13 charts |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22274429/republicans-anti-democracy-13-charts |first=Zack |last=Beauchamp |access-date=27 February 2024 |work=Vox |date=March 1, 2021}} *{{cite news |title=Ethnic antagonism erodes Republicans' commitment to democracy |work=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |date=August 31, 2020|author=Larry Bartels|volume=117 |issue=37 |pages=22752–22759 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2007747117 |doi-access=free}} *{{cite news |last1=Scully |first1=Aidan |title=Point of No Return: The Authoritarian Parties |url=https://harvardpolitics.com/point-of-no-return-the-authoritarian-parties/ |work=Harvard Political Review |date=February 11, 2022}}</ref> Robert Jones, CEO of PRRI, said he was deeply concerned about the poll findings and "we really have to take them seriously as a threat to democracy." Political scientist John Pitney, who was previously a domestic policy and legislative aide for congressional Republicans, remarked, "Back in the 1980s, Republicans aspired to be the party of hope and opportunity. Now it is the party of blood and soil. The culture war is front and center, and for many Republicans, it is close to being a literal war, not just a metaphorical one." Political scientist Larry Bartels, a co-director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Vanderbilt University, wrote in August 2020 that "substantial numbers of Republicans endorse statements contemplating violations of key democratic norms, including respect for the law and for the outcomes of elections and eschewing the use of force in pursuit of political ends." He ascribed the primary cause to "ethnic antagonism" among Republicans toward immigrants and minorities seeking political power and claims on government resources.<ref name="auto2" />
A survey between 2017 and 2019 found a third of Americans want a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with Congress or elections", and one-quarter had a favorable view of military rule.{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=Mass Support for Democracy and Racial Animus}} A research study administered in 2019 found that Trump supporters were more likely to condone executive aggrandizement, while Republicans were more likely to support a candidate who suspends Congress or ignores court verdicts.{{sfn|Gidengil|Stolle|Bergeron-Boutin|2021|p=15}} The January 6 Capitol attack has been described as an example of de-democratization and democratic backsliding.<ref name="Castañeda2023">{{cite journal |author1-last=Castañeda |author1-first=Ernesto |author2-last=Jenks |author2-first=Daniel |date=April 17, 2023 |title=January 6th and De-Democratization in the United States |editor-last1=Costa |editor-first1=Bruno Ferreira |editor-last2=Parton|editor-first2=Nigel|journal=Social Sciences |publisher=MDPI |volume=12 |issue=4 |page=238 |doi=10.3390/socsci12040238 |doi-access=free |issn=2076-0760|quote=What the United States went through on January 6th was an attempt at a self-coup, where Trump would use force to stay as head of state even if abandoning democratic practices in the U.S. Some advised Trump to declare martial law to create a state of emergency and use that as an excuse to stay in power.}}</ref> It has also been described as a coup d'état<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Eastman v Thompson, et al. |opinion= 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM Document 260 |pinpoint=44 |court=S.D. Cal. |date=May 28, 2022 |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf |access-date=December 16, 2023 |quote=Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower{{snd}}it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process... If Dr. Eastman and President Trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |url=https://www.brookings.edu/research/trump-on-trial/ |access-date=December 16, 2023 |title=Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Hearings and the Question of Criminality |last1=Eisen |first1=Norman |last2=Ayer |first2=Donald |last3=Perry |first3=Joshua |last4=Bookbinder |first4=Noah |last5=Perry |first5=E. Danya|date=2022-06-06|publisher=Brookings Institution |language=en-US |quote=[Trump] tried to delegitimize the election results by disseminating a series of far fetched and evidence-free claims of fraud. Meanwhile, with a ring of close confidants, Trump conceived and implemented unprecedented schemes to{{snd}}in his own words{{snd}}"overturn" the election outcome. Among the results of this "Big Lie" campaign were the terrible events of January 6, 2021{{snd}}an inflection point in what we now understand was nothing less than an attempted coup.}}</ref><ref name="Multiple Sources">Multiple media sources: *{{Cite web |last=Graham |first=David A. |date=January 6, 2021 |title=This Is a Coup |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/attempted-coup/617570/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106224049/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/attempted-coup/617570/ |archive-date=January 6, 2021 |access-date=December 16, 2023 |website=The Atlantic}} *{{Cite web|last=Musgrave|first=Paul|date=January 6, 2021|title=This Is a Coup. Why Were Experts So Reluctant to See It Coming?|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-electoral-college-2020-election/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106235812/https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/coup-america-capitol-electoral-college-2020-election/|archive-date=January 6, 2021|access-date=December 16, 2023|website=Foreign Policy}} *{{Cite web|last=Solnit|first=Rebecca|date=January 6, 2021|title=Call it what it was: a coup attempt|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/06/trump-mob-storm-capitol-washington-coup-attempt|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107000436/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/06/trump-mob-storm-capitol-washington-coup-attempt|archive-date=January 7, 2021|access-date=December 16, 2023|website=The Guardian}} *{{Cite web|last=Coleman|first=Justine|date=January 6, 2021|title=GOP lawmaker on violence at Capitol: 'This is a coup attempt'|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/532944-gop-lawmaker-on-violence-at-capitol-this-is-a-coup-attempt|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210106212600/https://thehill.com/homenews/house/532944-gop-lawmaker-on-violence-at-capitol-this-is-a-coup-attempt|archive-date=January 6, 2021|access-date=December 16, 2023|website=The Hill}} *{{Cite web|last=Jacobson|first=Louis|date=January 6, 2021|title=Is this a coup? Here's some history and context to help you decide|url=https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/06/coup-heres-some-history-and-context-help-you-decid/|access-date=January 7, 2021|website=PolitiFact |quote=A good case can be made that the storming of the Capitol qualifies as a coup. It's especially so because the rioters entered at precisely the moment when the incumbent's loss was to be formally sealed, and they succeeded in stopping the count.}} *{{Cite news|last1=Barry|first1=Dan|last2=Frenkel|first2=Sheera|date=January 7, 2021|title='Be There. Will Be Wild!': Trump All but Circled the Date|work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20211228/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html |archive-date=2021-12-28 |url-access=registration |url-status=live |access-date=December 16, 2023}} *{{cite encyclopedia |last=Duignan |first=Brian |date=2021-08-04 |title=January 6 U.S. Capitol attack |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack |url-status=live |access-date=2021-09-22 |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |quote=Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d'état.|language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117232629/https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack |archive-date=2023-01-17}}</ref> or self-coup.<ref name="ProvostHarvey">{{Cite book |last=Harvey |first=Michael |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003110361-1/introduction-michael-harvey |title=Donald Trump in Historical Perspective |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-003-11036-1 |editor-last=Harvey |editor-first=Michael |chapter=Introduction: History's Rhymes |doi=10.4324/9781003110361-1 |quote=As with the Beer Hall Putsch, a would-be leader tried to take advantage of an already scheduled event (in Hitler's case, Kahr's speech; in Trump's, Congress's tallying of the electoral votes) to create a dramatic moment with himself at the center of attention, calling for bold action to upend the political order. Unlike Hitler's coup attempt, Trump already held top of office, so he was attempting to hold onto power, not seize it (the precise term for Trump's intended action is a 'self-coup' or 'autogolpe'). Thus, Trump was able to plan for the event well in advance, and with much greater control, including developing the legal arguments that could be used to justify rejecting the election's results. (p3)}}</ref><ref name="Self-coup journal"> {{cite journal |last1=Pion-Berlin |first1=David |last2=Bruneau |first2=Thomas |last3=Goetze |first3=Richard B. Jr.|date=2022-04-07 |title=The Trump self-coup attempt: comparisons and civil–military relations |journal=Government and Opposition |volume=FirstView |issue=4 |pages=789–806 |doi=10.1017/gov.2022.13 |s2cid=248033246 |doi-access=free |hdl=10945/72654 |hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Castañeda2023" /> Zack Beauchamp described Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign as another step on the road of democratic backsliding, wondering whether American democracy could survive a second Trump presidency.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=2024-11-02 |title=It's not alarmist: A second Trump term really is an extinction-level threat to democracy |url=https://www.vox.com/policy/381636/trump-2024-democracy-threat-orban-second-term |access-date=2024-11-05 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref>
