WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES – 2024/04/25: An activist holding a sign with Save Our Democracy written on it stands outside the US Supreme Court, as the court prepares to hear arguments on the immunity of former US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The erosion of democratic norms in the United States has become increasingly evident during President Donald Trump’s second term in office. While formal democratic institutions still exist—elections are held, opposition parties campaign, and courts operate—the substance of democratic governance is steadily being hollowed out. This phenomenon, known as “competitive authoritarianism,” describes a regime type where democratic structures are maintained in name but systematically subverted in practice. The United States, once a model liberal democracy, is beginning to exhibit the core traits of such regimes, and political scientists are issuing increasingly urgent warnings.
Competitive authoritarianism, as defined by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, is a hybrid regime that blends formal democratic institutions with authoritarian behavior. It allows for elections and political opposition but ensures that incumbents enjoy unfair advantages and engage in systematic efforts to undercut political competition (Levitsky & Way, 2010). What sets these regimes apart from outright dictatorships is the preservation of the outward trappings of democracy. What distinguishes them from genuine democracies, however, is the deliberate weakening of institutions meant to ensure accountability, transparency, and fairness.
Recent surveys reveal that political scientists overwhelmingly believe the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction. Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan organization that assesses the health of American democracy through surveys of political science scholars, found a sharp drop in expert evaluations of the nation’s democratic functioning following Trump’s re-election in 2024. Their Democracy Rating, which scored the U.S. at 67 out of 100 just prior to the November election, plunged to 55 within weeks after the new administration took office (Carey, 2025). John Carey, one of the project’s co-directors, remarked that the decline is unparalleled in the project’s history and reflects deepening concerns among scholars that the country is transitioning away from liberal democratic norms.
Indeed, many of the mechanisms of democratic backsliding are now visible. There has been a notable decline in the independence of the judiciary. Courts are increasingly seen as obstacles to be circumvented or delegitimized rather than respected. The administration’s open hostility toward judges who rule against its interests, and its efforts to ignore or delay implementation of adverse rulings, weakens the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach (Davies, 2025). In authoritarian regimes, the erosion of judicial independence is a common step toward consolidating power, and the United States appears to be following this well-worn path.
Control over information is another hallmark of competitive authoritarianism, and here, too, the Trump administration has made significant inroads. Efforts to delegitimize critical media, restrict press access, and promote alternative narratives through state-aligned media channels have intensified. Rather than treating journalists as watchdogs of democracy, the administration has cast them as enemies of the state, a tactic historically used by authoritarian leaders to erode public trust in independent reporting (Vanity Fair, 2025). Meanwhile, whistleblowers and dissenting voices within federal agencies face unprecedented retaliation, creating a chilling effect on those who might speak out against abuses of power.
Perhaps most telling is the administration’s brazen politicization of independent institutions. Agencies like the Department of Justice, which are meant to operate without partisan interference, have been systematically filled with loyalists. These appointees often demonstrate an unwavering allegiance to Trump himself rather than to the rule of law or democratic principles. The result is an executive branch that no longer merely implements policy but acts as an instrument of partisan enforcement and retribution (AP News, 2025). In such an environment, the rule of law becomes a weapon wielded selectively rather than a standard applied equally.
The ideological framework behind this shift is equally alarming. Influential figures within Trump’s inner circle, including J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller, advocate for what they term “post-liberal” governance. This philosophy openly rejects pluralism and treats democratic norms as expendable if they stand in the way of achieving right-wing political dominance. Rather than being embarrassed by authoritarian tactics, these actors embrace them as tools to achieve what they view as a higher cultural or political mission. The executive power grab is not accidental but rather a deliberate effort to reshape the United States into a regime that structurally favors one ideological faction (The Atlantic, 2025).
Even academia is under assault. Universities that have resisted administration pressure to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have faced funding threats. Harvard University, for example, had $2.2 billion in federal grants frozen in retaliation for refusing to remove certain DEI programs (The Guardian, 2025). This effort to discipline institutions of higher learning is not merely symbolic. It signals an authoritarian desire to exert control over the production of knowledge and stifle ideological diversity.
