Democracy
World’s Population
Population
HRF classifies the United States of America as democratic.
The United States is among the world’s oldest modern constitutional democracies, with regular elections and long-running traditions of peaceful transfers of power dating to the early republic. Full political enfranchisement expanded gradually over time, and federal protections against racial discrimination in voting were strengthened during the civil rights era, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Although US institutions have historically been resilient, polarization and long-running debates over executive power and democratic norms have put the system under strain in recent years. On January 6, 2021, supporters of then-President Donald J. Trump stormed the US Capitol in an effort to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump had lost, delaying the proceeding and testing the country’s commitment to a peaceful transfer of power. After the four-year presidency of Joe Biden (2021-2025), Donald J. Trump won a second term in 2024 and returned to office in January 2025. Since then, his administration has pursued aggressive immigration enforcement, shifted foreign policy priorities, and expanded the use of tariffs. In pursuit of these objectives, the administration has sought to politicize the Department of Justice, has delayed or resisted compliance with court rulings, and targeted critics of the current administration’s policies and priorities. However, federal courts, state governments, and other oversight institutions have continued to exercise review authority, and institutional constraints have thus far prevented these actions from fundamentally reshaping the country’s constitutional order.
National elections in the United States are largely free and fair. The country’s decentralized electoral system, administered primarily by state and local authorities, allows candidates from both major parties and small parties alike to compete nationwide, with eligibility disputes addressed through ordinary court procedures rather than political exclusion. Allegations of fraud have been reviewed through recounts, audits, and litigation, after which officials certified the results despite partisan pressure. Narrow margins in competitive states and repeated changes in party control demonstrate that the system continues to permit genuine electoral competition and turnover in power.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Protests continue to occur across the country without systematic bans, and courts frequently review and, in some cases, block executive actions, allowing advocacy groups and journalists to operate freely. However, during 2025, the Trump administration employed a range of regulatory, legal, and administrative measures that increased pressure on certain critics and institutions. While these actions have not eliminated dissent or shut down organizations, they represent a more confrontational posture toward dissenting actors that has typically characterized previous U.S. governments.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. Courts have continued to review and, in several instances, limited executive actions, including dismissing certain prosecutions against political opponents and issuing injunctions in immigration and protest-related cases. Judges who ruled against the Trump administration faced public criticism, but no removal or formal sanction, and oversight bodies remained legally intact. States, advocacy groups, and private litigants have been able to challenge federal policies across multiple areas, with courts accepting frequent appeals by the government. The continued availability of judicial review indicates that institutional checks remain operative.
National elections are largely free and fair. The United States maintains a long-standing tradition of competitive elections and meaningful turnover in political authority. Major parties and opposition candidates compete nationwide, and disputes over candidate eligibility have been resolved through judicial review. Allegations of electoral fraud have been investigated through recounts, audits, and court proceedings, after which authorities certified election results despite political pressure. Electoral outcomes are typically determined by close contests in competitive states rather than overwhelming majorities.
The government has not unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections. The United States maintains a highly decentralized electoral system administered primarily by state and local authorities, with eligibility rules for parties and candidates defined in statute and subject to judicial review. The main parties, the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as numerous smaller parties and independent candidates, have continued to compete in federal and state elections across the country. Candidates from both major parties, including those critical of incumbent officeholders and institutions, have been able to register, campaign, and appear on ballots in all 50 states. Moreover, courts have played a central role in resolving disputes over candidate eligibility. During the 2024 election cycle, litigation in the state of Colorado and administrative proceedings in the state of Maine concluded that Donald J. Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars officeholders who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Other states rejected similar challenges. The issue was ultimately resolved through the ordinary judicial process, culminating in a unanimous decision by the US Supreme Court holding that individual states may not disqualify a candidate for federal office under Section 3 absent congressional enforcement legislation, thereby restoring his eligibility nationwide.