In March 2025, ICE detained Mahmoud Khalil without charging him with any crime, and reportedly threatened his wife with arrest.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-09 |title=Immigration agents arrest Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests |url=https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8 |access-date=2025-03-10 |website=AP News |language=en}}</ref> Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, condemned the detention and said it is a "targeted, retaliatory, and an extreme attack on his First Amendment rights" and "reeks of McCarthyism."<ref>{{Cite web |title=NYCLU Condemns Unlawful DHS Detention of Student Activist at Columbia |url=https://www.nyclu.org/press-release/nyclu-condemns-unlawful-dhs-detention-of-student-activist-at-columbia |access-date=2025-03-10 |website=NYCLU |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lu |first=Miranda |title=Knight Institute, NYCLU condemn arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, SIPA '24, call on universities to protect students and faculty |url=https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/03/10/knight-institute-nyclu-condemn-arrest-of-mahmoud-khalil-sipa-24-call-on-universities-to-protect-students-and-faculty/ |access-date=2025-03-10 |website=Columbia Daily Spectator}}</ref> Later that same month, the administration revoked the student visa of Ranjani Srinivasan, one of several Columbia University students targeted by immigration officials.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Ferré-Sadurní |first1=Luis |last2=Aleaziz |first2=Hamed |date=2025-03-15 |title=How a Columbia Student Fled to Canada After ICE Came Looking for Her |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/15/nyregion/columbia-student-kristi-noem-video.html |access-date=2025-03-16 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
===Religious and white nationalism=== {{Christian nationalism US sidebar|expanded=Principles}} During the Trump era, a far-right, populist movement based on Christian nationalism surged, gaining a significant degree of mainstream acceptance, typified by the once fringe New Apostolic Reformation.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Davis |first1=Susan |date=November 15, 2023 |title=Speaker Johnson's close ties to Christian right — both mainstream and fringe |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1211536399/speaker-johnson-christian-nationalism-evangelical |publisher=National Public Radio |quote=Sheets is a leading figure among a faction of once-fringe Christian evangelical and Pentecostal leaders affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, an ideology that has existed for decades on the fringes of the religious right. Adherents of this ideology have risen in prominence and power since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, in which he became an unlikely hero of the Christian right and cultivated relationships with leaders in the NAR movement.}}</ref> The ideology of Trumpism broadly adheres to a deeply held belief that America was founded as a Christian nation. Philip Gorski, a Yale professor of the sociology of religion, calls this "a mythological version of American history." Movement adherents believe their Christian dominance has been usurped by other races and faiths, which Gorski characterizes as a form of racial tribalism: "a 'we don't like people who are trying to change [our country] or people who are different' form of nationalism."<ref name="auto4">Multiple sources: * {{cite news |last1=Blake |first1=John |title=An 'Imposter Christianity' is Threatening American Democracy |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/24/us/white-christian-nationalism-blake-cec/index.html |publisher=CNN |date=July 24, 2022}} * {{cite news |last1=Boorstein |first1=Michelle |title=For some Christians, the Capitol riot doesn't change the prophecy: Trump will be president |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/01/14/prophets-apostles-christian-prophesy-trump-won-biden-capitol/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=January 14, 2021}} * {{cite news |last1=Jones |first1=Sarah |title=White Christian Nationalism 'Is a Fundamental Threat to Democracy' |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/06/white-christian-nationalism-is-a-threat-to-democracy.html |work=New York |date=June 4, 2022}} * {{cite news |last1=Dias |first1=Elizabeth |title=The Far-Right Christian Quest for Power: 'We Are Seeing Them Emboldened' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/us/christian-nationalism-politicians.html |work=The New York Times |date=July 8, 2022}} * {{cite news |last1=Owen |first1=Tess |title=Christian Nationalism Drove These People Out of Their Churches |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/christian-nationalism-churches/ |work=Vice |date=July 18, 2022}}</ref> Multiple studies have found that support for democracy among white Americans is negatively correlated with their level of racial prejudice, resentment, and desire to maintain white power and status.{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=Mass Support for Democracy and Racial Animus}}{{sfn|Jardina|Mickey|2022|loc=abstract}}
Researchers have observed that many in the movement seek to reduce or eliminate the separation of church and state found in the Constitution.<ref name="auto4"/> Some Christian nationalists also believe Trump was divinely chosen to save white Christian America. In their 2022 book, ''The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy,'' Gorski and co-author Samuel Perry, a professor of Sociology at the University of Oklahoma, wrote that white Christian nationalists share a set of common anti-democratic beliefs and principles that "add up to a political vision that privileges the tribe. And they seek to put other tribes in their proper place." Some believe in a "Warrior Christ" they will follow with the use of righteous violence.<ref name="auto4"/>
During a September 2020 presidential debate, Trump was asked if he would condemn white supremacists and militia groups that had appeared at some protests that year. After his opponent Joe Biden mentioned Proud Boys, Trump stated, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by," adding "somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem." After Trump and his allies exhausted legal avenues to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, several leaders of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were indicted and convicted on federal seditious conspiracy charges for their roles in the January 6 United States Capitol attack as Congress assembled to certify Biden's election. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated in October 2020 that white supremacists posed the top domestic terrorism threat, which FBI director Christopher Wray confirmed in March 2021, noting that the bureau had elevated the threat to the same level as ISIS. The release of the DHS findings had been delayed for months, which a whistleblower, the department's acting intelligence chief Brian Murphy, attributed to reluctance of DHS leaders to release information that would reflect poorly on the president in an election year.<ref>Multiple sources: *{{cite news |title=Trump to far-right extremists: 'Stand back and stand by' |url=https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-chris-wallace-0b32339da25fbc9e8b7c7c7066a1db0f |publisher=Associated Press |date=September 30, 2020|author1=Kathleen Ronayne|author2=Michael Kunzelman}} *{{cite news |title=Oath Keepers leader, 10 others charged with 'seditious conspiracy' in Jan. 6 Capitol attack |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/oath-keeper-leader-10-others-charged-seditious-conspiracy-jan-6-n1287434 |publisher=NBC News |date=January 13, 2022|author1=Teaganne Finn|author2=Daniel Barnes}} *{{cite news |last1=Reilly |first1=Ryan J. |title=Enrique Tarrio, other Proud Boys indicted on seditious conspiracy charges |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-indicted-seditious-conspiracy-charges-rcna32199 |publisher=NBC News |date=June 6, 2022}} *{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/white-supremacists-anarchists-dhs-homeland-threat-assessment/index.html|title=White supremacists remain deadliest US terror threat, Homeland Security report says|author=Geneva Sands|publisher=CNN|date=October 6, 2020}} *{{cite news |last1=Bump |first1=Philip |title=FBI Director Wray reconfirms the threat posed by racist extremists |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/02/fbi-director-wray-reconfirms-threat-posed-by-racist-extremists/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 2, 2021}} *{{Cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wray-senate-hearing-capitol-riot-white-supremacists-b1810615.html|title=White supremacists on par with ISIS as 'top threat,' FBI director says at Captiol [''sic''] riot hearing|date=March 3, 2021|website=The Independent}} *{{Cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236|title=DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat|work=Politico|date=September 4, 2020}} *{{cite news |title=Delayed Homeland Security Report Warns of 'Lethal' White Supremacy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/us/politics/homeland-security-white-supremacists-russia.html |work=The New York Times |date=October 6, 2020|author=Zolan Kanno-Youngs}} *{{cite news |last1=Edmondson |first1=Catie |title=Republicans Oppose Measure to Root Out White Supremacy in the Military |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/politics/republicans-oppose-measure-to-root-out-white-supremacy-in-the-military.html |work=The New York Times |date=July 14, 2022}}</ref>
