Concerns over autocracy in the U.S. continue to grow – NPR

Lead: As the United States approaches the 2026 midterm elections, scholars and civic observers are increasingly warning that democratic norms are under strain. In February 2026, analysts from research institutes and universities described steps by the federal government and related political actors that, they say, fit patterns of “electoral autocracy” or competitive authoritarianism. Specific incidents cited include public threats to media companies, a proposal to use military training in U.S. cities, mass enforcement actions and federal lawsuits seeking state voter data. The cumulative effect, experts warn, could tilt electoral competition unless institutional checks and public backlash reassert democratic constraints.

Key Takeaways

• V-Dem Institute Director Staffan I. Lindberg described the U.S. as having crossed into “electoral autocracy,” a label indicating serious democratic erosion in 2025–26.
• Harvard’s Steven Levitsky said the country has “slid into a mild form of competitive authoritarianism,” citing attacks on media and aggressive rhetoric toward political opponents.
• Two incidents in September drew particular attention: an FCC official’s warning to Disney after a late-night host’s comments, and President Trump’s remark about using U.S. cities as training grounds for troops at Quantico.
• Federal enforcement actions provoked street protests in Los Angeles (Jan. 30–31) and national debate after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal agents in Minneapolis.
• The administration’s legal actions to obtain state voter files and public proposals to involve ICE at polling sites raised concerns about voter intimidation ahead of the November 2026 midterms.
• Some scholars, including Jonathan Turley, argue elements of the administration’s approach are intended to counter perceived institutional liberal bias rather than to install autocratic rule.
• Other analysts, such as Kurt Weyland, say U.S. institutions have shown resilience so far—late-night hosts returned to air and large-scale redistricting efforts produced limited gains for the ruling party.

Background

Democratic backsliding is a global phenomenon that scholars measure with indicators such as rule-of-law strength, media independence and the fairness of elections. The V-Dem Institute and other research centers track declines when governments erode civil liberties, weaponize institutions and restrict political competition while continuing to hold elections. Terms such as “electoral autocracy” and “competitive authoritarianism” describe systems where formal democratic procedures persist but the ruling side systematically advantages itself.

In the American context, worries have intensified during the 2024–26 period because of a mix of rhetoric, policy proposals and executive actions that critics say mirror tactics used by leaders elsewhere who weakened democratic checks. Defenders of the current administration frame many measures as efforts to correct perceived excesses from previous years—targeting media bias, securing borders and restoring executive reach. That debate is sharpened by recent, high-profile events that put institutional limits and public reactions on display.

Main Event

Observers point to two especially notable episodes in September that crystallized broader fears. First, an FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, publicly warned Disney after comments by Jimmy Kimmel, a moment critics cited as intimidation of a media outlet’s corporate parent. A week later, President Trump reportedly told military leaders at Quantico that U.S. cities should be used as training grounds for troops, using language about an “invasion from within” that commentators compared to Cold War–era authoritarian rhetoric.

In January, enforcement actions by federal immigration agents triggered protests in several cities, including large demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles on Jan. 30–31. Those protests intensified after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis, an event that produced immediate public backlash and prompted some federal officials to scale back operations in the state.

Parallel to those events, the administration has pursued legal routes to obtain voter files from states, and high-profile allies publicly proposed deploying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel near polling places to deter ineligible voting. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly said she had not heard the president discuss using ICE at ballots, and federal law limits certain enforcement actions at polling sites; nonetheless the suggestion raised widespread alarm among voting-rights advocates and scholars.

Analysis & Implications

The debate among scholars centers on whether these developments amount to an entrenched slide toward autocracy or a reversible period of aggressive executive expansion. Those who see a structural shift point to the combination of rhetoric, legal maneuvers and enforcement that can cumulatively degrade competitive fairness—especially if used to suppress turnout among groups that lean opposition. Even absent outright election-nullifying acts, repeated pressure on independent media, courts and election administration can produce long-term effects on democratic quality.

Conversely, other analysts emphasize institutional resilience. Courts, civic institutions, state officials and public backlash have at times blunted or reversed executive initiatives. Examples cited include the rapid restoration of a late-night host to air and limited success in comprehensive redistricting efforts meant to pre-empt future House competitiveness. These responses indicate that checks—both formal and informal—remain active and capable of constraining overreach.

For the 2026 midterms, key vulnerabilities include legal access to voter records, the risk of intimidating enforcement at polling places, and efforts to delegitimize media and civic institutions. If these tactics are pursued systematically, they could reduce participation among affected communities or distort information environments. However, legal prohibitions, active civil society organizing and potential political costs also mean that such strategies carry risks for the actors employing them.

Comparison & Data

The table is a qualitative comparison highlighting patterns scholars cite when diagnosing democratic erosion: institutional capture, legal manipulation, and tactics that suppress opposition activity. While Hungary under Viktor Orbán involved explicit legal redesigns and media consolidation, U.S. analysts stress that the American system still retains stronger institutional fragmentation and robust civic pushback—factors that could limit or reverse backsliding if mobilized.

Reactions & Quotes

Leading democracy scholars framed the developments as more than partisan disputes. Their assessments drew on historical analogies and comparative research to underline risk.

“I would argue that the United States in 2025–26 has slid into a mild form of competitive authoritarianism.”

Steven Levitsky, Harvard University (academic)

This assessment reflects Levitsky’s view that systematic pressures—attacks on press freedom, judicial threats and voter-affecting tactics—collectively shape a political environment where incumbents hold an advantage despite formal elections. He and others say the trend is not irreversible but requires active institutional and civic response.

Regulatory officials’ statements have been read by critics as signaling coercive intent toward private media companies.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

Brendan Carr, FCC (regulator)

Carr’s comment to Disney after a late-night host’s remarks was widely cited by observers as an example of pressure that could chill independent journalism. Supporters argued the comment targeted perceived corporate irresponsibility rather than free expression; opponents saw it as intimidation of press freedom.

White House spokespeople and some legal scholars emphasized legal constraints and alternative motives.

“I’ve never heard the president discuss deploying ICE to polling places.”

Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary (official)

Leavitt’s denial came after public proposals by allies to use ICE near polling sites. Legal scholars note federal restrictions on enforcement at polling places, but warn that even raised possibilities can deter turnout among immigrant and minority communities.

Unconfirmed

• The full extent and operational planning behind any proposal to deploy ICE at polling places remain unclear and have not been substantiated by internal memos or formal orders.
• The administration’s intent for requested state voter data—whether for legitimate election administration or for targeted use—is contested and lacks definitive public documentation of malicious use.
• Reports that military training in U.S. cities would be routinely used to police civilians reflect remarks by officials but do not show an enacted, formal policy authorizing domestic troop deployments for internal enforcement.

Bottom Line

The United States faces a contested moment: several incidents and policy moves have prompted prominent scholars to warn of democratic erosion, while defenders and some analysts point to institutional pushback and legal limits that so far have constrained lasting damage. The difference between a temporary crisis and a structural slide will depend on legal rulings, state-level actions, media resilience and citizen mobilization in the months ahead.

For voters and institutions, the immediate watchpoints are attempts to access or manipulate voter data, any enforcement activity near polling places, and sustained pressure on independent media and the judiciary. The November 2026 midterms will be an important test of whether American democratic safeguards can absorb and repel these pressures, or whether cumulative effects will reshape competitive fairness.

Sources

• NPR — news reporting and interviews (journalism)
• V-Dem Institute — democracy research institute (research)
• Steven Levitsky profile — academic commentary (academic)