Method and Data
The Threat to Democracy Index, tracks the United States' declining democracy based on nine key measures. Dive into our method and explanations to gain a comprehensive understanding of how the country's political landscape compares to the typical regression of backsliding democracies for each of these nine measures.
An objective measure that simplifies complex events as they unfold
Indexed, Criteria-Based Measures
The Threat to Democracy Index uses news reporting, government statements, and legal filings to monitor political events in the United States and determine scores for nine independent measures. Each measure is scored using a fixed one-to-ten rubric developed from pre-Trump era academic research on democratic backsliding, fascism, and the rise of authoritarian regimes. The criteria are keyed to the five stages of democratic decline so that each quintile of the resulting score corresponds to one of the five stages. Because the criteria were created independently of current U.S. events and are not changed to fit developments as they occur, they provide an objective measuring stick for evaluating democratic decline. The nine scores are mean-averaged and multiplied by ten to determine the Threat Index score, which is tracked over time.
Five Stages of Decline
The five stages of democratic decline were derived from the work of Robert Paxton. While Paxton's work was descriptive and not prescriptive, it provides a stable framework for the index. Certainly, not all democratic backslides or authoritarian governments progress through identical stages in identical orders. We hope that the United States never reaches stage four, much less stage five. Nonetheless, analyzing current events using the five stages provides an immediate understanding of our current moment in the context of democratic decline.
Stage 1:
A movement begins
Discontent fuels the rise of a group offering nationalist and authoritarian solutions.
Stage 2:
The movement roots in the political system
The movement gains legitimacy and allies with conservative elites who believe they can control it.
Stage 3:
Power centralizes under the leader
Movement leaders take control through elections, force, or a combination of both.
Stage 4:
The leader exercises unfettered power
The movement eliminates opposition, suppresses dissent, and restructures the state in its image.
Stage 5:
The movement radicalizes
The regime intensifies repression and expansionist ambitions.
Nine Measures of Decline
The following nine measures of democratic decline were determined by this site's authors after a review of scholarly literature on democratic backsliding and the rise of authoritarianism around the world. In order to ensure objective results, research on the United States was not included in the creation of these measures. For each measure, the site's authors created a ten-point rubric, with each point corresponding to the five stages of democratic decline:
9. Wealth Centralization & Erosion of Economic Freedom
1. Erosion of Democratic Institutions & Rule of Law
Measures how democratic institutions—courts, legislatures, electoral bodies—are systematically weakened, captured, or dismantled, thereby undermining constitutional checks and balances.
1
Movement Respects Democratic Institutions – Institutions operate autonomously with minimal interference. Checks and balances function effectively; there are no serious attempts to capture, control, or nullify them. The rule of law is upheld consistently.
2
Movement Raises Grievances – Grievances against democratic institutions might be loudly expressed, yet there is no systematic effort to control or dismantle them. Unfavorable rulings and election results are begrudgingly accepted.
3
Movement Criticizes Democratic Institutions Validity – The movement openly criticizes or tries to undermine democratic institutions, but those institutions are protected by public or the law. The formal structures of democracy still maintain core integrity.
4
Movement Members Violate Norms – Authoritarian movement members who have secured positions of power within the government challenge normative limits, especially when those limits are ambiguous or go against their interests. Despite this, major institutions remain substantially intact, and formal rules can still be enforced, though under growing strain.
5
Leader Undermines Democratic Institutions – The movement leader and his allies use their growing power to undermine democratic institutions through actions such as politicizing courts or delegitimizing electoral authorities. However, these democratic institutions continue to function within traditional norms.
6
Leader Captures Institutions – The movement leader actively reshapes democratic institutions by replacing neutral officials with loyalist appointments and by disempowering or eliminating institutions. Nonetheless, resistance—via remaining legal frameworks, public pressure, or not yet compromised institutions—can still halt or reverse overt abuses.
7
Leader Overrides Legal System – Institutions continue to exist but have been co-opted, sidelined, or forced into rubber-stamping. Institutional resistance exists only in token form and is routinely circumvented by the executive.
8
Leader Rules Without Constraints – Ruling authorities routinely override nominally independent institutions and disregard official limits. Elections are heavily manipulated for regime continuity, and any constitutional or procedural hurdles are bypassed with minimal consequence. Accountability is gone.
9
Regime Corrupts All Institutions – Institutions exist to serve the leader's will, providing no meaningful oversight. Voting is openly fraudulent, and bodies meant to ensure accountability will only act against leader's opponents, imaginary enemies, or civilians. The ruling circle can govern unopposed in virtually all arenas with no pretense of serving the population.
10
Regime Destroys Legal Order – All key governance or accountability institutions become absurdly corrupt. Constitutional or legal frameworks are a facade or nonexistent. Citizens live in terror of arbitrary state punishment.
Current Score: 6
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 6: Leader Captures Institutions.