Every Republican voted against a July 2022 House measure requiring Homeland Security, the FBI and the Defense Department to "publish a report that analyzes and sets out strategies to combat white supremacist and neo-Nazi activity" in their ranks. A 2019 survey of active service members found that about one third had "personally witnessed examples of white nationalism or ideological-driven racism within the ranks in recent months." About one-fifth of those who were charged for participating in the January 6 attack were veterans, with some on active service.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Edmondson |first1=Catie |title=Republicans Oppose Measure to Root Out White Supremacy in the Military |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/politics/republicans-oppose-measure-to-root-out-white-supremacy-in-the-military.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220714193553/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/us/politics/republicans-oppose-measure-to-root-out-white-supremacy-in-the-military.html/ |archive-date=2022-07-14 |url-status=live |access-date=27 February 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=July 14, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military |publisher=National Public Radio |date=January 21, 2021 |first1=Tom |last1=Dreisbach |first2=Meg |last2=Anderson |url=https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/958915267/nearly-one-in-five-defendants-in-capitol-riot-cases-served-in-the-military |access-date=27 February 2024}}</ref>
Rachel Kleinfeld, a scholar of global political violence and democracy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, found in July 2022 that Trump's affinity for far-right militia groups dated to his 2016 campaign and such groups had since become increasingly mainstreamed in the Republican Party. She argued the militia influence had spread since the January 6 attack among Republican leaders at the national, state, and local level. Political scientist Barbara Walter, who has studied political violence leading to civil war, commented in March 2022 that "There are definitely lots of groups on the far right who want war. They are preparing for war ... We know the warning signs. And we know that if we strengthen our democracy, and if the Republican Party decides it's no longer going to be an ethnic faction that's trying to exclude everybody else, then our risk of civil war will disappear."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kleinfeld |first1=Rachel |title=The GOP's Militia Problem: Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Lessons from Abroad |url=https://www.justsecurity.org/81898/the-gops-militia-problem-proud-boys-oath-keepers-and-lessons-from-abroad/ |work=Just Security |date=July 6, 2022 |access-date=27 February 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Ottesen |first1=KK |title='They are preparing for war': An expert on civil wars discusses where political extremists are taking this country |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/08/they-are-preparing-war-an-expert-civil-wars-discusses-where-political-extremists-are-taking-this-country/ |access-date=27 February 2024 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 8, 2022}}</ref>
===Reactions=== In March 2025, historian Christopher R. Browning found "considerable" democratic backsliding.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-07 |title=What parallels do historians see between the Trump administration and the Nazi regime? |url=https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20250307-what-parallels-do-historians-see-between-the-trump-administration-and-the-nazi-regime |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=France 24 |language=en}}</ref> Adrienne LaFrance wrote in April 2025 that "backsliding" may not be a strong enough word given the speed with which she believes U.S. democracy is declining under the second Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaFrance |first=Adrienne |date=2025-04-22 |title=A Ticking Clock on American Freedom |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/04/america-trump-authoritarianism-global/682528/ |access-date=2025-05-08 |website=The Atlantic |language=en |quote=While people are still debating whether to call it authoritarianism or fascism, Trump is seizing control of one independent agency after another. (And for what it’s worth, the smartest scholars I know have told me that what Trump is trying to do in America is now textbook fascism—beyond the authoritarian impulses of his first term. Take, for example, his administration’s rigid ideological purity tests, or the extreme overreach of government into freedom of scientific and academic inquiry.)...People sometimes call the descent into authoritarianism a “slide,” but that makes it sound gradual and gentle. Maria Ressa, the journalist who earned the Nobel Peace Prize for her attempts to save freedom of expression in the Philippines, told me that what she experienced during the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte is now, with startling speed and remarkable similarity, playing out in the United States under Donald Trump. Her country’s democratic struggles are highly instructive. And her message to me was this: Authoritarian leaders topple democracy faster than you can imagine. If you wait to speak out against them, you have already lost.}}</ref> National security researcher Tom Nichols argued in October 2025 that Trump has taken control of the country's intelligence and judicial systems and is now testing the independence of the military.<ref>{{cite news |title=Could President Trump really use the U.S. military against Americans? |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/10/11/nx-s1-5567913/could-president-trump-really-use-the-u-s-military-against-americans}}</ref>
In September 2023, thirteen presidential centers dating from Herbert Hoover to Barack Obama released an unprecedented joint message warning of the fragile state of American democracy. The statement called for a recommitment to the rule of law and civility in political discourse, as well as respect for democratic institutions and secure and accessible elections.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |date=September 7, 2023 |title=Presidential centers from Hoover to Bush and Obama unite to warn of fragile state of US democracy |work=Associated Press |url=https://apnews.com/article/united-states-democracy-presidents-threats-joint-statement-5530a89df2c41d58a22961f63fb0e6ff |access-date=27 February 2024}}</ref>
President Joe Biden warned of threats to democracy during addresses in 2022<ref>{{cite news |date=September 1, 2022 |title=Remarks by President Biden on the Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/09/01/remarks-by-president-bidenon-the-continued-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-nation/ |access-date=27 February 2024 |publisher=The White House}}</ref> and 2023.<ref>{{cite news |title=Biden sounds newly strong alarm: Trumpism menaces democracy |access-date=27 February 2024 |url=https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-biden-donald-trump-presidential-philadelphia-5d0f7c02df093f0d3a3340474a53be4b |publisher=Associated Press |date=September 2, 2023 |first1=Zeke |last1=Miller |first2=Josh |last2=Boak}}</ref> At a fundraiser in August 2022, Biden said Donald Trump's MAGA philosophy was "like semi-fascism".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Shabad |first1=Rebecca |title=Biden blasts MAGA philosophy as 'semi-fascism' |access-date=27 February 2024 |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/biden-blasts-maga-philosophy-semi-fascism-rcna44953 |publisher=NBC News |date=August 26, 2022}}</ref> In September 2023, weeks after Trump had been indicted on federal and state charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and as most Republicans still refused to accept Trump's 2020 election loss, Biden said:
