Is the United States Drifting Towards Authoritarianism?

Introduction

Concerns about the United States drifting toward authoritarianism have gained traction among scholars, political analysts, and the public, particularly in light of recent political developments. While the U.S. remains a constitutional democracy with institutional checks, certain trends—executive overreach, attacks on democratic norms, and efforts to manipulate electoral processes—have raised alarms about democratic erosion or a potential shift toward “competitive authoritarianism,” where elections persist but are skewed to favor incumbents.

Recent Developments Cited as Concerns

1. Executive Overreach and Institutional Weakening:
   • Trump’s Second Term (2025): Since January 2025, the second Trump administration has pursued an ambitious agenda through executive actions, issuing over 200 executive orders in its first 100 days, per NBC News. These include efforts to dismantle federal agencies, restrict voting access, and assert control over independent institutions like the Department of Justice, IRS, and Federal Communications Commission. Actions such as barring certain lawyers from government buildings and targeting political opponents with investigations have been criticized as authoritarian by legal scholars.
   • Defiance of Checks: The administration has faced accusations of ignoring or slow-walking judicial and congressional oversight, raising concerns about the erosion of checks and balances. This mirrors tactics in countries like Poland and Hungary, where executives undermine institutional independence.
2. Erosion of Democratic Norms:
   • Media and Free Speech: The administration’s rhetoric labeling media outlets as “enemies of the people” and threats of defamation lawsuits or regulatory retaliation have created a chilling effect.
   • Retribution Against Opponents: Trump’s calls for prosecuting political rivals, including the “Biden crime family,” and pardoning January 6 rioters have been likened to “lawfare” seen in competitive authoritarian regimes, where legal systems are weaponized.
   • Cultural and Academic Suppression: Executive orders targeting universities, such as funding cuts to Harvard and restrictions on “woke” curricula, have sparked lawsuits alleging First Amendment violations. Academics report self-censorship, fearing loss of grants or investigations.
3. Polarization and Public Support for Authoritarianism:
   • Survey Data: A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found 32% of Americans support authoritarian systems (e.g., a strong leader or military rule), up from 26% in 2017. Support is higher among younger Americans (38% under 30) and those distrustful of institutions (44% among low-trust respondents).
   • Polarization: Decades of growing polarization, intensified since the 1990s, have eroded trust in Congress (18% approval, Gallup 2024), media (31% trust, Edelman 2024), and elections (59% believe 2020 was legitimate, Quinnipiac 2023). A 2022 V-Dem Institute report classified the U.S. as “moderately backsliding,” citing election denialism and norm violations.
   • Trump’s Popularity: Despite controversial actions, Trump’s approval rating reached 47% in March 2025 (NBC News), with 51% disapproving. This polarized support limits his ability to consolidate power fully but sustains his influence.
4. Electoral and Voting Concerns:
   • Voting Restrictions: State-level laws tightening voter ID requirements, purging rolls, and limiting mail-in ballots have been criticized as voter suppression, resembling tactics in electoral autocracies. A 2024 Brennan Center report noted 10 states passed restrictive voting laws since 2020.
   • January 6 Legacy: The 2021 Capitol riot and persistent Republican skepticism about the 2020 election (29% of Republicans view January 6 as “not violent,” per a 2023 YouGov poll) have normalized election denialism, weakening democratic legitimacy.
5. Congressional Weakness:
   • The Republican-controlled Congress has largely supported Trump’s agenda, with minimal pushback. Scholars like Steven Levitsky note Congress has “acquiesced” to executive dominance, failing to assert its constitutional role. Democrats, divided on strategy, have struggled to counter this trend.