President Trump has continued to centralize government power under presidential control through the removal or replacement of traditionally independent agency officials, the politicization of the federal workforce, attempts to detain or deport noncitizens for protected political activity, refusal to expend funds as appropriated by Congress, and repeated efforts to assert presidential authority over elections traditionally administered by the states. In June 2026, the administration also reclassified approximately 8,000 policy-influencing career federal employees into a new at-will employment category, substantially weakening longstanding civil-service protections. The Supreme Court has increasingly facilitated this consolidation of executive authority. Most significantly, in Trump v. Slaughter, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor, the nearly century-old precedent that had permitted Congress to protect the leaders of independent agencies from removal by the President, thereby greatly expanding presidential control over institutions previously insulated from direct political control. The administration has also continued attempting to intrude into state administration of federal elections; although lower courts have blocked significant portions of these efforts, the Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed or lifted those restraints, most recently allowing portions of Trump’s 2026 election executive order to proceed while litigation continues.
Nevertheless, meaningful institutional resistance remains. State governments continue to challenge federal overreach, federal courts continue to invalidate some administration actions, civil society remains capable of bringing effective legal challenges, and the constitutional division of authority between the federal government and the states continues to constrain presidential power. These checks have been substantially weakened, but they have not been reduced to the merely token resistance contemplated by a score of 7.
Past changes: Score jumped from 4 to 6 on January 20, 2025 based on (1) Trump's appointments of loyalists, many of whom have publicly stated they will back actions that Trump's critics have described as unconstitutional, and on (2) his flurry of executive actions, some of which were plainly unconstitutional.
Current: 8/25/2026
2. Leadership Cult & Expectations of Loyalty
Evaluates the extent to which a political movement elevates a leader to near-divine status, compelling public reverence and loyalty, while marginalizing dissenting opinions about the leader’s persona.
1
Movement is Egalitarian – The leader, if there is one, holds ordinary authority without any special cult or idolization. Movement members can criticize or mock the leader freely, and failing to show admiration has no social or legal ramifications beyond standard political disagreement.
2
Movement Admires Leader – The leader enjoys popularity within their political base but is not exalted as an infallible figure. Public displays of loyalty within the movement are voluntary, and movement members experience minimal pushback for voicing contrary opinions about the leader’s persona.
3
Movement Uses Leader as Symbol – The leader is widely admired or promoted as embodying the movement, yet expressions of loyalty within the movement remain voluntary. Critics or dissenters may be publicly criticized or marginalized, but they do not face systemic punishment merely for failing to revere the leader.
4
Movement Centers Leader – The leader becomes the focal point of public policy and identity for the authoritarian movement. The movement’s media, ceremonies, and rallies center on the leader’s image. Openly ridiculing or criticizing the leader is strongly discouraged within the movement, outside the movement it may invite sharp backlash or social scorn, but typically not legal penalties.
5
Leader Demands Official Glorification – Official government discourse and major public events highlight the leader as a national symbol. For people within the government, refusing to show respect may be met with repercussions—job-related setbacks, social stigma, targeted inquiries—but respect is not enforced by state action or violence against the nation as a whole.
6
Leader Demands Reverence from Public – The leader’s persona looms ever larger in state rhetoric and ceremonies. Individuals who question or avoid contributing to leader worship may face penalties, but those penalties are not universally applied, and some parts of society may still publicly reject the leader without retaliation.
7
Leader Demands Public Loyalty Rituals – Revering the leader is formally or informally required throughout the nation. Media glorifies the leader’s persona; refusal to participate in rituals or public displays of loyalty to the leader are usually punished.
8
Leader Embodies the Nation – Overt demonstrations of loyalty (oaths, rallies, declarations of support) are pervasive. Official propaganda obsessively focuses on the leader’s words and deeds and confuses the interests of the leader with the good of the nation. Critics risk severe sanction—legal intimidation, job loss, or violent harassment.
9
Regime Treats Leader as Culmination of History – The leader is treated as infallible and the nation’s greatest hero ever; loyalty is mandatory and enforced through harsh penalties (imprisonment, exile, etc.). People are forced to praise the leader or risk severe personal and social consequences.
10
Regime Deifies the Leader – The leader is treated as quasi-divine. Public life is saturated with the leader’s image and slogan. Failing to demonstrate extreme devotion—whether in ceremonies, media, or daily activities—can result in severe punishment, including imprisonment or worse.
Current Score: 6
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 6: Leader Demands Reverence from Public.
Trump has long portrayed himself personally as the country’s savior, famously declaring that he “alone” could fix the nation, and the MAGA movement remains unusually centered on Trump himself rather than on a clearly articulated political platform. Imagery portraying Trump as a superhero, warrior, or religious figure is pervasive among his supporters, reinforced by Trump’s claim that God saved him from assassination so that he could save the country. Since returning to office, this personalization of political power has increasingly extended into the symbols and institutions of the federal government. Enormous banners bearing Trump’s image have been draped across the exteriors of federal buildings, and national institutions and celebrations have increasingly been associated with Trump personally. The massive military parade held for the Army’s 250th anniversary on June 14, 2025—Trump’s 79th birthday—combined a major national military commemoration with a public spectacle closely associated with the president himself. Trump has also repeatedly blurred the distinction between loyalty to himself and loyalty to the country, characterizing personal critics and those who fail to demonstrate sufficient support for him as traitorous, treasonous, un-American, or disloyal. Perhaps the clearest example came after his 2018 State of the Union address, when Trump called Democratic members of Congress “un-American” and suggested they were “treasonous” because they did not applaud portions of his speech, adding that they did not appear to “love our country very much.” In this framing, a failure to publicly demonstrate approval of Trump himself becomes evidence of deficient patriotism.
