Backsliding
Democratic backsliding, the gradual deterioration of democratic norms and institutions, represents one of the most pressing political concerns in modern times. Unlike abrupt shifts to authoritarianism, democratic backsliding unfolds gradually, often under the guise of legal reforms, political rhetoric, or shifts in governance priorities. It manifests through subtle and strategic changes that weaken democratic values and structures, allowing leaders to consolidate power while maintaining the outward appearance of democracy.
The erosion of democracy is often marked by several critical characteristics, which serve as warning signs of backsliding. One of the earliest indicators is the erosion of democratic norms. These norms, though unwritten, are foundational to democracy—they represent the spirit of mutual respect, acceptance of opposing viewpoints, and commitment to fair play. When leaders or ruling parties begin to disregard these norms, governing becomes increasingly polarized and divisive. Actions that challenge the legitimacy of elections, sideline political opponents, or manipulate electoral outcomes indicate a shift from democratic engagement toward consolidating power. Leaders may also encourage or exploit societal divides, creating an environment where dissent is discouraged and only supportive voices are amplified, further undermining democratic pluralism.
Another common characteristic is attacks on judicial independence and the rule of law. In a healthy democracy, an independent judiciary acts as a critical check on executive power, ensuring that all laws are applied fairly and that no one is above the law. However, leaders seeking to entrench their power often attempt to compromise judicial independence. This may involve manipulating judicial appointments to favor allies, exerting pressure on courts to rule in the government’s favor, or introducing legal reforms that limit the judiciary’s power to oversee executive actions. By undermining the judiciary, leaders remove a key safeguard against autocracy and increase their capacity to act without accountability, often cloaking such actions in legal legitimacy.
In addition, curtailment of media freedom and civil society represents a significant sign of democratic backsliding. A free press is crucial for democracy, serving as a watchdog that holds leaders accountable and informs the public. Leaders with authoritarian tendencies may restrict media freedom through censorship, defamation laws, intimidation, or even imprisonment of journalists. By controlling the flow of information, they create a narrative that supports their agenda while silencing opposition. Civil society organizations, especially those advocating for democracy and human rights, may also face restrictions, as they provide platforms for civic engagement and dissent. Suppressing these groups stifles public debate, reduces transparency, and narrows the channels through which citizens can express opposition, further consolidating the power of the ruling party.
Furthermore, weakening of electoral integrity is a hallmark of democratic backsliding. Free and fair elections are central to democracy, as they grant citizens the power to choose their leaders. In failing democracies, electoral integrity is compromised through gerrymandering, voter suppression tactics, or direct manipulation of electoral laws to favor the ruling party. Leaders may delay elections under the pretext of crises or security concerns, or disqualify opposition candidates through legal loopholes, creating a biased electoral landscape. Over time, these actions erode public trust in the electoral process, diminishing citizens’ belief that elections serve as a genuine mechanism for mechanism for political change.
Lastly, centralization of power within the executive branch is a significant indicator of democratic decline. In a well-functioning democracy, there exists a balance between branches of government, allowing each to check the others. However, democratic backsliding often involves leaders consolidating power by bypassing legislative processes, overriding checks and balances, and expanding executive control over various aspects of governance. This concentration of power reduces transparency and weakens accountability, making it easier for authoritarian practices to take root.
Democratic backsliding often progresses through distinct stages, each one intensifying the erosion of democratic structures and values. Recognizing these stages is crucial for identifying and counteracting the decline of democracy before it becomes irreversible.
The first stage, creeping authoritarianism, is often subtle. It begins with leaders introducing small, seemingly benign changes to laws and institutions, often justified as necessary for stability or efficiency. These changes might involve expanding executive powers or altering procedural rules in ways that disadvantage opposition parties. At this stage, leaders frequently use populist rhetoric to galvanize support, portraying themselves as champions of the people against a corrupt or ineffective system. While these actions may appear minor, they create precedents for further undermining democratic structures.
As backsliding progresses, the next stage often involves subjugating oversight bodies and institutions. Leaders at this stage work to reduce checks on their power by attacking the independence of oversight bodies, such as anti-corruption agencies, courts, and electoral commissions. They may stack these institutions with loyalists, turning them into tools of political control rather than bodies of accountability. Independent media is also targeted more aggressively; critical journalists may face harassment, restrictive laws, or financial pressures designed to suppress investigative reporting. By weakening or co-opting oversight institutions, leaders reduce transparency and public scrutiny, allowing them to govern with minimal opposition.