The government has not engaged in significant electoral law manipulation, voting irregularities, or electoral fraud. Reported irregularities during the 2024 election cycle were localized and addressed through existing electoral procedures. For example, courts in the state of Pennsylvania addressed litigation regarding more than 9,000 voters whose mail ballots were rejected for disqualifying errors, including missing signatures or undated envelopes. Courts permitted affected voters to cast provisional ballots so their votes could still be counted while certification proceeded. Authorities also investigated Election Day bomb threats that temporarily disrupted voting at polling locations in Georgia. Officials extended voting hours in affected precincts, and the results were certified after the disruptions were resolved. However, allegations of fraud were more extensive following the 2020 presidential election, when the Trump campaign, allied political actors, and supporting advocacy organizations asserted widespread irregularities, prompting extensive post-election review processes in multiple states. In the state of Georgia, for example, state officials conducted a statewide hand recount of all presidential ballots followed by an additional machine recount; both confirmed the outcome of the election. Authorities investigated fraud claims, prosecuted a small number of improper votes, and still certified the election results. Similar scrutiny occurred in the state of Arizona, where the state senate ordered an audit in Maricopa County. Ballots and voting equipment were reviewed, and the audit ultimately reported totals consistent with the certified outcome. In the states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, local canvassing boards and state officials likewise completed certification despite public controversy and political pressure, and courts rejected numerous legal challenges after plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that irregularities affected the outcome of the election.
The government has not skewed the electoral playing field so much so that it generally wins elections with a very high vote share. In fact, the incumbent party has lost the last three presidential elections in 2024, 2020, and 2016, each resulting in a change in party control of the executive branch. The US elections operate under the Electoral College system, in which voters choose state-based slates of electors, and most states award all electoral votes to the statewide winner. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, and a candidate must obtain a majority of at least 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Because electoral votes are allocated by state rather than by national totals, a candidate may win the presidency without winning the nationwide popular vote if they secure a majority of electoral votes, as occurred in 2016 and earlier in 2000. In the 2024 elections, Republican candidate Donald J. Trump won 312 electoral votes to Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’ 226, with 49.8% of the popular vote to Harris’ 49.3%. In 2020, Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr. won 306 electoral votes and 51.3% of the popular vote, while Trump received 232 electoral votes and 46.8%. In practice, presidential outcomes are often determined by narrow margins in a small number of competitive “swing states,” rather than by overwhelming national majorities.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. In the United States, these freedoms are grounded in strong constitutional protections for freedom of speech, press, and association, most notably the First Amendment, and reinforced by decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence that sets a very high bar for restricting political expression or collective action. As a result, criticism of government officials and institutions, including speech that is harsh, offensive, or unpopular, is broadly protected, and legal penalties for political speech or peaceful organizing have been historically rare by international comparison.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. The United States possesses a vibrant and relatively pluralistic media landscape. Privately owned media outlets at both the local and national levels are able to operate freely without systematic government interference. The country is also home to many of the world’s largest social media and self-publishing platforms, including Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter), and Substack, which have benefitted from a legal and business environment that has historically provided strong protections for speech and association. The United States also hosts a vast and diverse civil society ecosystem, with hundreds of thousands of registered civil society organizations operating across advocacy, service provision, litigation, and policy analysis. These organizations are generally able to form freely, operate without undue administrative restriction, engage in public advocacy, litigate against the government, and participate directly in political debate and policymaking at the local, state, and federal levels. The country also serves as a global hub for international civil society organizations, media outlets, and advocacy groups that base their operations in the United States while working on issues abroad.
However, over the past year, the Trump administration has increased pressure on media actors and civil society through a range of regulatory, legal, and administrative actions. Through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the administration has revived and expanded the use of regulatory tools that have rarely been enforced, including renewed attention to “news distortion” complaints involving major broadcasters. In early 2025, the FCC under Chair Brendan Carr reinstated a complaint against CBS Broadcasting Inc. related to a 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, which drew criticism from the network and civil liberties groups as an unusual use of the commission’s news distortion authority. In September 2025, Carr publicly urged ABC-affiliated broadcast stations to reconsider airing the program Jimmy Kimmel Live! after comments made by the host, arguing that stations using public airways must comply with their public-interest licensing obligations. Several station groups, including Nexstar Media Group, subsequently stopped broadcasting the show, and Carr publicly praised their decision. Although the affiliates later resumed broadcasting the show following public pressure, Carr’s statements signaled a continued willingness to apply similar pressure in comparable situations. Separately, the FCC opened an inquiry into KCBS radio after it broadcast the locations of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during an enforcement operation, a move that raised concerns among journalists because reporting on the movements of public agents is generally lawful and protected by the First Amendment. President Trump also publicly suggested that networks critical of his administration should face revocation of their broadcast licenses. The remarks, made following coverage he opposed, were widely reported as part of a broader pattern of executive pressure on media companies.
