A recent survey conducted by Bright Line Watch, involving over 500 political scientists, reveals a troubling consensus: a significant majority believes the United States is transitioning from liberal democracy toward authoritarianism.
In the benchmark survey, scholars evaluated the state of American democracy, assigning it a score between zero (indicating complete dictatorship) and 100 (representing perfect democracy).
Following the election of President Trump in November, American democracy was rated at 67. However, just a few weeks into Trump’s second term, this figure sharply dropped to 55, prompting alarm among scholars.
“That’s a precipitous drop,” stated John Carey, a government professor at Dartmouth and co-director of Bright Line Watch. “There’s certainly consensus: We’re moving in the wrong direction.”
The decline registered between November and February represents the most significant drop since the survey’s inception in 2017, where scholars assess several factors indicating the health of democracy, including governmental interference with the press and the suppression of political opposition.
While not every political scientist expresses concern regarding Trump, many experts, particularly those focused on democracy and authoritarian practices, are deeply worried by the president’s early actions designed to consolidate executive power.
Steven Levitsky, a Harvard government professor and co-author of a prominent book on democratic erosion, pointed out, “We’ve slid into some form of authoritarianism. It is relatively mild compared to some others. It is certainly reversible, but we are no longer living in a liberal democracy.”
Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton sociologist with expertise in authoritarian regimes, warned, “We are on a very fast slide into what’s called competitive authoritarianism.”
The term “authoritarianism” here does not refer to systems like China’s, where a single party dominates governance without meaningful elections.
Instead, it describes a type of “competitive authoritarianism,” a term used to categorize countries like Hungary and Turkey where leaders initially gain power through democratic means but subsequently undermine institutional checks and balances.
In such systems, the executive branch often fills key government positions with loyalists and actively represses independent media, universities, and NGO criticism, altering the political landscape in favor of the ruling party.
Rory Truex, a Princeton political scientist, explained, “The government would still have elections and would nominally be democratic, but those elections would no longer be free and fair.”
The Bright Line Watch survey indicates that a vast majority of scholars believe Trump is steering the nation towards autocracy.
However, dissenting views persist among scholars. For example, James Campbell, a retired political scientist from the University at Buffalo, argues that Trump legitimately uses presidential powers to tackle enduring issues, citing actions such as implementing tariffs to incentivize companies to bring jobs back to the U.S.
Campbell believes that many political scientists may perceive Trump as autocratic primarily due to their personal biases against him and his political stance.
“I think most of them are coming from the political left,” Campbell asserted. “There’s a comfort in all of them getting together and saying, ‘Oh, Trump’s a bad guy. He’s authoritarian.'”
NPR made efforts to contact the Trump administration for comment, but there was no response.
Meanwhile, many scholars devoted to the study of democracy contend that the Trump administration is employing strategies characteristic of autocratic governance. One primary example is the actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under Trump, which is scrutinizing significant broadcasting networks, effectively excluding Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News from investigation.
The FCC is investigating how CBS edited an interview with Kamala Harris, among other concerns regarding compliance with underwriting regulations for NPR and PBS. Local broadcast licenses can be revoked by the FCC, posing a severe risk to the financial stability of these networks.
Scheppele remarked that this strategy mirrors actions taken by Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who targeted independent media by abruptly cutting off state advertising.
“Overnight, [Orbán] cuts all the advertising to the independent and opposition media,” Scheppele said. “They all have a hole blown in their budget.”
Additionally, Trump has threatened to withhold substantial federal funding from prestigious universities like Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia, pointing to alleged instances of antisemitism. This tactic closely parallels Orbán’s approach to universities that critiqued his regime, resulting in significant budget cuts.
Levitsky notes another metric of authoritarianism is the cost associated with publicly opposing the government. During Trump’s presidency, this cost has become apparent, as dissenters may face repercussions.
For instance, Trump has issued executive orders barring certain law firms from representing government contractors or accessing government buildings.
This creates an atmosphere of fear regarding governmental retribution, with some scholars expressing concerns about their jobs and research funding, hesitant to speak publicly about their views on the administration for fear of retribution.
Despite worries about Trump’s autocratic tendencies, certain experts maintain that the American political system possesses resilience.
Kurt Weyland, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, remarked that, thus far, lower courts have effectively acted as a check on Trump’s power. He also pointed out that Trump’s lack of overwhelming popular support, unlike some authoritarian leaders, limits his power.
For example, leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele have enjoyed historically high approval ratings that facilitated their reformation of political systems.
In contrast, recent polling shows Trump’s approval rating at just 43%, and he was reelected with less than half the popular vote.
“These populist leaders managed to engineer new constitutions that seriously concentrated power, which was the tipping point leading to competitive authoritarian rule in their countries,” Weyland explained.
“In the United States, that is out of the question.”
The Bright Line Watch survey was conducted in early February and plans to run another survey soon. Carey, one of its co-directors, anticipates further downgrading of America’s democracy score by political scientists.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist
