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.
Is the united states moving to authoritarianism?
Executive summary
A broad swath of recent expert commentary, scholar surveys, and NGO reporting warns that the United States shows clear signs of democratic erosion and is at risk of—or already exhibiting—forms of “competitive authoritarianism,” meaning elections and courts persist while institutions are being skewed to favor the ruling party [1] [2] [3]. Hundreds of political scientists and multiple high-profile analyses argue the current moment (mid‑2025 onward) reflects accelerated executive aggrandizement, politicized institutions, and tactics commonly used by authoritarian-leaning governments — though voices differ on whether the U.S. has fully crossed from democracy into authoritarian rule [4] [5] [6].
1. What experts are saying: “Trajectory” versus “tipped over”
Former intelligence officials organized as Steady State conclude the U.S. is “on a trajectory” toward authoritarian rule and assess with “moderate to high confidence” that competitive authoritarian dynamics are accelerating under the current administration [1]. Hundreds of political scientists surveyed similarly say the country is “sliding toward authoritarianism,” citing expanded executive power and use of state institutions against political opponents [4]. Other analysts and commentators argue the U.S. has already crossed into a competitive authoritarian system where formal democratic trappings remain but the playing field is heavily tilted [7].
2. What “competitive authoritarianism” means and why analysts use it
Writers and scholars deploy the term “competitive authoritarianism” to capture systems where elections and courts exist but are “systematically manipulated” through loyal appointments, selective prosecutions, and pressure on media and civil society — tactics identified in several recent U.S. critiques [1] [2]. Political scientists Levitsky and Way’s suggested metric—“the cost of opposing the government”—is used by commentators and researchers to argue that instruments of state power have been repurposed in ways that raise that cost [8].
3. Specific practices flagged as evidence of democratic backsliding
Analysts point to concrete phenomena: investigations or legal actions against political enemies, efforts to install loyalists across agencies, aggressive use of executive orders, and pressure on universities and the press as signals of an authoritarian offensive [8] [2] [9]. Reports also note tactics such as attempts to centralize election authority and the broader context of structural weaknesses (gerrymandering, money in politics, polarized courts) that predate and facilitate current moves [3] [7].
4. Views that push back or offer nuance
Not all commentators assert the U.S. is already an authoritarian state. Foreign Policy and others place the U.S. in an “in‑between” category—recognizing a “particularly authoritarian” moment but distinguishing it from classic 20th‑century dictatorships and warning it could be reversible or arrested by institutions and civic resistance [6]. Some essays situate the phenomenon historically, arguing democratic fragility has deep roots and contemporary leaders have simply accelerated existing trends [10] [5].
5. Public perception and scholarly consensus indicators
Surveys show declining public confidence in American democracy and alarm among scholars: NPR reported hundreds of political scientists worried about authoritarian drift [4], and polling referenced in academic forums found a large share of Americans giving U.S. democracy poor marks [10]. Academic networks and hundreds of former officials have published coordinated warnings, indicating institutionalized concern across professional communities [1] [4].
6. Counterarguments and partisan framing
Some outlets frame claims of authoritarian drift as partisan or alarmist; alternative narratives emphasize that institutions continued to operate (e.g., elections being certified) and that political competition remains intense [3] [11]. Critics of the “authoritarian” label caution against collapsing authoritarianism and ordinary political consolidation or executive overreach into the same category, arguing this risks obscuring democratic resilience or misreading political change [5] [11].
7. What’s missing or uncertain in current reporting
Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted binary threshold showing definitively that the U.S. has become an authoritarian regime; instead, reporting and scholarship present a range from “at risk” to “already competitive authoritarian” [1] [7]. Precise empirical measures of long‑term institutional change and the durability of resistance (courts, states, civil society) remain contested in current reporting [8] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers
Multiple respected scholars, former intelligence officials, NGOs and media outlets concur that the U.S. is experiencing substantial democratic erosion and that many worrying tactics associated with competitive authoritarianism are present and growing [1] [4] [8]. At the same time, reputable analysts disagree on whether the country has irreversibly tipped into full authoritarianism versus occupying an “in‑between” or crisis state that could be arrested by institutional checks and civic action [6] [5].