Following this, democracies in decline enter a stage of systematic suppression of political opposition. In this stage, the ruling party or leader may use legal and extra-legal means to target political opponents, independent activists, and dissenting voices. Opposition leaders may face disqualification from elections, criminal charges, or incarceration, often based on dubious legal grounds. Civil society organizations may be pressured into silence or dismantled altogether, erasing spaces where citizens can organize, protest, or engage politically. The systematic elimination of opposition effectively nullifies the electoral competition and public discourse essential to democracy.
In the final stages, democratic backsliding culminates in outright authoritarianism. Here, any semblance of democratic governance fades, replaced by a consolidated regime where the leader or ruling party exercises unchallenged authority. Elections, if they occur, are often superficial, serving only to legitimize the regime rather than reflect the will of the people. Laws and policies may be enacted without legislative consent, and dissent is crushed through force, with civil liberties—such as freedom of speech, assembly, and association—sacrificed in the name of national security or public order. At this stage, citizens have little recourse against the regime, and democratic institutions, once vibrant, become hollowed out or entirely dismantled.
Democratic backsliding is a global phenomenon that can occur in countries with varying political histories, geographies, and institutional strengths, and the examples of backsliding in Hungary, Poland, Venezuela, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Brazil, Thailand, Mali, and Myanmar illustrate how fragile democracy can be even in regions with initially successful transitions. In post-Communist Europe, for example, countries like Hungary and Poland, which transitioned to democracy after the end of the Soviet era, have recently seen the rise of populist leaders who have eroded democratic norms, weakened judicial independence, curtailed media freedoms, and undermined checks on executive power. This process has occurred despite these countries being part of the European Union, which raises concerns about the vulnerability of democracy even in established, international settings.
Similarly, in the Middle East and North Africa, countries like Egypt and Turkey have faced challenges in consolidating democracy after uprisings or transitions. Egypt, for example, saw the brief rise of democracy following the 2011 revolution, but the military’s return to power under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has led to a reversal of democratic gains. Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, shifted from a functioning democracy to an increasingly authoritarian system, particularly after the 2016 coup attempt. Venezuela’s trajectory is similarly concerning, where Hugo Chávez’s populist rise in the late 1990s eventually led to an erosion of democratic institutions under Nicolás Maduro’s government. These cases demonstrate how fragile democracy can be in regions with histories of authoritarianism and military interventions, and the challenges these countries face in maintaining democratic institutions.
In Latin America, Brazil and Venezuela provide further examples of democratic backsliding. Venezuela’s transformation into a fully authoritarian state under Maduro, following Chávez’s populist revolution, highlights the risk of populism hollowing out democratic institutions, while Brazil’s experience under Jair Bolsonaro revealed how even long-standing democracies can face democratic erosion when populist leaders attack the judiciary, undermine electoral processes, and centralize power. Similarly, Mali’s struggle to maintain democracy, interrupted by a series of coups since 1991, shows how political instability and weak institutions can derail democratic transitions, a theme that is relevant in the context of the United States, where polarization and political violence have also increased.
Southeast Asia offers additional cautionary tales, such as Thailand, where military coups have repeatedly interrupted democratic governance, and Myanmar, which saw a brief democratic opening in the 2010s only to have the military regain control in a coup in 2021. These examples serve as reminders of the role the military can play in undermining democratic institutions, which is an increasingly relevant issue in the U.S., where concerns about the politicization of the military and law enforcement agencies are growing. Finally, in countries with established democracies like Russia and Hungary, backsliding has been driven by leaders who, after being elected through democratic means, have dismantled democratic institutions and consolidated power. In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s centralization of authority and suppression of political opposition has turned the country into a de facto authoritarian state, while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has employed similar tactics to weaken democratic norms within the EU.
These global examples of democratic backsliding show that the erosion of democracy often occurs gradually, sometimes through democratic means, and highlights how vulnerable democracies are to authoritarianism, particularly when populist leaders exploit divisions and weaken institutional checks on power. For the United States, these cases provide valuable lessons: the rise of populism, the increasing politicization of institutions, and the erosion of democratic norms—such as respect for the judiciary, free speech, and electoral integrity—are all potential pathways toward democratic decline. The January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and subsequent efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election are a reminder of the fragility of democratic norms in the U.S. The examples from around the world underscore that democracy is not a permanent state but rather a delicate system that requires constant vigilance to protect.