Project 2025

Project 2025, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and supported by over 100 conservative organizations, is a comprehensive blueprint to reshape the U.S. federal government under a Republican administration. Launched in 2022, it aims to consolidate executive power, dismantle the “administrative state,” and align federal policy with conservative priorities. Since Trump’s 2025 inauguration, elements of Project 2025 have been implemented, raising alarms about its authoritarian potential. Below are its key components and impacts:

• Structural Goals:
  • Personnel Overhaul: Project 2025 seeks to replace up to 50,000 federal civil servants with political loyalists through a revival of “Schedule F,” a Trump-era policy reclassifying career employees as at-will workers. By March 2025, over 2,000 federal employees have been reassigned or fired, per Politico, particularly in agencies like the EPA and Department of Education. This mirrors Hungary’s state capture, where loyalists dominate institutions.
  • Agency Dismantling: The plan targets agencies perceived as liberal strongholds, such as the Department of Education, USAID, and parts of the FBI. Executive orders in February 2025 began defunding these agencies, though judicial injunctions have paused some cuts.
  • Centralized Control: Project 2025 proposes shifting independent agencies (e.g., Federal Reserve, FCC) under direct presidential control. A March 2025 executive order attempted to place the FCC under White House oversight, sparking legal challenges from media groups.
• Policy Priorities:
  • Cultural Conservatism: The project advocates banning diversity initiatives, restricting reproductive rights, and defunding institutions promoting “woke” ideologies. A February 2025 order cut funding to universities with DEI programs, prompting lawsuits from 12 institutions, including Stanford.
  • Immigration and Security: It calls for mass deportations and expanded executive powers to bypass Congress on border policy. A January 2025 order mobilized National Guard units for immigration enforcement, though logistical challenges have limited its scope.
  • Election Integrity: Project 2025 pushes for voter roll purges and stricter voting laws, claiming to combat fraud. Critics argue these measures disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, citing Georgia’s 2023 purge of 150,000 voters, 60% of whom were people of color.
• Implementation and Resistance:
  • Progress: By April 2025, roughly 20% of Project 2025’s 900-page playbook has been enacted, per the Heritage Foundation, including Schedule F’s partial revival and agency budget cuts. Trump has distanced himself publicly from the project, claiming it’s a think-tank initiative, but key advisors like Stephen Miller are closely tied to its execution.
  • Opposition: Democrats, civil liberties groups, and moderate Republicans have mobilized against it. A coalition of 50 NGOs filed a federal lawsuit in March 2025, arguing Schedule F violates civil service protections. Public protests in Washington, D.C., drew 10,000 people in February, per Reuters.
  • Authoritarian Concerns: Scholars like Anne Applebaum compare Project 2025 to authoritarian playbooks in Turkey and Russia, where bureaucracies are purged to entrench power. The project’s focus on loyalty over expertise undermines institutional independence, a hallmark of democratic erosion.

Judicial Resistance

The U.S. judiciary has emerged as a critical bulwark against potential authoritarian drift, leveraging its independence to check executive actions. Federal and state courts have blocked numerous Trump administration initiatives, demonstrating resilience but also facing unprecedented pressure. Below are key aspects of judicial resistance and its limits:

• Key Rulings:
  • Project 2025 Challenges: In March 2025, a D.C. federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against Schedule F’s implementation, citing violations of the Civil Service Reform Act. Another ruling in California blocked funding cuts to universities, arguing they infringed on free speech.
  • Voting Rights: Courts in Georgia and Texas struck down voter suppression laws in late 2024, preserving mail-in ballot access for 2025 local elections. A 2025 Supreme Court case on voter roll purges is pending, with a decision expected by June.
  • Executive Orders: Federal judges blocked Trump’s attempts to end birthright citizenship (February 2025) and defund USAID (January 2025). A New York judge halted an order restricting lawyer access to government buildings, calling it “unconstitutionally vague.”
  • Immigration: A California district court paused the National Guard’s immigration enforcement role, citing overreach into state jurisdiction.
• Judicial Independence:
  • The federal judiciary’s lifetime appointments insulate judges from political pressure, unlike in countries like Poland, where judges face disciplinary tribunals. However, Trump-appointed judges (27% of the federal bench as of 2025) often align with his agenda, creating inconsistent rulings.
  • The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has upheld some Trump policies (e.g., a 2024 ruling on border wall funding) but has not fully endorsed his broadest claims, such as absolute presidential immunity.
• Pressure on the Judiciary:
  • Defiance of Rulings: The administration has been accused of ignoring or delaying compliance with court orders, such as continuing USAID defunding despite injunctions. This echoes Andrew Jackson’s apocryphal defiance of the Supreme Court in the 1830s.
  • Rhetorical Attacks: Trump’s labeling of judges as “corrupt” or “biased” has fueled harassment. A 2024 DOJ report noted a 50% rise in threats against federal judges since 2020.
  • Court-Packing Threats: Proposals to expand the Supreme Court or impeach liberal judges have gained traction among some Republicans, though no legislation has passed by April 2025.
• Limits of Judicial Power:
  • Courts can block policies but cannot initiate reforms or fully counter public support for authoritarian figures. Delays in legal processes (cases often take months) allow temporary policy wins for the administration.
  • State-level resistance varies: Blue states like California file frequent lawsuits, while red states like Texas often align with federal policies, creating a patchwork of enforcement.
• Public Perception: X posts show polarized views, with progressives praising judges as “democracy’s firewall” and conservatives decrying “activist courts.” A 2024 Gallup poll found 49% of Americans trust the judiciary, down from 67% in 2000, reflecting declining legitimacy.

