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.

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 in which 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.” 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.”

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.” 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.

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.” 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.” The 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. The U.S. is presented as contributing to this global democratic recession. The International IDEA Global State of Democracy report for January 2025 provides specific rankings, placing the U.S. at 46 of 173 for Representation, 34 of 173 for Rights, 26 of 173 for Rule of Law, and 8 of 173 for Participation, all indicating areas of significant concern.

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.” It further asserts that experts across the ideological spectrum agree that the U.S. at the federal level “constitutes a backsliding democracy.” 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.”

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. 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. It 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. 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. It 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, in which autocracies now outnumber democracies, is also highly significant. 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. The decline of a major global democracy like the U.S. could further embolden autocratic regimes worldwide and undermine international norms of democracy.

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. 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 by its critics as an “extremist manifesto” and an “authoritarian playbook” designed to guide a far-right presidential administration. 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. The administration has begun implementing these plans “at record speed,” translating campaign promises into concrete policies and programs designed to deploy executive power. 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.

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. It 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.” 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.” DOGE has been criticized for its “lack of accountability,” appearing “accountable only to Trump.” It has been granted access to “sensitive, private, and classified information,” 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. DOGE faces at least 11 lawsuits for “flouting laws and rules around data and privacy.” 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 the SSA to proceed with data access pending appeal. This framing of “efficiency” as a justification for centralizing power and removing independent oversight is a common rhetorical strategy in which 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. These actions are widely viewed by experts as “incompatible with accountability and the rule of law” and a “tacit endorsement of future violence.” 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.” Project 2025 explicitly aims to abuse pardon power to “incite political violence, incentivize lawbreaking for his benefit, and render himself above the law.”

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. These purges are understood to also serve the purpose of “discourag[ing] civil servants from questioning the president’s actions.” Additionally, the President fired independent Inspectors General across 17 agencies and seeks to replace them with loyalists. 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. Democracy 2025 has highlighted these “attacks on career civil servants” as a key threat and is preparing to defend them.

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. Project 2025 foreshadows invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime provision dating back to 1798, to target immigrants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun apprehending noncitizens at immigration court immediately after case dismissals, coordinating with government lawyers for detentions. 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. 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.” 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.” 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. This suggests that the “failure of imagination,” in which many dismissed past rhetoric as mere “entertainment” or “jokes,” 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.

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. 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.” 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 the Constitution. 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.” Project 2025 explicitly includes plans for “Directing Investigations Against Critics and Rivals,” aiming to eliminate the Department of Justice’s “traditional prosecutorial independence,” 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 Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staff “highly sensitive data of millions of Americans.” 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. 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.

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. 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.” 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. 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.”

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, and organizations like Democracy 2025 are forming “united legal frontlines” to counter threats, the administration is actively pursuing an “authoritarian legal playbook” to legally dismantle checks and balances. This involves reinterpreting existing laws or using executive orders to their maximum extent. This dynamic creates a situation in which 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.mocracy 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/