The government has not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent and dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public. However, in 2025, the administration pursued a series of criminal investigations, prosecutions, and executive actions involving prominent critics and political opponents. In January 2025, the Department of Justice brought charges against former FBI Director James Comey related to his handling of memoranda documenting conversations with President Trump during his first term. Comey had overseen aspects of the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference and was dismissed by President Trump in 2017 before later publishing a memoir critical of him. The charges were filed by an interim US attorney whose appointment was later ruled unlawful by a federal judge, resulting in dismissal of the case in November 2025. The same interim US attorney also brought charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office had secured a substantial civil fraud judgment against the Trump Organization in 2024 and had pursued multiple investigations into President Trump’s business activities. Those charges were likewise dismissed after the court found the appointment invalid.
The Trump administration has also taken actions against current government officials who have publicly disagreed with or opposed its policies, including officials whose roles are designed to operate with a degree of independence from direct executive control. In late 2025, mortgage-related allegations emerged involving Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Cook had previously been publicly criticized by President Trump over monetary policy and Federal Reserve governance. In August 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte publicly accused Cook of mortgage fraud and referred the matter to the Department of Justice. The DOJ opened an inquiry and issued subpoenas as part of its review. President Trump subsequently sought to remove Cook from her position on the Federal Reserve Board, citing the mortgage allegations. Cook challenged the removal in federal court, and a preliminary injunction blocked her dismissal pending further litigation. No criminal charges had been filed against Cook by the end of 2025.
The Department of Justice also issued subpoenas in a reported criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell related to congressional testimony concerning renovation expenditures at the Federal Reserve’s Washington headquarters. The investigation followed sustained public criticism by President Trump of Powell’s monetary policy decisions, including statements that Powell had “failed the country,” and repeated calls for changes in Federal Reserve leadership. Members of the Federal Reserve Board and the Chair are appointed for fixed terms and are intended to exercise monetary policy authority independently of direct political direction. While Federal Reserve officials remain subject to the law like any other public officials, the initiation of criminal inquiries and removal efforts involving two senior central bank officials during ongoing policy disputes marked a significant escalation in executive confrontation with the institution.
While public-interest legal organizations and private attorneys remain able to represent clients against the government without systematic obstruction, the Trump administration has taken unprecedented executive actions against private law firms and lawyers based on the cases they pursued. In March 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing the Department of Justice to pursue sanctions and contract restrictions against firms and attorneys it deemed to have filed “frivolous” litigation against the government, including naming the Elias Law Group. The administration also signed executive orders targeting prominent firms such as Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss, suspending security clearances, barring firm attorneys from federal buildings, and directing reviews of government contracts. Although these orders were challenged in federal court relatively successfully, a Reuters investigation documented that many major firms scaled back pro bono and litigation work to avoid political retaliation.
The US government has not seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings. Large demonstrations across the country, such as the “No Kings” protests in 2025, proceeded peacefully without nationwide bans or repression. However, the Trump administration has used immigration enforcement tools against certain noncitizens already residing in the United States with lawful status in response to protest-related speech. In March 2025, federal immigration authorities detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident involved in pro-Palestinian campus activism, and initiated removal proceedings under a statutory provision allowing deportation where the Secretary of State determines a person’s presence may have “adverse foreign policy consequences.” A federal court later reviewed and limited aspects of that action. In a separate case, Yunseo Chung, another Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident, filed suit after immigration authorities sought to revoke her status following her participation in campus protests; a federal judge temporarily blocked her detention. In additional cases during 2025, courts ordered the restoration of lawful status for certain noncitizen students whose visas or statuses had been revoked in connection with protest-related activity.
In parallel, the administration escalated federal pressure on universities in response to campus protests. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice expanded Title VI investigations into allegations of antisemitic harassment at institutions, including Columbia University and Harvard University. While universities have statutory obligations to address discrimination, the administration publicly threatened to withhold or condition federal funding, referred certain protest-related cases to immigration authorities, and increased scrutiny of nonprofit organizations connected to protest movements. Federal civil rights enforcement and oversight of universities are longstanding practices, and prior administrations have opened Title VI investigations in politically sensitive contexts. However, the combined use of immigration detention, funding leverage, and coordinated enforcement measures in direct response to protest activity represented a more assertive federal posture than has typically characterized civil rights enforcement in recent decades.
