Why journalists are reluctant to call Trump an authoritarian

Karrin Vasby Anderson,
Colorado University

In an authoritarian state, leaders use unconstitutional practices to consolidate power: rejecting democratic rules, delegitimizing opponents, tolerating political violence, and curtailing civil liberties. Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has deployed troops to Democratic-run cities, sent masked agents on raids, threatened Chicago with military intervention, and used state power to punish perceived enemies. Yet much of the press has avoided calling him what he is – an authoritarian.

As a scholar of political communication, I study how media framing shapes public understanding. Authoritarianism often becomes obvious only in hindsight, when it is too late to prevent democratic erosion. Harvard’s Erica Chenoweth notes there are “no bright lines” in backsliding – people recognize authoritarianism after the fact. That is why applying the label when evidence warrants it is critical. By now, the U.S. is well past that point.

Scholars have long warned of Trump’s authoritarian impulses. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s “How Democracies Die” detailed how he undermined elections, demonized rivals, excused violence, and threatened critics. They argue no modern U.S. candidate, not even Richard Nixon, has shown such weak commitment to democratic norms. Levitsky and Lucan Way later described Trump’s “path to American authoritarianism,” and Levitsky bluntly told New York magazine this year: “We’re pretty screwed.” Bright Line Watch’s February 2025 survey showed sharp declines in scholars’ confidence that the U.S. meets democratic standards. That was before Trump promised to “go to war in Chicago.”

Some opinion columnists – Ezra Klein, Jamelle Bouie, Masha Gessen, Jonathan Chait – have labeled Trump authoritarian. But mainstream news outlets often downplay or reframe his actions. CNN described military deployments as “gambits” and “distractions.” The New York Times called Trump’s information controls an “echo” of authoritarian playbooks but stopped short of naming him authoritarian. Even when Harvard Law’s Nikolas Bowie called Trump’s funding freeze an “authoritarian attack on higher education,” CNN anchor Jessica Dean sidestepped the label, reframing the issue as one of combating antisemitism.

Why the hesitation? Trump sues journalists, and corporations often settle rather than fight, chilling coverage. Media norms of “balance” encourage false equivalence – as when a Times article paired Gov. Gavin Newsom’s warning about Trump with Republicans calling Newsom “the ultimate authoritarian” for COVID-19 mandates. This both-sides framing obscures real authoritarianism.

Part of the problem is conceptual. Many associate authoritarianism with 20th-century dictatorships, while today’s “competitive authoritarianism,” described by Levitsky and Way, looks different. Elections still occur, but incumbents skew the playing field, weaken institutions, and tilt rules to entrench power. Because it does not resemble fascism, journalists hesitate to use the word, even as democratic erosion unfolds.

Meanwhile, authoritarian tactics are already constraining press freedom. Paramount settled a lawsuit Trump brought against 60 Minutes. CBS pledged to alter editing practices on “Face the Nation” after government pressure. Such concessions show how competitive authoritarians manipulate independent journalism to their advantage.

Words matter. When journalists shrink from describing Trump as authoritarian, they fail to inform the public of the danger. Labeling is not partisanship – it is accuracy. Democratic survival depends not only on institutions, but on whether people recognize and resist leaders who subvert them. If journalists continue to dilute language, the U.S. risks sliding further into authoritarian rule before citizens fully realize it.

[Abridged]