The State of American Democracy: Trends in Authoritarianism and Democratic Erosion (January-June 2025)

The period from January to June 2025 has witnessed a significant acceleration in trends toward authoritarianism in the United States, primarily driven by the actions of the new presidential administration. This trajectory is characterized by an aggressive expansion of executive power, the systematic undermining of independent institutions, and substantial challenges to the rule of law, civil liberties, and electoral integrity. These developments have prompted widespread concern among political scientists and democracy watchdogs, leading to a notable downgrade in the U.S.’s democratic standing by international indices. While the challenges are profound and the democratic system is under severe strain, robust counter-efforts from civil society, legal organizations, and certain judicial bodies indicate a vital, albeit tested, capacity for democratic resilience. The underlying challenge of deep political polarization continues to exacerbate these dynamics, shaping a complex and contested political landscape.

I. Introduction: Contextualizing the State of U.S. Democracy in 2025

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the trajectory of democratic norms and institutions in the United States during the first half of 2025. This period is particularly critical as it marks the initial months of a new presidential administration, whose stated intentions and early actions have drawn significant concern from a broad spectrum of political scientists and democracy watchdogs. The analysis will focus on identifying specific developments and their implications for the future of American liberal democracy.

To frame this discussion, it is essential to define key concepts. Liberal democracy is a political system characterized by free and fair elections, robust protection of civil liberties, adherence to the rule of law, and a system of checks and balances designed to constrain executive power. In contrast, competitive authoritarianism describes a hybrid regime type where formal democratic institutions, such as elections, continue to exist, but the playing field is heavily tilted in favor of the incumbent. In such systems, the ruling party systematically erodes checks and balances, attacks political opponents, and suppresses dissent, often by co-opting or weakening state institutions. The term democratic backsliding refers to the gradual or rapid decline in democratic quality, which can involve the erosion of institutional safeguards, civil liberties, and electoral fairness, without necessarily transitioning to a full dictatorship.

Initial assessments from leading democracy indices and scholars indicate a concerning trajectory for U.S. democracy. A survey conducted by Bright Line Watch, involving over 500 political scientists, found that the “vast majority” believe the United States is “moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism”.¹ Following the November election, these scholars initially rated American democracy at 67 on a 0-100 scale. However, merely several weeks into the new administration’s second term, this figure plummeted to 55, a “precipitous drop” that signifies a broad consensus that the nation is “moving in the wrong direction”.¹

Prominent academics have articulated this shift with urgency. Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard and co-author of How Democracies Die, states that the U.S. has “slid into some form of authoritarianism.” While he notes it is “relatively mild compared to some others” and “certainly reversible,” he concludes that the country is “no longer living in a liberal democracy”.¹ Similarly, Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton sociologist who has extensively studied democratic erosion in Hungary, expresses deep concern, observing that the U.S. is “on a very fast slide into what’s called competitive authoritarianism,” drawing parallels to countries like Hungary and Turkey where leaders systematically erode checks and balances and staff state agencies with loyalists.¹

The V-DEM Democracy Report 2025 further underscores this alarming trend, identifying the U.S. as undergoing the “fastest evolving episode of autocratization the USA has been through in modern history”.² The report notes that the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) for the U.S. significantly declined during the previous administration (2017-2020) and did not fully recover even after the subsequent change in leadership, remaining “weaker and more frequently attacked than before 2017”.³ This report also places the U.S. decline within a broader global context, observing that autocracies (91) now outnumber democracies (88) for the first time in over 20 years, with a staggering 72% of the world’s population living under autocratic rule.² The U.S. is presented as contributing to this global democratic recession.³ The International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy report for January 2025 provides specific rankings, placing the U.S. at 46/173 for Representation, 34/173 for Rights, 26/173 for Rule of Law, and 8/173 for Participation, all indicating areas of significant concern.⁵

The Brookings Institution’s “Democracy Playbook 2025,” published in January 2025, issues a stark warning about “immediate threats to its democracy, including rising autocratic tendencies, polarized governance, and weakened democratic norms”.⁶ It further asserts that experts across the ideological spectrum agree that the U.S. at the federal level “constitutes a backsliding democracy”.⁶ Freedom House, which has documented an 11-point decline in the U.S. on its 100-point Freedom in the World index over the past 13 years, continues to monitor critical challenges such as “fewer constraints on executive power,” “encroachment on civic space,” “waning trust in the courts,” and “rising political violence and antidemocratic behavior”.⁸

The application of the “competitive authoritarianism” framework by scholars to the U.S. trajectory suggests that the current administration’s actions are not random or isolated but rather part of a coherent strategy observed in other backsliding democracies.¹ This framework indicates that the erosion of democratic norms will likely continue through institutional capture rather than outright abolition of democratic forms, making it more challenging to identify and resist for those unfamiliar with this particular playbook. This also implies that a singular focus on electoral outcomes might overlook the deeper, systemic degradation of democratic quality.

Furthermore, the rapid decline in democracy ratings observed by Bright Line Watch and V-Dem following the January 2025 inauguration points to a significant acceleration of pre-existing trends.¹ This speed suggests a pre-planned and aggressive implementation of policies designed to consolidate power, rather than a gradual, reactive process. Such a rapid pace could overwhelm traditional checks and balances, which are often designed to respond to slower, more incremental challenges. This implies that the “warning signs” identified before the election are now manifesting as concrete, rapid policy shifts, demanding an equally swift and robust response.