Donald Trump's emergence as a political figure and his rise to the presidency can be seen as an example of the first stage of democratic backsliding: creeping authoritarianism. His ascent was marked by subtle but significant shifts in political rhetoric, norms, and the use of power, often cloaked in populist appeals that resonated with large segments of the American public. While Trump's policies and actions at the time did not immediately dismantle democratic institutions, they laid the groundwork for further erosion, making it easier for future justification of actions that would weaken democratic norms.
At the heart of this early stage of backsliding were Trump's rhetorical strategies, which increasingly blurred the lines between populism and authoritarianism. From his first campaign for president in 2015 to his re-election, Trump consistently portrayed the political system as deeply corrupt, and himself as the sole outsider capable of "draining the swamp." This portrayal was central to his appeal: he cast the government, the media, and the political elites as enemies of the people, framing his actions as necessary to break down entrenched systems of power. This rhetoric, while popular among his base, was divisive and painted political discourse in a binary fashion, where the establishment (including political opponents) was to be vilified, and dissent was often framed as unpatriotic or illegitimate.
As Trump ascended to the presidency, his administration began to implement small but significant changes that subtly eroded democratic norms. These actions were often justified under the guise of making government more efficient or fighting corruption. For example, Trump’s frequent attacks on the media as "fake news" and "the enemy of the people" were not just a matter of partisan rhetoric but a direct assault on the role of a free press in holding the government accountable. By undermining trust in the media, Trump worked to weaken one of the key checks on executive power.
Trump repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the judicial branch, especially when rulings did not align with his administration's goals. He labeled judges as "Obama judges" or "so-called judges," implying their decisions were politically motivated rather than rooted in legal reasoning. This rhetoric aimed to undermine public trust in the independence of the judiciary, a foundational pillar of democratic checks and balances.
Under Trump’s administration, there was a noticeable shift in how the Department of Justice (DOJ) handled cases involving Trump allies and critics. For example, Attorney General William Barr intervened in cases involving Trump’s associates, like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, both of whom were convicted of crimes related to Trump’s campaign. Barr’s actions raised concerns about the impartiality of the DOJ, suggesting that loyalty to the president might influence prosecutorial decisions, thus eroding the rule of law.
During the summer of 2020, amid nationwide protests following George Floyd’s death, Trump deployed federal law enforcement officers to cities like Portland. These officers, often without clear identification, were used to disperse protesters, raising fears that federal forces were being deployed as a show of political strength. Critics argued that this move undermined local control and used federal power as a tool against political dissent.
In terms of institutional changes, Trump’s administration pushed for alterations that concentrated more power in the executive branch. The use of executive orders became a frequent method for bypassing legislative processes, sidelining Congress, and advancing controversial policies without proper scrutiny or debate. For instance, his administration's efforts to implement policies such as the travel ban (targeting Muslim-majority countries) and the separation of migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border were often done without full legislative support, instead relying on executive authority. These actions often pitted the president directly against the judiciary, with Trump criticizing judges who ruled against his policies, casting doubt on their legitimacy, and further fueling the idea that certain branches of government (including the judiciary) were biased or politically motivated.
Moreover, Trump’s approach to party politics also contributed to the creeping authoritarianism. He consistently weakened traditional party structures by focusing power on himself and undermining dissent within his own party. His influence over the Republican Party grew so strong that members who had previously been critical of his actions were coerced into loyalty, a tactic that created an environment where party leaders would often prioritize allegiance to Trump over the Constitution or democratic principles.
Trump’s populist rhetoric also framed his agenda as a battle between the “real” American people and the elites, thereby cultivating a highly polarized political environment. This dynamic undermined trust in institutions that rely on cooperation, compromise, and legitimacy. His repeated insinuations that the 2020 election would be "rigged" and his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power reflected a growing trend of undermining core democratic processes, even though these actions had no immediate legal consequences during his presidency.
In essence, Trump’s emergence as a political force fits the pattern of creeping authoritarianism because it involved incremental changes that, over time, began to shift the balance of power, erode institutional trust, and create a culture where democratic norms were treated with increasing disregard. These early signs of authoritarianism were subtle enough to be dismissed by many at the time but ultimately set the stage for more direct assaults on democratic processes, particularly in the years following his presidency.
