Where We Are
A Strategic Assessment of Authoritarian Consolidation
We need to be clear-eyed about where American democracy stands right now. The experts who study authoritarian consolidation globally have reached a sobering consensus: we’ve already crossed the threshold into what they call “competitive authoritarianism.”
This isn’t hyperbole. Steven Levitsky at Harvard, who literally wrote the book on competitive authoritarianism, stated flatly in April 2025 that the United States has transitioned into this form of governance. A survey of over 500 political scientists found the vast majority believe we’re moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward authoritarianism. Even former Intelligence Community officers issued an analysis concluding with “moderate to high confidence” that cumulative dynamics are placing us on a trajectory toward competitive authoritarian rule.
What Competitive Authoritarianism Actually Means
This isn’t the strongman dictatorships of mid-century Latin America or the one-party states of the Cold War. Elections continue. Opposition parties exist. Courts still function. But the state apparatus is systematically weaponized against opponents, and the playing field is tilted to entrench executive control.
The pattern is clear and follows an authoritarian playbook we’ve seen globally. Executive overreach through governance by decree. Politicized control of the civil service—Trump fired Inspectors General from 17 federal agencies in January without legally required congressional notice. Targeting perceived opponents through IRS investigations and regulatory agencies. Delegitimizing the entire opposition, threatening media, suing universities, purging NGOs, and demonizing Democratic donors. Using immigration enforcement as a consolidation tool, including deploying military forces against state governors’ wishes.
Former IC officers documented five reinforcing trends: executive overreach, judicial capture, electoral manipulation, suppression of civil society and media, and erosion of checks and balances. The administration has restricted congressional oversight of federal agencies, subjected independent regulatory commissions to partisan control, and created what experts describe as a climate of fear that discourages open dissent even among some Republican officials.
Why It’s Not Fully Consolidated (Yet)
Here’s the critical part for our organizing strategy: Trump is politically weaker than successful autocrats typically are at this stage. Leaders like Bukele in El Salvador, Chávez in Venezuela, or Putin in Russia had approval ratings above 80% when they launched their major power grabs. Trump doesn’t have that kind of support, which matters enormously.
The U.S. also has stronger institutional constraints than countries that slid into stable competitive authoritarianism. The relative independence of the judiciary, federalism, bicameralism, and midterm elections all create friction points that Hungary and Turkey lacked. Trump can’t rewrite the Constitution or eliminate the structural features that create multiple power centers.
Most importantly, American opposition forces are well-organized, well-financed, and electorally viable. We’re harder to co-opt, repress, or sideline than opposition movements in El Salvador, Hungary, or Turkey were. Our civil society is robust, our resources substantial, and our organizational capacity is real.
Experts point to Poland, South Korea, and Brazil as examples where countries that crossed into competitive authoritarianism swung back toward democracy. It’s not inevitable that authoritarianism continues consolidating in the U.S. But they also point to Russia, Hungary, and Turkey as warnings about what happens when the opposition retreats or fragments.
What This Means for Strategy
First, we need to stop debating whether we’re “sliding toward” authoritarianism. According to expert consensus, we’ve already slid. Levitsky describes it as “relatively mild compared to some others” and “certainly reversible.” But, regardless, we’re no longer in a liberal democracy. That clarity matters for strategy.
Second, even modest tilting of the playing field can cripple democracy. Robust opposition requires a large, replenishable pool of politicians, activists, lawyers, experts, donors, and journalists. If the administration successfully intimidates donors through IRS targeting, if lawyers fear professional destruction for taking opposition cases, if experts self-censor to protect their institutions, the opposition weakens even without mass arrests.
Third, Levitsky emphasizes that opposition under competitive authoritarianism is grueling. Worn down by harassment and threats, critics are tempted to retreat to the sidelines. But that retreat is exactly how emergent authoritarianism takes root. When fear, exhaustion, or resignation crowds out commitment to democracy, the game is lost.
The strategic imperative is staying in the fight. Not just continuing to exist, but actively contesting power through every available channel: courts, elections, mass mobilization, economic pressure, and international solidarity. Competitive authoritarian regimes are vulnerable to sustained, strategic opposition precisely because they maintain democratic forms. Those forms can be exploited by movements that understand the terrain.
The Bottom Line
We’re in a qualitatively different moment than we were a year ago. The transition to competitive authoritarianism has occurred. But it’s early-stage, faces real structural constraints, and remains assailable. Whether it consolidates or gets pushed back depends entirely on whether pro-democracy forces maintain strategic coherence, organizational capacity, and the willingness to sustain pressure over time.
This isn’t cause for despair; it’s a call for strategic clarity. We know what stage we’re at. We know the playbook being run against us. And we know our sources of strength. Now we must organize accordingly, with the understanding that the next phase determines whether this particular authoritarian putsch is a temporary, or a first step in lasting regime change.
The experts have done their job naming where we are. Now we do ours: building the resistance that prevents consolidation and creates the conditions for democratic renewal.
For more information, consider reading the following. It is long, but highly instructive.