The global context of U.S. democratic decline, where autocracies now outnumber democracies, is also highly significant.² This global trend suggests that the drivers of U.S. democratic decline may share commonalities with those in other nations, such as the rise of populism, economic challenges, and the spread of disinformation. Moreover, the U.S.’s diminished democratic standing could significantly weaken its “soft power” and ability to lead on global challenges, as academic research indicates that information about U.S. democratic backsliding decreases favorability toward the United States among foreign citizens.⁹ The decline of a major global democracy like the U.S. could further embolden autocratic regimes worldwide and undermine international norms of democracy.

II. Executive Power Expansion and the Erosion of Checks and Balances

The first half of 2025 has revealed a clear intent by the executive branch to centralize power and bypass traditional constitutional constraints, a core tactic observed in competitive authoritarian regimes.¹ This strategy is notably influenced by comprehensive blueprints for governance.

The Influence of “Project 2025” and the “Authoritarian Legal Playbook”

“Project 2025,” a detailed policy blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation, is described as an “extremist manifesto” and an “authoritarian playbook” designed to guide a far-right presidential administration.¹⁰ Its stated aims include concentrating federal power in the presidency, systematically dismantling democracy, and destroying the nearly 250-year-old system of checks and balances.¹¹ The administration has begun implementing these plans “at record speed” ¹³, translating campaign promises into concrete policies and programs designed to deploy executive power.¹⁰ Key tactics outlined in this playbook, and now observed in practice, include politicizing independent institutions, aggrandizing executive power, spreading disinformation, quashing dissent, targeting marginalized communities, corrupting elections, and stoking violence.¹⁰

The systematic nature of purges within the civil service and military, attacks on media, and the creation of new, unaccountable bodies like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) indicate a deliberate strategy to neutralize institutional checks from within. This approach suggests a sophisticated, rather than chaotic, method of democratic erosion. It focuses on hollowing out institutions and replacing independent actors with loyalists, which makes it more challenging for the system itself to resist. The reliance on executive orders to enact these changes further accelerates the process by bypassing legislative hurdles. This also implies that traditional legal challenges might prove insufficient if the judiciary itself becomes compromised or overwhelmed.

Specific Executive Actions (January-June 2025) and Their Implications

The initial months of the administration have been marked by a flurry of executive actions that align with the objectives of Project 2025:

• The Creation and Operational Impact of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): Established by Executive Order on January 20, 2025, DOGE’s stated goal is “modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity”.¹³ However, this new agency is functionally led by Elon Musk, who, despite having no formal government role beyond advisor, has been delegated “vast powers to intervene in government departments”.³ DOGE has been criticized for its “lack of accountability,” appearing “accountable only to Trump”.³ It has been granted access to “sensitive, private, and classified information” ³, raising significant concerns about data security and potential conflicts of interest. Operationally, DOGE has reportedly fired “tens of thousands of government employees,” including USAID officers, effectively closing an agency established by Congress. This action is viewed as a “significant affront to republican-liberal principles” and a potential litmus test for American democracy.³ DOGE faces at least 11 lawsuits for “flouting laws and rules around data and privacy”.³ A District Court initially enjoined the Social Security Administration (SSA) from granting DOGE affiliates access to SSA records, though the Supreme Court granted a stay on June 6, 2025, allowing SSA to proceed with data access pending appeal.¹³ This framing of “efficiency” as a justification for centralizing power and removing independent oversight is a common rhetorical strategy where democratic backsliding is presented under seemingly benign pretexts.
• Pardons and Commutations, Particularly Concerning the January 6 Events: On January 20, 2025, the President issued an executive order commuting sentences for 14 individuals convicted of January 6-related crimes and granted pardons to over 1,500 January 6 defendants.³ These actions are widely viewed by experts as “incompatible with accountability and the rule of law” and a “tacit endorsement of future violence”.³ The Brookings Institution notes that this “contributes to the mounting threats to U.S. democracy by disregarding the impartiality and independence of U.S. rule of law”.¹⁶ Project 2025 explicitly aims to abuse pardon power to “incite political violence, incentivize lawbreaking for his benefit, and render himself above the law”.¹⁰
• Purges within Federal Agencies and the Civil Service, and Attempts to Remove Independent Oversight Bodies: The administration is systematically “purging the highest levels” of departments such as Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, State, and the FBI of those not “personally loyal” to the President.³ These purges are understood to also serve the purpose of “discourag[ing] civil servants from questioning the president’s actions”.³ Additionally, the President fired independent Inspector Generals across 17 agencies and seeks to replace them with loyalists.³ The head of the Office of Special Counsel, responsible for whistleblower protection, was also fired, with the Justice Department appealing a court ruling against this, arguing for expanded executive authority.³ Democracy 2025 has highlighted these “attacks on career civil servants” as a key threat and is preparing to defend them.¹⁷
• Use of Federal Law Enforcement and Immigration Powers, Including the Alien Enemies Act: The administration has issued executive orders such as “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens” and “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens” on April 28, 2025.¹³ Project 2025 foreshadows invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime provision dating back to 1798, to target immigrants.¹⁰ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun apprehending noncitizens at immigration court immediately after case dismissals, coordinating with government lawyers for detentions.¹³ Protests in Los Angeles escalated in June 2025 due to the deployment of the National Guard in response to immigration crackdowns, leading to law enforcement using tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators.¹⁹ An Executive Order on January 20, 2025, mandated the prosecution of state and local officials who “unlawfully direct the obstruction of criminal law” or “discriminate or violate civil” rights, and required the Attorney General to identify laws favoring “aliens over American citizens”.¹³ The framing of “law and order” becomes a pretext for suppressing dissent and targeting perceived political opponents, making it challenging for the public to discern the authoritarian intent behind policies presented as solutions to legitimate problems.

