Studies find U.S. slipping further from democracy under Trump

Three major studies find U.S. democracy sliding toward autocracy under Trump's accelerated power concentration within one year.

Objective Facts

Three major new studies on democracy and freedom released in March 2026 find the U.S. is slipping further away from democracy, with reports out this month saying President Trump has done serious damage to American democracy at remarkable speed since his return to the White House. V-Dem, an institute at Sweden's University of Gothenburg, concluded democracy had deteriorated so much in the U.S. that it lowered the country's democracy ranking from 20th to 51st out of 179 countries, with the U.S. landing between Slovakia and Greece. Bright Line Watch, which surveys more than 500 U.S. scholars, concluded that the U.S. system now falls nearly midway between liberal democracy and dictatorship. V-Dem Institute's founding director Staffan Lindberg stated it was "the most rapid decline ever in the history of the United States and one of the most rapid in the world." White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales dismissed V-Dem's analysis as "a ridiculous claim made by an irrelevant, blatantly biased organization."

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets including NPR extensively covered three major reports released this month showing President Trump has done serious damage to American democracy at remarkable speed since his return to the White House. The reports detailed a dramatic decline from the U.S. ranking 20th in democracy to 51st out of 179 countries, and described the U.S. system falling nearly midway between liberal democracy and dictatorship. One analysis noted the U.S. stands out as an exceptional new autocratizer due to both far-reaching changes in 2025, with the extensive damage to American democracy in just one year standing out on the world map—with the speed of decline comparable to some coups d'états. Scholars identified V-Dem's downgrade was based on the Trump administration concentrating executive power, overstepping laws, circumventing the Republican-led Congress as well as attacks on the news media and freedom of speech. The administration is also undoing civil rights achievements and equality initiatives, seeking to silence and take control over the media, and suppressing left-wing dissenters, contributing to U.S. democracy's rapid decline. Under the Trump administration, democracy has been rolled back as much during just one year as it took Modi in India and Erdogan in Turkey 10 years to accomplish, and Orban in Hungary four years. Left-leaning sources emphasized the authoritarian playbook without offering substantive disagreement with the studies' methodology or findings. They framed the moment as a democratic crisis requiring mobilization, with limited engagement on whether the studies appropriately weighted institutional checks like judicial review or whether courts were adequately constraining the executive.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-wing responses were limited and largely defensive rather than substantive. White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales dismissed V-Dem's analysis as "a ridiculous claim made by an irrelevant, blatantly biased organization" and called Trump a champion for freedom and democracy and the most transparent and accessible president ever. Right-wing critics of V-Dem sometimes deride it as "Soros-funded" because the Open Society Foundation, founded by George Soros, is one of its funders. Trump said to reporters that he doesn't like a dictator and isn't one, and noted his return to the White House saved the legacy media from going out of business. The right offered no systematic rebuttal to the studies' specific findings about executive power concentration, attacks on institutions, or the mechanisms identified by scholars. Instead, responses dismissed the organizations as biased without engaging with the substance of methodology, data, or conclusions. No major conservative outlets published substantial analyses defending Trump's actions as consistent with democracy or challenging the studies' methodologies. Conservative sources did not develop an affirmative case that Trump's policies strengthen rather than weaken democratic institutions, nor did they offer competing evidence or alternative framings of democratic health. The absence of substantive conservative engagement suggests either agreement with the basic facts, unwillingness to defend the actions described, or strategic choice to dismiss rather than debate.

Deep Dive

These democracy reports represent a significant moment in assessing Trump's second term, but the analysis requires understanding both what the studies actually measure and what responses reveal about the political debate. V-Dem, an institute at Sweden's University of Gothenburg that measures democracy in countries around the globe, reported that American democracy is being dismantled at unprecedented speed, with director Staffan Lindberg describing it as a very rapid and aggressive concentration of power in the presidency, encroaching on powers from the legislature, along with attacks on media freedom and freedom of speech. The methodology involves thousands of scholars globally measuring consistent attributes, making it a legitimate research instrument even if debatable in specific judgments. What each side gets right and misses: The left correctly identifies significant executive power concentration—documented in Trump's executive orders on elections, his assertion of emergency powers, and his attempts to control agency funding and tariff policy. Courts have indeed blocked some actions, validating the left's point that institutions retain capacity to constrain. However, the left often treats these constraints as insufficient without developing a clear theory of what democratic constraints *would* be adequate. Meanwhile, the right's dismissal of V-Dem as biased avoids engaging whether the described actions—circumventing Congress, attacking institutional independence, using emergency powers broadly—constitute genuine democratic risks. The right implicitly concedes that such actions are occurring but refuses to characterize them as problematic. Neither side substantively addresses whether Republican-controlled Congress's abdication of oversight represents a systemic failure of democratic institutions separate from Trump's actions. The scholars' own assessment acknowledged that courts have pushed back and the U.S. rating might have declined further without judicial constraint, particularly noting the Supreme Court's tariff ruling as evidence Trump has not fully captured judicial referees. This tempering of the alarm is notable: experts identify autocratic efforts but acknowledge incomplete success. The political question going forward is whether 2026 midterms will shift Congress's willingness to exercise oversight, whether courts will continue to constrain executive action, and whether Democratic electoral success or loss will determine whether democratic backsliding is permanent or reversible. The studies suggest the moment is urgent but not yet irreversible.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Studies find U.S. slipping further from democracy under Trump

Three major studies find U.S. democracy sliding toward autocracy under Trump's accelerated power concentration within one year.