{{blockquote|There's something dangerous happening in America now. There's an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy: The MAGA movement. There's no question that today's Republican Party is driven and intimidated by MAGA Republican extremists. Their extreme agenda, if carried out, would fundamentally alter the institutions of American democracy as we know it.<ref>{{cite news |title=Biden previews 2024 message by warning that Trump's movement is a threat to American democracy |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/28/politics/joe-biden-democracy-speech-arizona/index.html |access-date=27 February 2024 |work=CNN |date=September 28, 2023 |first1=Kevin |last1=Liptak |first2=MJ |last2=Lee |first3=Kayla |last3=Tausche |first4=Arlette |last4=Saenz}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Baker |first1=Peter |title=Biden Issues a Blistering Attack on Trump |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/28/us/politics/biden-mccain-library.html |access-date=27 February 2024 |work=The New York Times |date=September 28, 2023}}</ref>}}
Hillary Clinton, whom Trump defeated in 2016, said in October 2023 that Trump was likely to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee and if elected "will wreck our democracy", likening his MAGA supporters to a "cult".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hudspeth Blackburn |first1=Piper |title=Exclusive: Hillary Clinton says Trump is likely GOP 2024 nominee but Biden can still beat him |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/politics/clinton-trump-biden-election-cnntv/index.html |work=CNN |date=October 5, 2023 |access-date=27 February 2024}}</ref>
===Congress=== {{See also|Sedition Caucus|War Powers Resolution}} Despite the importance of Congress outlined in Article One, Congress has{{when|date=November 2025}} lost power to the executive and judiciary both intentionally and unintentionally.<ref>Multiple sources: * {{cite news |last1=Hunt |first1=Charlie |title=Congress began losing power decades ago − and now it's giving away what remains to Trump |url=https://theconversation.com/congress-began-losing-power-decades-ago-and-now-its-giving-away-what-remains-to-trump-254984 |work=The Conversation (website) |date=15 May 2025}} * {{cite news |last1=Levin |first1=Yuval |author1-link=Yuval Levin |title=The Missing Branch |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/05/missing-branch-congress/682701/ |work=The Atlantic |date=6 May 2025 |language=en}} * {{cite news |last1=French |first1=David |author1-link=David French |title=The Constitution Isn't Working |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/congress-inaction-partisanship/670486/ |work=The Atlantic |date=12 July 2022 |language=en}} * {{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Julian E. |last2=Edmondson |first2=Catie |title=Trump Tramples Congress's Power, With Little Challenge From G.O.P. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/07/us/politics/trump-congresss-power.html |work=The New York Times |date=September 7, 2025 }} * {{cite news |last1=Carl |first1=Hulse |last2=Edmondson |first2=Catie |author1-link=Carl Hulse |title=Under G.O.P., Congress Cedes Power to Trump, Eroding Its Influence |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/trump-republicans-congress-power.html |work=The New York Times |date=March 14, 2025 }} * {{cite web |last1=Schiffer |first1=Michael |title=Congress Shrinking from the World -- and Its Own Power |url=https://www.justsecurity.org/117559/congress-power-shrinking-trump/ |website=Just Security |language=en |date=July 23, 2025}} * {{cite web |last1=Feingold |first1=Russ |author1-link=Russ Feingold |title=It's Time to Tear Up the Executive Branch's Blank Check |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-time-tear-executive-branchs-blank-check |website=Brennan Center for Justice |language=en |date=July 22, 2021}} * {{cite web |last1=Inskeep |first1=Steve |author1-link=Steve Inskeep |title=A look at Congress' decision to cede the 'power of the purse' to President Trump |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/07/21/nx-s1-5472610/a-look-at-congress-decision-to-cede-the-power-of-the-purse-to-president-trump |website=NPR |language=en |date=July 21, 2025}} * {{cite magazine |last1=Schulman |first1=Bruce J. |author1-link=Bruce J. Schulman |title=How Congress Gave Up Its Own Power |url=https://time.com/7331731/missing-congress-shutdown/ |magazine=Time (magazine) |language=en |date=November 7, 2025}} * {{cite web |last1=Loffman |first1=Matt |title=Checks and balances aren't working under Trump, growing majority says |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/checks-and-balances-arent-working-under-trump-growing-majority-says |website=PBS News |language=en-us |date=February 23, 2026}}</ref>
===Executive=== {{See also|Impoundment of appropriated funds|Schedule F appointment|2025 dismissals of U.S. inspectors general|Humphrey's Executor|Executive order|List of national emergencies in the United States|Imperial presidency|Plenary power|Powers of the president of the United States|}} [[File:President Trump Visits St. John's Episcopal Church (49963649028).jpg|alt=Trump holding a bible|thumb|Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church]] alt=Trump surrounded by stacks of executive orders|thumb|Trump surrounded by stacks of executive orders {{Blockquote|text=If you take power, and exert it, the system is not so tough. You know why? They're all gutless cowards. The university administrators? They're not so tough. The big law firms? They are not so tough. The media? Look who's crater, how many times have they settled with Trump? They're not tough. We're (…) tough. The people around Trump are battle-hardened. Okay? You're not going to scare us. And we're not gonna stop.<ref name="ARTE"/>|author=Steve Bannon in 2025}}
====Law==== {{See also|Targeting of law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration|2025 U.S. Department of Justice resignations|Federal pardons in the United States#Controversial use|Deportations of U.S. citizens in the second Trump administration}} [[File:DHS Secretary Kristi Noem Travels to El Salvador (54413372806).jpg|alt=Secretary of homeland security Kristi Noem, during a March 2025 tour of CECOT, the Salvadoran prison which holds extrajudicial prisoners|thumb|Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, during a March 2025 tour of CECOT, the Salvadoran prison which holds extrajudicial prisoners]] [[File:The White House - 54410624848.jpg|alt=President Trump touring the Department of Justice headquarters with Pam Bondi the Attorney General previously one of Trump's defense lawyers|thumb|President Trump touring the Department of Justice headquarters with Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, previously one of Trump's defense lawyers]] thumb|alt=Trump in December 2025, "As it turned out, we didn't need legislation, we just needed a new president."|Trump in December 2025, "As it turned out, we didn't need legislation, we just needed a new president."|start=3:26
During the first year of his second presidency, Trump appointed personal lawyers and loyalists to positions including Pam Bondi, Emil Bove, Todd Blanche, Stanley Woodward, and D. John Sauer.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Feuer |first1=Alan |last2=Haberman |first2=Maggie |title=Trump Turns to His Personal Lawyers to Stock Top Ranks of Justice Dept. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/us/politics/trump-lawyers-justice-department.html |work=The New York Times |date=November 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241228154051/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/15/us/politics/trump-lawyers-justice-department.html |archive-date=28 December 2024}}</ref><ref name="ARTE">{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTjHDvw21nY |title=Trump contre la loi |date=2025-10-28 |last=ARTE |type=Documentary |language=fr |access-date=2025-11-02 |via=YouTube}}</ref>
In February 2026, Patrick J. Schiltz wrote "The court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt — again and again and again — to force the United States government to comply with court orders".<ref>{{cite web |title=Order/Notice to Attorney – #12 in Tobay Robles v. Noem (D. Minnesota, 0:26-cv-00107) |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72120823/12/tobay-robles-v-noem/ |website=CourtListener |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Luetkemeyer |first1=Ryan |title=Judges blast ICE for violating court orders in Minnesota, threaten contempt |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/judges-blast-ice-for-violating-court-orders-in-minnesota-threaten-contempt/ |work=Courthouse News Service |date=February 26, 2026 |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Smith |first1=Mitch |last2=Londoño |first2=Ernesto |last3=Schwartz |first3=Mattathias |title=Federal Judge Accuses Trump Administration of Repeatedly Disobeying Orders |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/us/minnesota-judge-ice-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |date=February 26, 2026 |language=en}}</ref>
====Unitary executive theory and Project 2025==== {{Main|Unitary executive theory|Project 2025}}
While the scope of the theory is disputed around the powers of the president, it has grown in prominence since the Reagan administration and has been cited as justification for many of the increases in presidential power since. Donald Trump embraced the theory when in office and plans to use it more aggressively following his reelection to a second term. Presidents of both parties tend to view the idea that they should have increased power more favorably when in office.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Skowronek |first1=Stephen |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/on1163936736 |title=Phantoms of a beleaguered republic: the deep state and the unitary executive |last2=Dearborn |first2=John A. |last3=King |first3=Desmond S. |date=2021 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-754308-5 |edition=New |location=New York, NY |pages=34 |oclc=on1163936736}}</ref>
