It’s surprising, but a strange convergence has occurred between Russian television propagandists and journalists in opposition émigré media. They have agreed on one point: the United States is rapidly sliding into dictatorship, following at incredible speed the path that in Russia took years to traverse. This is a quote, by the way, from a very good editor-in-chief.
In short: democracy in what was once considered the freest country in the world is purportedly ending—ever since Donald Trump, the 45th U.S. president, became re-elected as the 47th.
Democracy of Freedom
Is that really so? Why is it premature to ring the death knell for U.S. democracy? Why does this country, across the ocean from Europe, still remain democratic and free—despite more violations of human rights now than at any time in the past forty years? How serious is the regression? And finally, why is social development not a linear progression, as commonly believed?
It is often assumed that progress is only forward motion. In reality it is more like Cezanne’s spherical perspective. Russians are used to the idea that the politics of any country hinge on decisions of a single person—the president—and that everything revolves around him. In Russia, in the Kremlin, they are absolutely convinced that everywhere is like them: everyone is bought, elections are all about money, and democracy does not truly exist.
In an authoritarian, now clearly dictatorial Russia, that is indeed the case—but not so in a presidential republic like the United States.
Indeed, Aristotle warned long ago that when power rests in one man—even if an aristocrat of spirit—sooner or later that aristocrat becomes a dictator. For that reason, in most European countries parliamentary democracies predominate, where decisions are made through protracted negotiations among different political forces. Negotiations are not always efficient or quick—but they are precisely what protect against autocrats.
Around each branch of power, countless flags and trenches are erected, so that a president is hard pressed to overcome them. Trump has tied up Congress, the Republican Party, but has bumped into the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S., essentially, is the only presidential republic in which a liberty democracy has flourished. Presidential systems exist all over Latin America—but there democracy is often weak. Aristotle believed the best form of government is the rule of oligarchy and demos, which is what we arguably see in the U.S. in one form or another. Why is dictatorship impossible in the U.S.? In short: the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights prevent it.
The Constitution limits the sovereign—that is, the head of the executive branch—by granting broad powers to independent branches: the legislative and the judiciary. Around each branch of government are so many “flags” and “trenches” erected that it is very difficult for a president to overcome them. Trump has constrained Congress and the Republican Party—but he ran up against the federal courts and the Supreme Court.
Voting with the Dollar
But let’s leave theory for now and turn to concrete matters. Why has such panic and alarmism arisen in émigré opposition channels? Primarily, of course, because of the crackdown on media. The federal cable networks ABC, CBS, and Facebook have each paid Trump tens of millions of dollars in response to lawsuits related to the closure of his accounts on Facebook or certain programs on CBS. Trump demanded multimillion compensation, and they hurried to settle quietly.
The Washington Post, owned by Amazon, and CBS, owned by Paramount, also staged shock moves for public effect. At the Washington Post, most columnists were forced to resign. CBS announced it would shut down Stephen Colbert’s evening political show on the network in mid-May 2026, when his contract expires.
Evening shows on cable channels are a U.S. institution—they are extremely popular, even though their viewership is declining due to YouTube and TikTok. Colbert’s show has aired for 11 years and currently draws nearly 2 million viewers. That’s fewer than the audience for Gatfield on Fox News, but more than Jimmy Kimmel on ABC or Fallon on NBC.
Once the announcement was made that Colbert’s contract would not be renewed, he responded by turning Donald Trump into “bird food”—he said that while owners may close the show, to silence Colbert they would have to kill him. And each night he continues his sharp political show, watched both by channel subscribers and those who stream him on YouTube.
Now it was Jimmy Kimmel’s turn. ABC’s owner, Disney, cancelled his show after an awkward or somewhat inappropriate remark about the death of Trump ally and youth evangelical leader Charlie Kirk in Utah. Exactly three days after that, Kimmel was off the air. I believe this was a reaction from an opposition TV channel, which claimed that in the U.S. an attack on democracy and democratic institutions was unfolding faster than in Russia.
The cancellation of Kimmel’s show provoked indignation from left, right, and center; Republicans and Democrats alike opposed the move and the federal licensing commission’s statement that ABC should close Kimmel’s show or face worse consequences. One Republican leader described the commission’s ultimatum as “mafioso.” In short, U.S. civil society rose up in full protest.