By the time of the 2020 election and the subsequent January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the groundwork laid by Trump’s rhetoric and actions had culminated in a full-scale assault on the integrity of American democracy. While creeping authoritarianism often begins with small steps, in Trump's case, these actions were significant enough to fundamentally challenge the public's confidence in democratic processes, creating a direct pathway for further erosion of democratic norms, and leaving a legacy that continues to shape political discourse in the U.S. today.
Throughout Trump's first presidency, his administration transitioned from the early stage of creeping authoritarianism—characterized by populist rhetoric and subtle changes to democratic norms—to a more advanced stage of subjugating oversight bodies and institutions, where he actively sought to weaken or neutralize checks on his power. This shift was marked by a series of actions aimed at undermining the independence of key institutions that would normally hold an executive accountable, including the judiciary, the media, and various government agencies. As the second stage of democratic backsliding unfolded, Trump systematically attacked and sought to co-opt these oversight mechanisms, consolidating more power in the executive branch and reducing transparency and accountability.
One of the key features of Trump’s presidency was his hostility toward the judiciary, particularly when its rulings did not align with his political agenda. He frequently criticized judges who ruled against his administration's policies, especially when it came to controversial issues like the Muslim travel ban and his immigration policies. Trump's rhetoric was aimed at delegitimizing judicial authority, calling judges “so-called” and attacking them for their perceived political bias. This was part of a broader strategy to weaken trust in independent institutions that could constrain executive action.
Trump's efforts to stack the judiciary with loyalists were also a significant part of his strategy. Through the appointment of three Supreme Court justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—Trump transformed the judiciary, particularly the highest court, which tilted further to the right and potentially aligned with his political priorities. His administration also filled lower federal courts with a record number of conservative judges, many of whom were selected for their ideological loyalty rather than legal expertise. By shaping the judiciary with a cohort of judges sympathetic to his agenda, Trump reduced the likelihood that courts would serve as an effective check on his power.
Trump's attempts to undermine independent government agencies were another hallmark of the second stage of backsliding. He sought to weaken the independence of agencies responsible for enforcing laws, regulations, and holding the government accountable. A notable example was the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which under Trump was led by Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist who rolled back numerous environmental protections. Similarly, the Department of Justice became a tool for Trump’s political interests, with Trump’s pressure on Attorney General William Barr to pursue politically motivated investigations—such as launching inquiries into his political opponents—highlighting his attempts to bend law enforcement to his will.
In addition to these actions, Trump sought to exert control over the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, often using them for his political purposes or publicly attacking their leadership when investigations were not going his way. The most dramatic example of this was the firing of FBI Director James Comey in 2017, a move widely viewed as an attempt to shut down the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential ties between his campaign and Russia. This action further exemplified Trump’s willingness to undermine critical oversight bodies when they investigated or threatened his political power.
One of the most persistent features of Trump’s second stage of backsliding was his relentless attacks on the media. From the beginning of his campaign, Trump used populist rhetoric to discredit the media, branding outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post as “fake news” and “enemies of the people.” These attacks were not just isolated outbursts but part of a sustained effort to delegitimize the press as an institution and prevent it from fulfilling its role as a check on governmental power. Trump’s rhetoric set a tone that allowed others in his administration and among his supporters to follow suit in attacking the media.
During his presidency, Trump’s administration took actions designed to further undermine the media’s independence. Critical reporters faced harassment, threats, and legal action, and many outlets faced financial pressures. The Trump administration often targeted journalists who exposed uncomfortable truths, including investigations into the Russia scandal, his financial dealings, and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, his attempts to discredit media outlets also had broader consequences for public trust in the media, as many of his supporters began to dismiss factual reporting as biased or politically motivated.
Trump's efforts to subvert the democratic process reached a peak with his attacks on the electoral system, particularly after the 2020 presidential election. Throughout his presidency and especially in the aftermath of his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, Trump pushed false claims of election fraud and sought to undermine the legitimacy of the election. His baseless accusations were accompanied by attempts to pressure local officials to overturn the results and declare him the winner. Trump’s actions to undermine confidence in the electoral system were one of the most direct attacks on democratic institutions, as they were designed not just to subvert the will of the people but to weaken the checks on executive power that free and fair elections represent.
Perhaps the most visible and dangerous manifestation of these efforts was the January 6, 2021, insurrection, when a mob of Trump supporters, egged on by his rhetoric, stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the electoral results. While Trump did not directly order the attack, his actions in inciting the mob—coupled with his continued refusal to accept the election results—represented a direct assault on the institutions responsible for overseeing the democratic process. This event was a dramatic culmination of his broader strategy of eroding trust in democratic oversight bodies, the media, and the electoral system itself.
