The United States’ Inclusion on the Civicus Monitor Watchlist: A Comprehensive Analysis of Democratic Erosion Under the Trump Administration

Introduction

What is the Civicis Monitor watch list?

MISSION

CIVICUS is an international alliance that robustly strengthens citizen action and civil society worldwide.

The CIVICUS Monitor, which began in 2017, tracks the state of freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and expression in 198 countries and territories.

CIVICUS, the leading global civil society alliance, represents a robust network of organizations at local, national, regional, and international levels, encompassing the full spectrum of civil society. Our definition of civil society is broad, including civil society networks and organizations, trade unions, faith-based groups, professional associations, NGO capacity development organizations, philanthropic foundations, and various funding bodies.

For nearly two decades, CIVICUS has been at the forefront of strengthening citizen action and civil society around the globe, especially in regions where participatory democracy and citizens' rights to associate are under threat. We envision a vibrant global community of active, engaged citizens dedicated to building a more just and equitable world. This vision is grounded in our belief that the health of society is intrinsically linked to the balance among the state, the private sector, and civil society.

CIVICUS is a critical hub for knowledge-sharing, representation of common interests, global institution-building, and fostering engagement among these diverse sectors. We assert that citizen participation is a fundamental pillar of governance and democracy worldwide. Our mission is clear: to amplify ordinary people's voices and opinions and showcase the vast creative potential of the expanding civil society sector.

United States addition

The United States’ addition to the Civicus Monitor Watchlist on 10 Th March 2025 marks a watershed moment in global assessments of democratic health, signaling alarm over systemic threats to civic freedoms under the Trump administration.

This designation—shared with nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, and Serbia—reflects a documented pattern of executive overreach, institutional dismantling, and suppression of dissent.

Key factors driving this classification include mass firings of federal employees, politicized appointments, withdrawal from international frameworks, legislative crackdowns on protests, and unprecedented restrictions on press access.

These actions, described by Civicus as an “unparalleled attack on the rule of law,” have drawn comparisons to McCarthyism and raised concerns about the erosion of checks and balances essential to democratic governance.

The U.S. now risks regression to an “obstructed” civic space rating, a status last seen during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, underscoring the fragility of constitutional safeguards in the face of concentrated executive power.

Executive Overreach and Institutional Dismantling

Weaponization of Executive Authority

The Trump administration’s aggressive use of executive orders has emerged as a primary mechanism for reshaping federal institutions and sidelining dissent.

Within weeks of the January 2025 inauguration, over 125 executive orders were issued, targeting diversity initiatives, immigration policies, and international agreements.

Among the most consequential was Executive Order 14028, which mandated a 90% reduction in foreign aid contracts and precipitated the dismantling of USAID. This unilateral action not only disrupted humanitarian programs but also eliminated protections for persecuted activists reliant on U.S. support.

Parallel measures froze federal funding for domestic nonprofits serving marginalized communities, creating legal ambiguities that forced organizations to scale back operations or close entirely.

The administration justified these cuts as necessary to eliminate “wasteful expenditures” yet provided no substantive criteria for determining program viability.

This arbitrariness extended to personnel decisions, with career civil servants replaced by Trump loyalists lacking relevant expertise. The Justice Department and FBI saw extensive purges, with nonpartisan officials dismissed en masse and replaced by ideologically aligned appointees.

Such staffing changes enabled the administration to bypass traditional accountability mechanisms, effectively converting federal agencies into extensions of presidential authority rather than independent arbiters of law.

Legislative Assault on Civil Society

Complementing executive actions, the administration revived dormant legislative tools to pressure civil society organizations.

A lapsed counterterrorism statute allowing the Treasury Department to revoke nonprofits’ tax-exempt status under vague pretenses was slated for renewal, threatening organizations critical of government policies.

Simultaneously, state-level allies introduced bills criminalizing protest tactics, with 12 states passing laws banning face coverings at demonstrations and imposing harsh penalties for civil disobedience—these measures built upon earlier Trump-era legislation targeting environmental activists, expanding the legal framework for protest suppression.

The cumulative effect has been a chilling of civic participation. Organizations now operate under constant threat of defunding or criminalization, leading to self-censorship on issues ranging from racial justice to climate policy. Mandeep Tiwana of Civicus notes this creates an “atmosphere to chill democratic dissent,” fundamentally altering the risk calculus for engagement in public discourse.

Retreat from Global Leadership

Withdrawal from International Frameworks

The administration’s “America First” doctrine precipitated a sweeping disengagement from multilateral institutions. In January 2025, formal withdrawals from the World Health Organization, UN Human Rights Council, and the Paris Climate Agreement were announced, followed by sanctions against the International Criminal Court.

These moves severed decades-old partnerships, undermining global health monitoring, human rights advocacy, and climate mitigation efforts.

Of particular concern was the abandonment of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, which previously guided U.S. foreign aid priorities.

This retreat had immediate consequences for transnational civil society. Organizations reliant on U.S. funding for refugee assistance, press freedom initiatives, and LGBTQ+ advocacy faced abrupt budget shortfalls.

Concurrently, the dissolution of USAID eliminated a primary channel for grassroots support, leaving local activists vulnerable to state repression. Critics argue these actions embolden authoritarian regimes by removing accountability mechanisms and legitimizing anti-democratic tactics.

Diplomatic Repercussions

The administration’s foreign policy shifts have recalibrated global power dynamics. By freezing aid to nations advocating democratic reforms and embracing autocratic allies, the U.S. has diminished its role as a human rights standard-bearer.