The government has not heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor. Independent media outlets in the United States continue to report critically on the government, and no systematic effort to impose editorial control or mandate favorable coverage has been documented. During 2025, however, the Trump administration undertook a series of actions that sought to exert leverage over media access. In February 2025, the White House restricted access for the Associated Press, a major international news agency, after the outlet declined to adopt administration-preferred geographic terminology in its reporting. In April 2025, the White House altered the structure of the presidential press pool, reducing routine access for major wire services that play a central role in domestic and international news distribution. During the same period, the Department of Defense implemented new press access and credentialing rules at the Pentagon that led multiple journalists to surrender their credentials rather than agree to revised conditions governing access and reporting. While these measures did not prevent media organizations from continuing to report on the White House or the Pentagon, they reflected the executive branch’s use of access controls and administrative discretion in disputes with independent media outlets and represented a departure from longstanding norms of equal press access.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. Courts regularly heard challenges to federal policies and, in multiple instances, issued binding orders constraining executive actions. Judges who ruled against the government have been subject to criticism but not formal retaliation, and core oversight bodies continued operating under their statutory mandates. States, civil society actors, and private parties maintained access to judicial review across a range of policy areas. While the executive branch has resisted or appealed adverse decisions and adopted measures that increased pressure on legal actors, the overall system of checks and balances continued to function.
The courts have not frequently and unfairly failed to check the government’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent and widely publicized policies. Throughout 2025, courts continued to hear and adjudicate challenges to executive actions involving immigration enforcement, protest-related detentions, and executive orders directed at critics and political opponents. Federal judges dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after ruling that the interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, who filed the cases, had been unlawfully appointed. Courts also intervened in actions connected to protest activity, issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in immigration-related cases involving lawful permanent residents engaged in university campus protests, including Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung. To illustrate, in the immigration case of Mahmoud Khalil, a federal judge found probable cause to consider contempt proceedings for alleged noncompliance, though the matter was stayed pending appeal. In addition, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook pending litigation. Across these cases, individuals and organizations were able to challenge government actions through ordinary judicial procedures, and courts exercised review rather than deferring to executive authority. While the administration frequently sought emergency stays, appealed adverse rulings, and in some instances narrowly interpreted compliance with injunctions, courts retained the ability to issue binding relief.
Members of the judicial branch, who rule contrary to government interests or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority, have not faced retaliation. Judges continued to issue rulings adverse to the administration in politically sensitive cases, including injunctions limiting enforcement actions and dismissals of prosecutions involving prominent critics and officials, without evidence of institutional punishment against the judges involved. Although executive officials and political allies at times publicly criticized court decisions and individual rulings, there were no removals, arrests, disciplinary proceedings, or reductions in judicial authority directed at judges for their decisions. Courts retained jurisdiction over cases involving the government, and judges were able to hear challenges and issue binding orders without interference. This pattern indicates that, despite rhetorical attacks, the judiciary continued to operate without direct retaliation against its members.
Independent oversight institutions have not been subjected to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. The Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Inspectors General, and related oversight bodies remained formally intact through 2025, and no legislation or executive order dismantled or undermined their statutory authorities. However, the administration undertook significant personnel changes within the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement. In January 2025, more than a dozen career prosecutors associated with criminal cases involving President Trump were dismissed. The interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia reassigned or removed prosecutors connected to January 6 prosecutions and dissolved specialized units handling those cases. In March 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum directing the Department of Justice to pursue sanctions and contract reviews against lawyers deemed to have filed “frivolous” litigation against the federal government and signed executive orders targeting specific law firms. Although courts blocked key provisions of those orders, the measures reflected an expansive use of executive authority directed at actors engaged in litigation against the government. Expanded civil service reclassification policies also increased executive discretion over certain federal employment protections within legal and enforcement agencies.
The government has not undermined institutional independence to the point where cases or issues challenging the governing authority are no longer brought or are frequently dismissed. Federal courts in 2025 continued to review executive actions across multiple policy areas beyond the individual retaliation-related cases described above. A coalition of states led by California and New York filed suit challenging revised Department of Homeland Security enforcement guidance that expanded detention eligibility for certain categories of noncitizens, arguing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional due process protections. Federal courts accepted jurisdiction and issued preliminary rulings allowing the litigation to proceed. Separately, Illinois and Massachusetts joined a multi-state litigation contesting changes to federal civil service reclassification policies that increased executive discretion over career officials within enforcement agencies, asserting that the administration had exceeded statutory authority and bypassed required rulemaking procedures. Federal district courts declined to dismiss those claims and permitted discovery and briefing on the merits. Additional suits brought by state attorneys general challenged revised asylum-processing regulations and changes to federal contracting eligibility criteria tied to executive memoranda, with courts issuing scheduling orders and, in some instances, interim relief pending full adjudication.
HRF classifies the United States of America as democratic.
