Authoritarian Risk Dashboard
Tracking Democratic Erosion
Early warning system monitoring potential authoritarian shifts in the Trump Administration (2025)
Sign Up for Alerts
Dashboard Overview - August 2025
The Authoritarian Risk Dashboard provides a systematic assessment of democratic erosion in the United States, tracking key indicators that signal potential authoritarian shifts. This monitoring system is designed to provide policymakers, journalists, and citizens with evidence-based analysis of threats to constitutional governance.
Current Assessment: Elevated Risk
Five of eight key indicators now show 🔶 Amber warnings, indicating significant erosion of democratic guardrails across multiple sectors of government.
While we have not yet observed a decisive break with constitutional norms (🔴 Red), the breadth of amber warnings suggests coordinated pressure on democratic institutions.
Our dashboard uses a traffic light system to indicate risk levels:
Green
Functioning within democratic guardrails despite tensions.
Amber
Significant erosion evident, trend toward authoritarian practices.
Red
Decisive break with constitutional norms.
Analysis is based on verified reporting from multiple credible sources, including major news outlets, policy institutions, and legal experts. Our confidence assessments reflect both the quantity and quality of available evidence.
🔶 AMBER: Schedule F – Civil Service Purge
The reinstatement of Executive Order 13957 ("Schedule F") in early 2025 represents perhaps the most consequential structural threat to democratic governance currently underway. This executive action creates a new employment category for federal employees in "policy-influencing positions," effectively stripping them of decades-old civil service protections. Our analysis indicates a significant and expanding risk:
Executive Order Reinstated
On January 22, 2025, Executive Order 13957, establishing "Schedule F," was formally reinstated and expanded. This action reclassifies specific federal positions, removing civil service protections for career employees deemed to be in "policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating" roles.
Broadened Scope & Reclassification
In April 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued internal guidance further broadening the definition of "policy-influencing," allowing agencies to reclassify potentially over 50,000 career civil servants, including economists, scientists, lawyers, and program managers, into this new category.
Targeted Agencies & Purge Infrastructure
By August 2025, departments such as Justice (DOJ), State, Energy, Homeland Security (DHS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have initiated internal processes to identify and draft preliminary lists of positions for reclassification, actively building the framework for a widespread ideological purge.
"The Schedule F reclassification effort is unprecedented in scale. Unlike normal political appointments numbering around 4,000, this could affect 50,000+ positions, essentially converting large segments of the professional civil service into political appointees loyal to one individual rather than to the Constitution." — Brennan Center for Justice
While mass firings have not yet occurred, the infrastructure for a wholesale purge of non-loyal civil servants is being rapidly established, with initial reclassifications expected by Q4 2025. Several legal challenges, including lawsuits filed by public sector unions and advocacy groups in March 2025, are pending in federal courts, but agencies are proceeding with implementation plans.
This indicator remains Amber as we are witnessing the critical transition from framework to active implementation, posing a significant and immediate threat to the professional, non-partisan civil service that serves as a cornerstone of democratic governance.
🔶 AMBER: Impoundment / Pocket Rescissions
Foreign Aid Rescission
$4.9 billion in congressionally appropriated foreign aid has been "rescinded" through administrative delays and freezes, despite the Supreme Court's Nixon-era ruling against impoundment.
GAO Challenges
The Government Accountability Office has issued legal opinions that these rescissions violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but these determinations have been dismissed by the administration.
Further Freezes Planned
White House officials have indicated more extensive rescissions are being prepared for domestic programs, particularly environmental enforcement, voting rights initiatives, and research grants.
The administration's withholding of congressionally appropriated funds represents a direct challenge to Congress's constitutional "power of the purse." Unlike previous administrations that have occasionally delayed spending, this appears to be a systematic effort to nullify congressional funding decisions without legislative approval.
Particularly concerning is the administration's response to GAO findings that these actions violate federal law. Rather than adjusting course, officials have publicly dismissed these determinations and continued the practice, establishing a concerning precedent of executive power superseding legislative authority.
The Amber rating reflects that while this practice directly challenges a core constitutional principle, it has thus far been limited to select policy areas rather than becoming a government-wide approach. However, the normalization of this practice and public statements suggesting expansion indicate a concerning trajectory.
🔶 AMBER: National Guard Deployments
The deployment of National Guard units in domestic contexts has significantly expanded beyond traditional disaster response or riot control situations. Units are currently active in Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, with administration officials floating potential deployments to additional cities citing "restoration of order" despite local officials' objections.
What distinguishes current deployments from historical precedent is the presence of armed patrols in non-riot contexts and their extended duration. In Washington D.C., National Guard units have maintained a continuous presence for over 60 days, initially deployed for a protest that lasted only two days.
