Status of this post: in writing this I prioritised speed over quality. I'm not particularly expert on this topic. I fully expect there to be things I’m missing or have got wrong. This post is more a request for feedback than a statement of a high-conviction claim.

Summary

I think it's moderately likely that action to bolster American democracy may be high impact.

• Importance (“I of ITN”): this seems high to me. For reasons of brevity, I haven’t carefully defended this claim.
• Tractability (“T of ITN”): unclear. I’ve set out some thoughts, and it seems there are several things that can be done (either with people’s time or their money). I haven’t taken the time to assess the quality of these ideas, but I have hope that at least some proportion of them are effective.
• Neglectedness (“N of ITN”): moderately high, I think. There are people doing things to support the quality of American democracy, but it seems to me that the amount of work happening is low compared to the level of threat. This may be because the firehose of actions has been so full on that people/civil society are too overwhelmed to respond.

My main ask of readers is to express a view on how effective this area of work is. Specifically, I think it would be useful to review the actions outlined in the section “T of ITN”, and form a view on which actions are most effective, and whether they are effective enough to suggest we should act on those (instead of other things that we might currently be donating to or otherwise supporting). If the conclusion is that we should prioritise other things over this problem, I predict it will be because we can’t realistically achieve good traction, especially since I haven't taken the time to assess the effectiveness of the actions that I listed.

When I say “democracy” I roughly mean good governance

Although I’ve used the term “democracy”, what I care about is

• Good governance
• Checks and balances

I’m using “democracy” here largely because it’s a shorthand which is meaningful for most people. Also, I don’t know of a system which is effective at achieving those goals other than democracy. 

Ultimately, these checks and balances protect a country from descending into the worst excesses of authoritarianism. 

To what extent is democracy under threat in the US?

The first few weeks of the Trump presidency have seen a firehose of executive orders and other actions. Any one of them on their own would at least raise eyebrows, if not provoke outrage. Several actions appear unconstitutional or at least designed to weaken democracy, but are nonetheless being enacted. So it appears that American democracy is under threat. As an appendix, I’ve put together several such signs from recent events.

I of ITN: Importance seems high

If Trump were able to substantially erode constitutional checks and balances, it seems pretty clear to me that the consequences have the potential to be bad, the only question is how bad, and how likely is it. To illustrate how bad the outcomes might be, here’s a brainstormed list of potential outcomes which may or may not happen:

• Evisceration of aid becoming permanent
• Increased risk of conflict, potentially moving beyond the likes of Greenland and escalating to great power conflict
• Increased risk of (accidental or deliberate) use of nuclear weapons. (Apparently the administration fired over 300 employees at the national nuclear security administration, then tried to reinstate them, but at time of writing doesn’t seem to know how; sources: 1,2,3)
• Exacerbation of climate change
• An unwillingness to follow international norms may lead to greater willingness to develop biological weapons
• If tech billionaire “oligarchs” prefer greater deregulation of AI, this could exacerbate the risk of loss of control of AI/misalignment
• The human rights abuses typical of a totalitarian state

For brevity, I have not taken the time to assess the likelihood of these outcomes. Intuitively, it seems that the score for the I of ITN should be at least moderately high, and likely very high. If anyone disagrees with this, I’d be interested to hear why.

T of ITN: Several things can be done, but how effective are they?

In this section, I’ve brainstormed several ideas for interventions. The key question, in my view, is whether the best of these interventions is sufficiently effective.

Here’s my thinking on how to categorise interventions: success occurs when we prevent (or reduce the harm of) illegal/questionable acts conducted by the President, or (more broadly) the executive branch. Let’s structure the options between the following three categories:

• Checks and balances: controlling illegal/questionable presidential activity when it happens.
• Responsive: actions to perform after illegal/questionable presidential activity, including lawsuits, supporting the media, and citizen action.
• Preventative: preventing future illegal/questionable presidential activity, including enabling future elections to be free and fair elections.

This isn’t necessarily a “clean” division (arguably the whole point of some responsive actions is typically that they have a preventative effect).

In each section, I list some organisations which can be supported through donations or volunteering. In each case, I have done almost zero research of these organisations. To a large extent, my call to action is not necessarily to immediately donate/volunteer, but rather to crowdsource views on the effectiveness of taking these actions.

Checks and balances

This section focuses on the checks and balances built into the constitution.

My understanding is that the legislative branch, ie Congress, should play a key role in this, as should the judicial branch. 

To a certain extent, this is happening at the moment. See, eg, the recent Eric Adams case (sources 1,2,3, with the actions of Danielle Sassoon being particularly interesting). We see brave individuals (lawyers, in this case) who have demonstrated that they are willing to take brave action to uphold the rule of law. 

Although the checks and balances are working at the moment to some extent, it may be that they are working less well than they should. Some sources (eg The Hill, Ezra Klein) argue that Elon Musk is influencing Congress by threatening to use his wealth to unseat members of Congress who defy Trump.

An example which suggests that this threat is working may be the recent controversial appointments, such as Pete Hegseth and RFK. I found this section from an NBC news article on Pete Hegseth instructive:

Joni Ernst, a key Republican vote, plays nice

As a combat veteran and sexual assault survivor, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, has long been seen as a linchpin of Hegseth’s path to 50 votes, as she has expressed concerns about him.

At Tuesday's hearing, she did little to challenge Hegseth. And after it ended, Ernst announced her support for his nomination.

<...>

Ernst, who faces re-election in 2026, had come under heavy pressure from Trump allies to get behind Hegseth after her initial skepticisms of his nomination came to light. Lately, she hasn’t shown much of an appetite lately to buck the president-elect.