Congressional Responses and the Perceived Shift in the Balance of Power

The International IDEA report notes a “lack of response from Congress to this erosion of its constitutionally mandated powers has signalled the majority’s willingness to cede these powers to the executive branch”.⁵ The administration’s actions, particularly those concerning the halting of congressionally appropriated funds, are discussed as a “constitutional crisis” due to violations of Congress’s “power of the purse” and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.³ This suggests that the “failure of imagination” where many dismissed past rhetoric as mere “entertainment” or “jokes” ¹⁰, has been overcome by the administration, but perhaps not by all democratic actors, leading to a reactive rather than proactive defense. The rapid pace of implementation suggests that previously unthinkable actions are being normalized, lowering the threshold for future assaults on democratic norms.

III. Challenges to the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence

The rule of law, a foundational pillar of liberal democracy, is under direct assault, with concerted attempts to undermine judicial independence and impartiality.

Instances of Executive Defiance or Attempts to Influence Judicial Processes

The administration has demonstrated a pattern of actions that challenge the independence of the judiciary and the legal system. The pardoning of approximately 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists is widely seen as disregarding the impartiality and independence of U.S. rule of law.¹⁶ The V-Dem report highlights the President’s reported refusal to follow court orders, citing his assertion, “He who saves his country does not violate any law”.³ This perspective suggests a belief that executive actions, when deemed necessary for national interest by the executive, transcend legal constraints.

Furthermore, there are reports of over 70 lawsuits filed against the administration for allegedly breaking law and Constitution.³ The administration also issued an executive order on March 6, 2025, directly targeting a law firm representing former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, an action interpreted as “weaponizing the state”.³ Project 2025 explicitly includes plans for “Directing Investigations Against Critics and Rivals,” aiming to eliminate the Department of Justice’s “traditional prosecutorial independence” ¹⁰, which would further enable the executive to use law enforcement against perceived political opponents.

Judicial Decisions and Their Impact on Democratic Norms

A significant development in this period was the Supreme Court’s decision on June 6, 2025, to grant a stay, allowing the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staff “highly sensitive data of millions of Americans”.¹³ This decision overturned a District Court’s preliminary injunction that had sought to limit DOGE’s access to this data. The Supreme Court’s ruling was met with dissent from Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, who argued that the government failed to substantiate its request by showing irreparable harm.¹⁵ This ruling, alongside other developments, is perceived to have removed a key deterrent against a president influencing Justice Department investigations and prosecutions, potentially enabling future presidents to target political opponents more easily.⁸

The judiciary is actively being challenged and, in some cases, appears to be yielding. The Supreme Court’s stay on the DOGE data access and the broader concern about its role in enabling executive overreach indicate that the judiciary is not uniformly resisting executive pressures. This suggests that the traditional assumption of judicial independence as a robust check is being tested and, in some instances, failing. The battle for democracy is not just in elections or executive actions but also in the composition, interpretation, and enforcement of judicial power.

Concerns Regarding the Politicization of Courts and the Erosion of Judicial Impartiality

Freedom House highlights “waning trust in the courts” as a significant challenge to U.S. democracy.⁸ This concern is amplified by the observation that in many states, increased campaign fundraising and partisan involvement in judicial elections raise the “threat of bias and favoritism in state courts”.⁸ The American Bar Association (ABA) issued a statement underscoring the need to protect the rule of law, identifying the administration’s actions as problematic for undermining the division of powers.³ The Brookings Democracy Playbook emphasizes the critical need to “reaffirm judicial independence, rule of law, and the Constitution,” asserting that the “decay of democratic norms, such as the weaponization of government and efforts to capture the judiciary, must be vigorously contested”.⁶

The current period demonstrates a dual strategy in the legal realm: active legal challenges against the administration’s actions, and a simultaneous effort by the administration to erode legal norms and institutions. While numerous lawsuits are challenging the administration’s actions ³, and organizations like Democracy 2025 are forming “united legal frontlines” to counter threats ¹⁷, the administration is actively pursuing an “authoritarian legal playbook” ¹⁰ to legally dismantle checks and balances. This involves reinterpreting existing laws or using executive orders to their maximum extent. This dynamic creates a situation where the legal system is simultaneously a tool for defense and a target for subversion. The sheer volume and speed of the administration’s legal actions can overwhelm the capacity of opposition groups and the courts to respond effectively. The success of democratic resilience will depend on the ability of legal challenges to keep pace with the administration’s rapid legal erosion.

IV. Electoral Integrity and Voting Rights

The integrity of the electoral system stands as a primary target for authoritarian tactics, with concerted efforts to reshape voting processes and voter eligibility.