The United States is among the world’s oldest modern constitutional democracies, with regular elections and long-running traditions of peaceful transfers of power dating to the early republic. Full political enfranchisement expanded gradually over time, and federal protections against racial discrimination in voting were strengthened during the civil rights era, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Although US institutions have historically been resilient, polarization and long-running debates over executive power and democratic norms have put the system under strain in recent years. On January 6, 2021, supporters of then-President Donald J. Trump stormed the US Capitol in an effort to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump had lost, delaying the proceeding and testing the country’s commitment to a peaceful transfer of power. After the four-year presidency of Joe Biden (2021-2025), Donald J. Trump won a second term in 2024 and returned to office in January 2025. Since then, his administration has pursued aggressive immigration enforcement, shifted foreign policy priorities, and expanded the use of tariffs. In pursuit of these objectives, the administration has sought to politicize the Department of Justice, has delayed or resisted compliance with court rulings, and targeted critics of the current administration’s policies and priorities. However, federal courts, state governments, and other oversight institutions have continued to exercise review authority, and institutional constraints have thus far prevented these actions from fundamentally reshaping the country’s constitutional order.
National elections in the United States are largely free and fair. The country’s decentralized electoral system, administered primarily by state and local authorities, allows candidates from both major parties and small parties alike to compete nationwide, with eligibility disputes addressed through ordinary court procedures rather than political exclusion. Allegations of fraud have been reviewed through recounts, audits, and litigation, after which officials certified the results despite partisan pressure. Narrow margins in competitive states and repeated changes in party control demonstrate that the system continues to permit genuine electoral competition and turnover in power.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Protests continue to occur across the country without systematic bans, and courts frequently review and, in some cases, block executive actions, allowing advocacy groups and journalists to operate freely. However, during 2025, the Trump administration employed a range of regulatory, legal, and administrative measures that increased pressure on certain critics and institutions. While these actions have not eliminated dissent or shut down organizations, they represent a more confrontational posture toward dissenting actors that has typically characterized previous U.S. governments.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. Courts have continued to review and, in several instances, limited executive actions, including dismissing certain prosecutions against political opponents and issuing injunctions in immigration and protest-related cases. Judges who ruled against the Trump administration faced public criticism, but no removal or formal sanction, and oversight bodies remained legally intact. States, advocacy groups, and private litigants have been able to challenge federal policies across multiple areas, with courts accepting frequent appeals by the government. The continued availability of judicial review indicates that institutional checks remain operative.
National elections are largely free and fair. The United States maintains a long-standing tradition of competitive elections and meaningful turnover in political authority. Major parties and opposition candidates compete nationwide, and disputes over candidate eligibility have been resolved through judicial review. Allegations of electoral fraud have been investigated through recounts, audits, and court proceedings, after which authorities certified election results despite political pressure. Electoral outcomes are typically determined by close contests in competitive states rather than overwhelming majorities.
The government has not unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections. The United States maintains a highly decentralized electoral system administered primarily by state and local authorities, with eligibility rules for parties and candidates defined in statute and subject to judicial review. The main parties, the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as numerous smaller parties and independent candidates, have continued to compete in federal and state elections across the country. Candidates from both major parties, including those critical of incumbent officeholders and institutions, have been able to register, campaign, and appear on ballots in all 50 states. Moreover, courts have played a central role in resolving disputes over candidate eligibility. During the 2024 election cycle, litigation in the state of Colorado and administrative proceedings in the state of Maine concluded that Donald J. Trump was ineligible to appear on the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bars officeholders who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Other states rejected similar challenges. The issue was ultimately resolved through the ordinary judicial process, culminating in a unanimous decision by the US Supreme Court holding that individual states may not disqualify a candidate for federal office under Section 3 absent congressional enforcement legislation, thereby restoring his eligibility nationwide.
