Democracy in 2025: on rising authoritarianism in the United States

Source: Hacker News

By Susan A. Hughes
October 24, 2025

Overview

“I would not call the United States a fully democratic regime today.”

Harvard professor Steve Levitsky opened the new web‑based series The Breakdown, presented by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, with an unflinching assessment of American democracy.

The Breakdown Series

The series is hosted by Erica Chenoweth, Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Kennedy School, and Steve Levitsky, David Rockefeller Professor of Latin American Studies and Professor of Government at Harvard University.

Each monthly episode will:

• reflect on what is happening to democratic institutions both at home and abroad,
• break down key events, and
• offer “evidence‑based reflections” on how to move forward.

Inaugural Episode Highlights

In the inaugural episode, Chenoweth and Levitsky examined the current state of U.S. democracy and discussed the recent nationwide No Kings protest.

“We have very clearly descended into at least a mild form of what I would call ‘competitive authoritarianism,’” Levitsky said. His research focuses on democratization, authoritarianism, political parties, and weak or informal institutions. He defines “competitive authoritarianism” as a hybrid regime where leaders gain power through democratic institutions but then violate essential democratic criteria.

Competitive Authoritarianism

Levitsky warned that the United States appears to be sliding toward a form of governance where democratic forms exist but are systematically undermined.

Weaponizing the State

Levitsky identified several actions by the Trump administration over the past six months that he labeled “weaponizing the state.”

• threatened the media,
• sued universities,
• purged NGOs, and
• demonized donors to the Democratic Party and major foundations.

He compared this aggression to the tactics of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and Turkey’s Recep Erdoğan.

“This administration… is not hiding its authoritarianism. It is really quite open about it.”

He added that such open displays of authoritarianism and violent rhetoric are rare among elected authoritarian regimes.

Rhetoric and Delegitimization

Levitsky highlighted a troubling trend of the White House linking broad opposition to terrorism.

“Delegitimizing the entire opposition, linking George Soros to violence, linking mainstream Democrats and other critics of the administration to violence… is a classic authoritarian move.”

The No Kings Protest

“People were reclaiming core values and principles, those expressed in the Constitution, in the Declaration of Independence.” – Erica Chenoweth

“How can long‑standing institutions that are so deeply entrenched and embedded be so vulnerable to basically a single person and his entourage?” Chenoweth asked.

Levitsky responded that institutions are “just pieces of paper; they don’t work automatically.” He emphasized that “if individuals don’t act to defend or deploy institutions, they won’t work.”

Chenoweth noted that the webinar took place a day after a historic mass mobilization—a nationwide No Kings protest.

“My team at the Crowd Counting Consortium at the Nonviolent Action Lab reported on the October 18 mobilization; it was plainly a massive turnout,” she said.

The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful, occurring at 2,600 locations across the United States. Chenoweth argued that the turnout helped counter the Trump administration’s attempts to brand participants as criminals, terrorists, and “un‑American.”

Tactical Frivility

Chenoweth highlighted the use of “tactical frivolity,” infusing demonstrations with a festive spirit.

“‘Glee and grievance’ is what my colleagues John Gledhill at Oxford, Chris Shay, and Allard Duursma called it in a study published in the Journal of Global Security Studies,” she noted.

The study examined nonviolent campaigns in the 20th century and found that movements that resembled a party rather than a hostile protest attracted greater participation, even under risky conditions.

Visual Commentary

“Delegitimizing the entire opposition … linking mainstream Democrats and other critics of the administration to violence is a classic authoritarian move.” – Steve Levitsky

“The inflatable animals and costumes were a signal that the movement is more positive and fun than the movement against it,” Chenoweth explained.

Both speakers stressed that the messages, chants, and signs were crucial for maintaining a peaceful protest atmosphere.

Closing Thoughts

“The fact that we are not an outright dictatorship does not mean that we are a full democracy,” Levitsky replied when asked about the protest’s implications. “Many Americans are thinking twice about exercising their legal rights… and they are fearful of violence against their opposition.”

“The pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists was not only a travesty of justice, but it was also a clear message that those who engage in violence on Trump’s behalf are going to be tolerated,” he added.

During their wide‑ranging conversation, Chenoweth and Levitsky also addressed:

• The lack of outrage from corporations
• The concept of forbearance versus accountability
• How to move forward

“It is much harder to rebuild institutions and the rule of law than it is to break them,” Levitsky said.

To learn more about the web series, sign up for the Ash Center newsletter or visit the Nonviolent Action Lab website.

Photography by Neil Constantine/NurPhoto via Getty Images.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox.