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.
How have scholars and political scientists assessed rising authoritarianism in the United States since 2016?
Executive summary
Scholars and political scientists are sharply divided but broadly alert: many warn the United States has experienced measurable democratic erosion since 2016 and is at risk of "competitive authoritarianism," while other experts emphasize institutional resilience and historical context (see Levitsky/Way metric and V‑Dem/indices decline versus arguments about resilience) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple academic surveys and indices—Bright Line Watch, V‑Dem, EIU/Democracy Index and Freedom House reporting—show lower scores or growing concern about backsliding; at the same time, some scholarship stresses that backsliding is often reversible and not all episodes produce durable autocracies [4] [2] [5] [3].
1. Alarm from authoritarianism scholars: “competitive authoritarianism” and the playbook
A sustained strand of scholarship and expert reports argues the U.S. now exhibits features of competitive authoritarianism—elections and courts endure but are being "systematically manipulated" to advantage the executive and weaken checks—citing tactics such as politicizing independent agencies, targeting critics, and reconfiguring the bureaucracy [6] [7] [8]. Journalists and academics use the "authoritarian playbook" frame to link rhetoric, personnel changes, Project 2025 plans, and executive actions into a coherent threat narrative [8] [9] [10].
2. Measuring decline: indices, surveys and the expert consensus
Quantitative assessments detect a downshift since 2016. V‑Dem and related Democracy Report work document long-term autocratization trends and place the U.S. among concerning cases; the Economist Intelligence Unit and other indices rate the U.S. as a "flawed democracy" with a lower score than in earlier years [2] [5]. Bright Line Watch and surveys of political scientists report broad expert concern about further backsliding, and International IDEA has issued repeated alerts about U.S. erosion of institutional norms in 2025 [11] [12] [4].
3. Roots and drivers identified by scholars: culture, institutions, and elite choices
Researchers map the causes to structural and behavioral factors: long‑standing institutional weaknesses (gerrymandering, money in politics, expanded executive authority) combined with an empowered political movement using populist and nativist rhetoric. Survey research links higher authoritarian predispositions to particular demographic and ideological groups, and scholars emphasize culture‑war dynamics more than purely economic explanations [13] [14] [15].
4. Comparative lenses: why some scholars warn and others urge caution
Many scholars use cross‑national comparisons—citing cases from Turkey, El Salvador, and the Philippines—to show how similar tactics produced rapid democratic erosion elsewhere; this informs warnings that the U.S. could follow a comparable trajectory if unchecked [7] [16] [17]. Conversely, a number of political scientists stress differences: robust institutions, federalism, and the U.S. political ecosystem can slow or reverse backsliding, and historical evidence suggests not all backsliding leads to durable autocracy [3] [16].
5. Public opinion and mass predispositions: mixed signals
Public surveys show declining satisfaction with how democracy works and meaningful pockets of authoritarian sympathy; yet large majorities still reject political violence and many democratic norms persist in public attitudes—an ambivalent social base that both worries experts and offers hope for democratic correction [18] [15] [19].
6. Policy and scholarly responses: playbooks, pushback, and research agendas
Think tanks, universities and advocacy groups have published "democracy playbooks" and policy toolkits aimed at resisting illiberal tactics, while scholars call for cross‑disciplinary research to track institutional changes and recommend remedies (Brookings, Berkeley, Protect Democracy) [20] [21] [22]. At the same time, critics warn about alarm fatigue and the risk of overstating inevitable collapse [3].
7. What remains contested or under‑reported in current scholarship
Sources disagree on whether the U.S. has already tipped into a stable authoritarian regime or remains a democracy under stress: some label it "competitive authoritarian" or an "electoral authoritarian" while others see resilience and reversibility [13] [4] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single scholarly consensus declaring inevitable collapse; instead they show a spectrum from urgent alarm to cautious optimism about institutional durability [6] [3].
Bottom line for readers
The literature since 2016 is emphatic that risks have increased and provides both qualitative and quantitative evidence of democratic erosion; however, scholarly opinion diverges sharply on whether that erosion is irreversible. The debate now centers on whether institutional defenses and civic responses can halt or reverse backsliding—making ongoing monitoring, comparative study, and policy interventions the dominant scholarly prescriptions [1] [2] [20].