Militarism and Foreign Aggression Rubric Revised

We are making targeted adjustments to the Militarism and Foreign Aggression rubric to improve clarity and consistency.

Scoring Trump and the MAGA movement on this measure has proven uniquely challenging. Trump often combines bombastic threats of overwhelming military force with isolationist rhetoric about avoiding costly foreign entanglements. His occasional suggestions about invading places like Greenland or Panama would be deeply concerning if taken seriously, but they are generally viewed as unserious and lack policy follow-through.

But beyond Trump’s idiosyncrasies, some limitations in the rubric itself have emerged through real-world use. Phrases like “traditional limits” of military force are vague, and the distinction between “military engagement” and “war” is not sufficiently emphasized. The short score descriptions also lack clear differentiation at times, making fine-grained assessments harder than they should be.

To preserve the integrity and validity of the Threat to Democracy Index as an analytical tool, we are committed to avoiding changes that merely track or accommodate specific political developments. Doing so would risk biasing the index and undermining its usefulness. However, we believe refining and clarifying the rubric within its existing framework strengthens the tool by making it more precise and objective in its application.

Below are the changes that we've made. No change to previous scores are required by the revised descriptions.

	Original descriptions	Revised descriptions
4	Movement Glorifies Military – Authoritarian movement leaders elevate the military’s status and speaks of national strength, occasionally demanding smaller military actions to project power. Still, foreign policy broadly remains within recognizable bounds, and large-scale aggression is not the norm.	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 Embraces Militarist Rhetoric – The leader's rhetoric embraces toughness and major military spending. The leader threatens or considers new conflicts and shows disdain for multinational institutions. Actual use of force remains within traditional limits.	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 Escalates Military Engagement – The leader takes a robust military posture, viewing force as a preferred tool of international order. The leader begins testing the international order through limited military actions outside traditional limits. However, certain institutional or public opinion barriers still limit outright invasions or extreme aggression.	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 Uses War Strategically – The leader can commit forces abroad or escalate conflicts with minimal internal opposition. Brinkmanship—like threatening neighbors or withdrawing from treaties—is common.	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 Expansionist War – The regime frequently employs military force in international affairs, undertaking invasions or proxy wars. Diplomacy is scorned in favor of aggressive posturing. Significant military buildup occurs, with rhetoric emphasizing national dominance over perceived enemies.	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 wages wars or annexes territories, proclaiming a right to expansion. Leadership glorifies armed conflict; international norms are ignored. Military budgets soar, and multiple conflicts may be underway or threatened simultaneously.	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.