“Authoritarianism is new to many Americans,” said Steven Levitsky late last month. “And Americans have responded in a couple different ways—but we see a couple of misperceptions that concern us.”
He and Erica Chenoweth, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Kennedy School were in conversation for the third episode of “the Breakdown,” their webinar series on the changing state of the United States’ democracy. (Note: this conversation took place on December 18, prior to the United States’ capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.)
Levitsky, the David Rockefeller Professor of Latin American Studies and Professor of Government at Harvard University, recently co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs arguing that the United States has entered a phase of “competitive authoritarianism,” in which a leader who is democratically elected acts undemocratically once in office—they might punish critics, remove civil servants, and abuse power to shift the electoral field in their favor. It’s neither full democracy nor full authoritarianism.
Levitsky said that many Americans fall into one of two camps in assessing this moment. One camp, he explained, doesn’t think it’s possible for the nation’s democracy to be under threat—that there’s “something in our DNA, or our constitution, or our culture makes us immune from authoritarianism.”
The other camp that takes holds the opposite belief, declaring “that the game is up, that we’ve already lost, that there won’t be elections in 2026, or they won’t be fair, and it’s time to move to Canada.”
Levitsky proposes a middle ground. “This is authoritarianism on the one hand,” he says, “but it’s an authoritarianism that can be reversed—and I think likely will be reversed.”
“This is authoritarianism on the one hand, but it’s an authoritarianism that can be reversed—and I think likely will be reversed.”
Top developments in democratic backsliding in 2025
Levitsky described four major developments of democratic backsliding:
- Powerful people and institutions “backing down in the face of authoritarian bullying”: Levitsky described “a wave of acquiescence to authoritarian and illegal behavior in the early months of the Trump administration. I’m talking about Jeff Bezos, and I’m talking about Paramount. I'm talking about the U.S. Senate and Paul Weiss, and Columbia University—just a wave of very influential people and institutions backing down in the face of authoritarian bullying.”
- “Congress abdicating its oversight role in the face of openly illegal behavior”: Levitsky felt this happened early on in particular with the Department of Justice. He argued, “DOJ was openly breaking the law, was almost certainly violating the Constitution, and the U.S. Congress stood by and did nothing.
- “The politicization of the armed forces”: Levitsky explained that the United States’ professionalized military helps keep the nation from outright autocratic rule—but “the day that a president can mobilize the military against his or her opponents, democracy becomes much, much more vulnerable.” He pointed to two concerning developments: the expansion of ICE into what he called a “thuggish paramilitary force without much in the way of regulation or oversight” and the calls for top military commanders to focus on those President Trump calls “internal enemies” orchestrating a “war from within.” Levitsky argues, “That is literally Pinochet stuff. ... That’s the kind of language that we heard in South America in the 1970s.”
- Characterizing the opposition as “terrorists”: Levitsky pointed to the aftermath of right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, in which the government “ramped up the rhetoric about all of the Democratic Party and much of civil society being terrorists or being linked to terrorism.”
Chenoweth followed with their own main concerns for democracy in the past year:
- Purging of the civil service and dismantling of congressionally mandated agencies: In particular, Chenoweth was concerned that these firings, especially early on, targeted civil servants, such as those within United States Agency for International Development or the Department of Justice, “who knew things about democracy, human rights, and the defense thereof.” Chenoweth added that “it wasn’t just that it was illegal. It was targeted and motivated by concerns about political dissent and about guardrails on the way the government would behave going forward.”
- Forceful pushback against dissent—and acceptance of that pushback: Chenoweth was concerned by “the routinization of ICE raids, National Guard deployments, and the targeting of Democratic lawmakers, peaceful protestors, and people on television with indictments, arrests, or demands to be fired.” They noted that not just these actions themselves, but the “acceptance of those techniques without a ton of pushback is quite dangerous.”