The government has not engaged in significant electoral law manipulation, voting irregularities, or electoral fraud. Reported irregularities during the 2024 election cycle were localized and addressed through existing electoral procedures. For example, courts in the state of Pennsylvania addressed litigation regarding more than 9,000 voters whose mail ballots were rejected for disqualifying errors, including missing signatures or undated envelopes. Courts permitted affected voters to cast provisional ballots so their votes could still be counted while certification proceeded. Authorities also investigated Election Day bomb threats that temporarily disrupted voting at polling locations in Georgia. Officials extended voting hours in affected precincts, and the results were certified after the disruptions were resolved. However, allegations of fraud were more extensive following the 2020 presidential election, when the Trump campaign, allied political actors, and supporting advocacy organizations asserted widespread irregularities, prompting extensive post-election review processes in multiple states. In the state of Georgia, for example, state officials conducted a statewide hand recount of all presidential ballots followed by an additional machine recount; both confirmed the outcome of the election. Authorities investigated fraud claims, prosecuted a small number of improper votes, and still certified the election results. Similar scrutiny occurred in the state of Arizona, where the state senate ordered an audit in Maricopa County. Ballots and voting equipment were reviewed, and the audit ultimately reported totals consistent with the certified outcome. In the states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, local canvassing boards and state officials likewise completed certification despite public controversy and political pressure, and courts rejected numerous legal challenges after plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that irregularities affected the outcome of the election.
The government has not skewed the electoral playing field so much so that it generally wins elections with a very high vote share. In fact, the incumbent party has lost the last three presidential elections in 2024, 2020, and 2016, each resulting in a change in party control of the executive branch. The US elections operate under the Electoral College system, in which voters choose state-based slates of electors, and most states award all electoral votes to the statewide winner. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, and a candidate must obtain a majority of at least 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Because electoral votes are allocated by state rather than by national totals, a candidate may win the presidency without winning the nationwide popular vote if they secure a majority of electoral votes, as occurred in 2016 and earlier in 2000. In the 2024 elections, Republican candidate Donald J. Trump won 312 electoral votes to Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’ 226, with 49.8% of the popular vote to Harris’ 49.3%. In 2020, Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr. won 306 electoral votes and 51.3% of the popular vote, while Trump received 232 electoral votes and 46.8%. In practice, presidential outcomes are often determined by narrow margins in a small number of competitive “swing states,” rather than by overwhelming national majorities.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. In the United States, these freedoms are grounded in strong constitutional protections for freedom of speech, press, and association, most notably the First Amendment, and reinforced by decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence that sets a very high bar for restricting political expression or collective action. As a result, criticism of government officials and institutions, including speech that is harsh, offensive, or unpopular, is broadly protected, and legal penalties for political speech or peaceful organizing have been historically rare by international comparison.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. The United States possesses a vibrant and relatively pluralistic media landscape. Privately owned media outlets at both the local and national levels are able to operate freely without systematic government interference. The country is also home to many of the world’s largest social media and self-publishing platforms, including Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter), and Substack, which have benefitted from a legal and business environment that has historically provided strong protections for speech and association. The United States also hosts a vast and diverse civil society ecosystem, with hundreds of thousands of registered civil society organizations operating across advocacy, service provision, litigation, and policy analysis. These organizations are generally able to form freely, operate without undue administrative restriction, engage in public advocacy, litigate against the government, and participate directly in political debate and policymaking at the local, state, and federal levels. The country also serves as a global hub for international civil society organizations, media outlets, and advocacy groups that base their operations in the United States while working on issues abroad.
However, over the past year, the Trump administration has increased pressure on media actors and civil society through a range of regulatory, legal, and administrative actions. Through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the administration has revived and expanded the use of regulatory tools that have rarely been enforced, including renewed attention to “news distortion” complaints involving major broadcasters. In early 2025, the FCC under Chair Brendan Carr reinstated a complaint against CBS Broadcasting Inc. related to a 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, which drew criticism from the network and civil liberties groups as an unusual use of the commission’s news distortion authority. In September 2025, Carr publicly urged ABC-affiliated broadcast stations to reconsider airing the program Jimmy Kimmel Live! after comments made by the host, arguing that stations using public airways must comply with their public-interest licensing obligations. Several station groups, including Nexstar Media Group, subsequently stopped broadcasting the show, and Carr publicly praised their decision. Although the affiliates later resumed broadcasting the show following public pressure, Carr’s statements signaled a continued willingness to apply similar pressure in comparable situations. Separately, the FCC opened an inquiry into KCBS radio after it broadcast the locations of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during an enforcement operation, a move that raised concerns among journalists because reporting on the movements of public agents is generally lawful and protected by the First Amendment. President Trump also publicly suggested that networks critical of his administration should face revocation of their broadcast licenses. The remarks, made following coverage he opposed, were widely reported as part of a broader pattern of executive pressure on media companies.