Political scientists like Steven Levitsky, who have long studied democratic erosion in other parts of the world, now assert that the United States itself is no longer a full democracy. As Levitsky told NPR, “We are no longer living in a democratic regime” (Davies, 2025). Such a statement, unthinkable even a few years ago, now feels tragically plausible.
The descent into competitive authoritarianism is not inevitable, but it is advancing. If Americans—citizens, scholars, journalists, and public servants alike—fail to defend democratic principles with vigilance and moral clarity, they may soon find that the institutions they took for granted no longer offer any protection. Competitive authoritarianism thrives not in moments of crisis alone, but in the slow, grinding normalization of anti-democratic practices. The United States must wake up to the danger it now faces. The time for complacency has long passed.
References
Carey, J. (2025, April 22). Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist
Davies, D. (2025, April 22). America’s path to ‘competitive authoritarianism’: Political scientist warns U.S. democracy is unraveling. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/1246322283/levitsky-harvard-democracy
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
The Atlantic. (2025, April 17). A loophole that would swallow the Constitution. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/04/trump-constitution-abrego-garcia/682487/
The Guardian. (2025, April 20). The Trump-Harvard showdown is the latest front in a long conservative war against academia. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/20/harvard-trump-conservative-history-academia
Vanity Fair. (2025, April 23). Trump’s attacks on press freedom are paving the way for authoritarianism. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-press-freedom-authoritarianism
AP News. (2025, March 15). Trump’s moves test the limits of presidential power and the resilience of US democracy. https://apnews.com/article/542ac437a58880e81c052f8f2df1643f
In recent years, Elon Musk has undergone a striking shift in political ideology, moving from a centrist, at times liberal-leaning stance to a firm alignment with the right wing. Once a supporter of Democratic candidates such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Musk has not only endorsed Donald Trump but has also become one of his most prominent financial backers. His newfound position within the federal government as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) raises serious legal and ethical concerns, particularly regarding the lack of congressional approval for his appointment and potential conflicts of interest due to his extensive business holdings. Moreover, Musk’s aggressive reduction of federal employees has far-reaching economic, cultural, and societal consequences.
The Federalist Society has long been a powerful player in shaping the U.S. judiciary, particularly with its substantial impact on the Supreme Court. With six of the nine justices currently linked to the Society, its influence is undeniable. However, its ambitions reach far beyond the courts. The group is now actively working to extend its conservative vision into other influential sectors, including business, media, and technology. This broadening of influence is part of a larger conservative agenda to reshape American society through a multi-pronged strategy.
The Problem with “Owning the Libs”
By Katherine Walter
On September 20, 2025
In political science
Illustration contrasting “own the libs” cruelty with progressive compassion. (Image generated by ChatGPT, 2025)
In recent years, the phrase “own the libs” has become a rallying cry for many conservatives. At first glance, it might seem like harmless political banter—a way to laugh at the other side. But taken seriously, this mindset reveals something troubling about how politics is being practiced in the United States. It shows a shift away from solving problems and toward something much darker: treating politics as a game where the goal is to make other people suffer.
The idea of owning the libs is not about making life better for ordinary people. Instead, it’s about celebrating when someone else is angry, humiliated, or hurt. Passing laws that restrict healthcare, rolling back rights for LGBTQ+ people, or undermining voting access aren’t framed as solutions to real problems. They are framed as victories precisely because they upset progressives. Cruelty itself becomes the goal.
But politics should not be about harming others—it should be about helping people. That is the central difference between the conservative “own the libs” mindset and progressive politics. Progressives, at their best, focus on policies that improve people’s lives: expanding access to healthcare, making schools stronger, reducing poverty, and protecting the freedom to live authentically. The success of progressive politics is measured in lives improved, not tears shed by political opponents.
This difference matters because it points to two fundamentally different visions for our society. One vision treats politics as a contest of domination, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it angers “the other side.” The other vision treats politics as a tool for compassion, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it improves the lives of our neighbors.
Of course, no political movement is perfect. Progressives sometimes stumble, and not every policy works out as intended. But there is an important moral distinction between trying to help people and trying to hurt them. If our politics is driven by spite, we will end up with policies that deepen division and suffering. If our politics is driven by empathy, we have at least a chance at building a society that is fairer, freer, and more humane.
The question is not whether liberals or conservatives “win.” The real question is: do we want our politics to be about cruelty—or about compassion?