US Democracy Is Backsliding, 3 Separate Reports Say
Using different research methods and metrics, recent reports show our nation moving away from democracy and toward authoritarianism.
V-Dem
V-Dem, or Varieties of Democracy, releases a yearly report ranking democracies around the world. The U.S. ranking went from 20th place last year to now 51st place, out of the 179 countries included in the rankings. According to V-Dem, which is based in Sweden’s University of Gothenburg, the report “produces the largest global dataset on democracy with over 32 million data points for 202 countries and territories from 1789 to 2025. Involving over 4,200 scholars and other country experts, V-Dem measures over 600 different attributes of democracy.”
The report shows an alarming global trend away from democracy and toward autocratization. The Trump presidency in particular is highlighted, noting that, “The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.
The ranking scales nations in one of six categories, from most democratic to most autocratic: liberal democracy, electoral democracy, democratic grey zone, autocratic grey zone, electoral autocracy, and closed autocracy. For the first time in 50 years, the US fell from a liberal democracy to an electoral democracy.
Bright Line Watch
Bright Line Watch asked political scientists in the U.S. to rate our democracy on a 0-100 scale, and compared this to public ratings, controlling for partisanship. Among experts, democracy has hovered between the low 50s and 60 during Trump’s second term, while public opinion is driven by partisanship. Democrats rate democracy under Trump lower than the experts while Republicans rate it higher.
The public survey also found disturbing trends among both Democrats and Republicans: “Democrats are less likely to say preventing political violence is important, while Republicans show significant declines in endorsing the protection of free speech, constitutional and judicial limits on the executive, and responsiveness to public opinion.”
The experts nearly unanimously agreed that three recent events were threats to democracy. “The consensus on the threat was near-unanimous for several events related to the rule of law (96% for Trump directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political enemies); elections (95% for Trump’s call to “nationalize” voting), and speech (93% for Trump’s claim that Democratic lawmakers committed sedition by saying the military should refuse unlawful orders).”
Freedom House
The third report, from Freedom House, found that global freedom has declined for the 20th consecutive year. The U.S. was one of the three nations that saw the largest declines. (Bulgaria and Italy were the other two.)
The report found, “a multiyear rise in threats and reprisals for political speech as well as government efforts to punish nonviolent expression by noncitizens produced a chilling effect on personal expression more broadly. The new presidential administration also disregarded conflicts of interest and weakened both anticorruption safeguards and enforcement practices.”
What can we do?
For regular readers of this newsletter, these reports are confirming and unsurprising. We’ve been documenting these declines in democracy since Trump’s second inauguration.
But trends need not continue. As Dartmouth Professor Brendan Nyhan, co-director of Bright Line, told NPR, “There’s just no question that what we’re seeing is the authoritarian playbook, but there’s no guarantee that Trump will be able to operate this way after the midterms, let alone a successor after 2028.”
AVC isn’t just here to report on the democratic backsliding, but to do something about it. A helpful step you can take right now is to share these reports, news about them, and share this newsletter.
Help those in your circles of influence understand the urgency of this moment.
What We’re Reading
PBS: “Trump says he’s not mulling a draft executive order to seize control over elections. Here’s what we know”
The 17-page proposal, a working document reviewed in full by PBS News, would give him extraordinary power over the 2026 midterm elections. It claims to address election integrity issues caused by foreign interference. By declaring a national emergency, the document hypothesizes, the president could take control over some voting mechanisms in the country, including requiring hand-counting of ballots and voter identification at the polls.
Phys: “‘Conflict entrepreneurs’: Examining divisive political rhetoric and the pursuit of celebrity by politicians”
Republican representatives are more likely to be conflict entrepreneurs than Democratic representatives, but the strategy is only pursued by a small minority of both parties. The authors find that although personal attacks do increase media visibility, the enhanced visibility is not associated with enhanced fundraising, electoral margins, legislative productivity, or personal wealth.
According to the authors, the findings suggest that for a subset of legislators, the pursuit of media celebrity has replaced the pursuit of preferred policy, reelection, or even personal wealth as the ultimate motivator for a political career.
Governing: “Polarization Is Inevitable? Local Government May Be an Antidote.”
Local governments deal with concrete issues — sometimes literally, when it comes to paving roads and fixing potholes. In general, cities and counties handle day-to-day functions, such as garbage pickup, running schools and enforcing zoning rules. Addressing tangible needs keeps local leaders’ attention fixed on specific problems that call out for specific solutions, not lengthy ideological debates.
By contrast, a lot of national political conflict in the U.S. involves symbolic issues, such as debates about identity and values on topics such as race, abortion and transgender rights. These battles are often divisive, even more so than purely ideological disagreements, because they can activate tribal differences and prove more resistant to compromise.
Such arguments at the national level, or on social media, can lead to wildly inaccurate stereotypes about people with opposing views. Today’s partisans often perceive their opponents as far more extreme than they actually are, or they may stereotype them — imagining that all Republicans are wealthy, evangelical culture warriors, for instance, or conversely being convinced that all Democrats are radical urban activists. In terms of ideology, the median members of both parties, in fact, look similar.
These kinds of misperceptions can fuel hostility.
 | A guest post by
|