The government has not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent and dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public. However, in 2025, the administration pursued a series of criminal investigations, prosecutions, and executive actions involving prominent critics and political opponents. In January 2025, the Department of Justice brought charges against former FBI Director James Comey related to his handling of memoranda documenting conversations with President Trump during his first term. Comey had overseen aspects of the FBI’s investigation into Russian election interference and was dismissed by President Trump in 2017 before later publishing a memoir critical of him. The charges were filed by an interim US attorney whose appointment was later ruled unlawful by a federal judge, resulting in dismissal of the case in November 2025. The same interim US attorney also brought charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office had secured a substantial civil fraud judgment against the Trump Organization in 2024 and had pursued multiple investigations into President Trump’s business activities. Those charges were likewise dismissed after the court found the appointment invalid.
The Trump administration has also taken actions against current government officials who have publicly disagreed with or opposed its policies, including officials whose roles are designed to operate with a degree of independence from direct executive control. In late 2025, mortgage-related allegations emerged involving Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Cook had previously been publicly criticized by President Trump over monetary policy and Federal Reserve governance. In August 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte publicly accused Cook of mortgage fraud and referred the matter to the Department of Justice. The DOJ opened an inquiry and issued subpoenas as part of its review. President Trump subsequently sought to remove Cook from her position on the Federal Reserve Board, citing the mortgage allegations. Cook challenged the removal in federal court, and a preliminary injunction blocked her dismissal pending further litigation. No criminal charges had been filed against Cook by the end of 2025.
The Department of Justice also issued subpoenas in a reported criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell related to congressional testimony concerning renovation expenditures at the Federal Reserve’s Washington headquarters. The investigation followed sustained public criticism by President Trump of Powell’s monetary policy decisions, including statements that Powell had “failed the country,” and repeated calls for changes in Federal Reserve leadership. Members of the Federal Reserve Board and the Chair are appointed for fixed terms and are intended to exercise monetary policy authority independently of direct political direction. While Federal Reserve officials remain subject to the law like any other public officials, the initiation of criminal inquiries and removal efforts involving two senior central bank officials during ongoing policy disputes marked a significant escalation in executive confrontation with the institution.
While public-interest legal organizations and private attorneys remain able to represent clients against the government without systematic obstruction, the Trump administration has taken unprecedented executive actions against private law firms and lawyers based on the cases they pursued. In March 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum directing the Department of Justice to pursue sanctions and contract restrictions against firms and attorneys it deemed to have filed “frivolous” litigation against the government, including naming the Elias Law Group. The administration also signed executive orders targeting prominent firms such as Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss, suspending security clearances, barring firm attorneys from federal buildings, and directing reviews of government contracts. Although these orders were challenged in federal court relatively successfully, a Reuters investigation documented that many major firms scaled back pro bono and litigation work to avoid political retaliation.
The US government has not seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings. Large demonstrations across the country, such as the “No Kings” protests in 2025, proceeded peacefully without nationwide bans or repression. However, the Trump administration has used immigration enforcement tools against certain noncitizens already residing in the United States with lawful status in response to protest-related speech. In March 2025, federal immigration authorities detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident involved in pro-Palestinian campus activism, and initiated removal proceedings under a statutory provision allowing deportation where the Secretary of State determines a person’s presence may have “adverse foreign policy consequences.” A federal court later reviewed and limited aspects of that action. In a separate case, Yunseo Chung, another Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident, filed suit after immigration authorities sought to revoke her status following her participation in campus protests; a federal judge temporarily blocked her detention. In additional cases during 2025, courts ordered the restoration of lawful status for certain noncitizen students whose visas or statuses had been revoked in connection with protest-related activity.
In parallel, the administration escalated federal pressure on universities in response to campus protests. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice expanded Title VI investigations into allegations of antisemitic harassment at institutions, including Columbia University and Harvard University. While universities have statutory obligations to address discrimination, the administration publicly threatened to withhold or condition federal funding, referred certain protest-related cases to immigration authorities, and increased scrutiny of nonprofit organizations connected to protest movements. Federal civil rights enforcement and oversight of universities are longstanding practices, and prior administrations have opened Title VI investigations in politically sensitive contexts. However, the combined use of immigration detention, funding leverage, and coordinated enforcement measures in direct response to protest activity represented a more assertive federal posture than has typically characterized civil rights enforcement in recent decades.