Civicus warns this creates a “vacuum in global moral leadership,” enabling crackdowns on dissent worldwide. For instance, the defunding of UNRWA coincided with heightened repression of pro-Palestinian activism domestically, signaling alignment with illiberal actors in the Middle East.

Moreover, rejecting international climate commitments has stalled emissions reductions, disproportionately impacting developing nations.

This policy reversal and sanctions against climate-focused NGOs demonstrate how domestic institutional erosion radiates outward, compromising collective action on transnational issues.

Suppression of Dissent and Public Discourse

Criminalization of Protest

The administration’s response to social movements has followed a pattern of escalation and legal persecution.

Building on 2020 tactics against Black Lives Matter protests, federal agencies collaborated with state governments to suppress pro-Palestinian demonstrations in 2025.

Tactics included mass arrests under revised “riot” statutes, visa cancellations for international student protesters, and felony charges for nonviolent civil disobedience.

Newly enacted state laws amplify these efforts. Arizona’s HB 2319, for example, imposes mandatory minimum sentences for “unlawful assembly,” while Florida’s SB 1094 authorizes preemptive detention of suspected protest organizers.

Such measures weaponize the legal system against dissent, reframing constitutionally protected assembly as threats to public order. Legal scholars warn these laws create a “patchwork of repression,” allowing jurisdictions to bypass federal courts in silencing opposition.

Information Control and Media Restrictions

Press freedoms have eroded through both formal policy and informal intimidation. The White House Correspondents’ Association reported a 73% decline in press briefing access since January 2025, with outlets critical of the administration systematically excluded.

Associated Press journalists were barred from events, while others covering sensitive topics like immigration faced credential revocations.

Parallel efforts targeted digital platforms. A proposed “Fairness Doctrine” for social media—touted as combating bias—would mandate equal coverage of administration statements regardless of factual accuracy.

Combined with defunding public broadcasters, these measures concentrate narrative control within executive-aligned media ecosystems.

As Civicus notes, the result is “unprecedented restrictions on independent reporting,” which is corroding public capacity for informed civic participation.

Institutional Norms and Checks on Power

Subversion of Meritocratic Systems

The federal workforce has undergone ideological purification, with 23% of career civil servants replaced by political appointees as of March 2025.

Agencies responsible for regulatory oversight—including the EPA and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—saw exceptionally high turnover and disabled enforcement of environmental and consumer protection laws. This “loyalty purge” extended to advisory boards, where industry representatives and partisan actors replaced scientists and policy experts.

The administration defended these changes as necessary to eliminate “deep state” resistance, yet internal memos reveal explicit criteria prioritizing ideological conformity over qualifications.

This systemic politicization undermines institutional memory and expertise, rendering agencies incapable of complex policy implementation. The FDA’s delayed response to emergent health crises and the SEC’s failure to investigate market manipulation exemplify the consequences.

Judicial and Legislative Complicity

While the administration’s actions test constitutional boundaries, checks from coequal branches have been uneven.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld several controversial measures, including travel bans targeting Muslim-majority nations and limits on asylum claims.

Conversely, lower courts issued conflicting rulings on protest restrictions, creating legal uncertainty that law enforcement exploited.

Congressional oversight has faltered amid partisan gridlock. Despite holding hearings on executive overreach, legislative efforts to constrain presidential authority stalled in committee. This paralysis reflects broader democratic backsliding, with Civicus noting the “system of checks and balances is being dismantled.”

Comparative and Historical Context

Parallels to Twentieth-Century Authoritarianism

Civicus’s comparison to McCarthyism finds resonance in the administration’s targeting of dissenters through loyalty tests and public smears.

The revival of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in February 2025 to investigate “anti-American” activism mirrors 1950s tactics, with subpoenas issued to Black Lives Matter organizers and climate justice groups.

Contemporary hearings blend ideological policing with performative politics, leveraging state power to intimidate critics.

Equally concerning are echoes of Weimar-era institutional collapse. Legal scholars note similarities between the Reichstag Fire Decree and Executive Order 14091, which suspended habeas corpus for individuals deemed “national security threats.” While not yet approaching Nazi-era repression, these precedents highlight democracies’ vulnerability to incremental authoritarianism.

Global Democratic Recession

The U.S. decline occurs within a broader democratic recession affecting 75% of Civicus-monitored nations. However, America’s fall carries unique implications, given its historical role in shaping international human rights frameworks.

Authoritarian regimes now cite U.S. actions to legitimize their crackdowns—a phenomenon evident in Hungary’s “American-style” protest laws and Saudi Arabia’s justification of journalist arrests.

This contagion effect extends to multilateral institutions. Without U.S. participation, the UN Human Rights Council struggles to sanction abuses, while the ICC’s ability to prosecute war crimes diminishes following American sanctions. Consequently, the administration’s domestic actions have international ripple effects, undermining decades of human rights advocacy.

Conclusion

Implications and Pathways Forward

The Civicus Watchlist designation serves as both diagnosis and warning. Domestically, it signals the erosion of constitutional safeguards through executive overreach and institutional decay. Globally, it marks the withdrawal of a traditional democracy champion, accelerating norm erosion in international relations.

Restoring civic space requires multifaceted responses: judicial reaffirmation of First Amendment protections, congressional reassertion of oversight authority, and revitalized grassroots mobilization. International pressure through mechanisms like the UN Universal Periodic Review could complement domestic efforts, though the administration’s multilateral disengagement complicates this avenue.

Ultimately, the U.S. case demonstrates democracy’s contingent nature—even longstanding systems crumble without vigilant defense of institutional norms.

Civicus warns that the path from “narrowed” to “obstructed” civic space is alarmingly short, demanding urgent course correction to prevent further democratic backsliding.