In April 2023, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, unveiled Project 2025, a political initiative which details comprehensive plans for the next Republican president to consolidate control over the executive branch. Over 100 conservative organizations contributed to the project. Project 2025 proposes sweeping changes in the federal government relating to social and economic issues by cutting funding for, dismantling, or abolishing altogether major Cabinet departments and agencies, with the objective of placing their functions under the full and direct control of the president to impose an array of conservative policies on a national scale. The proposal includes replacing thousands of career federal civil servants with Trump loyalists to implement the plan, and includes the deployment of military forces for domestic law enforcement, pursuing Trump's political adversaries, and infusing government policies with Christian beliefs.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/12/project-2025-summary-trump/ |title=What is Project 2025? |first=Amber |last=Phillips |date=July 12, 2024 |accessdate=July 13, 2024 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do |title=Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump presidency, explained |first=Mike |last=Wendling |date=July 12, 2024 |accessdate=July 13, 2024 |work=BBC News}}</ref>
Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar of fascism and authoritarian leaders at New York University, wrote in May 2024 that Project 2025 "is a plan for an authoritarian takeover of the United States that goes by a deceptively neutral name," characterizing participants in the project as "American incarnations of fascism." Announcing in June 2024 the formation of a task force to address Project 2025, Democratic congressman Jared Huffman characterized it as "an unprecedented embrace of extremism, fascism, and religious nationalism, orchestrated by the radical right and its dark money backers."<ref>{{cite news|title=What Trump's war on the 'Deep State' could mean: 'An army of suck-ups'|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/27/politics/trump-federal-workers-2nd-term-invs/index.html|publisher=CNN|date=April 27, 2024|author1=Bob Ortega|author2=Kyung Lah|author3=Allison Gordon|author4=Nelli Black|quote=Project 2025’s blueprint envisions dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI; disarming the Environmental Protection Agency by loosening or eliminating emissions and climate-change regulations; eliminating the Departments of Education and Commerce in their entirety.|access-date=April 28, 2024|archive-date=April 28, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240428053329/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/27/politics/trump-federal-workers-2nd-term-invs/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Arnsdorf |first1=Isaac |last2=Barrett |first2=Devlin |last3=Dawsey |first3=Josh |date=November 5, 2023 |title=Trump and Allies Plot Revenge, Justice Department Control in a Second Term |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231105234529/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/ |archive-date=November 5, 2023 |access-date=November 5, 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Stone |first=Peter |date=November 22, 2023 |title='Openly Authoritarian Campaign': Trump's Threats of Revenge Fuel Alarm |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/22/trump-revenge-game-plan-alarm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231127003512/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/22/trump-revenge-game-plan-alarm |archive-date=November 27, 2023 |access-date=November 27, 2023 |work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Ward |first1=Alexander |last2=Przybyla |first2=Heidi |date=February 20, 2024 |title=Trump Allies Prepare to Infuse 'Christian Nationalism' in Second Administration |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/20/donald-trump-allies-christian-nationalism-00142086 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240224064541/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/20/donald-trump-allies-christian-nationalism-00142086 |archive-date=February 24, 2024 |access-date=February 24, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Ben-Ghiat |first1=Ruth |title=The Permanent Counterrevolution |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/181265/permanent-counterrevolution |magazine=The New Republic |date=May 16, 2024 |access-date=June 13, 2024 |archive-date=June 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240607235153/https://newrepublic.com/article/181265/permanent-counterrevolution |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Woodward |first1=Alex |title=How Democrats are plotting against Project 2025, the 'dystopian' manifesto for Trump's second term |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/project-2025-trump-task-force-republicans-b2560667.html |work=The Independent |date=June 12, 2024 |quote=This is an unprecedented embrace of extremism, fascism, and religious nationalism, orchestrated by the radical right and its dark money backers. |access-date=June 13, 2024 |archive-date=June 12, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240612155543/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/project-2025-trump-task-force-republicans-b2560667.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Some academics worry Project 2025 represents significant executive aggrandizement, a type of democratic backsliding.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tomazin |first=Farrah |date=2024-06-14 |title=A 920-page plan lays out a second Trump presidency. Nadine has read it and is terrified |url=https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/a-920-page-plan-lays-out-a-second-trump-presidency-nadine-has-read-it-and-is-terrified-20240614-p5jlqc.html |access-date=2024-06-21 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald |language=en |quote=Cornell University political scientist Rachel Beatty Riedl says Project 2025 is emblematic of a broader global trend in which threats to democracy are emerging not just from coups, military aggression or civil war, but also from autocratic leaders using democratic institutions to consolidate executive power. This type of backsliding, known as 'executive aggrandisement', has taken place in countries such as Hungary, Nicaragua and Turkey but is new to America, says Beatty Riedl, who runs the university’s Centre for International Studies and is the co-author of the book Democratic Backsliding, Resilience and Resistance. 'It’s a very concerning sign,' she says. 'If Project 2025 is implemented, what it means is a dramatic decrease in American citizens’ ability to engage in public life based on the kind of principles of liberty, freedom and representation that are accorded in a democracy.'}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Ordoñez |first=Franco |date=December 6, 2023 |title=Trump allies craft plans to give him unprecedented power if he wins the White House |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/12/06/1217562544/trump-and-insiders-craft-plans-for-unprecedented-power |work=NPR |quote=It's not that the federal service isn't in need of reforms, says Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, a senior fellow at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. But she says Trump wants to create a class of federal workers who will do whatever the president wants — and if they don't, they can be easily fired. 'It's just a dangerous sign,' she says. 'It really suggests that a president wants to aggrandize more authority and more power. And that should make everybody nervous.'}}</ref>
===Militarism=== {{See also|United States militarism}} {{excerpt|2025 deployment of federal forces in the United States|paragraphs=1-3}}
==Indicators== {{See also|Democracy indices}}
===Bright Line Watch=== Bright Line Watch classifies the United States as a mixed regime, ranking the country in between "Israel (49) and Mexico (60) and well below our nominal democratic peers of Great Britain (83) and Canada (88)".<ref name=":8">{{Cite web |date=September 1, 2025 |title=Violence, redistricting, and democratic norms in Trump's America {{!}} Bright Line Watch |url=https://brightlinewatch.org/violence-redistricting-and-democratic-norms-in-trumps-america/ |access-date=November 7, 2025 |website=Bright Line Watch |quote=As the graph below indicates, the current U.S. democracy rating of 54 among experts is closest to the 44 rating experts gave to our hypothetical illiberal democracy (“Country B”). Experts put the U.S. at approximately equal distance from the strong democracy (“Country A”), which received an average rating of 92, and the non-democracy (“Country C”), which received an average rating of 18.}}</ref> It polls political scientists more regularly than some other indices and has shown a significant decrease in democracy at the start of Trump's first and second terms.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lopez |first=German |date=2025-02-07 |title=A Constitutional Crisis? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/briefing/a-constitutional-crisis.html |access-date=2025-04-17 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2025-02-26 |title=Opinion {{!}} What political scientists see as worrisome, Republicans see as welcome |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/26/trump-threats-democracy-experts-polling/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250226124014/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/26/trump-threats-democracy-experts-polling/ |archive-date=February 26, 2025 |access-date=2025-04-17 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en |url-status=live}}</ref>