Mar 20, 2026· Updated Mar 23, 2026
What's Going On

Three major new studies on democracy and freedom released in March 2026 find the U.S. is slipping further away from democracy, with reports out this month saying President Trump has done serious damage to American democracy at remarkable speed since his return to the White House. V-Dem, an institute at Sweden's University of Gothenburg, concluded democracy had deteriorated so much in the U.S. that it lowered the country's democracy ranking from 20th to 51st out of 179 countries, with the U.S. landing between Slovakia and Greece. Bright Line Watch, which surveys more than 500 U.S. scholars, concluded that the U.S. system now falls nearly midway between liberal democracy and dictatorship. V-Dem Institute's founding director Staffan Lindberg stated it was "the most rapid decline ever in the history of the United States and one of the most rapid in the world." White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales dismissed V-Dem's analysis as "a ridiculous claim made by an irrelevant, blatantly biased organization."

Left says: Studies find the U.S. is slipping further from democracy, with leaders saying Trump's goal is to rule as an autocrat. V-Dem downgraded America's rating based on the Trump administration concentrating executive power, overstepping laws, circumventing the Republican-led Congress as well as attacks on the news media and freedom of speech.
Right says: The White House dismissed the findings as "a ridiculous claim made by an irrelevant, blatantly biased organization." Trump said he doesn't like a dictator and isn't one, while a White House spokeswoman called him a champion for freedom and said his return saved legacy media from going out of business.
✓ Common Ground
Some voices on the left and right acknowledge that courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have restrained Trump's executive power in specific cases. Scholars noted the United States' democracy rating might have slid even further if not for the courts pushing back, citing last month's Supreme Court ruling against the president on tariffs as evidence he has not fully captured judicial referees.
There appears to be growing recognition across perspectives that congressional Republicans have substantially weakened congressional oversight. The Republican-controlled Congress has largely abandoned its role as a co-equal branch of government, effectively handing the president the "power of the purse" to unilaterally cancel or redirect federal funding and arbitrarily set tariffs.
Both sides acknowledge that Trump has concentrated executive power and that this represents a significant shift from prior norms. Even White House spokeswoman framing acknowledges his return marked a turning point, while critics point to unprecedented speed of centralization—a factual disagreement about whether this is positive or negative, but agreement on the fact.
Objective Deep Dive

These democracy reports represent a significant moment in assessing Trump's second term, but the analysis requires understanding both what the studies actually measure and what responses reveal about the political debate. V-Dem, an institute at Sweden's University of Gothenburg that measures democracy in countries around the globe, reported that American democracy is being dismantled at unprecedented speed, with director Staffan Lindberg describing it as a very rapid and aggressive concentration of power in the presidency, encroaching on powers from the legislature, along with attacks on media freedom and freedom of speech. The methodology involves thousands of scholars globally measuring consistent attributes, making it a legitimate research instrument even if debatable in specific judgments.

What each side gets right and misses: The left correctly identifies significant executive power concentration—documented in Trump's executive orders on elections, his assertion of emergency powers, and his attempts to control agency funding and tariff policy. Courts have indeed blocked some actions, validating the left's point that institutions retain capacity to constrain. However, the left often treats these constraints as insufficient without developing a clear theory of what democratic constraints *would* be adequate. Meanwhile, the right's dismissal of V-Dem as biased avoids engaging whether the described actions—circumventing Congress, attacking institutional independence, using emergency powers broadly—constitute genuine democratic risks. The right implicitly concedes that such actions are occurring but refuses to characterize them as problematic. Neither side substantively addresses whether Republican-controlled Congress's abdication of oversight represents a systemic failure of democratic institutions separate from Trump's actions.

The scholars' own assessment acknowledged that courts have pushed back and the U.S. rating might have declined further without judicial constraint, particularly noting the Supreme Court's tariff ruling as evidence Trump has not fully captured judicial referees. This tempering of the alarm is notable: experts identify autocratic efforts but acknowledge incomplete success. The political question going forward is whether 2026 midterms will shift Congress's willingness to exercise oversight, whether courts will continue to constrain executive action, and whether Democratic electoral success or loss will determine whether democratic backsliding is permanent or reversible. The studies suggest the moment is urgent but not yet irreversible.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets employed urgent, descriptive language emphasizing scale and speed: "serious damage at remarkable speed" and "comparable to some coups d'états." Right-leaning responses used dismissive language focused on delegitimizing sources rather than engaging evidence: "ridiculous claim made by an irrelevant, blatantly biased organization." The left grounded arguments in data and expert consensus; the right attacked credibility without systematic rebuttal.

✕ Key Disagreements
Whether studies apply appropriate standards or are biased against Trump
Left: Left argues the studies use rigorous methodology applied consistently across 179 countries with thousands of scholars, making dismissals of bias insufficient without substantive critique.
Right: Right argues V-Dem is biased, Soros-funded, and its standards are unfairly applied to the U.S., dismissing the entire enterprise as unreliable without engaging specific findings.
Whether Trump's executive power concentration is anti-democratic or legitimate presidential authority
Left: Left argues Trump is deliberately dismantling checks and balances, attacking independent institutions (courts, media, academia), and following an authoritarian playbook that undermines democracy itself.
Right: Right argues Trump is exercising legitimate presidential authority and that characterizations of his actions as authoritarian reflect partisan bias rather than constitutional reality.
Whether current institutional checks are sufficient or democracy is in genuine peril
Left: Left argues courts have blocked some orders but the cumulative pattern shows an assault on democracy that courts alone cannot contain; sustained democratic mobilization is required.
Right: Right does not directly address whether existing checks are sufficient, implicitly suggesting they are by dismissing studies without acknowledging systemic concern.