Nevertheless, a score of 7 is not warranted because reverence for Trump has not become compulsory throughout American society. Americans remain broadly free to ridicule, criticize, protest against, and publicly condemn Trump, opposition political organizations and media outlets continue to do so openly, and rejection of Trump personally does not generally prevent participation in public life. Reverence for the leader has therefore become increasingly embedded in the movement and in government symbolism, but it has not yet become a general expectation enforced throughout society.
Past changes: Score jumped from 4 to 6 on January 20, 2025 based on (1) Trump's inauguration as president making him an official national symbol and (2) his appointment of administrative executives who promised to help him retaliate against people who he views as personal enemies, and (3) his stripping "schedule F" employees of job protections.
Current: 08/25/2026
3. Nationalist Ideology, Mythic “Renewal,” and Hyper-masculinity
Evaluates how extensively a political movement promotes a dominant nationalist narrative—often framed as a “rebirth,” “restoration,” or “defense of tradition”—that marginalizes alternative cultural, ethnic, or ideological identities. These narratives frequently valorize a hyper-masculine ethos, glorifying aggression, domination, and rigid masculine stereotypes as essential to the nation’s revival.
1
Movement Avoids Nationalism – There is no significant nationalist campaign linking the nation’s strength with rigid masculine behaviors or exclusion of non-native people. Such ideas, if present, are fringe and have negligible sway in politics or public life.
2
Movement Uses Nationalist Rhetoric – Discussions of national resurgence tied to militaristic or domineering masculine ideals exist but are not promoted outside movement. Most citizens find these notions marginal or outdated, and they have minimal influence on policy or mainstream culture.
3
Movement Becomes Expressly Nationalist – Movement leaders openly combine talk of national “renewal” with aggressive masculine ideals. This might show up in localized rallies, party politics, or niche media, while the wider public remains skeptical or largely indifferent.
4
Movement Links Decline to Out-Groups – Rhetoric linking national decline to the erosion of “strong men” and militaristic virtues becomes more visible. Public discourse increasingly normalizes ultranationalism and combative masculinity.
5
Leader Amplifies Ultranationalist Agenda – The leader and his allies give the previously fringe ultranationalist ideology a significant foothold in governance and public debate. Though progressive or egalitarian perspectives endure, the state espouses a narrative that patriots must defend the nation from threats to national superiority or traditional family and gender roles.
6
Leader Institutionalizes Ultranationalist Ideology – The leader and his allies use state power to emphasize “toughness” and enforce gender norms, but still face legal, civic, or activist challenges that occasionally prevail. Policies and rhetoric often celebrate militaristic or domineering masculinity, yet strong countervailing forces partially blunt or mitigate full ideological enforcement.
7
Leader Enforces Ultranationalist Worldview – The leader’s ultranationalist program enjoys near-full political and cultural dominance and explicitly endorses hyper-masculine behaviors. Disagreement invites ostracism, job loss, or legal persecution, though quiet resistance is possible.
8
Leader Mythologizes National Destiny – A revival myth saturates public discourse, glorifying aggression and rigidity as pillars of national identity. Policy and propaganda strongly reinforce narrow roles for men (as protectors/warriors) and portray traits deemed feminine as weak or dangerous to the nation’s future.
9
Regime Imposes Ultranationalism Throughout Public Life – All public life is dominated by a combative ultranationalist narrative that equates moral virtue with patriotism and aggressive masculinity. Schools, media, and laws impose rigid gender roles, leaving little space for counter-narratives. Those questioning gender standards face severe social and legal reprisals.
10
Regime Enforces Total Purity – The exclusionary ultranationalist doctrine becomes impossibly high, championing a hyper-aggressive, domineering masculinity or passive femininity that few can achieve. People live in terror that they may be punished at any moment for failure to embody these impossible ideals.
Current Score: 6
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 6: Leader Institutionalizes Ultranationalist Ideology.
The MAGA movement’s promise to “Make America Great Again” and Trump’s “America First” rhetoric embody an ultranationalist narrative in which a once-great nation has been weakened or corrupted and must be restored through strength, patriotism, and traditional values. Since returning to office, Trump has increasingly used government institutions to promote this vision. His administration has directed the Smithsonian and other federal cultural institutions to emphasize American greatness and remove what it considers divisive or anti-American interpretations of history. (whitehouse.gov) The administration has also promoted an explicitly hypermasculine conception of national and military strength. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has emphasized a military “warrior ethos,” insisted on the “highest male standard” for combat roles, and in 2026 announced annual testosterone-deficiency screening for service members over 30 while promoting what he called a “High-T Department of War.” The administration has removed women from prominent military leadership positions and used federal power to enforce traditional conceptions of sex and gender, including excluding transgender people from military service. This fusion of nationalism, masculinity, and physical dominance was also on display when the White House hosted UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn as part of the nation’s 250th-anniversary celebration, complete with military flyovers, effectively incorporating combat sports into an official patriotic spectacle. These actions go well beyond campaign rhetoric and use government institutions to promote a particular vision of American greatness, toughness, masculinity, and traditional gender roles.
However, competing conceptions of American identity continue to be openly expressed by opposition political leaders, state governments, universities, cultural institutions, the media, and civil society, generally without the degree of government repression that would indicate that ultranationalist ideology has become compulsory throughout American public life.
