Scholars Warn U.S. Is Slipping Toward Electoral Autocracy Ahead of Midterms

Top scholars now judge the U.S. to be exhibiting serious signs of electoral autocracy, and they place the next major test at the November midterm elections. Evidence cited includes targeted pressure on media conglomerates, legal actions aimed at voter rolls, and political rhetoric proposing domestic military-type deployments — trends that together could skew electoral integrity.

The Swedish V-Dem Institute director is among those who assert the country has crossed a threshold. Harvard’s Steven Levitsky describes a shift toward what political scientists label competitive authoritarianism, though he and others say reversal remains feasible with sufficient institutional pushback.

Analysts point to a cluster of provocative episodes last September as indicators, including public regulatory warnings to a major broadcaster and a presidential address recommending that generals treat internal unrest like an invasion. Those incidents, combined with efforts to obtain state voter files and proposals to use immigration enforcement near polling places, form a coherent tactical pattern.

Scholars warning about autocratic drift draw a direct line to classic tactics: constraining independent media, leveraging legal instruments to weaken opposition, and intimidating voters of color and naturalized citizens. The comparison to tactics used by illiberal leaders abroad is not casual; researchers cite past abuses of administrative power to disenfranchise diaspora voters as a cautionary parallel.

Not all academics agree on severity. Some argue the U.S. system has demonstrated resilience: federal and state courts, diverse newsrooms, and public backlash have in several instances blunted controversial moves. Examples cited include the rapid restoration of a popular late-night television host and the limited success of mass redistricting plans that sought to entrench advantage.

A discrete political miscalculation — federal agents’ fatal use of force in Minneapolis — is singled out as a constraint on harder-line tactics, producing visible public outrage and reducing political latitude for escalation. That episode illustrates how operational missteps can close off tools that would otherwise expand executive influence.

The near-term risk centers on administrative and legal maneuvers that could depress turnout or complicate ballot access. Observers highlight the danger of well-organized interventions at polling sites, strategic litigation over voter databases, and regulatory pressure on platform distribution as pressure points to monitor.

Institutional defenders include state election officials, the judiciary, media organizations, and civic groups. Their responses in the coming months will determine whether episodic norm violations calcify into durable structural changes. Scholars emphasize that repeated norm erosion raises long-term structural risks even if short-term reversals occur.

For analysts and practitioners tracking democratic health, the most consequential indicators to watch are concrete and measurable: court rulings affecting ballot access, lawsuits over voter data, regulatory penalties or threats to major media owners, and any official directives expanding enforcement presence at polling sites. Those indicators carry immediate implications for electoral fairness.

Overall, the debate now pivots from theoretical labels to empirical monitoring. The argument that democratic backsliding is underway has moved from fringe to mainstream among comparative politics specialists, prompting calls for targeted oversight and rapid documentation of election-related interventions.