As democratic backsliding progresses, the systematic suppression of political opposition becomes a defining feature, and in this regard, Donald Trump’s recent rhetoric and actions have mirrored the kind of tactics often seen in declining democracies. Trump has not only threatened to use state power against his political opponents but has also made overt calls for retribution, reflecting a dangerous disregard for democratic norms and principles. This stage of backsliding, which involves the use of legal and extra-legal means to stifle opposition, undermines the core tenets of democracy by removing electoral competition, silencing dissent, and consolidating power in the hands of a single leader or party.
In recent years, particularly after his loss in the 2020 presidential election, Trump has openly discussed and even called for actions that would directly target his political rivals, an alarming sign of his growing authoritarian tendencies. In various speeches and public statements, he has suggested that political opponents should be disqualified from elections, criminally prosecuted, or even jailed. His rhetoric has been increasingly focused on framing his opponents as enemies of the state, often describing investigations into his own actions—such as those related to the January 6 insurrection or his alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election—as politically motivated witch hunts. In doing so, Trump has sought to discredit both the legal system and the media, which he has often accused of unfairly attacking him and his allies.
Perhaps most concerning is Trump’s explicit threats to use the National Guard and other military resources to suppress political opposition. In the wake of the 2020 election and the subsequent protests, Trump repeatedly raised the possibility of deploying the National Guard to quash dissent. His comments about using military force to “restore order” were aimed not only at curbing protests against his policies but also at intimidating those who were challenging the legitimacy of his leadership. Trump’s call to bring in the National Guard reflects a broader authoritarian impulse to use security forces as a tool of political control, rather than to protect democracy or uphold the rule of law.
This kind of rhetoric—calling for the use of force against political opponents and dissenters—fits into the broader pattern of authoritarianism seen in countries where democratic institutions are in decline. By threatening to use the National Guard or similar forces, Trump implied that civilian protests and opposition could be violently repressed, effectively nullifying public dissent and ensuring that only his voice and that of his supporters would be heard. It’s a tactic that aims to chill political discourse, intimidate activists, and prevent the mobilization of any opposition, turning democratic spaces into sites of repression rather than open debate.
Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric also fits into a broader pattern of attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process. His repeated baseless claims that the 2020 election was "stolen" not only delegitimized his opponents but cast doubt on the integrity of the entire democratic process. He has called for the arrest of various public figures, including political rivals, journalists, and members of the legal system, who have exposed or investigated his actions, threatening to turn the legal system into a weapon for political retribution. This is consistent with the kinds of legal and extra-legal measures employed by leaders who systematically suppress opposition, often using the state’s power to coerce, intimidate, or eliminate political adversaries.
In addition, Trump's calls for action against dissent have raised serious concerns about the future of civil society in the U.S. Like in other countries where democratic backsliding has occurred, Trump has used his platform to undermine the role of civil society organizations, labeling them as “radical left” or “enemy” groups when they challenge his policies. He has made repeated attacks on peaceful protests, often attempting to discredit the movements or individuals involved. These attacks on activism and civil society create an environment where it becomes increasingly difficult for citizens to organize and mobilize against abuses of power, further stifling opposition and dissent.
By targeting political opponents, undermining the legal system, and using inflammatory rhetoric to suppress dissent, Trump has demonstrated a pattern that mirrors the early stages of authoritarian regimes. His actions signal a desire to consolidate power and suppress the very democratic processes that allow for opposition, critical discourse, and electoral competition. This kind of systematic suppression of political opposition effectively weakens the democratic fabric of a nation, turning the political system from one of vibrant competition and debate into a mechanism of control. The repeated threats to use military or legal means against political adversaries are a stark reminder of the fragility of democracy and how quickly democratic norms can erode when leaders no longer respect the rules that govern free and fair political competition.
In the final stages of democratic backsliding, the transition from a fragile democracy to outright authoritarianism becomes obvious. At this point, the veneer of democratic governance—such as elections and representative institutions—begins to fade, and a more consolidated, autocratic regime takes shape. This is a stage where the leader or ruling party holds unquestioned control over the state, and democratic norms and institutions no longer serve their intended purpose of checks, balances, or accountability.