Past changes: Score jumped from 5 to 6 on January 20, 2025 based on Trump's use of state power to (1) demand patriotism through his restoring truth and sanity to American history" order and (2) enforce gender norms through his executive order "defending women from gender ideology."
Current: 8/25/2026
4. Propaganda, Media Control & Information Manipulation
Evaluates how a regime manipulates, controls, or suppresses information through media channels, propaganda, censorship, or disinformation in order to dominate public discourse.
1
Movement Respects Free Media – No significant propaganda apparatus is in place. Independent journalism thrives, and attempts to push disinformation are quickly refuted or widely ignored.
2
Movement Uses Fringe Propaganda – Movement propaganda is mostly limited to small publications with minimal reach. Mainstream media and public opinion largely dismiss or debunk the movement’s narrative.
3
Movement Builds Loyal Media – The authoritarian movement creates loyal media outlets to spread its message to a growing audience. Misinformation primarily circulates among a partisan subculture, not dominating mainstream discourse.
4
Movement Amplifies Loyal Messaging – A pro-authoritarian propaganda ecosystem coexists with relatively stronger independent media. The authoritarian movement attacks critical journalists or brands them as disloyal, and each side accuses the other of bias or misinformation.
5
Leader Pushes State Propaganda – The leader and his allies use their influence to disseminate propaganda through the largest media channels. However, an independent press continues to operate and expose official disinformation or corruption.
6
Leader Controls Narrative – The leader and his allies aggressively push propaganda and use state power to discredit or censor critical media. However, democratic institutions, civil society, or certain resilient media outlets still provide counter-narratives.
7
Leader Eliminates Free Press – The leader can push his preferred storyline across major media platforms and public schools with minimal effective resistance. Official and semi-official outlets toe the regime line, and any remaining independent voices are marginalized and wary of strict reprisals. Public discourse is largely shaped by regime-approved content.
8
Leader Controls All Media – The state has co-opted or shut down most independent media. Propaganda networks dominate both media and schools. Critical journalists or independent teachers face constant harassment or arrest. Only limited dissenting information circulates underground.
9
Regime Controls All Media – Authoritarian leaders use domination of all information sources including academic to keep general population uneducated. Heavy censorship and disinformation define public discourse. Most citizens have no reliable alternative news or history.
10
Regime Propaganda Undermines Reality – Confused, contradictory propaganda saturates every media and educational outlet. Everyone lives in fear of punishment for failing to toe the party line because they cannot follow its contradictions. Public discourse is unmoored from reality.
Current Score: 6
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 6: Leader Controls Narrative.
Trump benefits from a dominant supportive media ecosystem while routinely branding contrary reporting as “fake news” or hostile to the country. More significantly, his administration has increasingly used government power to pressure disfavored media. The FCC reopened a complaint against CBS over a 60 Minutes interview and later approved Paramount’s sale to Skydance after the buyer committed to greater “viewpoint diversity” at CBS and an ombudsman to review allegations of bias. CBS subsequently underwent a major editorial transformation under new ownership, including the appointment of Bari Weiss to lead CBS News and extensive changes at 60 Minutes. The FCC has gone still further against ABC, ordering all eight Disney-owned stations to undergo extraordinarily early license-renewal proceedings after repeated clashes between Trump, the FCC, and ABC programming, while FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has openly warned broadcasters that unfavorable “news distortion” could jeopardize their licenses. Fox News meanwhile dominates cable news, giving the MAGA narrative a substantially larger audience than its principal competitors.
Nevertheless, competing narratives remain economically viable and continue to reach mass audiences through other television networks, newspapers, digital media, and independent journalism. Government pressure and market concentration have therefore substantially favored Trump’s preferred narrative, but have not yet made meaningful counter-narratives unable to survive or reach the public at scale.
Past changes: Score jumped from 5 to 6 on February 14, 2025 based on Trump's exclusion of the Associated Press from the Oval Office and Air Force One for refusing to follow Trump's directive to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
Current: 8/25/2026
5. Scapegoating & Persecution of Targeted “Out-Groups”
Assesses how actively a regime identifies, dehumanizes, and persecutes groups it deems threatening to the nation’s unity, stability, or identity. “Out-groups” can be defined by ethnicity, religion, political ideology, social class, or any collective trait the regime chooses to vilify.
1
Movement Avoids Scapegoating – The movement does not target or demonize any particular group. Public rhetoric is generally inclusive or neutral. No laws, policies, or practices single out an identifiable minority or identity-based community for blame or persecution and may instead protect those groups.
2
Movement Blames Out-Groups – Small extremist factions or movement participants demonize out-groups, but they hold negligible power. Rhetoric or isolated hate incidents exist, yet the mainstream remains largely opposed or indifferent to these scapegoating appeals.
3
Movement Openly Prejudiced Against Out-Groups – The regime or its allies engage in hateful speech toward out-groups. There may be sporadic local incidents or discriminatory proposals, yet large segments of the public reject openly repressive measures.
4
Movements Scapegoat Minorities – Movement leaders routinely blame particular groups for the country’s ills, stirring resentment. Some minor discriminatory rules or selective enforcement might pass, but wholesale persecution does not occur. Civil society objections and rule-of-law norms still keep significant oppression at bay.
5
Leader Vilifies Out-Groups – Public discourse and policy single out certain groups for negative treatment, but this treatment uses traditional government channels. Violence may be rising, but there remains legal or societal protection for the out-groups, preventing overt, large-scale persecution.