Brendan Nyhan and NPR interpreted 2025 survey results as showing significant consensus among political scientists around concerns for further democratic backsliding at the start of the second Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Grossmann |first=Matt |date=2025-01-08 |title=Threats to democracy in the 2nd Trump administration - Niskanen Center |url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/threats-to-democracy-in-the-2nd-trump-administration/ |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=Niskanen Center - Improving Policy, Advancing Moderation |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Langfitt |first=Frank |date=2025-05-03 |title=People Who Fled Authoritarian Regimes Say Trump's Tactics Remind Them of Home {{!}} KQED |url=https://www.kqed.org/news/12038552/people-who-fled-authoritarian-regimes-say-trumps-tactics-remind-them-of-home |access-date=2025-05-08 |website=NPR |language=en |quote=In fact, a survey in February found that hundreds of U.S.-based scholars think the United States is moving swiftly from a liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism.}}</ref> While not a representative sample, it is a large sample that has been used since 2016 to gauge shifts in how experts and the public perceive American democracy's health.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Miller |first1=Claire Cain |last2=Quealy |first2=Kevin |date=2017-05-25 |title=Checking Democracy's Pulse |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/upshot/checking-democracys-pulse.html |access-date=2025-05-08 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Klein |first=Ezra |date=2017-10-05 |title=4 political scientists are tracking whether Trump is damaging American democracy |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16414338/trump-democracy-authoritarianism |access-date=2025-05-08 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref>
===Freedom House=== As part of their ''Freedom in the World'' survey series, Freedom House downgraded the United States' score significantly in their civil rights and political liberties index between 2010 (94) and 2020 (83), including an accelerated 6-point loss during the first presidency of Donald Trump alone, citing the need for three main reforms: removing barriers to voting, limiting the influence of money in politics, and establishing independent redistricting commissions.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Levine |first=Sam |date=March 24, 2021 |title=US sinks to new low in rankings of world's democracies |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-democracy-rankings-freedom-house-new-low |access-date=October 30, 2023 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Repucci |first=Sarah |date=March 2021 |title=From Crisis to Reform: A Call to Strengthen America's Battered Democracy |url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2021/crisis-reform-call-strengthen-americas-battered-democracy |access-date=October 30, 2023 |website=Freedom House |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Introduction |author-link=Steven Levitsky |author-link2=Daniel Ziblatt}}</ref>
In the ''Freedom in the World'' index published in 2026, the U.S. received its lowest score (81) since the report began its 100-point system in 2002.<ref>{{Cite web |last=France-Presse |first=Agence |date=2026-03-19 |title=US earns its lowest-ever score on freedom index |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/us-earns-its-lowest-ever-score-on-freedom-index |access-date=2026-03-23 |website=Courthouse News Service |language=en-us}}</ref>
===Polity=== The Polity data series labels the United States an anocracy. In 2025, they wrote: "The USA is no longer considered a democracy and lies at the cusp of autocracy; it has experienced a Presidential Coup and an Adverse Regime Change event".<ref name=":5" />
===IDEA=== International IDEA labeled the U.S. a "backsliding democracy" after evaluating 2020 and 2021 events, including January 6 and a poorly functioning legislature.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Sundaresan |first1=Mano |last2=Isackson |first2=Amy |date=December 1, 2021 |title=Democracy is declining in the U.S. but it's not all bad news, a report finds |url=https://www.npr.org/2021/12/01/1059896434/united-states-backsliding-democracy-donald-trump-january-6-capitol-attack |work=NPR}}</ref> IDEA's democracy scores started sliding for the United States in 2016.<ref>{{Cite web |title=United States Democracy Indices: 1975–present |url=https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/gsod-indices?country=United+States&index=Representation,Rule+of+Law,Rights,Participation&years=1975-2022 |access-date=October 31, 2023 |website=IDEA International}}</ref>
In their most recent democracy index published in 2025, which was conducted before Trump's second term, the U.S. is among the lowest-ranking OECD members in all categories except for participation.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |title=Democracy falls in majority of countries worldwide – DW – 09/11/2025 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/democracy-falls-in-majority-of-countries-worldwide/a-73955759 |access-date=2025-12-19 |website=dw.com |language=en}}</ref> Secretary General of the IDEA, Kevin Casas Zamora, said: "Some of the things that we saw during the [2024] election at the end of last year and in the first few months of 2025 are fairly disturbing".<ref name=":9" /> ===State Democracy Index=== Jacob Grumbach published the State Democracy Index, which evaluates states between 2000 and 2018 on the strength of their electoral democracy. While starting in 2002 and accelerating after the 2010 elections and redistricting, Grumbach found that almost all democratic backsliding in American states occurred under unified Republican Party control, while Democratic Party-controlled and divided states have become more democratic.<ref>{{cite book |last=Grumbach |first=Jacob |title=Laboratories against Democracy : How National Parties Transformed State Politics |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2022 |isbn=978-0-691-21847-2 |pages=172–173 |oclc=1337137583}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=August 2, 2023 |title=Jacob Grumbach Receives the 2023 Merze Tate - Elinor Ostrom Outstanding Book Award - |work=Political Science Now |url=https://politicalsciencenow.com/jacob-grumbach-receives-the-2023-merze-tate-elinor-ostrom-outstanding-book-award/ |access-date=27 February 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=August 22, 2022 |title=UW professor outlines how states went from the laboratories of democracy to working against it |first=David |last=Gutman |url=https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/uw-professor-outlines-how-states-went-from-the-laboratories-of-democracy-to-working-against-it/ |access-date=October 25, 2023 |website=The Seattle Times |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=April 13, 2021 |title=In America, Republican-led states are rolling back electoral and civil liberties |url=https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/04/13/in-america-republican-led-states-are-rolling-back-electoral-and-civil-liberties |access-date=2025-05-08 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> <!-- "the groups of states controlled by each party change over this period; I do not know from Figure 4 whether Republican states are becoming less democratic or whether less democratic states are becoming more Republican. The partisan relationships could also be confounded by other potential causes of democratic changes: competition and polarization." – Grumbach -->Grumbach found Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Carolina were the worst performers (with Wisconsin and North Carolina previously ranking at the top), and suggested a sense of racial threat was one of the main drivers in these states with larger Black populations becoming more anti-democratic.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=April 7, 2023 |title=A study confirms it: Tennessee's democracy really is as bad as the expulsions made you think |url=https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/4/7/23673998/tennessee-expulsions-state-democracy-measure |access-date=October 25, 2023 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref> Grumbach also cites economic inequality, the nationalization of state politics through declining journalism and an increase in national donors as contributors of backsliding.