How did this protest show itself? First, many people in the U.S. unsubscribed—by the hundreds of thousands—from Disney’s channels, just as hundreds of thousands had unsubscribed from The Washington Post after a certain anti-Trump column was removed (more than 250,000 people dropped their subscriptions then). The same happened with Disney’s channels. It was a serious hit to the network’s reputation and revenue.
Three days later, Kimmel returned to the air, and his first monologue after the three-day silence was viewed by more than 21 million people. Some local station owners that retransmit ABC in various cities initially refused to air Kimmel’s show—but they lasted only two days before reversing course, because viewers threatened to unsubscribe and permanently boycott ABC channels.
Any power in any country—even the most democratic—always attempts to appropriate as many rights and functions as possible. The moment civil society begins resisting blackmail and pressure, the executive branch immediately faces pushback.
Donald Trump and his federal commission can do nothing about this: when media owners stand up, they are “dealt with” just as people are when they kneel. But the moment civil society resists—when it opposes decisions by owners—the executive branch retreats immediately.
Any power, in any country, always tries to expand its domain—especially over civil society—and often uses large corporations to do so. This was true in Russia, in the U.S., in the U.K., and many other democracies. Thus, the alarmism that “democracy in the U.S. is over” comes from ignorance of reality and of history.
Worse Times Existed
In U.S. history there have been far worse periods—for example, the McCarthy era from 1947 to 1954, when Soviet spy infiltrations triggered investigations in the U.S., and many people were deemed ideological sympathizers of the USSR. During McCarthyism, the situation was far worse than under Donald Trump.
Hundreds of screenwriters, directors, and actors in Hollywood were blacklisted for alleged ties to or sympathies with the Communist Party. Over 100 university professors were dismissed for leftist views. That period was more severe in its suppression of dissent than what we see today.
During McCarthyism, gays were considered a national security risk. Under Executive Order 10-450, between 7,000 and 10,000 federal employees identified as homosexual were dismissed. In the mid-1940s and 1950s, under President Truman, millions of federal employees underwent purges, loyalty oaths, commissions investigating whether they had Communist sympathies or Soviet connections.
None of that fit democratic norms. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people cannot be punished solely for their membership in political parties, movements, or associations. That was a turning point.
Here’s a favorite institution of mine in the U.S.: the Supreme Court and the broader judicial system. As of now, 430 lawsuits have been filed against Trump and his executive decisions (closing agencies, firing federal employees, etc.). Dozens of federal judges have blocked 29 of his decisions; over 80 decisions have been temporarily blocked; 19 presidential decrees have been blocked pending final rulings; and 185 suits await final judgments. Across all U.S. states, 185 of Trump’s decrees or federal actions were upheld by judges. That is to say, 185 of his executive measures were confirmed as lawful by the courts. This is what I call resistance by the independent judiciary in the U.S.
That is exactly the sort of pushback Russia has never had—not under Yeltsin or under Putin. When Putin came to power, he appointed retired KGB colonel Ivanov to overhaul the judiciary. Almost all independent judges were removed and replaced by assistants, secretaries, etc.—overnight. In contrast, in the U.S. federal judges are appointed by the president but confirmed by the Senate; many of the judges blocking Trump were appointed by Trump himself during his first term.
In U.S. history, before and after McCarthyism, institutionalized segregation of Black Americans was a grim reality. Although slavery was abolished in 1865 (later than serfdom was ended in Tsarist Russia), in 1897 the Supreme Court declared for the doctrine “separate but equal,” which allowed segregation in public facilities. Black and white Americans had “equal rights” in theory—but were required to remain separated. In many Southern states, until the 1950s, there were segregated schools, buses, restrooms, benches, etc.
In the famous Brown vs. Board of Education case (1954), the Supreme Court overturned segregation in public schools and declared it unconstitutional. Federal action and constitutional amendments, especially the 14th Amendment, made official segregation illegal and enforced equal protection under the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed segregation and racial discrimination.
Independent Judges
The judicial branch has played a crucial role in resisting executive overreach, protecting civil society and independent media. The U.S. has nearly 2,794 federal judges. The Supreme Court has nine lifetime justices. They are above the partisan fray, not oriented toward elections; their actions are bound by the Constitution and detailed rules.