6
Leader Removes Legal Protections – Authorities aggressively demonize certain populations (religious, ethnic, political, or other), imposing bans, discriminatory policing practices, or relocations. However, some institutional or civic resistance still occasionally blocks or moderates the harshest persecutory measures and government actions do not reach all members of the out-group.
7
Leader Enforces Group Exclusion – The regime shows little domestic restraint in punishing or excluding defined out-groups. Hate attacks go unpunished or receive tacit approval. Discriminatory measures—like designated “exclusion zones” or mass relocations—are introduced with minimal or ineffective pushback from institutions or society.
8
Leader Conducts Mass Repression – Harsh discriminatory laws are actively enforced (e.g., forced segregation, loss of civil status), and violence against scapegoated groups is either tolerated or officially abetted. Consistent dehumanizing rhetoric fosters an atmosphere of fear and coercion for the targeted population.
9
Regime Commits Mass Atrocities – There is large-scale detention, forced displacement, or extreme violence against defined groups. Laws strip them of fundamental rights (e.g., citizenship, property, freedom of movement). Pogroms or mass killings occur with direct state involvement or complicity, short of full genocide.
10
Regime Executes Genocide – The regime orchestrates or condones mass extermination or widespread violent purges of one or more targeted groups. Analogous to events like the Holocaust or other genocides, where the explicit goal is the annihilation or systematic eradication of the out-group.
Current Score: 6
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 6: Leader Removes Legal Protections, but is approaching the threshold for a score of 7.
Trump continues to portray immigrants and other targeted groups as threats to the nation, including describing immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country” and political enemies as “vermin,” while his administration has translated that rhetoric into increasingly sweeping government action. The promised mass-deportation campaign is now occurring at substantial scale: ICE arrested nearly 50,000 people in July 2026 alone, more than half of whom had no criminal conviction or pending criminal charge. The administration has deported migrants to foreign prisons and third countries with limited opportunities for review, terminated protections for large classes of previously protected immigrants, attempted to restrict birthright citizenship, and used federal power to strip protections from transgender people.
Several elements associated with a score of 7—particularly mass relocation and systematic exclusion of targeted groups—are therefore already present. What keeps the measure at 6 is that resistance remains neither minimal nor ineffective. Courts have blocked important measures, state and local governments continue to resist, and extraordinary public mobilization against ICE has repeatedly confronted the deportation program. In Minnesota, tens of thousands volunteered to monitor ICE, thousands marched, businesses closed in protest, and nationwide demonstrations followed fatal encounters with federal immigration agents. That resistance has at times forced the administration to retreat from or alter its tactics. The United States is therefore close to the tipping point contemplated by a score of 7, but the continuing capacity of institutions and the public to meaningfully obstruct persecution prevents that conclusion for now.
Past changes: Score jumped from 4 to 5 on January 20, 2025 based on Trump's flurry of executive orders scapegoating immigrants and trans people.
Score jumped from 5 to 6 on March 15, 2025 based on Trump's deportation of hundreds of migrants to a Salvadoran prison without due process.
Current: 08/25/2026
6. Suppression of Dissent & Political Opposition
Measures the degree to which a regime silences, intimidates, criminalizes, or eliminates political dissent, opposition parties, and protest movements.
1
Movement Permits Pluralism – The authoritarian movement has little to no ability (or desire) to suppress alternative viewpoints. Robust democratic norms protect multiple parties, activists, and media voices. Dissent and protest thrive, free from significant fear of reprisal.
2
Movement Competes with Opposition – The authoritarian movement competes with opponents in relatively fair elections and public debate. Dissent and protests are legal; while there may be hostile rhetoric, no substantive efforts to criminalize or repress opposition are undertaken.
3
Movement Vilifies Opposition – Opposition parties, protesters, and critical media are vilified by authoritarian leaders and their supporters. The state, however, does not stifle dissent.
4
Movement Intimidates Dissent – Dissent is permitted but may be met with threats, fines, or targeted enforcement of laws where the authoritarians have power. Authoritarian leaders are able to use some state power to encourage and protect supporters who discredit or bully critics. Despite this, opposition parties or media remain visible, and public criticism still takes place.
5
Leader Targets Political Rivals – The movement leader and his allies investigate or harass critics, encourage supporters to threaten activists, and selectively enforce existing laws against their opposition. Nonetheless, opposition parties and civil society groups remain active, winning occasional victories or concessions.
6
Leader Criminalizes Opposition – The leader and his allies use state power to suppress opposition (e.g., arrests, legal harassment, intimidation), but resistance persists. Courts or public outcry occasionally check the regime; dissent is risky but continues.
7
Leader Bans Political Opposition – The regime faces little domestic pushback in silencing or neutralizing opponents. Leading dissidents are smeared, surveilled, or prosecuted into ineffectiveness. Organized resistance barely operates, driven underground and under constant threat.
8
Leader Jails Opposition En Masse – Authoritarians outlaw or cripple opposition organizations, protest movements, and critical media. Prominent critics are exiled, jailed, or bankrupted through weaponized courts. Elections may be blatantly rigged or cancelled, forcing any real opposition underground at great peril.
9
Regime Eradicates All Dissent – Opposition figures are routinely arrested on fabricated charges or murdered. Unauthorized gatherings are crushed with violence. An official or token opposition may exist but is powerless and constantly surveilled. Widespread fear stifles even mild public dissent.
