Do political scientists classify Donald J. Trump as an authoritarian and what criteria do they use?

1. How scholars label Trump: competing but overlapping vocabularies

Political scientists and observers do not use a single term; they often apply overlapping labels — “competitive authoritarianism,” “authoritarian populism,” or simply “authoritarian tendencies” — depending on the conceptual lens. An intelligence-style assessment by former officials concluded the U.S. is moving toward “competitive authoritarianism,” where elections and courts still exist but are “systematically manipulated” ^[1]. UC Berkeley researchers describe Trump as an exemplar of “authoritarian populism,” a category that highlights elite consolidation plus mass mobilization against out-groups ^[3]. Advocacy and watchdog groups compile “authoritarian playbooks” that map Trump’s rhetoric and orders onto classic strongman tactics ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Core criteria scholars and watchdogs use to assess authoritarianism

Assessments center on patterns rather than single acts: attacks on independent institutions (courts, press), politicized use of executive power, erosion of civil liberties, creation or toleration of paramilitary-like forces, and legal or administrative moves that punish opponents or insulate allies. The Guardian-style assessment cites manipulation of institutions and systematic weakening of checks and balances as key markers of “competitive authoritarianism” ^[1]. Protect Democracy’s “Authoritarian Playbook” and related trackers enumerate steps such as using executive orders to sidestep legal constraints, demeaning or criminalizing opponents, and building loyalist power networks ^{[2] [6]}. The New York Times and The Atlantic pieces likewise highlight attacks on the press, use of pardons, and proposals to bypass normal legislative and judicial restraints as relevant indicators ^{[7] [8]}.

3. Empirical signals scholars point to from 2025 actions

Researchers and watchdogs point to specific 2025 executive moves and public statements as empirical evidence: sweeping immigration orders framed as an “invasion,” attempts to revoke birthright citizenship, large-scale firings or freezes of federal funds to dissenting institutions, and proposals that would expand domestic enforcement powers — all catalogued by groups like NILC and independent trackers ^{[5] [9] [6]}. Media analyses and academic essays document that such policies, plus rhetoric that vilifies out-groups, fit patterns identified in comparative studies of authoritarian consolidation ^{[8] [10]}.

4. Where scholars disagree or urge nuance

Not all academics equate these developments with immediate, full-scale authoritarian takeover. Some stress that democracies often experience episodes of executive dominance, capture, or decay without completely converting into autocracies, and they warn against categorical labels unless long-term institutional collapse occurs ^[4]. This line of argument emphasizes differences between “authoritarian tendencies” or democratic backsliding and the formal establishment of an un-democratic regime ^[4].

5. Why journalists sometimes hesitate to use the label

Journalists and some scholars explain hesitancy by noting that “authoritarian” carries strong retrospective finality and that many observers prefer describing concrete actions and patterns rather than assigning a definitive regime label in real time. The Conversation piece argues that reluctance exists even as many scholars assert the U.S. has crossed thresholds warranting the term; that piece also points readers to Levitsky and Way’s early-2025 analysis of a “path to American authoritarianism” ^{[11] [1]}.

6. What this means for assessing claims going forward

Analysts recommend focusing on clear, repeatable indicators — institutional manipulation, legal and executive shortcuts, erosion of civil liberties, and mobilization of loyalist enforcement — rather than single incidents; several groups and trackers provide rolling inventories of such actions for empirical judgment ^{[2] [6]}. At the same time, some scholars counsel monitoring whether these patterns become entrenched or are checked by courts, legislatures, civil society, and public opinion before concluding a permanent regime change ^[4].

Limitations: available sources document strong scholarly and watchdog consensus that Trump displays authoritarian patterns and list the criteria used, but they also include voices urging caution and alternate framings; available sources do not present a full cross-section of the entire political science field, so broader polling of specialist opinion beyond these reports is not found in current reporting ^{[1] [3] [4]}.