Executive and Legislative Actions Related to Voter Registration, Citizenship Requirements, and Election Administration

The administration’s “anti-voter agenda” is extensively detailed in Project 2025.²¹ A significant executive action, the “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” Executive Order, was issued on March 25, 2025. This order aims to enforce a “citizenship requirement for Federal elections”.¹³ It mandates documentary proof of citizenship for voter re-registration, such as a passport or a REAL ID-compliant document.¹³ The order also explicitly bans foreign nationals from interfering in U.S. elections and requires the Attorney General to prioritize prosecuting noncitizen voting and other election-related crimes.¹³ To facilitate this, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Secretary of State are required to provide state and local officials with free access to databases for citizenship verification.¹³ Furthermore, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is directed to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply with these new federal laws.¹³ The EAC is also tasked with amending Voluntary Voting System Guidelines to ensure voting systems do not use barcodes or QR codes for vote counting (except for disability accommodation) and provide voter-verifiable paper records.²²

The Brennan Center for Justice has warned that Project 2025 proposes using a 19th-century civil rights law to investigate and prosecute election officials and voter registration groups, a move that could pervert the law’s original intent.²¹ Statements from key administration appointees, including the President’s pick to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, and the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, indicate a shift in focus towards prosecuting those who “rig presidential elections” and emphasizing “fraud, errors, or suspicion” rather than protecting voting rights.²¹ An interim D.C. U.S. Attorney announced the creation of a “special unit” to investigate alleged election crimes, raising concerns due to his past support for election denial.²¹

Judicial developments have also impacted voting rights. An Appeals Court stripped voters’ ability to file Voting Rights Act lawsuits in 7 states on May 29, 2025.²¹ A study released on May 28, 2025, revealed the lasting voter suppression effects of a restrictive Texas law.²¹ In legislative efforts, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 (H.R. 14) was introduced in the House on March 5, 2025, aiming to revise criteria for states subject to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and address vote dilution claims.²³ Its status remains “Introduced”.²³ Additionally, a bill (H.R.3040) to prohibit the use of ranked-choice voting in federal elections was among the most viewed bills in June 2025.²⁴

The administration frames its actions as “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” ²², focusing on rooting out “fraud, errors, or suspicion”.²¹ However, critics interpret these specific measures, such as requiring documentary proof of citizenship, targeting election officials, and restricting Voting Rights Act lawsuits, as an “anti-voter agenda” and forms of “voter suppression”.²¹ This highlights a deliberate reframing of voting rights, where actions presented as safeguarding elections are simultaneously understood as means to suppress legitimate votes and intimidate election administrators. This creates a narrative battleground where the same actions are viewed through diametrically opposed lenses, further exacerbating political polarization and distrust in the electoral process. The focus on citizenship requirements, for instance, could disproportionately affect certain demographics.

Moreover, the administration’s actions are explicitly linked to a desire for “retribution against those who protected the 2020 election”.²¹ Threats against media, election officials, and the creation of special units for election crimes ²¹ send a clear message: “Those who resist election subversion will face consequences”.²¹ This strategy goes beyond policy changes to actively chilling dissent and compliance within the electoral system. By punishing past resistance, the administration aims to deter future opposition, effectively creating an environment where election subversion is incentivized and protecting democratic processes becomes a personal risk for officials. This undermines the non-partisan administration of elections and could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of distrust.

Key Executive Orders and Legislative Proposals (Jan-June 2025) Impacting Democratic Norms

Date	Type	Title/Description	Perceived Impact on Democratic Norms	Relevant Snippet IDs
Jan 20, 2025	EO	Pardons for January 6 defendants (1,500+)	Undermines rule of law, tacitly endorses political violence, erodes accountability	3
Jan 20, 2025	EO	“Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”	Restricts civil liberties (LGBTQ+ rights), enables discrimination	13
Jan 20, 2025	EO	Establishes Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)	Expands executive power, reduces accountability, purges civil service	3
Jan 20, 2025	EO	“Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship”	Selective definition of free speech, potential for government control over information	25
Mar 5, 2025	Bill (H.R. 14)	John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 (Introduced)	Aims to strengthen voting rights (counter-effort)	23
Mar 6, 2025	EO	Directly targets law firm representing Hillary Clinton	Weaponizes state power, undermines prosecutorial independence	3
Mar 25, 2025	EO	“Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”	Threatens electoral integrity, imposes new voter restrictions, targets election officials	13
Apr 16, 2025	Action	Termination of R/FIMI office employees	Reduces government capacity for countering disinformation (contested interpretation)	25
Apr 23, 2025	Report (Human Rights Orgs)	Urges UN to address U.S. violations of Free Expression	Highlights repression of dissent, criminalization of activism	27
Apr 28, 2025	EO	“Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens”	Expands law enforcement powers, potential for targeting dissent	13
Apr 28, 2025	EO	“Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens”	Expands immigration enforcement, potential for targeting marginalized communities	13
May 29, 2025	Court Decision (Appeals)	Strips voters’ ability to file Voting Rights Act lawsuits in 7 states	Weakens voting rights, reduces avenues for legal recourse	21
Jun 5, 2025	Bill (SB1883)	Prohibits healthcare providers from asking about gender identity/sexual preference of minors	Restricts civil liberties (LGBTQ+ rights)	28
Jun 6, 2025	Supreme Court Stay	Allows SSA to grant DOGE access to sensitive data	Weakens checks and balances, raises privacy concerns	13

V. Restrictions on Civil Liberties and Civic Space

The first half of 2025 has seen significant actions impacting civil liberties, particularly freedom of expression and the media, and other protected rights. These developments are not isolated but form part of a broader pattern of democratic erosion.