Counterarguments and Mitigating Factors

Despite these concerns, several factors suggest the U.S. is unlikely to become a full authoritarian state:

• Institutional Resilience: The judiciary’s independence, state autonomy, and constitutional checks remain robust. Unlike in Hungary, where courts were subordinated, U.S. judges have consistently blocked overreach.
• Wealth and Civil Society: The U.S.’s economic resources empower opposition groups, NGOs, and media to resist. For example, the ACLU raised $150 million in 2024 to fund anti-authoritarian litigation.
• Limited Public Support: Trump’s 47% approval (NBC, March 2025) is far below the near-unanimous support enjoyed by autocrats like Venezuela’s Chávez (80%+ in the 2000s). Polarization ensures a strong opposition bloc.
• Competitive Authoritarianism, Not Dictatorship: Scholars like Steven Levitsky argue the U.S. risks becoming a competitive authoritarian state (like Turkey), where elections occur but are unfair, rather than a one-party dictatorship.

Historical Context and Global Comparisons

• Latin American Parallels: Trump’s tactics resemble those of Latin American leaders like Brazil’s Castelo Branco (1964–1967) or Peru’s Fujimori (1990–2000), who used legal pretexts to consolidate power while claiming to “save” democracy. Project 2025’s personnel purges echo Fujimori’s replacement of judges with loyalists.
• Jim Crow South: The U.S. has historical authoritarian precedents, particularly in the Jim Crow South (1870s–1960s), where one-party rule, voter suppression, and violence disenfranchised Black citizens. This challenges claims of American democratic exceptionalism.
• Global Trends: A 2023 Freedom House report noted 71% of the world’s population lives in autocracies, up from 48% in 2013. Democracies like India and Hungary have backslid, with leaders using elections to legitimize power grabs, a potential model for the U.S.

Critical Analysis

While Project 2025 and executive defiance are serious threats, labeling the U.S. as authoritarian oversimplifies the situation. Many actions reflect partisan governance within democratic bounds, and institutional resistance—especially from courts—has been effective. However, the normalization of retribution, distrust in elections, and bureaucratic politicization could erode democracy gradually, especially if public apathy grows. Judicial resistance, while robust, faces delays and public distrust, limiting its impact. The U.S.’s wealth, federalism, and civil society provide strong defenses, but historical and global examples show democracies can decay without sustained vigilance.

Summary

The U.S. is not an authoritarian state, but developments like Project 2025’s bureaucratic overhaul and attempts to defy judicial rulings signal a risk of democratic backsliding, potentially toward competitive authoritarianism. The judiciary has been a critical check, blocking overreach, but faces pressure and limits. Structural factors—wealth, federalism, and opposition strength—mitigate the risk, but polarization and norm erosion remain threats. Historical parallels (Jim Crow, Latin America) and global trends (Hungary, Turkey) underscore that democracies can erode incrementally, often with public consent.