10
Regime Annihilates Opposition – All opposition is effectively annihilated. Rival parties no longer exist. Citizens fear imprisonment, torture, or death for accidentally appearing to dissent.
Current Score: 6
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 6: Leader Criminalizes Opposition.
Trump has increasingly used the powers of the federal government against political opponents and dissenters, including investigations and prosecutions of personal adversaries, attempts to indict Democratic members of Congress for political speech, immigration enforcement against activists, and surveillance of anti-ICE organizers. His most consequential attack on political opposition, however, may be his effort to undermine the electoral system through which that opposition can obtain power. Trump has explicitly urged Republicans to “nationalize the voting” and “take over the voting” in states he considers corrupt, and his administration is now attempting unprecedented federal intervention in the 2026 midterms. His March 2026 executive order directs the federal government to create citizenship lists for voters, threatens investigation and prosecution of election officials who provide ballots to ineligible voters, and seeks federal restrictions on the distribution of mail ballots. The Justice Department also plans to deploy approximately 1,000 federal monitors to polling places this fall.
These efforts have encountered substantial resistance from courts, state governments, election officials, and civil society, and organized political opposition remains capable of competing for and winning office. But the approaching midterms present a critical test. If federal intervention materially suppresses lawful voting, or if Trump responds to Democratic victories by falsely declaring the elections rigged and successfully pressures a Republican-controlled Congress to refuse to seat duly elected Democrats—as he previously sought to prevent recognition of Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory—electoral opposition would cease to provide a meaningful path to political power. That would amount to a de facto ban on effective political opposition and would warrant a substantially higher score.
Past changes: Score jumped from 4 to 6 on February 25, 2025 based on the unlawful retaliatory targeting of the law firm Covington and Burling.
Current: 8/25/2026
7. Paramilitarism & Political Violence
Evaluates how extensively a regime tolerates, encourages, or uses political violence domestically—whether by quasi-official paramilitaries, vigilante groups, death squads, or specialized state forces operating outside normal legal restraints—to intimidate or eliminate opponents.
1
Movement Avoids Political Violence – The authoritarian movement does not engage in or condone violent tactics. Political conflict remains within legal or institutional channels. If any rogue violence occurs, it is condemned by movement leaders.
2
Movement Does Not Encourage Violence – Supporters may issue threats or engage in minor physical confrontations, but large-scale or systematic political violence is rare. The authoritarian movement itself does not openly sanction armed groups, though rhetorical encouragement of “toughness” or “self-defense” may embolden some aggressive behavior.
3
Movement Tacitly Supports Violence – Isolated violence by authoritarian movement-linked groups occurs—fringe supporters harass rivals, intimidate protestors, or commit sporadic attacks. Organized paramilitary structures do not yet exist, and movement leaders deny formal approval, even if they quietly looks the other way.
4
Movement Organizes Militias – Armed supporter groups start forming under regime tolerance—e.g., local “defense squads,” vigilante patrols, or clandestine hit units. Incidents of political violence are increasing but not yet broadly systemic. Official statements by authoritarian leaders may condemn “excesses” but rarely punish perpetrators.
5
Leader Sanctions Armed Intimidation – The leader’s militant supporters (possibly armed youth wings, pro-government “security” squads, or local vigilantes) engage in recurring violence—e.g., breaking up protests, threatening opposition communities. While the existing criminal legal system intervenes, the authoritarians’ stance is ambiguous or lenient, and the legal system’s protections are not afforded equally to out-groups.
6
Leader Empowers Armed Miliitias – The ruling movement encourages extralegal forces. Extrajudicial violence goes unchecked in some instances but there are limits to the degree of allowable violence and limits to who may be acceptably targeted.
7
Leader Deploys Political Militias – Aligned armed actors—whether vigilantes, “youth brigades,” or specialized police squads—operate with only token accountability to official institutions. Political violence escalates, quietly endorsed by top authorities. Opponents struggle to defend themselves or deter further attacks.
8
Leader Institutionalizes Political Violence – Clearly identified armed groups or specialized state teams break up opposition activities and intimidate dissidents. Paramilitaries are integrated into the government, enjoying regime protection, facing little consequence for violent acts.
9
Regime Deploys Terror Squads Against Enemies – Pro-authoritarian forces (whether informal militias or special units of the official security apparatus) terrorize opponents with near impunity. The leadership tacitly or explicitly supports widespread beatings, forced disappearances, or assassinations.
10
Regime Uses Terror Squads Against Citizenry – The state openly incorporates armed squads or “death squads” into its official power structure. These squads are allowed to prey on citizens for squad members' personal gain.