Because no political party—neither Democrats nor Republicans—could reliably champion civil rights in full, the Supreme Court acted when elected bodies failed. Many justices are viewed as conservative or liberal—but under Trump we’ve seen that even his decisions are not immune. For example, the Court granted presidential immunity for some official actions, but refused to intervene when Trump asked to retroactively overturn a prior criminal conviction.
The current clashes between Trump and the governors of states like California and Illinois illustrate the division of power. Trump tried to deploy the National Guard to California and Oregon, but state courts or local governments prevented it. In Illinois, the governor responded: “Dear President, you cannot do that here.” Thus, the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary are enshrined in the Constitution—and that is exactly what stands in the way of any autocratic ground‐swell.
Officials—especially elected ones—always try to amass more power. It makes things easier. But civil society resists. And that is happening now in the U.S.
The Democracy Immune System
So: America is not Russia. First, because it has a very strong democratic immune system. Very strong institutions that resist autocracy and dictatorship. Second: there is no sweeping rollback on democracy. Yes, there is pressure on the media—but where media and civil society resist, as in Kimmel’s case, authority and owners are forced to step back. We will see if CBS can end Colbert’s contract in May 2026—and how much Paramount loses from that decision.
As for The Washington Post, Amazon pressed the opinion department, but in U.S. news organizations there is often a firewall between the news and opinion sections. According to friends at the Post, the news department remains independent. Whether that continues or not remains to be seen.
But the fact is: civil society in the U.S. resists—and resists actively. The Supreme Court and the legal system erect many barriers and barriers to attacks on civil rights, including the First Amendment (freedom of assembly, expression).
Progress, unfortunately, is never stable. Backlashes are a normal part of democratic societies—that’s precisely why democracy exists: because there is no consensus, people think differently.
When Russian propagandists say “everything is like in Russia”—that Trump by will rocks institutions, fires those he dislikes—I understand why they say it. They need to convince people in Russia that democracy doesn’t exist anywhere else: everywhere is like Russia—everyone steals, rights are violated, people are jailed. It’s effective propaganda.
But I believe émigré opposition media should refrain from that foolishness. Civil society in the U.S. has repeatedly succeeded in resisting authoritarianism—even more severe surges than Trump’s. Resistance matters. An independent judicial system matters even more.
I clearly remember my 31 December 1999 interview with Anatoly Chubais, the day Yeltsin announced Putin as his successor. Chubais warned that Russia needed an independent judiciary—if Putin succeeded in curbing the corruption of the courts, nothing would be frightening. But Putin did not want that. One of his first actions was full subjugation of the judiciary—turning it into a mere extension of the executive. That is why in Russia rollback is possible.
Is there a rollback of democracy in the U.S. today? Yes. As I said, though, not a first. Progress, unfortunately, is never uninterrupted. Backsliding is a normal element of democratic societies. That is precisely why democracy exists: because there is no unanimity, because people think differently. I was told by friends in 2008, when Obama was elected, that institutionalized racism in the United States had ended—that its page was closed. Eight years later it turned out not so. Some were frightened by the rise of Black political influence, drawing on historical memory. That scared half of America. Those are the country’s realities.
That is part of what enabled Trump to win in 2016 and now against Kamala Harris: half of America fears the rise of Black Americans. These things persist.
In other countries, we see a surge of antisemitism. What is that? It is fear. Fear of the other. Fear of the successful “other.” The extreme of that fear was Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy. One hopes that European democracies will manage, though just on Yom Kippur we saw an attack on a synagogue in Manchester, one of Europe’s largest Jewish communities outside London. Many famous British Jews announced they would leave the UK—as many Jews had already left France after attacks on synagogues and massacres in kosher stores.
The most stable societies are dictatorial ones—where nothing ever changes, and the same person remains in power for decades. Democracies are far more complicated. Instability is a mark of change, of development.
I repeat: progress never proceeds without backsliding. They are, if you will, necessary—so that radicals do not ascend to power, as often happens in Latin America where civil society is much weaker and institutional systems far more fragile. There is no system as strong as the United States has, no legal power as strong as that in the U.S.