In this phase, elections may still occur, but they lose all meaningful connection to democratic principles. Rather than offering a genuine choice, elections become a facade—designed primarily to legitimize the regime’s power and create the appearance of popular support. Election results are either manipulated or tightly controlled, and any opposition is either banned, silenced, or neutralized long before the polls open. The idea that elections reflect the will of the people is rendered meaningless, as the ruling party ensures that only loyalists hold power, often through gerrymandering, media control, or even outright intimidation of voters and candidates.
Laws and policies, meanwhile, are no longer subject to the checks and balances of the legislative process. The ruling party or leader may rule by decree, bypassing Congress or the courts altogether, passing laws unilaterally to strengthen their grip on power. The separation of powers collapses, and any independent institutions that could hold the government accountable—such as the judiciary, the media, and civil society organizations—are either co-opted or eliminated.
Dissent and opposition become not just politically inconvenient but criminalized. Activists, journalists, and opposition leaders are harassed, arrested, or silenced through legal means, or in some cases, through violent repression. Protests, once a democratic right, are met with force by security forces—often framed as necessary for "public order" or "national security." Civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, are severely restricted, and anyone who challenges the regime risks imprisonment, torture, or worse.
In this climate, citizens feel increasingly powerless. There are few avenues left for political participation or recourse against the government. The media is no longer an independent voice but a tool of the regime, and elections are little more than a rubber stamp for decisions already made behind closed doors. Democratic institutions—once the foundation of a functioning republic—become hollowed out, often transforming into mere instruments of control for the ruling party. Checks on executive power are stripped away, and the separation of powers is reduced to an illusion.
For the United States, this final stage represents the complete collapse of the democratic system, where a consolidated regime governs unchecked, and the rule of law is replaced by the whims of a single leader or party. While the country has not reached this point, the warnings are clear—efforts to undermine electoral integrity, weaken independent institutions, and suppress dissent through force or legal means signal the potential for democratic decay. Should these trends continue unchecked, the United States could face the erosion of the very institutions that have upheld its democracy for over two centuries.
Throughout history, we've seen how unchecked power and the erosion of democratic institutions can transform a country’s government from one built on principles of representation and accountability to one dominated by authoritarian or oligarchic interests. Russia serves as a compelling example. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was briefly on a path toward a democratic system. However, in the 1990s, an elite few quickly seized control of the nation’s wealth and resources, leading to the rise of powerful oligarchs whose interests were closely intertwined with those of the government. When Vladimir Putin came to power, he consolidated control by weakening independent institutions and forging alliances with these wealthy elites, thereby turning Russia into an oligarchic system where political power and economic influence were concentrated in the hands of a few.
Putin’s Russia exemplifies how democracy can decay into an oligarchy. As Putin strengthened his control, he co-opted wealthy business leaders, bringing them into his inner circle and positioning them as both financial supporters and beneficiaries of his regime. Independent media was silenced, critics were persecuted or exiled, and the judiciary became a tool for political repression rather than an arbiter of justice. Over time, Russia became a state where economic elites and political leaders were inseparable, their power tightly consolidated around Putin, leaving ordinary citizens with little influence.
In the United States, Trump’s alignment with individuals like Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, raises alarms about similar dynamics emerging. While Musk’s wealth and influence are tied to private enterprise, his ventures intersect with national interests—space exploration, artificial intelligence, transportation, and communications—fields that impact both government policy and national security. Musk’s public support for Trump, his sway over major communication platforms like X, and his strategic positioning in sectors pivotal to U.S. infrastructure and defense paint a picture of a modern-day oligarch in the making.
Trump’s attacks on democratic norms—such as delegitimizing the media, undermining trust in elections, and politicizing independent institutions—set the stage for an America that could increasingly resemble Russia. By creating relationships with influential billionaires like Musk, Trump fosters a coalition of elite allies who could, over time, shape government policy to suit their interests, potentially at the expense of democratic accountability. This consolidation of wealth and influence risks creating an environment where corporate power and political authority are deeply entwined, gradually shifting the balance of power away from democratic governance.
If these trends continue, the United States could see a diminishing role for institutions that are supposed to represent and protect the public, from an independent judiciary to a free press. The model is clear: a handful of ultra-wealthy individuals, intertwined with political leadership, holding both the economic and political power to govern unchecked. Just as Putin’s consolidation of power in Russia transformed the country into a pseudo-democratic oligarchy, the United States could face a similar fate, where democracy erodes not through a single dramatic event, but through a series of incremental shifts.