Current Score: 4
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 4: Movement Organizes Militias. MAGA-aligned paramilitary organizations such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers emerged as significant political forces during Trump’s first term and played prominent roles in the violence surrounding the 2020 election and January 6. Those organizations and related networks have not disappeared, but they are currently far less publicly active and are not operating as a major national political force. Their existing membership, relationships, and organizational capacity nevertheless leave them capable of rapidly mobilizing again in response to political events or a call from Trump. Trump has reinforced their alignment with his movement by pardoning virtually every January 6 defendant, including leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
More concerning today is his effort to develop coercive forces directly accountable to him. Trump has begun reorienting the National Guard toward a domestic policing role, federalizing California’s Guard over its Democratic governor’s objection and deploying troops into Los Angeles despite the availability of local law enforcement accountable to elected state and local officials. A federal court found that troops were unlawfully used for civilian law enforcement and warned that Trump’s stated plans for similar deployments elsewhere would create a “national police force with the President as its chief.” Trump has also ordered creation of a standing National Guard quick-reaction force for nationwide deployment during civil disturbances, and the Pentagon subsequently began preparing more than 23,000 Guard personnel across the country for such missions. At the same time, ICE has rapidly expanded its armed enforcement workforce and increasingly operates as a highly militarized federal force deployed into communities whose elected governments oppose Trump’s immigration policies.
However, these remain formal government institutions subject to courts and other legal constraints, rather than partisan militias operating outside the state. If the National Guard or immigration forces become effectively personal instruments of presidential coercion—used systematically to intimidate political opponents or populations governed by the opposition while escaping meaningful accountability—the functional distinction between state security forces and the paramilitary forces contemplated by the higher levels of this measure would begin to disappear.
Current: 8/25/2026
8. Militarism & Foreign Aggression
Measures how aggressively a regime pursues military power, foreign aggression, expansionism, and glorification of armed conflict as central to national identity.
1
Movement Rejects Militarism – The movement’s stance is non-interventionist or pacifist, actively opposing the use of force beyond strict self-defense. Military glorification is minimal, and the movement proposes to direct resources away from offensive military ambitions.
2
Movement Ambivalent about Foreign Wars – No significant push for militaristic adventures. The authoritarian movement may be protective or nationalistic, but it does not seek expansion or aggressive intervention abroad; foreign policy largely follows conventional diplomacy and trade.
3
Movement Uses Renewal Rhetoric – Public language glorifies national defense and security, but movement leaders do not call for new foreign engagements or expansions. The movement's focus is on maintaining or boosting military strength without initiating major conflicts.
4
Movement Glorifies Military – Authoritarian movement leaders elevate the military’s status and advocate for military actions to project power. Still, the movement’s actions remain within the bounds of contemporary international consensus, do not involve large-scale aggression, and when military action advocated by the movement does take place, it does so through established procedure and in multi-national coalitions.
5
Leader Threatens Military Action – The leader embraces military strength and invests deeply in military spending. The leader threatens new conflicts and shows disdain for multinational institutions. However, actual use of force remains within the bounds of contemporary international consensus and is ratified through established procedure.
6
Leader Deploys Military to Shape International Order – The leader takes a robust military posture, viewing force as a preferred tool. The leader begins testing the international order through limited military actions or proxy wars without regard to international consensus. Brinkmanship—like threatening neighbors or withdrawing from treaties—is common. However, certain institutional or public opinion barriers still limit extreme aggression.
7
Leader Unilaterally Enters into Full-scale War – The leader escalates conflicts or launches foreign wars with minimal domestic opposition. Instead of limited military actions, the leader engages in full-scale war to topple governments.
8
Leader Wages War to Expand Nation – The regime frequently employs military force or war in international affairs. Diplomacy is scorned in favor of aggressive action. The leader invades other countries for the express purpose of expanding the nation’s territory or to create an empire.
9
Regime Sustains Endless War – The state continues to wage wars or annex territories, proclaims a right to expansion, glorifies armed conflict, and ignores international consensus. However, war also becomes an essential element of the national economy and is considered an end in itself. Military budgets soar, and multiple conflicts are underway simultaneously.
10
Regime Commits to Total War – The regime prioritizes war to the detriment of all other priorities. Military values dominate culture; death in battle is desirable. The regime's goal is to conquer the enitre world.
Current Score: 7
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 7: Leader Unilaterally Enters into Full-scale War.
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 7: Leader Unilaterally Enters into Full-scale War. Trump has increasingly treated military force as a routine instrument of presidential power, including against countries that had not attacked the United States and without prior authorization from Congress. Most significantly, he launched a sustained war against Iran involving extensive air and naval operations, strikes throughout the country, and a continuing blockade of Iranian shipping. This followed an increasingly aggressive pattern of unilateral military action, including repeated lethal strikes against suspected drug-smuggling vessels in international waters and a major operation inside Venezuela in which U.S. forces attacked Venezuelan targets, entered the country, and captured President Nicolás Maduro. These actions represent a qualitative shift from threats and limited strikes to sustained warfare, attacks inside sovereign countries, and the forcible removal of a foreign leader.
This remains toward the lower end of a score of 7. A paradigmatic example of full-scale war would ordinarily include substantial ground forces engaged in invasion, occupation, or regime change, and the United States has not undertaken a large-scale ground invasion of Iran. Nor has the United States yet reached the score-8 threshold of waging war for territorial expansion or empire. Trump has recently described the Strait of Hormuz, which U.S. forces currently control through a naval blockade, as “American territory” and posted a map labeling it “NEW U.S. Territory.” That rhetoric is especially concerning in the context of an ongoing war. But Trump has also repeatedly spoken of acquiring Greenland and making Canada the 51st state, while subsequently retreating from threats to use force against Greenland, making it difficult to determine when his territorial rhetoric represents an actual policy rather than provocation, bargaining, or spectacle. A score of 8 would require the rhetoric to become reality: the use of military force for the purpose of acquiring and holding foreign territory or constructing an American empire. That has not yet occurred.