A. Freedom of Expression and Media

The administration has undertaken executive and legislative efforts concerning free speech and federal censorship that present a complex and often contradictory picture. On January 20, 2025, the President issued the “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” executive order.²⁵ This order declares it federal policy to “secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech” and to “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen”.²⁶ The EO claims that the previous administration “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms” through “coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies”.²⁶ In a related move, on April 16, 2025, the President terminated 40 employees and shuttered the R/FIMI office, which was part of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and was allegedly involved in facilitating censorship.²⁵ Furthermore, legislation, the “Restoring American Freedom Act,” has been introduced by Congressman Huizenga to codify the President’s EO into law, aiming to ban taxpayer dollars from being used to limit free speech or for the government to use third parties to “blacklist” Americans.²⁵

Despite the stated aim of “restoring freedom of speech,” concerns have been raised about governmental pressure on media outlets and control over information access. The President has “repeatedly threatened to strip broadcasting licenses from stations” during his campaign.³ He is also reportedly threatening to “sue publishers and media outlets that use anonymous sources,” an action that would “significantly impact media freedom”.³ Furthermore, the White House is “claiming the right to pick which media and reporters are allowed to cover the President,” denying access to outlets like HuffPost and the Associated Press. This is widely seen as a tactic to “control rhetoric and retaliate against dissenting media”.³

Human rights organizations have voiced significant concerns regarding the repression of dissent. A report published by a coalition of human rights organizations, including the Center for Constitutional Rights and Muslim Advocates, on April 23, 2025, urged the United Nations to address “U.S. violations of Free Expression, Calling Global Attention to Entrenching Authoritarianism”.²⁷ The report specifically highlights the “U.S. government’s increasing criminalization and repression of free expression and stifling dissent,” particularly targeting student activists protesting the “genocide of” (implied: Palestinians).²⁷ It points to the “weaponization of the ‘national security’ and ‘terrorism’ frameworks” and the use of a “vast surveillance apparatus” to repress freedom of expression.²⁷ The report concludes that the U.S. is in an “authoritarian political reality” where the administration, Congress, and state governments are “engaging in tactics of repression that are hallmarks of fascist regimes”.²⁷

The executive order on free speech, framed as restoring freedom and ending censorship, stands in stark contrast to the administration’s actions of threatening media outlets, controlling access, and the reports from human rights organizations detailing increased repression of dissent. This creates a situation where “freedom of speech” is selectively defined to protect certain narratives while simultaneously suppressing others. This strategic use of language attempts to legitimize authoritarian tendencies by claiming to protect “free speech” while engaging in tactics that undermine media independence and suppress critical voices. This makes it challenging for citizens to distinguish between genuine protection of rights and their manipulation for political ends.

B. Other Civil Liberties

Beyond freedom of expression, other civil liberties have been impacted by executive actions. An Executive Order issued on January 20, 2025, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” declares federal policy to define sex strictly as male or female, thereby stripping gender identity, including transgender and nonbinary identities, from federal policies and procedures.¹³ This order requires transgender women in federal prisons to be transferred to men’s facilities and denies them transgender healthcare, and it also bans transgender people from serving in the military.¹³ Multiple legal cases challenging this Executive Order are currently pending.¹³

Democracy 2025 identifies “Enabling Discrimination Across Society,” encompassing racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ rights, as a key threat from the administration and is prepared to fight against such rollbacks.¹⁷ The administration has also issued executive orders related to immigration, such as “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens” (April 28, 2025), and is actively apprehending noncitizens at immigration courts.¹³ Project 2025 explicitly aims to “strip away women’s rights” and “exploit the most vulnerable Americans”.¹¹ Furthermore, a proposed bill (SB1883) introduced on June 5, 2025, seeks to prohibit providers participating in Medicare and state healthcare programs from requesting information on the gender identity or sexual preference of minors on intake forms.²⁸

The attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and freedom of expression are not isolated incidents but rather components of a broader pattern of “enabling discrimination across society” ¹⁷ and targeting “marginalized communities”.¹⁰ Human rights organizations explicitly link these violations to “entrenching authoritarianism”.²⁷ This demonstrates that the erosion of civil liberties is not merely a side effect but a core component of democratic backsliding. By weakening protections for vulnerable groups and suppressing dissent, an authoritarian regime can consolidate power more easily, as a less free and more fearful populace is less likely to challenge authority. The systematic nature of these attacks suggests a coordinated effort to reshape societal norms and legal frameworks to align with an authoritarian vision.

VI. Underlying Drivers: Political Polarization and Social Unrest

Deep-seated societal divisions and a fractured information environment serve as fertile ground for democratic erosion, exacerbating the challenges faced by U.S. democracy in early 2025.

The Deepening of Political Polarization and Its Manifestation as “Affective Polarization”

The United States is currently experiencing “severe political polarization and dysfunction”.²⁹ Freedom House notes that “affective polarization”—a phenomenon characterized by mutual dislike and distrust between members of opposing political parties—is deepening.⁸ This form of polarization leads Americans to be “increasingly likely to scale back their own commitment to democratic values and behavior if it means advancing ‘their side'”.⁸

The information environment significantly contributes to this division, being described as “particularly troubling”.²⁹ Americans increasingly do not listen to the same news or read the same headlines, often disagreeing on the basic terms of debate, and are increasingly disengaged from each other.²⁹ This “deeply polarized and increasingly nonfunctional information ecosystem delivers diametrically opposed visions of the country and the world to partisan voters” who are “entirely incurious about what is and isn’t true”.²⁹ This situation is further complicated by the observation that both Republicans and Democrats agree democracy is under threat, but for “very different reasons,” primarily attributing the threat to the electoral success of the opposing party.⁷

This dynamic creates a feedback loop: extreme polarization provides fertile ground for populist leaders who then further deepen divisions by demonizing opponents. This makes consensus-building and cross-partisan defense of democratic norms incredibly difficult, as any action against the administration is framed by its supporters as a partisan attack, rather than a defense of democracy.

