Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have there been any historical instances of authoritarianism in the United States?
Executive Summary
There are documented historical instances and recurring patterns in the United States that scholars and commentators characterize as authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning, ranging from 19th-century presidencies and settler-colonial practices to Jim Crow-era racial subordination and contemporary debates over executive power. Scholars disagree on whether current trends constitute a new authoritarian break or are continuations of older American authoritarian practices, with surveys of experts and recent essays offering contrasting interpretations and dates that matter for understanding continuity and change [1] [2] [3].
1. How historians place past U.S. episodes on an authoritarian spectrum
Historians and public intellectuals trace authoritarian features in U.S. history to episodes such as Andrew Jackson’s presidency, settler-colonial removal of Native Americans, and the post-Reconstruction Jim Crow system, arguing these moments show concentrated executive power, legal exclusion, and political violence [1] [2]. These analyses emphasize structural continuity: legal and extralegal mechanisms—court decisions, state laws, and sanctioned violence—enabled long-term political exclusion. Critics note that labeling these events “authoritarian” connects them to broader patterns of power consolidation, but scholars differ on whether these episodes fully meet modern academic definitions of authoritarian regimes [1] [2].
2. Why some experts see a contemporary slide toward authoritarianism
Recent surveys of political scientists and scholars report a strong consensus that the United States exhibits meaningful democratic erosion and risks of authoritarian drift, with one survey assigning a 55/100 severity on a decline scale and others citing executive overreach and attacks on checks and balances as key drivers [3] [4]. These studies, published in April 2025, show many experts connect specific behaviors—efforts to expand unilateral presidential authority, anti-institutional rhetoric, and contested electoral practices—to historical antecedents while arguing the current moment is distinct in its rapidity and institutional strain [3] [4].
3. Counterarguments: institutions still functioning and labels contested
Several recent commentators push back, arguing the United States has not become a competitive authoritarian regime because electoral competition and core institutions—courts, legislatures, and civil society—retain meaningful power. This critique highlights the resilience of institutional constraints and the normative risk of overextending the authoritarian label, warning that doing so can obscure democratic renewal and policy remedies [5]. The debate pivots on definitional thresholds: whether erosion short of outright regime change qualifies as authoritarianism, and how to weigh episodic abuses against long-term institutional durability [5].
4. Jim Crow as a central American authoritarian precedent
Analysts comparing Jim Crow to modern authoritarian tendencies argue that the systematic disenfranchisement, segregation, and state-backed violence of the Jim Crow era constitute an American form of authoritarian governance, rooted in legal frameworks and mass intimidation [2]. This comparative framing emphasizes continuity in exclusionary policies and the use of law to entrench racial hierarchy. At the same time, proponents of the counterargument note that Jim Crow’s legal architecture was ultimately dismantled via constitutional litigation and federal intervention, offering a cautionary tale about both the depth of authoritarian practices and the possibility of reversal [2].
5. Broad surveys of scholars: consensus and limitations
Large-scale expert surveys conducted in 2025 show substantial professional concern: hundreds of political scientists rated the U.S. as moving toward authoritarianism and highlighted executive encroachments as central [4]. These surveys provide important aggregate evidence of professional alarm, but they reflect expert judgment rather than definitive regime classification. Methodological limits—sampling frames, question wording, and the evolving benchmarks used to define authoritarianism—mean the surveys are evidence of perceived risk and trajectory rather than conclusive proof that regime change has already occurred [4].
6. The interpretive divide: continuity vs. rupture in American politics
Analysts split between those who see current events as part of an ongoing American pattern of authoritarian impulses and those who view them as a possible rupture requiring unique countermeasures [1] [5]. The continuity argument points to repeated historical episodes where elites and majorities tolerated exclusionary or coercive state practices. The rupture argument stresses institutional pushback, public contestation, and the comparative rarity of formal one-party domination. Both frames guide policy prescriptions: continuity suggests long-term structural reform, while rupture implies urgent defensive measures for institutions [1] [5].
7. What this means for public understanding and debate
The scholarly record shows clear evidence that authoritarian practices have occurred in U.S. history and that contemporary scholars and surveys express serious concern about authoritarian trends; yet there is substantive disagreement about whether the current trajectory amounts to a new authoritarian regime or an intensification of historical patterns [6] [3] [2]. Recognizing both continuity and contestation helps move debate from binary labels to specific diagnostics—what institutions are weakening, what legal channels enable abuses, and which reforms can strengthen democratic resilience—aligning historical lessons with present policy choices [6] [3].