<ref name=":1">{{cite news |last1=Grumbach |first1=Jake |date=December 1, 2022 |title=Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding |publisher=Cambridge University Press |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/laboratories-of-democratic-backsliding/0742F08306EFDD8612539F089853E4FE}}</ref> While he notes it would be difficult to compare across eras, he believes that the slavery and Jim Crow eras in particular had far greater gaps in the quality of democracy between states than the present-day gaps he analyzes and notes that the U.S., in the eyes of some, was not a democracy until 1964.<ref name=":1" /> ''Vox'' describes this index as the first attempt to quantify democracy between U.S. states and as being widely praised.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=2021-04-05 |title=Study: Republican control of state government is bad for democracy |url=https://www.vox.com/2021/4/5/22358325/study-republican-control-state-government-bad-for-democracy |access-date=2025-05-08 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref> 2018–2024 resulted in slight improvements overall thanks to the expansion of mail-in voting during COVID-19 and a couple states restricting gerrymandering.<ref>{{Cite news |date=December 23, 2024 |title=Overall, American states are becoming more democratic |url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/12/23/overall-american-states-are-becoming-more-democratic |access-date=2025-05-08 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
===''The Economist Democracy Index''=== ''The Economist Democracy Index'' started the U.S. at the index's launch in 2006 at an 8.22/10 (full democracy) though the rating started declining in 2010, with the country being classified as a flawed democracy beginning in 2016.<ref>{{cite news |last=Holodny |first=Elena |date=January 25, 2017 |title=The US has been downgraded to a 'flawed democracy' |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/economist-intelligence-unit-downgrades-united-states-to-flawed-democracy-2017-1 |publisher=Business Insider}}</ref> It dropped to its lowest rating yet of 7.65 in 2025.<ref name=":7">{{Cite news |date=April 7, 2026 |title=Global democracy is in better shape than you think |url=https://www.economist.com/interactive/democracy-index-2025 |access-date=2026-04-13 |newspaper=The Economist |language=en}}</ref> ''The Economist'' stated that since Donald Trump's second presidency, "[e]fforts to redraw electoral boundaries, the use of the military to quell protests and continued political polarisation weighed on America’s score. The Department of Government Efficiency disrupted the functioning of government, and attempts to muzzle the media hit civil liberties."<ref name=":7" />
===V-Dem=== In the V-Dem Institute's democracy report published in 2026, which describes the year 2025, the U.S. was classified as an "electoral democracy" for the first time in over 50 years, losing its status as a liberal democracy.<ref name="VDEM_Report_2026" /> The V-Dem Democracy Indices showed significant declines from 2016 to 2020.<ref>{{cite web |title=Country Graph |url=https://www.v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/ |access-date=November 11, 2022 |website=V-Dem |publisher=V-Dem Institute}}</ref>{{sfn|Lührmann|Lindberg|2019|p=1097}}
In March 2025, V-Dem Institute's director Staffan I. Lindberg said the U.S. was on track to lose its democracy status in six months.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Panetta |first=Alexander |date=March 18, 2025 |title=U.S. could lose democracy status, says global watchdog |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-democracy-report-1.7486317 |work=CBC}}</ref> In September 2025, he said this had occurred by his analysis.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=I. Lindberg |first=Staffan |author-link=Staffan I. Lindberg |date=September 16, 2025 |title=Can democracy survive without America? |url=https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1219044.html |access-date=2025-11-06 |website=Hankyoreh |language=ko |quote=Regarding the United States, once a global symbol of democracy, Lindberg said, “The United States, by my analysis, at this point is no longer a democracy.” He went further to claim that the US is an “electoral autocracy.” An electoral autocracy is a country that formally holds elections, but those elections are not fair or just and thereby do not guarantee actual democratic competition. He went on to clarify that it’s possible to defend democracy without the US.}}</ref> V-Dem has measures on democracy starting in 1789, providing rare historical data to compare backsliding events, though comparing across centuries has challenges.<ref name=":1" />
V-Dem also scores political parties in an annual illiberalism score, and ranked the Republican Party more similar to authoritarian parties than typical center-right governing parties.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 4}}</ref>
===The Century Foundation=== The Century Foundation's Democracy Meter for 2025 rated the U.S. at 57/100 on its scale involving 23 categories to evaluate the quality of democracy, down from 79/100 in 2024.<ref name=":10">{{Cite web |last=Schenkkan |first=Nate |date=2026-01-15 |title=Century's New Democracy Meter Shows America Took an Authoritarian Turn in 2025 |url=https://tcf.org/content/report/centurys-new-democracy-meter-shows-america-took-an-authoritarian-turn-in-2025/ |access-date=2026-01-20 |website=The Century Foundation |language=en}}</ref> Their "analysis suggests U.S. democracy is at greater risk than at any time since Watergate, and it may even be approaching its pre-Civil Rights Movement lowpoint."<ref name=":10" />
They summarized the situation as: "In the first year of Trump 2.0, the United States went from being a passing if imperfect democracy to behaving like an authoritarian state: breaking the law, ignoring court rulings, engaging in grand corruption, targeting critics for persecution, and conducting a campaign against immigrants [...] that flagrantly violates civil rights. Crucially, elections are still free, providing for the time being an avenue to reverse the democratic decline."<ref name=":10" />
===Authoritarian Threat Index=== Since 2025, Protect Democracy's Authoritarian Threat Index rates the U.S. at 3.4 on a scale ranging from 1 ("Low Threat") to 5 ("Catastrophic Threat"), indicating a "Severe Threat" to U.S. democracy in all categories measured.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |title=Threat Index |url=https://protectdemocracy.org/threat-index/ |access-date=2026-01-27 |website=Protect Democracy |language=en-US}}</ref> In September 2025, the U.S. scored 55/100 on said index's overall threat level score, the highest ever recorded.<ref name=":11" />
===Inter American Press Association=== In the Inter American Press Association's press freedom index report published in 2026, which measured the period between November 2024 and November 2025, the U.S. saw the sharpest drop in press freedom in the Americas and fell from a country categorized as "Low Restrictions" to "With Restrictions".<ref name=":13">{{Cite web |last=Osgood |first=Brian |title=Press freedom declines in Americas, with US seeing sharpest drop: Report |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/11/press-freedom-declines-in-americas-with-us-seeing-sharpest-drop-report |access-date=2026-03-15 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}</ref> The country was singled out in the report as an area of "alarming decline", with changes under President Donald Trump cited as a primary factor.<ref name=":13" /> According to the report, Trump's actions contributed to the "stigmatisation of critical journalism".<ref name=":13" />
===World Press Freedom Index=== The 2026 World Press Freedom Index report published by Reporters Without Borders saw the U.S. drop from 57th place in 2025 to 64th "due to growing political pressure".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-30 |title=2026 RSF Index by region: press freedom in decline in 100 out of 180 countries |url=https://rsf.org/en/classement-mondial-2026-par-r%C3%A9gions-une-d%C3%A9gradation-de-la-libert%C3%A9-de-la-presse-dans-100-pays-sur |access-date=2026-04-30 |website=rsf.org |language=en}}</ref>
In the "Political context" section of the U.S.' country profile, the organization stated: "Since returning to the White House in 2025, President Trump has extended the war on the press he launched while running for his first presidential term. He has censored government data, attempted to dismantle US public broadcasters, weaponized independent government agencies to punish media that criticize his actions, halted aid funding for media freedom internationally, sued disfavored outlets, and applied pressure to install cronies to lead others. Press freedom in the United States continues to decline as a result of these actions."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-14 |title=United States |url=https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states |access-date=2026-04-30 |website=rsf.org |language=en}}</ref>
