Experts warn of potential slide toward competitive authoritarianism in US politics

U.S. democracy faces what scholars describe as a potential slide into competitive authoritarianism, according to Vox’s analysis of a string of moves associated with the Trump administration. Recent actions, including a deal to spin off TikTok USA into MAGA-friendly ownership, threats to use the RICO anti-racketeering law against liberal nonprofits, and the use of a little-known FCC rule to threaten broadcast licenses over late-night programs such as Jimmy Kimmel, are cited as evidence of a pattern: policy choices that shrink the financial and civil-society base that sustains competitive politics, while keeping elections formally intact.

Competitive authoritarianism differs from outright dictatorship. It depends on bending or twisting the law to undermine the opposition’s ability to compete fairly in elections. Opponents face burdensome tax audits, investigations, and uneven enforcement of campaign finance rules. It also targets donors, activist groups, and independent media that support the opposition, so that even if elections are held, the opposition is too weak to threaten governance.

Observers identify four areas to watch for movement toward this model. First, Trump’s purge of career civil servants in key agencies, using hiring and firing powers to tilt enforcement and regulatory decisions. Second, the use of the now-Trumpified agencies to target dissent in civil society and in higher education, including action against universities. Third, pressure on large corporations to align with the regime, concentrating economic power in the hands of allies who depend on the White House for survival. Fourth, the accumulation of power to tilt elections into contests that look free but are structurally unfair to the opposition.

Thus far, the first area has seen the most concrete progress. Officials who run agencies have shown a greater willingness to align with White House priorities, while American civil society remains vibrant, and large corporations and the independent press still retain substantial independence. But observers warn the second and third areas are where risks are growing, with authorities moving against civil-society voices and pressuring business actors to cooperate with the regime.

That assessment has inspired talk of emergency-level responses. The slide toward competitive authoritarianism, experts say, depends on broad acquiescence — a public willingness to endure small erosions of liberty until a consolidated power is within reach. The strategy of ‘salami slicing’ — removing tiny parts of democracy one by one by targeting a specific person or group — complicates efforts to mobilize a unified defense. Advocates urge sustained, cross-sector action: more senators openly defending democratic norms, business groups resisting directives that chill independent institutions, donors supporting anti-authoritarian causes and legal defenses, and a robust, persistent media focus on cases such as the Kimmel episode. Citizens can also participate in protests and volunteer with organizations under threat, including those involved in campaigns scheduled for 2026 elections.

Despite the concerns, experts emphasize that the trajectory is not fixed. The direction will hinge on public resolve, institutional resistance, and political dynamics in the coming years. While the path toward competitive authoritarianism is a warning, many say there is still space to push back and preserve the integrity of democratic processes.