Constitutional scholars have raised concerns about several aspects of these deployments:
Local Control Overridden
Federal authority overriding local control without clear emergency justification.
Federal Command
Units operating under federal rather than state command in multiple locations.
Vague Missions
Mission parameters extending beyond specific incidents to ongoing "deterrence."
Blurring Restrictions
Integration with federal law enforcement blurring posse comitatus restrictions.
The situation remains Amber rather than Red because deployments have not yet been explicitly used to suppress political opposition or been deployed nationwide. However, the normalization of military presence in civilian contexts represents a significant stress on traditional guardrails separating military and civilian law enforcement.

Military historians note that the incremental normalization of military presence in civilian contexts has been a common precursor to more aggressive domestic use of military forces in countries experiencing democratic backsliding.
🔶 AMBER: Retaliatory Use of DOJ / Agencies
IRS Audit Surge
In March 2025, IRS audit rates spiked 400% for nonprofit organizations that criticized administration policies.
Security Clearance Revocations
By April 2025, security clearances were revoked for 37 career officials who had served as witnesses in previous investigations.
DOJ Office Raids
June 2025 saw the DOJ raid the offices of an election attorney who had represented an opposition campaign.
Media Threats
In July 2025, administration officials threatened antitrust investigations against media companies publishing critical coverage.
Law Firm Scrutiny
By August 2025, major law firms representing opposition figures received letters regarding "compliance investigations."
A systematic pattern of using government agencies' investigative and regulatory powers against critics has emerged. Unlike routine enforcement actions, these cases share key characteristics that suggest political targeting: they disproportionately affect critics, often follow public criticism, lack traditional predication, and frequently involve unusual procedural irregularities.
Particularly concerning is the emerging pattern of pressure on law firms and legal representation. Multiple major law firms report receiving regulatory scrutiny after representing clients opposing administration policies, creating a chilling effect on legal representation – a cornerstone of rule of law.
The Amber rating reflects that while these actions represent serious misuse of government authority, they have not yet reached the scale of mass prosecutions of opposition figures seen in fully authoritarian systems. However, the systematic nature of these actions and their acceleration suggest a concerning trajectory that could rapidly deteriorate.
🔶 AMBER: Independent Oversight Weakened
The administration has significantly weakened independent oversight mechanisms that provide crucial checks on executive power. This erosion of oversight capacity is evident in two key areas:
Inspector General Independence Under Threat
  • The IG for the Department of Justice was placed on administrative leave after opening investigations into politicized prosecutions.
  • Three IGs have been replaced with acting officials who previously served in political roles within the administration.
  • Budget requests for IG offices conducting active investigations into administration officials have been targeted for significant cuts.
Administrative Pressure on Independent Organizations
  • New procurement rules effectively bar organizations that have criticized administration policies from receiving government contracts.
  • Federal grantmaking now includes loyalty provisions that extend beyond project parameters to organizational speech.
  • Government Accountability Office reports critical of administration programs have been publicly dismissed as "partisan" despite their nonpartisan status.
This indicator receives an Amber rating as these actions represent significant erosion of oversight capacity but have not yet comprehensively dismantled all independent oversight. The current pattern targets specific oversight bodies that pose immediate threats to administration interests rather than systematically eliminating all oversight structures.
🟢 GREEN: Insurrection Act Invocation
The Insurrection Act of 1807 grants the president authority to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, and rebellion. This power represents one of the few exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions, allowing federal military forces to be used for domestic law enforcement.
As of August 2025, the administration has not formally invoked the Insurrection Act. This remains a "green" indicator on our dashboard, signifying that this most extreme tool for domestic military deployment has not yet been utilized.
Despite this current "green" status, several developments suggest an increased risk of future invocation. These rising risk factors are being closely monitored:
Legal Interpretation Expanding
Legal memos circulating within the Department of Justice explore expanded interpretations of "insurrection" to potentially include policies like those of sanctuary cities.
Public References to the Act
White House officials have publicly referenced the Act when discussing potential responses to large-scale immigration protests, hinting at its consideration.
Updated Military Planning
Military planning documents, recently obtained through FOIA requests, include updated contingency plans specifically for domestic deployments.
The green rating reflects the current non-invocation status rather than an absence of future risk. Historical analysis indicates that the formal invocation of the Insurrection Act typically represents a late-stage development in democratic erosion, often following an earlier normalization of military presence in civilian contexts.
We continue to monitor rhetoric, legal preparations, and planning documents for any signs of increasing likelihood of invocation. Particular attention is focused on whether language redefining civil disobedience or political protest as "insurrection" gains traction within administrative legal opinions.
🟢 GREEN: Judiciary & Courts
The federal judiciary remains a functioning check on executive power, with courts actively hearing challenges to administrative actions. While no major rulings have yet been issued on the most significant constitutional questions, multiple cases are progressing through the system.