The government has not heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor. Independent media outlets in the United States continue to report critically on the government, and no systematic effort to impose editorial control or mandate favorable coverage has been documented. During 2025, however, the Trump administration undertook a series of actions that sought to exert leverage over media access. In February 2025, the White House restricted access for the Associated Press, a major international news agency, after the outlet declined to adopt administration-preferred geographic terminology in its reporting. In April 2025, the White House altered the structure of the presidential press pool, reducing routine access for major wire services that play a central role in domestic and international news distribution. During the same period, the Department of Defense implemented new press access and credentialing rules at the Pentagon that led multiple journalists to surrender their credentials rather than agree to revised conditions governing access and reporting. While these measures did not prevent media organizations from continuing to report on the White House or the Pentagon, they reflected the executive branch’s use of access controls and administrative discretion in disputes with independent media outlets and represented a departure from longstanding norms of equal press access.
Institutions are independent and largely serve as effective checks on the government. Courts regularly heard challenges to federal policies and, in multiple instances, issued binding orders constraining executive actions. Judges who ruled against the government have been subject to criticism but not formal retaliation, and core oversight bodies continued operating under their statutory mandates. States, civil society actors, and private parties maintained access to judicial review across a range of policy areas. While the executive branch has resisted or appealed adverse decisions and adopted measures that increased pressure on legal actors, the overall system of checks and balances continued to function.
The courts have not frequently and unfairly failed to check the government’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent and widely publicized policies. Throughout 2025, courts continued to hear and adjudicate challenges to executive actions involving immigration enforcement, protest-related detentions, and executive orders directed at critics and political opponents. Federal judges dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after ruling that the interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, who filed the cases, had been unlawfully appointed. Courts also intervened in actions connected to protest activity, issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in immigration-related cases involving lawful permanent residents engaged in university campus protests, including Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung. To illustrate, in the immigration case of Mahmoud Khalil, a federal judge found probable cause to consider contempt proceedings for alleged noncompliance, though the matter was stayed pending appeal. In addition, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook pending litigation. Across these cases, individuals and organizations were able to challenge government actions through ordinary judicial procedures, and courts exercised review rather than deferring to executive authority. While the administration frequently sought emergency stays, appealed adverse rulings, and in some instances narrowly interpreted compliance with injunctions, courts retained the ability to issue binding relief.
Members of the judicial branch, who rule contrary to government interests or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority, have not faced retaliation. Judges continued to issue rulings adverse to the administration in politically sensitive cases, including injunctions limiting enforcement actions and dismissals of prosecutions involving prominent critics and officials, without evidence of institutional punishment against the judges involved. Although executive officials and political allies at times publicly criticized court decisions and individual rulings, there were no removals, arrests, disciplinary proceedings, or reductions in judicial authority directed at judges for their decisions. Courts retained jurisdiction over cases involving the government, and judges were able to hear challenges and issue binding orders without interference. This pattern indicates that, despite rhetorical attacks, the judiciary continued to operate without direct retaliation against its members.
Independent oversight institutions have not been subjected to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness. The Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Inspectors General, and related oversight bodies remained formally intact through 2025, and no legislation or executive order dismantled or undermined their statutory authorities. However, the administration undertook significant personnel changes within the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement. In January 2025, more than a dozen career prosecutors associated with criminal cases involving President Trump were dismissed. The interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia reassigned or removed prosecutors connected to January 6 prosecutions and dissolved specialized units handling those cases. In March 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum directing the Department of Justice to pursue sanctions and contract reviews against lawyers deemed to have filed “frivolous” litigation against the federal government and signed executive orders targeting specific law firms. Although courts blocked key provisions of those orders, the measures reflected an expansive use of executive authority directed at actors engaged in litigation against the government. Expanded civil service reclassification policies also increased executive discretion over certain federal employment protections within legal and enforcement agencies.
The government has not undermined institutional independence to the point where cases or issues challenging the governing authority are no longer brought or are frequently dismissed. Federal courts in 2025 continued to review executive actions across multiple policy areas beyond the individual retaliation-related cases described above. A coalition of states led by California and New York filed suit challenging revised Department of Homeland Security enforcement guidance that expanded detention eligibility for certain categories of noncitizens, arguing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional due process protections. Federal courts accepted jurisdiction and issued preliminary rulings allowing the litigation to proceed. Separately, Illinois and Massachusetts joined a multi-state litigation contesting changes to federal civil service reclassification policies that increased executive discretion over career officials within enforcement agencies, asserting that the administration had exceeded statutory authority and bypassed required rulemaking procedures. Federal district courts declined to dismiss those claims and permitted discovery and briefing on the merits. Additional suits brought by state attorneys general challenged revised asylum-processing regulations and changes to federal contracting eligibility criteria tied to executive memoranda, with courts issuing scheduling orders and, in some instances, interim relief pending full adjudication.