===Public opinion=== Bright Line surveys from the University of Chicago have taken frequent measurements on attitudes around democracy in the U.S. from political scientists and a representative sample of the public, and have shown democratic decline consistent with V-Dem and ''The Economist Democracy Index''.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=June 20, 2018 |title=Who's More Afraid of Democracy: the Center or the Right? – Niskanen Center |url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/whos-more-afraid-of-democracy-the-center-or-the-right/ |access-date=November 4, 2023 |website=Niskanen Center – Improving Policy, Advancing Moderation |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":1" />
Heading toward the 2024 elections, polls indicated that Democrats and Republicans alike had serious concerns about democratic backsliding, though often for starkly different reasons. ''FiveThirtyEight'' analysis of polls found most Democrats were concerned about the implications for democracy of a second Donald Trump presidency, while most Republicans were concerned about election integrity, as many Republicans continued to incorrectly believe that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected in 2020.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Potts |first1=Monica |title=Democracy is a top concern for many voters. We asked them why. |url=https://abcnews.go.com/538/democracy-top-concern-voters-asked/story?id=110341629 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240517202140/https://abcnews.go.com/538/democracy-top-concern-voters-asked/story?id=110341629 |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 17, 2024 |work=FiveThirtyEight |agency=ABC News |date=May 17, 2024}}</ref>
==See also== * American decline * Civil rights in the United States ** History of civil rights in the United States * Corruption in the United States * Democracy in the Americas * Human rights in the United States * Imperial boomerang * Freedom of the press in the United States ** Timeline of government attacks on journalists in the United States * Procedural democracy * Solid South * Guided democracy * U.S. policy towards authoritarianism
==References==
===Citations=== {{reflist}}
===Bibliography=== {{refbegin|2|indent=yes}} *{{cite journal |last1=Alikhani |first1=Behrouz |title=Post-Democracy or Processes of De-Democratization? United States Case Study |journal=Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung |date=2017 |volume=42 |issue=4 (162) |pages=189–206 |issn=0172-6404}} *{{cite journal |last1=Brown |first1=Wendy|authorlink=Wendy Brown (political theorist) |title=American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and De-Democratization |journal=Political Theory |date=2006 |volume=34 |issue=6 |pages=690–714 |doi=10.1177/0090591706293016|s2cid=145467672}} *{{cite journal |last1=Gidengil |first1=Elisabeth |authorlink=Elisabeth Gidengil |last2=Stolle |first2=Dietlind |last3=Bergeron-Boutin |first3=Olivier |title=The partisan nature of support for democratic backsliding: A comparative perspective |journal=European Journal of Political Research |date=2021 |volume=61 |issue=4 |pages=901–929 |doi=10.1111/1475-6765.12502 |s2cid=245159417}} *{{cite journal |last1=Gillies |first1=Jamie |title=The Authoritarian Elephant Next Door?: A Canadian and Comparative Perspective Amidst American Democratic Backsliding & Uncertainty |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |date=2022 |volume=67 |issue=5 |pages=598–611 |doi=10.1177/00027642221103182 |s2cid=248979975}} *{{cite book |last1=Greenberg |first1=Karen J. |author-link1=Karen J. Greenberg|title=Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from the War on Terror to Donald Trump |date=2021 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-21656-0 |language=en}} *{{cite journal |last1=Huq |first1=Aziz Z. |authorlink=Aziz Z. Huq |title=The Supreme Court and the Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |date=2022 |volume=699 |issue=1 |pages=50–65 |doi=10.1177/00027162211061124 |s2cid=247499952}} *{{cite journal |last1=Jardina |first1=Ashley |last2=Mickey |first2=Robert |title=White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |date=2022 |volume=699 |issue=1 |pages=79–89 |doi=10.1177/00027162211069730 |s2cid=247499954}} *{{cite journal |last1=Kaufman |first1=Robert R. |last2=Haggard |first2=Stephan |title=Democratic Decline in the United States: What Can We Learn from Middle-Income Backsliding? |journal=Perspectives on Politics |date=2019 |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=417–432 |doi=10.1017/S1537592718003377 |s2cid=149457724 |doi-access=free}} *{{cite journal |last1=Lieberman |first1=Robert C. |last2=Mettler |first2=Suzanne |title=The Crisis of American Democracy in Historical Context |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |date=July 2023 |volume=708 |issue=1 |pages=122–136 |doi=10.1177/00027162241228969}} - Though both authors are political scientists, this article explicitly places current U.S. democratic backsliding in historical perspective, identifying four recurring threats—polarization, conflict over membership in the polity, rising inequality, and executive aggrandizement—and tracing them from Reconstruction and Jim Crow to the present. *{{cite journal |last1=López |first1=Matias |last2=Luna |first2=Juan Pablo |title=Assessing the Risk of Democratic Reversal in the United States: A Reply to Kurt Weyland |journal=PS: Political Science & Politics |date=2021 |volume=54 |issue=3 |pages=421–426 |doi=10.1017/S1049096521000329 |s2cid=235612952 |language=en |issn=1049-0965|doi-access=free}} *{{cite journal |last1=Lührmann |first1=Anna |authorlink=Anna Lührmann |last2=Lindberg |first2=Staffan I. |author2-link=Staffan I. Lindberg |title=A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it? |journal=Democratization |date=2019 |volume=26 |issue=7 |pages=1095–1113 |doi=10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029 |s2cid=150992660 |doi-access=free}} *{{Cite journal |last=McPherson |first=James M. |author-link=James M. McPherson |date=1978 |title=The Dimensions of Change: The First and Second Reconstructions |journal=Wilson Quarterly |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=135–144 |jstor=40255407}} *{{cite journal |last1=Nelson |first1=Michael J. |last2=Witko |first2=Christopher |title=The Economic Costs of Democratic Backsliding? Backsliding and State Location Preferences of US Job Seekers |journal=The Journal of Politics |date=2022 |volume=84 |issue=2 |pages=1233–1238 |doi=10.1086/715601|s2cid=236219408 |url=https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/resources/3f4650af-d6ad-4c35-b966-6882d94bff4d}} *{{cite book |last1=Rowland |first1=Robert C.|author-link1=Robert C. Rowland|title=The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy |date=2021 |publisher=University Press of Kansas |isbn=978-0-7006-3196-4 |language=en}} *{{cite journal|last=Weyland|first=Kurt|year=2020|title=Populism's Threat to Democracy: Comparative Lessons for the United States |journal=Perspectives on Politics|volume=18|issue=2|pages=389–406 |doi=10.1017/S1537592719003955 |s2cid=213708401 |doi-access=free}} {{refend}}
==Further reading== * {{cite book |last1=Haggard |first1=Stephan |last2=Kaufman |first2=Robert |title=Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World |date=2021 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-95840-0 |language=en |ref=none}} * {{cite book |last1=Mettler |first1=Suzanne |last2=Lieberman |first2=Robert C. |author2link=Robert C. Lieberman |title=Four Threats: The Recurring Crises of American Democracy |date=2020 |publisher=St. Martin's |isbn=978-1-250-24442-0 |language=en |ref=none}} * {{cite book |last=Orlow |first=Dietrich |title=Weimar Prussia, 1925–1933: The Illusion of Strength |publisher=University of Pittsburgh Press |year=1991 |isbn=9780822936848}} * {{Cite book |last=Richter |first=Hedwig |title=Moderne Wahlen. Eine Geschichte der Demokratie in Preußen und den USA im 19. Jahrhundert |publisher=Hamburger Edition |year=2017 |isbn=9783868543131 |location=Hamburg |language=de |trans-title=Modern Elections. A History of Democracy in Prussia and the USA in the 19th Century}} * {{cite podcast |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/autocracy-in-america/ |title=Autocracy in America |publisher=The Atlantic |author-link1=Peter Pomerantsev |first1=Peter |last1=Pomerantsev |author-link2=Anne Applebaum |first2=Anne |last2=Applebaum}} * {{cite book |authorlink=Heather Cox Richardson |last=Richardson |first=Heather Cox |year=2023 |title=Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America |publisher=Viking |isbn=978-0593652961}}
==External links== * {{Cite episode|title=Lies, Politics and Democracy|series=Frontline|series-link=Frontline (American TV program)|network=PBS|station=WGBH|season=40|number=17|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/lies-politics-and-democracy/|access-date=July 6, 2023}} * {{Cite episode |series=Frontline |title=Trump's Power & the Rule of Law |series-link=Frontline (American TV program) |network=PBS |date=July 15, 2025 |season=43 |number=9 |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/trumps-power-the-rule-of-law/ |station=WGBH-TV}}
{{First presidency of Donald Trump}} {{Second presidency of Donald Trump}} {{United States topics}}
Category:Democratic backsliding in the United States Category:2010s in American politics Category:2020s in American politics Category:Articles containing video clips Category:First presidency of Donald Trump Category:History of voting rights in the United States Category:Political history of the United States Category:Second presidency of Donald Trump Category:Trumpism