American Democracy is in Danger, but Not Dead

Trump and his supporters are undermining American democracy, posing a real threat of democratic breakdown. The consequences would be dramatic, extending far beyond the United States. However, there is still a good chance that democracy, in the end, will survive — but this requires counter-mobilization.

The warning lights are flashing red. American democracy is in real danger.

Scholars of democracy disagree on how much the quality or level of American democracy has declined in the first weeks of this year. They also disagree on whether a complete democratic collapse is more likely than not. (As I will elaborate below, I personally remain “optimistic” on this point — I still believe it is more likely than not that American democracy will survive Trump.)

Most democracy scholars, however, seem to agree that the likelihood of dramatic and lasting changes to the American political system is substantial. This is serious enough — even a crisis with a probability below 50% should be taken with the utmost seriousness, especially when the outcome is this important.

There is also broad agreement among scholars that the Trump administration has initiated several processes that could be seen as preconditions for — or even the beginning of — a full-blown regime change. This is valid even if democracy is defined narrowly, focusing only on the continued ability to hold free and fair multiparty elections with real competition for power. Few seem to fear that elections will outright cease to exist in the U.S., but whether they will remain free and fair is far more uncertain.

Chipping Away at Democracy’s Pillars

Most countries that have transitioned from democracy to authoritarian rule in recent decades have done so because (initially) democratically elected incumbents have dismantled democracy from within. They have typically done so gradually over several years, often by chipping away at the pillars that ensure that democratic institutions, and especially fair competition will be upheld in future multi-party elections: a free press, the rule of law, an autonomous judiciary, a pluralistic civil society, and an impartial bureaucracy.

If the press self-censors out of fear of government lawsuits, it is not only the journalists’ discomfort and freedom of speech that suffer. This is also a democratic problem. Similarly, democracy is weakened when laws are applied differently depending on whether the violator is an ally of the president or when judges, fearing for their family’s safety, hesitate to rule measures unconstitutional. If bureaucrats in various agencies act according to any presidential whim — such as persecuting opposition politicians — this, too, can contribute to democracy’s erosion, even if elections are still officially held with candidates from different parties.

Elections in Dictatorships and Uphill Soccer Matches

Imagine playing a soccer match on the opposing team’s field. This field is not level — it tilts steeply uphill toward your opponent’s goal, which is also three times smaller than yours. Meanwhile, the referee is bribed by the home team. Your team still has a chance to win, but it is very, very slim — even if your team is exceptionally good. This is how presidential elections must feel like for the opposition in countries such as Russia. This is also the nightmare scenario for future U.S. elections.

We are not yet at that point, but political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way — leading experts on ”competitive authoritarian regimes” — point out that several key characteristics of such regimes are already present in the U.S. The list of troubling developments and transgressions is already long, despite only a few weeks having passed since Trump began his second term. Few norms or rules appear to be sacred.

The erosion of the rule of law and the hollowing of major parts of the state bureaucracy, across various agencies, are more than concerning, even if we focus only on the survival of American democracy. (Beyond this, the dismantling of U.S. state capacity and the rule of law has dramatic implications with a range of other negative consequences, but that is a topic for another article.) Several studies find that the rule of law, the absence of corruption, and a neutral, merit-based bureaucracy are linked to the survival of democracy.

Judges and Bureaucrats Fearing for Their Careers

The extensive firing and sanctioning of those perceived to have the “wrong” political views — or those who dare to criticize or act against the president’s (even illegal) instructions — are especially dangerous. This is further reinforced by the placing of loyalists in key positions.

The message is clear and cannot be misinterpreted by judges, security personnel, authorities regulating the media, or election officials. If you want to keep your job and avoid trouble, there is only one thing you must do: follow Trump’s wishes, even if they contradict your own conscience, “old-fashioned” norms of impartiality, or the law itself. Your career and well-being depend on pleasing one person — or those close to him, like Elon Musk — who may desire unlimited power, and probably even an extra presidential term or three.

A Poorer and More Dangerous World

The consequences of a U.S. transition to full-blown and lasting authoritarian rule under Trump would be significant — not just for Americans but for the 96% of us living outside the country’s borders. This concern extends beyond the risk of “contagion effects” on democracy in other countries. Given the United States’ economic weight and military power, it also affects the global economy and security.

Research on the effects of democratic versus authoritarian rule is relatively clear: authoritarian regimes, on average, experience lower and more unstable economic growth, are less inclined to support free trade practices, and are more prone to war — especially against democracies. In authoritarian systems where power is concentrated in the hands of one or a few individuals, the personal interests and whims of those leaders can have significant consequences for economic and security policies, affecting the lives of millions both domestically and internationally.

A world with a powerful authoritarian U.S. would almost certainly be a less democratic, more unstable, more violent, and poorer world. There is every reason to be concerned. The saber-rattling over trade tariffs, economic coercion and other forms of bullying of smaller countries in distress (like Ukraine), the shift from cooperation with democratic allies to deal-making with dictatorships, and expressed desires to take over other countries and territories are warning shots. We should expect more, not less, of this if Trump and his close allies succeed in transforming the American system into an authoritarian regime.

Do Not Lose Hope — Democracies Are Resilient

There is, however, no reason to lose hope entirely. Democracies are quite resilient, particularly in relatively wealthy countries where democratic institutions have taken root over time. The American democracy fits this description well. If we are to take statistical models that predict the likelihood of democratic collapse seriously — based on decades of global data — American democracy should have very good chances of surviving various “stress tests.”

Leading democracy scholars believe U.S. democracy today is not as robust as these models suggest — many factors not incorporated into these models point in the wrong direction — the main point remains: democracies like the United States are not easily dismantled, even when those at the top try very hard. There are many potential counterforces against democratic erosion — both within and outside the formal political institutions — and power is broadly distributed. Even a president faces significant challenges in achieving everything he desires, especially when his actions conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Counter-Mobilization

Halting a possible decay of American democracy will not happen automatically. It will likely require judges and members of Congress to stand their ground despite expected reprisals, key members of the president’s own party to challenge their leader when he oversteps, opposition politicians to effectively communicate the dangers to the broader public, civil society to actively defend democratic institutions and the rule of law, security officials and others to refuse illegal orders, and perhaps millions of Americans to take to the streets.

I expect to see significant counter-mobilization in the coming months and years if the Trump administration continues on its current path (which, unfortunately, I believe it will). I also believe this may be enough to ensure that American democracy survives the next four years, even if in a weakened and significantly degraded state. I am far from certain, but I hope so.

And perhaps Trump, alongside Musk and others, has made a strategic mistake by pushing forward too aggressively and on too many fronts at once. Such a bulldozer strategy might provoke significant resistance, even from sympathetic observers (such as within the Republican Party), who may (even if unwillingly) be forced to acknowledge that democracy is under threat. A more subtle and patient approach — like in Viktor Orbán’s in Hungary — might have gone more unnoticed and reduced counter-mobilization. Just like frogs, defenders of democracy react faster when the temperature rises very quickly: when the shift is so abrupt, people may recognize the danger and act before it is too late. But stopping such a shift will still require a major effort.

• Carl Henrik Knutsen is a Professor of political science at the University of Oslo, and a Research Professor at PRIO.
• This text was published in Norwegian by VG 25 February 2025.