Democracy in the United States: What We’ll See in 2025

As the United States faces a closely contested general election, Freedom House has highlighted the potential democratic risks surrounding the process – from intimidation of poll workers, to post-election efforts to obstruct vote certification, to political violence – and promote important ways to reduce these risks.

But as an organization that has been assessing political rights and civil liberties in more than 200 countries and territories for more than half a century, we also look beyond the election and into the broader story of America’s democratic decline. Over the past 13 years, the United States has fallen by 11 points in our 100 points Freedom in the world index, which now lags far behind long-standing democratic nations that were previously our peers. There are many signs of erosion: including worsening gridlock in Congress, declining confidence in democratic institutions, and the attack on our democracy on January 6, 2021. The causes are complex and systemic, and include deepening political polarization, persistent inequality and a rapidly changing media environment.

Regardless of the results of the upcoming elections, Freedom House will continue to assess the United States, along with the rest of the world, and advocate for the protection of rights and the safeguarding and renewal of our democracy. We have done this as part of our fierce commitment to the impartial defense of freedom and democracy worldwide for more than 80 years, including exposing the excesses of McCarthyism at home while fighting communism abroad, and condemning Jim Crow-era, Watergate-era racial segregation. abuse of power and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. We will continue to do this, without fear or favor.

Challenges to American democracy that we will be watching include the following.

Fewer restrictions on executive power

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump vs. United States a broad new regime of presidential immunity from criminal liability was established. Like us noted following the decision, the new immunity rules go far beyond the typical protections for leaders in other democracies absolute immunity from a potentially wide range of presidential actions. In doing so, they undermine an important deterrent to a range of criminal abuses of office – such as corruption and fraud – that every other public office holder rightly faces.

The decision could also lead to a broader deterioration of congressional and judicial checks on presidential power, given the Court’s expansive interpretation of presidential “core powers” that cannot be contained by the other two branches of the government. It is not clearWhether Congress is now more limited than before in using its legislative and oversight powers to ensure accountability in federal agencies such as the Department of Justice or Defense.

Moreover, the decision appears to have removed an important deterrent against the Department of Justice influencing or even directing individual investigations and prosecutions. This could allow future presidents to more easily target their perceived political opponents with criminal investigations — just as former President Trump at least tried to do. dozens of timesand has promised to do again if elected.

Damage to public space

While the United States has some of the strongest protections in the world for freedom of expression, association and assembly, Freedom House is watching with concern a series of recent developments that could erode these rights in practice. At the federal level, politically unfavorable nonprofits have recently faced disruptive conferences to research on questionable grounds. Meanwhile, there are a handful of pending bills and overly broad existing laws that could allow the government to politically target the nonprofit status of organizations, demand sensitive information about their beneficiaries, or even require them to register as foreign register agents.

At state level 21 states have enacted restrictive anti-protest laws in recent years, including measures that impose extreme penalties for protest-related crimes and could facilitate vigilante actions against demonstrators. And in many states –Florida And CaliforniaFor example, governments have targeted the business community with costly policy changes, apparently in response to business leaders’ views on public issues.

Confidence in the judge is decreasing

The United States has a strong tradition of the rule of law and an independent judiciary. But in recent years, increasingly partisan federal judicial nomination and confirmation processes, a series of ideologically divisive Supreme Court decisions, and public concern about perceived conflicts of interest within the Supreme Court have contributed to a significant decline in public confidence in both the judiciary and the judiciary. general and the Supreme Court specifically. In many states, judges are chosen through elections, and the increase in campaign fundraising and party involvement in these elections over the past two decades has increased the threat of bias and favoritism in state courts.

The downward trend in public confidence in the courts may further contribute to reduced public confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law.

Increasing political violence and anti-democratic behavior

Over the past decade, acts of political violence in the United States have increased dramatically. In the past few months alone, former President Trump has been the target of two assassination attempts. While the attackers’ motives remain vague, there is broader political violence trends show that ideologically motivated attacks, associated with both the far left and the far right, have increased since 2016 – although a significantly greater number come from the far right.

During the same period, the country saw an unprecedented attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, which was also marked by political violence, and continued attempts by Trump and some of his political allies to excuse that violence, refuse to accept the results of the elections and spread false and misleading information claims about the risks of widespread fraud in US elections.

These challenges of increasing political violence and anti-democratic behavior are interconnected excessive role that political leaders play a role in shaping public rejection – or acceptance – of such behavior. This makes it particularly important for leaders to expose violations coming from their own party.

The underlying challenge of polarization

Many of these risks have their origins in the increasing political polarization in the United States, which is increasingly characterized by Americans’ mutual dislike and distrust of members of the opposing political party. This so-called ‘affective’ polarization has dangerous consequences for democracy. Surveys show that Americans across the political spectrum are increasingly probably to scale back their own commitment to democratic values ​​and behavior if it means advancing “their side.”

We will see promising efforts to address America’s polarization problem, including state-level experiments with electoral reforms that could reduce incentives for zero-sum politics, and efforts to increase investments in civic and media literacy education, national service opportunities, and local and independent media.