The Rise of Populist and Far-Right Movements

The year 2025 began amidst a “wave of global political disruption,” with economic challenges such as inflation and inequality, alongside geopolitical instability, spurring the “rise of populist and far-right movements”.³⁰ The CIVICUS 2025 State of Civil Society Report notes that “right-wing populism has long moved from the fringes to the political centre stage in many countries,” and that “populist leaders can win democratic elections but then pose a significant threat to democracy”.³¹ The President’s campaign, for instance, “drew heavily from the now-established populist playbook, blending nationalist, anti-immigration and culture-war narratives against a backdrop of economic anxiety”.³¹ These movements consistently attack “excluded groups, independent media and civil society, eroding democratic norms and checks and balances”.³¹

Analysis of Social Unrest, Protests, and the Potential for Political Violence

The Carnegie report warns that “Americans have been primed to view their fellow countrymen on opposite sides of the political spectrum as ‘enemies of the people,’ and a growing number see violence as legitimate”.²⁹ While the U.S. is not on the “precipice of civil war,” the report indicates that the nation is “set to experience dramatically more political division, dysfunction, and even violence in coming years”.²⁹

Concrete instances of social unrest have already manifested. Protests in Los Angeles intensified in June 2025 in response to the deployment of the National Guard during immigration crackdowns, leading to clashes with law enforcement, who reportedly used tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators.¹⁹ The administration’s pardoning of January 6 insurrectionists is seen by many as tacitly endorsing future political violence.³ Freedom House lists “rising political violence and antidemocratic behavior” as a key challenge to U.S. democracy.⁸

The fragmented and polarized information environment, where people consume diametrically opposed narratives and are “entirely incurious about what is and isn’t true” ²⁹, prevents a shared understanding of reality. This makes it difficult for citizens to collectively identify and resist democratic backsliding. Disinformation campaigns, a core tactic of the “authoritarian playbook” ¹⁰, thrive in such an environment, eroding trust in institutions and creating fertile ground for radicalization and political violence. This suggests that defending democracy requires not just legal and institutional battles but also a fundamental repair of the public sphere.

VII. Democratic Resilience and Counter-Efforts

Despite the alarming trends towards authoritarianism, significant efforts are underway from various sectors to resist these developments and fortify democratic structures. These counter-efforts demonstrate a vital, albeit strained, capacity for democratic resilience.

The Role of Civil Society Organizations and Legal Coalitions

Organizations like Democracy 2025 represent a united front against anti-democratic actions. This coalition, comprising over 500 organizations and representing millions of people, is committed to “disrupting any efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to attack our rights, our freedoms, and our democracy through strategic legal action in courtrooms and communities”.¹⁷ They have “meticulously studied far-right playbooks like Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership to predict where harmful efforts could emerge, and they’ve been preparing legal responses”.¹⁷ Their preparedness extends to defending civil servants, countering the undermining of democracy, protecting reproductive rights, fighting for workers’ rights, upholding civil rights, ensuring quality education, countering environmental deregulation, and stopping unlawful actions against immigrants.¹⁷ Democracy 2025 launched a Legal Response Center on Inauguration Day to analyze Executive Orders and support legal challenges, noting the previous administration’s 78% loss rate in court as a precedent for successful legal resistance.¹⁷

Civil society organizations play “key roles in monitoring elections, countering disinformation, ensuring inclusive participation and mobilising against regression”.³¹ The CIVICUS report highlights “successful mobilizations to defend democratic values and practices” in other countries, such as Guatemala, Senegal, and South Korea, as evidence of the potential for resilience even in the face of significant challenges.³¹

The “Democracy Playbook 2025” and Its Proposed Pillars for Democratic Resilience

The Brookings Institution’s “Democracy Playbook 2025” serves as a strategic framework for safeguarding democracy. Published in January 2025, it identifies “seven foundational pillars” essential for democratic resilience and offers “actionable steps” for each.⁶ These pillars are designed to help citizens and stakeholders “reclaim good governance, transparency, and the rule of law, and strengthen democratic resilience against autocratic forces”.⁶ The playbook emphasizes that these pillars serve as “key benchmarks for how democracy is advancing or declining in the U.S. in 2025 and as a checklist for prioritizing the investment of financial, social, policy, and other resources”.⁶ It stresses the critical need for collaboration between the private sector, civil society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and government to ensure election integrity and security.⁶

The resilience efforts are not monolithic; they involve legal challenges, policy frameworks, and institutional reform proposals. This indicates a recognition that democratic erosion is multi-faceted and requires a multi-pronged response. The defense of democracy is a complex, decentralized, and ongoing struggle waged across legal, political, and societal fronts. The effectiveness of these counter-efforts will depend on their ability to coordinate, adapt, and sustain pressure against a highly organized and determined authoritarian push. The focus on both “top-down” institutional reforms and “bottom-up” civil society mobilization is crucial for comprehensive democratic defense.

