Competitive Authoritarianism in America

Issue Date October 2026
Volume 37
Issue 4
Page Numbers 5-25
file Print
arrow-down-thin Download from Project MUSE
external View Citation

Read the full essay here.

The United States crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism during Donald Trump’s second presidency: Elections remained real, but incumbents systematically abused state institutions to tilt the playing field against opponents. The administration weaponized the Justice Department, the FBI, and other agencies against critics, universities, law firms, and the press, while national gerrymandering and coerced corporate money skewed competition. Judged by the eleven criteria the authors devised to score 35 regimes in their earlier research, the U.S. case is comparable to Hungary under Viktor Orbán, if far softer than 1990s Russia or Serbia. The new regime is unlikely to consolidate, however: The United States’ vast countervailing power—its wealth, private sector, and civil society—dilutes authoritarian abuse and makes redemocratization by electoral turnover likely. Yet turnover would not mean democracy survived intact. Opposition parties do win unfair elections, and a restored U.S. democracy will remain unconsolidated until both major parties commit to its defense.

About the Authors

Steven Levitsky

Steven Levitsky is David Rockefeller Professor of Latin American Studies and professor of government at Harvard University. 

View all work by Steven Levitsky

Lucan A. Way

Lucan Way is Distinguished Professor of Democracy at the University of Toronto. Collaborations with Steven Levitsky include “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism” (2002) and “The New Competitive Authoritarianism” (2020), both published in the Journal of Democracy, and Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War (2010).

View all work by Lucan A. Way

Image Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images