The United States has long been perceived as the emblem of democracy, a perspective championed by millions of Americans. However, a closer examination of the Trump administration’s agenda reveals that the nation is undergoing unprecedented levels of democratic backsliding. Specifically, the absence of democratic informal norms, such as mutual toleration and forbearance, has enabled the undermining of the country’s key foundational frameworks.
The clearest indicator of this decline is Donald Trump’s resurgence following the 2024 election. Leveraging his popularity as an incumbent who inherited a prosperous economy under Obama and his appeal as an unconventional candidate with no prior experience in public service before his presidency, Trump successfully retained American trust and, most importantly, secured votes for his 2024 electoral victory.
Critical to this success was his ability to garner support through a platform built on division, using his cult-like persona to mobilize voters with the promise of making America great again. Yet, the very essence of this American exceptionalist narrative that he has trademarked stands in complete contrast to his actions. Trump’s two counts of impeachment, stemming from soliciting foreign interference, defying subpoenas, and inciting an insurrection to overturn the 2020 election results, directly challenged the state’s institutional integrity and the peaceful transfer of power. The latter represents a clear violation of mutual toleration between two competing parties. Trump’s unfounded belief in voter fraud in the election provoked a violent insurrection where rioters attacked Capitol Hill police officers, vandalized private property, and made dangerous threats against lawmakers over the election results. By failing to recognize Biden as the legitimate head of state, a fundamental principle of mutual toleration, Trump created a space for political violence to be used to challenge democratic institutions and manipulate election outcomes.
The Trump administration has also set a dangerous precedent that enables party loyalty to outweigh lawmaker’s duty to their constituents. The Senate’s failure to pass the For The People Act, a bill aimed at expanding voter registration and access through mail-in voting, illustrates an attempt to curb the fundamental building block of democracy, a right protected and outlined in the U.S. constitution.One might then ask, why would the Senate block a bill to increase voting acessibility to Americans? The simple answer is that voters who have expressed support for a Democratic candidate have previously benefited from absentee and mail-in ballots. This is reflected in the 2020 Presidential election with 51 percent of said voters expressed using these methods. Pew Research Center has also found that adults younger than thirty were more likely to support absentee voting. In other words, younger demographics have leaned more ideologically to the left and are more inclined to vote for a Democratic candidate. The Republican Senate majority strategically blocked this bill to undermine this specific demographic from voting in favor of the opposition. As Levitsky explained, “without robust norms…this is how elected autocrats subvert democracy…rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents.” The bill’s rejection gives Republicans greater agency over decision-making by securing their hold on power and quelling the opposition’s influence in legislation.
It is important to note that legislative gridlock as discussed earlier is a direct consequence of political polarization. Donald Trump’s divisive rhetoric has exacerbated these sentiments, making Republicans and Democrats more ideologically fractured with each party accusing the other of posing a “national risk.” The lack of bipartisan support generated by his rhetoric, enabled Republicans to exercise power without any constraints to their legal authority, thereby rejecting the principle of forbearance. The dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, serves as a great example of unchecked executive power in action. While the United States is not constitutionally obligated to render humanitarian aid to nations grappling with human rights abuses, it has long positioned itself as an ally of national self-determination, a defender of minority rights, and a proponent of economic development. However, when the President announced a halt to aid in regions affected by instability, it sparked serious concerns about U.S. foreign policy, particularly its role as a promoter of international order and a shaper of global norms. The President continues to use executive orders to gain broader discretion over the allocation of foreign aid in ways that would best suit his political interests without consulting members of the opposing party.
If the three branches of government fail to compromise and untangle the problems exacerbated by the current administration, democracy will inevitably erode.
Your post does a great job of breaking down how democratic backsliding is happening in the U.S., especially with the loss of mutual toleration and forbearance. I found your discussion on voter suppression really interesting, particularly how blocking the For The People Act was a strategic move to limit certain groups from voting. It makes me wonder—are there historical examples of similar voter suppression tactics, and how do they compare to today? I also liked your point about executive overreach with USAID. Do you think there’s a chance to restore bipartisan norms in foreign aid, or has the political divide made that impossible?