The Seven Pillars of Democracy and Actionable Steps (Brookings Democracy Playbook 2025)

Pillar Name	Overview	Actionable Steps
1. Protect Elections	Safe, free, and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy, facing threats from restricted voter access, obstacles to integrity, and disinformation.	Pro-democracy coalitions must strengthen systems protecting election processes and voter access at all levels. Private sector, civil society, NGOs, and government should collaborate on election integrity and security.
2. Defend Rule of Law	The bedrock of constitutional institutions protecting rights and ensuring peaceful transitions is under threat from executive overreach and efforts to capture the judiciary.	Federal, state, and local actors must reaffirm judicial independence and the Constitution. Civil society and independent media must vigorously contest the decay of democratic norms and political violence.
3. Fight Corruption	Combating corruption is essential for public trust, as corrupt officials abuse power for personal enrichment.	Actors at all levels must insist on government transparency, ethics, and accountability. Advocate for common anti-corruption standards, regulate money in politics, and protect whistleblowers and media.
4. Reinforce Civic and Media Space	Broad coalitions including civil society, state actors, political opposition, labor unions, the private sector, and independent media are crucial but threatened by tactics like foreign agent laws and attacks on journalists.	Civil society, media, and political opposition must resist efforts to close civic space and weaken independent journalism. Provide financial support to targeted entities and address false claims online.
5. Protect Pluralistic Governance	Elected and appointed officials should serve the public interest, not partisanship, which is challenging in an era of polarization.	Political leaders must model responsible behavior and oppose anti-democratic sentiments. Civil society should work to depolarize politics and foster respectful public discourse, while military and law enforcement resist extremist ideologies.
6. Counter Disinformation	New media and evolving technologies, including generative AI, spread misinformation and disinformation, exploited by authoritarians.	State-level proponents should use regulatory power to minimize destabilizing effects and leverage technologies to democratize public spaces. The private sector must counter deteriorating content moderation policies and adopt transparency standards.
7. Make Democracy Deliver	Pro-democracy actors must strengthen commitment to policies promoting inclusive growth, tackling economic inequality, and improving well-being.	Bolster labor unions and act on policy objectives aimed at strengthening democracies to equitably deliver for working families. Learn from effective pro-democracy officials and collaborate internationally on challenges like climate change.

Proposals for Institutional Reform and Strengthening Non-Governmental Institutions

The Roosevelt Institute’s report, “Restoring Democratic Institutions,” proposes several key actions across core government institutions, public trust, and nongovernmental institutions to restore democracy.³² These proposals highlight a shift from merely reacting to threats to actively rebuilding and strengthening democratic foundations.

Core Government Institutions:

The report identifies systemic weaknesses within core government institutions, including the Electoral College, the Senate’s unequal representation, gerrymandering, and certain Supreme Court decisions. To address these, it proposes:

• Restoring democracy to the Senate and abolishing the filibuster: This aims to prevent a small minority of Americans from having an outsized influence in congressional decision-making by eliminating the 60-vote majority requirement that can block legislation.³² It also advocates for granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico to ensure equitable representation for their millions of citizens.³²
• Reforming the Supreme Court and empowering other governing bodies: Proposals include ending “juristocracy” by treating courts as part of the broader political economy, addressing judicial vetoes that hinder efforts to ameliorate economic inequality, and creating new pathways for public change (e.g., state-level constitutional amendments).³² Specific court reforms suggested include enacting binding ethics rules, establishing staggered 18-year terms, and even court expansion, though the report emphasizes that court reform alone is insufficient to correct fundamental power imbalances.³²
• Building an executive branch fit for purpose: This involves reconstructing state capacity to achieve governmental goals, reconceptualizing federal agencies’ work to empower the public rather than exclude it, and fostering local action by better supporting state and local governments in addressing policy problems.³²

Nongovernmental Institutions:

Democracy is also contested outside of government, particularly in the workplace and the flow of information. The report emphasizes:

• Increasing union density: Expanding unionization is seen as a way to enhance workplace democracy, giving workers a voice in shaping their livelihoods and strengthening unions as bulwarks against concentrated corporate power.³² This requires reforming labor laws to be less hostile to workers, recognizing the right to organize, and implementing sectoral bargaining to raise wages and reduce inequality.³²
• Ushering in an era of media democracy: This involves protecting free speech from government interference and guarding against media capture by powerful actors (billionaires, platforms, private equity firms).³² The report advocates for robust, sustained public investment in quality journalism, strengthening public media institutions, and addressing Big Tech’s influence through measures like mandating public information on algorithmic decision-making and creating new regulators for transparency and privacy.³²

The interplay of defensive and restorative strategies is evident in these efforts. Some initiatives are primarily defensive, such as legal challenges to executive orders and efforts to protect civil servants. Others are restorative or proactive, like proposals for Senate and Supreme Court reform, and strengthening labor unions and independent media. While immediate legal battles are crucial for stemming the tide of democratic backsliding, long-term democratic health requires systemic changes that address underlying vulnerabilities like economic inequality and media capture. The success of restorative measures will determine whether the U.S. can not only halt backsliding but also improve its democratic quality in the long run.

VIII. Conclusion: Outlook and Implications

The period from January to June 2025 has confirmed that the United States is in a critical phase of democratic backsliding, marked by a deliberate and accelerated shift towards competitive authoritarianism. The new administration, seemingly guided by comprehensive blueprints like Project 2025, has rapidly expanded executive power, challenged the independence of the judiciary and civil service, and introduced measures that threaten electoral integrity and civil liberties. The speed and scope of these actions have alarmed a broad consensus of political scientists and democracy watchdogs, leading to a significant downgrade in the U.S.’s democratic standing by international indices.