Judicial Independence Holding Strong
Key indicators of judicial independence include:
Temporary Restraining Orders
Courts continue to issue temporary restraining orders against certain administrative actions when plaintiffs demonstrate likelihood of success.
Bipartisan Judicial Oversight
Judges appointed by both parties are actively hearing cases challenging executive authority.
Supreme Court Review
The Supreme Court has accepted certiorari on an expedited basis for a case challenging the constitutionality of Schedule F.
Legal Justification Required
Lower courts continue to require the administration to provide legal justification for actions rather than deferring to executive authority claims.
Areas of Concern
While the judiciary remains functional, we note several concerning developments that bear monitoring:
Questioning Rulings
Administration officials have intensified rhetoric questioning the legitimacy of adverse rulings.
Security Threats to Judges
Several judges report receiving unprecedented security threats after ruling against administration policies.
Restricting Court Jurisdiction
The administration has floated proposals to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts in national security matters.
The Green rating reflects that despite these pressures, the judicial branch continues to function as a meaningful check on executive power, with courts actively hearing cases and issuing rulings based on legal rather than political considerations.
🟢 GREEN: Public Opinion
Disapprove of "Retribution" Agenda
Nearly two-thirds of Americans express concern about using government power against political opponents.
Support Judicial Checks
Majority believe courts should block unconstitutional executive actions regardless of popularity.
Concerned About Democracy
Majority see recent developments as threatening democratic institutions.
Public opinion remains a significant bulwark against authoritarian consolidation. While "retribution" rhetoric resonates strongly with the administration's base (approximately 35% of the population), polling consistently shows majority opposition to authoritarian practices.
Media coverage has increasingly focused on democratic erosion concerns, with mainstream outlets providing sustained coverage of administrative actions that challenge constitutional norms. This coverage has maintained public awareness despite efforts to discredit reporting as "fake news."
Civil society organizations have reported record donations and volunteer engagement, indicating sustained public concern and civic mobilization. Professional associations including the American Bar Association, medical associations, and academic organizations have issued formal statements opposing specific actions that undermine democratic norms.
The Green rating reflects that public opinion remains a functioning check, with political backlash to authoritarian actions still evident. Historical analysis suggests public opinion is often a lagging indicator in democratic erosion, maintaining resistance until normalized or suppressed, making it a critical but not sufficient protection.
Historical Context: The Authoritarian Playbook
The patterns we're observing align with what scholars call "democratic backsliding" – the incremental erosion of democratic institutions from within by elected leaders. Rather than dramatic coups, modern authoritarianism typically advances through seemingly legal means that hollow out democratic institutions while maintaining their facades.
Key Patterns of Democratic Backsliding
Capturing Referee Institutions
Undermining the independence of courts, electoral bodies, and oversight agencies.
Sidelining Critics
Using regulatory harassment or legal maneuvers to marginalize political opponents.
Maintaining Democratic Facades
Preserving the appearance of democracy while eroding its substantive checks and balances.
Normalizing Emergency Measures
Employing perceived security threats to justify temporary measures that become permanent.
"The death of democracy is now typically administered in a thousand cuts. In modern times, democratic backsliding begins at the ballot box, not with bullets. Democracy's erosion is incremental, often imperceptible, cloaked in legalisms, and much of it can be attributed to identifiable government actions."
— Professors Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, Harvard University
What makes the current U.S. situation particularly concerning is the simultaneous pressure across multiple democratic institutions rather than isolated challenges to specific norms. Comparative studies suggest that democratic systems are resilient to isolated pressures but vulnerable when multiple institutions face coordinated challenges.
Our dashboard methodology draws on frameworks developed studying democratic erosion in countries including Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela, and Poland – all places where elected leaders transformed competitive democracies into competitive authoritarian systems through incremental rather than revolutionary means.
What You Can Do: Protecting Democratic Institutions
Stay Informed
Follow credible news sources that prioritize factual reporting over partisan framing. Our dashboard provides bi-weekly updates with verified information from multiple sources.
Support Legal Challenges
Constitutional challenges require resources. Organizations like the ACLU, Protect Democracy, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are leading critical legal challenges.
Public Pressure
Contact elected representatives, particularly those with oversight responsibilities. Public opinion remains a powerful constraint – elected officials respond to constituent concerns.
Protect Civil Servants
Support organizations defending career officials from politicization. Report violations of merit principles to appropriate oversight bodies and congressional committees.
Democratic institutions depend on active defense from citizens, civil society, and officials committed to constitutional principles. Historical examples demonstrate that authoritarian consolidation is not inevitable – it can be reversed through sustained civic engagement, legal challenges, and public pressure.
Our next dashboard update will be published on September 15, 2025. For breaking developments, follow our alert system.