In the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way argued that during the early months of President Donald Trump’s new administration, the United States was transitioning from a constitutional democracy to a form of authoritarian rule. They contended that the US constitutional democracy was breaking down and being replaced by what they term “competitive authoritarianism.” This classification places the US alongside countries like Serbia, Turkey, Hungary and India.

Levitsky and Way observed that this shift away from constitutional democracy was occurring with surprising ease. Trump and his appointees managed to overcome various legal barriers to authoritarianism with relatively little resistance. Although the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary posed challenges, these were not insurmountable.

In a follow-up op-ed in the New York Times on May 11, 2025, Levitsky, Way and Daniel Ziblatt asserted that the United States had already become a competitive authoritarian regime. They argued that America’s nominal constitutional order had been superseded by a new 21st-century version of authoritarian rule. This form of governance does not resemble the “strongman” governments of Latin America, such as Juan Perón’s Argentina or Alberto Fujimori’s Peru, nor does it mirror one-party dictatorships of interwar Europe or the theocracy of Iran.

An alternative characterization might be “kleptocracy.” Trump, his immediate family and their associates have reportedly used the presidency to enrich themselves on an unprecedented scale. While this behavior aligns with kleptocratic practices, the administration appears to pursue a broader agenda beyond mere personal enrichment.

Anne Applebaum, in her work Autocracy, Inc., suggests that competitive authoritarian regimes often exhibit corrupt practices associated with kleptocracy, ranging from overt theft to more subtle forms of corruption.

Levitsky, Way and Ziblatt define “competitive authoritarianism” as a regime that maintains the outward appearances of constitutional democracy. However, the institutions, laws and norms typically associated with such a system have been hollowed out. In this model, a leader and his inner circle direct state affairs with minimal constraints on their actions.

Civil society, the free press, independent media, private enterprises, educational institutions, the judiciary and proactive local governments have all seen their capacity to resist decisions made by the ruling elite diminished. Consequently, constitutional democracy becomes a façade, concealing a more authoritarian reality.

Is this newly established American competitive authoritarian regime irreversible? Trump and his appointees currently control the central levers of power. Despite attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election through extralegal means, Trump continues to enjoy substantial popular support. His affluent donors have allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support pro-Trump GOP candidates in the 2026 congressional elections. There are concerns that upcoming elections may not be free from interference by Trump-aligned state officials.

Nevertheless, an anti-authoritarian backlash appears to be emerging. Almost every weekend, anti-Trump and anti-Elon Musk protesters gather not only in major coastal cities but also in smaller communities across the country, including traditionally conservative states like South Dakota, Utah and Montana. These demonstrators carry banners and placards opposing federal budget cuts, particularly those affecting Medicaid, child welfare, wildlife and fire protection and the maintenance of national parks.

Protests extend beyond the streets. Members of Congress and senators who hold town hall meetings often face constituents voicing opposition to the Trump administration’s mass dismissal of federal employees, especially those in public health roles.

The administration has also taken steps to suppress the free press. For instance, parent companies of major television networks like CBS and the program 60 Minutes have faced lawsuits on unrelated grounds, seemingly aimed at discouraging critical coverage of Trump’s policies.

Despite these pressures, television news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC continue to feature commentators who are highly critical of Trump and his administration. Prominent figures like Bruce Springsteen, Robert De Niro, Stephen King and Meryl Streep have publicly condemned Trump’s rise to power.

There are precedents where seemingly entrenched competitive authoritarian regimes have been ousted and constitutional democracy restored. Poland, for example, was governed from 2015 to 2023 by the populist Law and Justice Party under Prime Minister Jarosław Kaczyński. During this period, the government exerted control over the judiciary, public media, cultural institutions (with religious backing) and numerous private businesses. However, in the 2023 national elections, Law and Justice was defeated by a centrist liberal party.

Brazil offers another example. Former military officer and populist leader Jair Bolsonaro won a significant election victory in December 2018. Throughout his four-year tenure, Bolsonaro frequently attacked Brazil’s democratic institutions, including its supreme federal court. Despite his substantial support base, Bolsonaro lost his bid for re-election in 2023. Subsequently, his supporters stormed key government buildings in Brasília, demanding his reinstatement—a move reminiscent of the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters. This effort failed, and Bolsonaro now faces multiple criminal charges.

Conversely, some prominent American academics specializing in European fascism, such as Jason Stanley, Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder, have accepted positions at the University of Toronto. If conditions at American universities continue to deteriorate as suggested by Levitsky, Way and Ziblatt, more scholars may choose to leave the country.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.