While the challenges are profound and the democratic system is under severe strain, the first half of 2025 has also witnessed robust counter-efforts. Legal coalitions, civil society organizations, and some judicial bodies have actively challenged the administration’s actions, demonstrating a vital, albeit strained, capacity for democratic resilience. These efforts, guided by strategic frameworks like the Democracy Playbook 2025, aim not only to defend against immediate threats but also to proactively strengthen democratic institutions and norms. The ongoing struggle for American democracy is being waged on multiple fronts—legal, political, and societal—and its outcome remains uncertain.

The current trajectory has significant implications both domestically and internationally. Domestically, it risks entrenching a system where executive power is less constrained, independent oversight is weakened, and civil liberties are curtailed. The deepening political polarization, exacerbated by a fractured information environment, further complicates the ability of the populace to unite in defense of democratic principles. Globally, the U.S.’s democratic backsliding diminishes its soft power and leadership capacity on the international stage, potentially emboldening autocratic regimes worldwide and undermining the global promotion of democratic values. The coming months will be critical in determining whether the forces of democratic erosion or resilience will ultimately prevail in shaping the future of American governance. The fight for American democracy is a multi-front, ongoing struggle that requires sustained vigilance, coordinated counter-efforts, and a commitment to strengthening foundational democratic pillars.

Works cited

1. Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism – NPR, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist
2. Autocracies outnumber democracies for the first time in 20 years: V-Dem, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/36317/autocracies-outnumber-democracies-for-the-first-time-in-20-years-v-dem/
3. V-DEM Democracy Report 2025 25 Years of Autocratization …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.v-dem.net/documents/54/v-dem_dr_2025_lowres_v1.pdf
4. V-DEM Democracy Report 2025 25 Years of Autocratization, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.v-dem.net/documents/60/V-dem-dr__2025_lowres.pdf
5. United States of America | The Global State of Democracy – International IDEA, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/country/united-states-america
6. Democracy Playbook 2025 – Brookings Institution, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/democracy-playbook-2025/
7. A playbook to counter democratic backsliding in the US and abroad – Brookings Institution, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-playbook-to-counter-democratic-backsliding-in-the-us-and-abroad/
8. Democracy in the United States: What We’ll Be Watching in 2025 | Freedom House, accessed June 9, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/article/democracy-united-states-what-well-be-watching-2025
9. Democratic backsliding damages favorable US image among the global public | PNAS Nexus | Oxford Academic, accessed June 9, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/4/pgaf104/8099475
10. The Authoritarian Playbook for 2025, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.authoritarianplaybook2025.org/
11. Frequently Asked Questions About Project 2025 – Center for American Progress, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/frequently-asked-questions-about-project-2025/
12. What Is Project 2025? – Center for American Progress, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-is-project-2025/
13. US Democracy Under Threat – Verfassungsblog, accessed June 9, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/us-democracy-under-threat/
14. Summary 2025 Administration Actions: Key Executive Orders and Policies, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/in-dc/2025-administration-actions-key-executive-orders-and-policies
15. 24A1063 SSA v. AFSCME (06/06/2025) – Democracy Forward, accessed June 9, 2025, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/24A1063-Order.pdf
16. Threats to US Democracy: Dangerous Cracks in Its Pillars – Brookings Institution, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/threats-to-us-democracy-dangerous-cracks-in-us-democracy-pillars/
17. Democracy 2025 | The united legal frontline in the fight for our …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.democracy2025.org/
18. Donald Trump’s executive orders and actions, 2025 – Ballotpedia, accessed June 9, 2025, https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump%27s_executive_orders_and_actions,_2025
19. Protests intensify in Los Angeles after Trump deploys hundreds of National Guard troops, accessed June 9, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/immigration-protests-raids-los-angeles-78eaba714dbdd322715bf7650fb543d7
20. The united legal frontline in the fight for our democracy – This is Democracy 2025, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.democracy2025.org/about
21. What’s Next for Elections Under the Project 2025 Agenda | Brennan …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/whats-next-elections-under-project-2025-agenda
22. Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections – The White House, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preserving-and-protecting-the-integrity-of-american-elections/
23. Text – H.R.14 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/14/text
24. Most-Viewed Bills – Congress.gov Resources, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/most-viewed-bills
25. Huizenga Introduces Legislation to Protect Free Speech, Stop Government Censorship, & Codify Trump Executive Order into Law | U.S. House of Representatives, accessed June 9, 2025, https://huizenga.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404093
26. Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship – The White House, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/
27. New Report: Human Rights Organizations Urge United Nations to Address U.S. Violations of Free Expression, Calling Global Attention to Entrenching Authoritarianism, accessed June 9, 2025, https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/new-report-human-rights-organizations-urge-united-nations-address
28. US Legislation | 2025-2026 | 119th Congress – LegiScan, accessed June 9, 2025, https://legiscan.com/US/legislation/2025?page=1
29. Welcome to a World Defined by Polarization, Instability, and Disruption, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/welcome-to-a-world-defined-by-polarization-instability-and-disruption/
30. Trend of political disruption kickstarts again in 2025 – Vision of Humanity, accessed June 9, 2025, https://www.visionofhumanity.org/trend-of-political-disruption-kickstarts-again-in-2025/
31. DEMOCRACY: REGRESSION AND RESILIENCE | CIVICUS …, accessed June 9, 2025, https://publications.civicus.org/publications/2025-state-of-civil-society-report/democracy-regression-and-resilience/
32. Restoring Democratic Institutions – Roosevelt Institute, accessed June 9, 2025, https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/restoring-democratic-institutions/