- “Forced capitulation of a lot of autonomous civil society”: Chenoweth explained that the lack of resistance to democratic backsliding from some powerful institutions, such as law firms, higher education, and media outlets, had a damaging effect on democracy. “Even if they weren’t okay with it in private, not standing up collectively probably made the situation much worse,” Chenoweth explained.
- “Ignoring federal court orders”: Chenoweth noted a rise in the government ignoring lower court orders. They also identified an alarming pattern in the government’s response to legal threats: “in a democracy, if you win a lawsuit, you win—that settles the conflict. In a country that isn’t a democracy, when you win a lawsuit, you still lose if it's against the government, because they find other ways to bully or to inflict pain.”
Following their concerns for American democracy, Chenoweth and Levitsky shared what has been giving them hope.
“In a democracy, if you win a lawsuit, you win—that settles the conflict. In a country that isn't a democracy, when you win a lawsuit, you still lose if it's against the government, because they find other ways to bully or to inflict pain.”
Top defenses against democratic backsliding in 2025
Levitsky was encouraged by a number of moments over the past year:
- The November 2025 election outcomes: Levitsky pointed to the election of Democrats Mikie Sherril in New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia. Democrats also expanded their legislative majority in both states. “It sent a signal that Americans are not okay with what’s going on,” Levitsky explained, “and I think forced everybody to kind of recalculate a bit.”
- Signs of Republican resistance to President Trump: Levitsky pointed to calls for the government to release its files on Jeffery Epstein, as well as the Indiana State Senate’s refusal to redistrict on Trump’s request. “Republicans, for the first time in several years, are beginning to say no to Trump and to stand up to Trump,” he explains. “This is how authoritarian regimes die: they die because they split; they fragment internally.”
- Organizing and pushback: Levitsky pointed to moments in which he believes people have rallied toward democracy—such as California’s Proposition 50 vote on congressional redistricting, the public resistance to Jimmy Kimmel’s firing and Disney’s choice to put him back on the air, and the mobilization in Chicago against the presence of ICE and the National Guard, which he feels has “blunted the offensive of the Trump administration in terms of sort of occupying and terrorizing cities.”
Chenoweth named four moments of democratic defense as well:
- Grassroots mobilization: Chenoweth was encouraged by both grassroots community mobilizations in response to ICE, and the growing “large scale mass mobilizations that happened…being almost historically disciplined in terms of non-violent action, even in the face of provocation.” They point out this participation occurred even in areas where Trump had large majorities in the 2024 election.
- “Increased collective action within some notable pillars of society,” such as the entertainment and creative industries’ pushback on Jimmy Kimmel’s firing or parts of the labor movement and the Catholic Church pushing back on mass deportations. Chenoweth noted the philanthropic community had engaged in “a lot of different collective action efforts” as well.
- Cross-sector united fronts: Chenoweth pointed to the response to ICE in Chicago, which “linked grassroots community mobilization with the chamber of commerce and other people in different civic positions of responsibility and other networks that really stood up together and said, ‘This is unacceptable.’”
- Successful litigation: Chenoweth noted some judicial decisions that upheld precedents restricting presidential power. “We don't know yet how the Supreme Court is going to decide on these types of things,” they said, “but it is very important that that channel remains quite active,” as publicly filed lawsuits help release facts and establish accountability.
Checks on power
As they closed their conversation, Chenoweth and Levitsky discussed the role of the Supreme Court in preserving or dismantling democracy in the United States. Levitsky felt that the court is “enabling Trump’s authoritarianism but is not purposefully authoritarian.”
Chenoweth pointed to the need for people in power to constrain the executive branch.
“It’s easy to forget a lot of the worst dictatorships that came into power over the last hundred years came into power totally legally, and with no one standing in their way—in the courts or otherwise.”
—
Credit: Banner photo by Kay Nietfeld/picture alliance via Getty Images. Steven Levitsky headshot by Stephanie Mitchell. Erica Chenoweth headshot by Stephanie Mitchell.