Past changes: Score increased from 6 to 7 on February 28, 2026, when President Trump ordered the United States military to begin Operation Epic Fury against Iran without prior authorization from Congress. The operation developed into 38 days of major combat involving thousands of strikes across Iran, destruction of much of Iran’s navy, and attacks on its missile, drone, air-defense, and defense-industrial infrastructure. The initiation of sustained, full-scale warfare by unilateral presidential decision crossed the threshold from Leader Threatens or Engages in Limited War to Leader Unilaterally Enters into Full-scale War.
Current: 8/25/2026
9. Wealth Centralization & Erosion of Economic Freedom
Evaluates the degree to which a ruling movement or regime centralizes wealth and control of economic resources, diminishing free economic activity, property rights, or labor autonomy. This can manifest as oligarchic cronyism, command economies, corporatist structures, or personalistic patronage, depending on the context.
1
Movement Avoids Elite Ties – Wealth and economic power remain widely distributed or regulated by a pre-existing system. The movement may have no clear economic agenda yet, and existing property rights or markets function with little interference.
2
Movement Forms Elite Alliances – The movement starts forging alliances with select business elites, receiving financial backing or informal support. No major shifts in economic policy occur, but future pathways for crony deals or patronage networks begin to form. Regulatory and market structures still largely operate independently.
3
Movement Exploits State Resources – Having gained some foothold in government, the movement steers limited contracts or state assets to loyalists. Labor rights, property norms, or private business face mild pressure or “friendly deals,” but the core economy remains pluralistic. Corruption may rise, yet formal checks continue to exist.
4
Movement Profits from Office – Movement leades in government use their positions over ministries or local administrations to direct public funds, privatizations, or land concessions to favored allies. Labor organizing or rival businesses encounter sporadic harassment if they interfere or organize against movement allies. Market freedom persists but is sometimes skewed toward movement supporters.
5
Leader Partners with Elites – The leader and his allies work with leaders of the economy’s largest sectors to limit competitive fairness. The leader and his allies use their traditional powers to reduce the power of labor unions or civil society. The relationship between the movement leader and business leaders shapes policy outcomes and economic winners and losers, but independent enterprises remain viable.
6
Leader Commands Key Industries – The leader uses state power to command most of the nation's key industries, whether via oligarchic networks or state-driven confiscation. Private investors or workers who resist the regime’s interests risk penalties. However, pockets of autonomy, independent enterprises, or foreign partnerships remain untouched.
7
Leader Punishes Dissenting Businesses – The regime effectively dictates economic policy. Independent business elites must collaborate with the leadership or face expropriation and legal harassment. Labor rights are minimal, and wealth is funneled to regime-aligned figures or agencies. Public institutions serve primarily to maintain the regime’s economic monopoly.
8
Leader Controls the Economy – Opposing or unauthorized commercial entities, businesses, and labor groups are systematically crushed. The state or ruling clique can arbitrarily assign resources, licenses, or production quotas—often under claims of “national interest.” Very little room remains for genuine market competition or local autonomy.
9
Regime Controls All Production – The regime harnesses the entire economy for its grand ambitions. Centralized planning or party edicts override typical market processes. Property rights exist only nominally, subject to confiscation or direction at the regime’s whim. Extreme corruption or forced mobilization is commonplace.
10
Regime Militarizes Entire Economy – Full-scale command or forcibly mobilized economy serves the regime’s ideological goals and not rational self-interest (e.g., war efforts, massive state projects). Private ownership is a formality at best; labor is coerced, and capital is wholly subordinate to political dictates. Citizens have virtually no independent economic agency.
Current Score: 4
The United States currently aligns most closely with a score of 4: Movement Profits from Office
Trump and his family have profited extensively from cryptocurrency, foreign real-estate, and investment ventures tied closely to his political power. More troublingly, Trump has increasingly blurred the line between public office and private benefit. In 2026, he sued his own IRS and Treasury Department for $10 billion and then reached a settlement with the Justice Department he controls that would have created a $1.8 billion slush fund. Courts, Congress, and public opposition ultimately prevented the fund from operating. Trump has also begun monetizing access to information generated by the presidency itself. Trump Media’s Truth API sells trading firms access to his Truth Social posts before they reach the general public. Because Trump frequently announces market-moving tariffs, wars, and regulatory decisions through those posts, the arrangement allows paying customers to trade on presidential information first while generating revenue for a company in which Trump retains a major financial interest. More broadly, Trump has increasingly replaced predictable economic rules with personalized dealmaking involving tariffs, contracts, merger approvals, government investment, and regulatory favors.
Importantly, this measure may be the part of the Index least well adapted to modern threats to democracy. Its higher scores are based largely on twentieth-century fascist systems in which the state formally subordinated corporations, labor, and production to national political goals. A contemporary version may require far less direct control. In a highly financialized economy, political power can instead operate through discretionary regulation, tariffs, contracts, mergers, government investment, privileged information, and access to the president, while the ruling family simultaneously participates in private markets. Markets can remain nominally private and competitive while economic success becomes increasingly dependent on maintaining a favorable relationship with political power. That emerging model does not fit neatly within the traditional fascist economic framework, but it may ultimately pose a comparable threat to independent economic power.
Current: 8/25/2026