Furthermore, it seems the ramifications of defying the President could go beyond simply losing their job. For example, there are signs he’s willing to use legal harassment against his opponents (sources: 1,2,3) and even willing to use the US military against his political enemies (sources: 1,2,3,4).

This suggests that work which strengthens the judiciary and legislative branches ability to serve as a check/balance on the executive branch is useful, both at the “losing your job” level of threat and the (probably worse) “legal and military harassment” level of threat.

I expect that there are probably lots of ideas that I’m missing, and would invite more suggestions.

Responsive (lawsuits, media, citizen action)

• Lawsuits
  • I understand that there are several lawsuits currently underway for actions like the drastic evisceration of USAID, the attack on DEI, and the treatment of migrants. I’m confident that these will have some effect on maintaining the rule of law, however I’m not clear on how effective they will be. Can the President just ignore them?
• Media
  • Trump is very negative towards certain areas of the media, and if he were to damage the freedom of the press in the US, this could limit Americans’ ability (and the world’s ability) to understand what’s happening in the US.
• Citizen action
  • Citizens can certainly at least write to their representatives to express their concerns. Stronger actions (strikes and civil disobedience) should at some point be considered.

Preventative (free and fair elections)

Preventative actions include:

• Preventing Trump from remaining in power for a third term: I’ll let other people who are better positioned than me comment on this.
• Ensuring free and fair elections: this could involve lobbying against laws which limit access to voting, and strengthening voting rights laws, strengthening independent oversight such as nonpartisan election commissions, ensuring that election officials are protected, and supporting grassroots groups which increase voter participation are supported.

Below, I list some organisations that I left out of the table in the “free and fair elections” row.

Deprioritised because they don’t cover the US, as far as I know

• The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) supports citizens' rights to participate in free and fair elections.
• Democracy International – Works on democracy and governance programs worldwide, including election monitoring, civic participation, and government accountability.
• Transparency International – primarily focused on combating corruption, this NGO also addresses electoral fraud and promotes transparency in political funding.
• European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations (ENEMO) – A coalition of election-monitoring groups from post-Soviet and Eastern European countries that observes elections and promotes democratic reforms.

Deprioritised for misc reasons

• FairVote – Advocates for electoral reforms in the U.S., such as ranked-choice voting, proportional representation, and voting rights protections. Possibly unfair to leave this off the main list in the table; I haven’t taken the time to understand how effective this work will be at reducing authoritarianism.

N of ITN: is there already enough happening to tackle this issue?

Alluded to earlier, the Eric Adams case demonstrates that some actions are being taken. However the extent of the response appears to have been tempered by the “firehose effect”. Ie there have been so many shocking events happening in quick succession that it’s hard for any one of them to elicit a meaningful response from most people. This may explain why the extent of the response seems low compared to the extent of the problem. 

Is this only a matter for Americans?

Some might argue that this is a matter solely for Americans. However a quick glance at the list above (see section on I of ITN) indicates that most of the biggest risks that I’m worried about are global in nature, and therefore likely to ultimately affect all of us.

Nonetheless, I think it’s useful to draw a distinction between the party political (eg Trump and Harris may differ on policies, eg on attitudes to immigration) and general good governance. As I see it, it’s reasonable for anyone to promote general good governance, including free and fair elections and human rights. It’s also reasonable for this to be promoted regardless of borders. Interfering in the party political outcomes of another country is much more questionable. 

Clearly, in this case, that distinction is more complex, and in this document I’m treading that line as carefully as I can.

Appendix: signs of democracy being under threat in the US

I’ll put these signs into the following categories:

• Erosion of democratic institutions
• Free and fair elections
• Disinformation and misinformation
• Attacks on the free press
• Attacks on civil society
• “Capture” of the private sector

Erosion of democratic institutions

• Choices of leaders of departments, such as the department of health, or defence. Some appointments appear to be of individuals who do not have the relevant expertise and qualifications to perform the role effectively, which may undermine the effectiveness of the post-holder. Aside from the obvious issues that those departments run less effectively, such an individual may be a less effective check/balance against the authoritarianism of the President.
• Trump wants to fire the director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) which monitors conflicts of interests. (Source: MSNBC)
• Trump fired 17 inspectors general, whose role is to audit the actions of government. “'It's a widespread massacre. Whoever Trump puts in now will be viewed as loyalists, and that undermines the entire system,' one of the unnamed fired agents told the Washington Post. ” (copied from the Daily Mail) More detail in this article from Campaign Legal.
• The judiciary: Trump has installed several judges who are allied to him, and those are lifelong appointments, which means long term support. The judiciary is an important component of the checks and balances which control the power of the president. (I haven’t looked into this carefully, and don’t understand the extent to which this departs from norms – every president tends to nominate judges who reflect their understanding of the law.) 

Free and fair elections

Attempts to undermine the outcomes of the 2020 election

It is my understanding that Trump did not respect the outcome of the 2020 election, which he lost. I haven’t taken the time to research this position carefully. Some evidence which supports this position:

• Pressuring State Officials:
  One widely reported incident involves Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, during which he urged him to “find” enough votes to overturn the election results in that state. This call is frequently cited as an effort to influence the outcome. (Sources: 1,2,3)
• Legal Challenges and Claims of Fraud:
  Trump and his allies filed numerous lawsuits challenging the election outcome in several key states. These legal actions were consistently dismissed by courts for lacking credible evidence, yet they helped sow doubt among supporters about the legitimacy of the election. (Sources: 1,2,3)
• Rhetoric and Public Statements:
  In the months following the election, Trump repeatedly made public statements alleging widespread voter fraud and a “stolen” election. These assertions, despite being debunked by multiple independent investigations and recounts, contributed to a broader narrative that sought to delegitimise the official results.

These actions, taken together, illustrate efforts that many observers and legal experts argue were intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election results.

Treatment of 6 Jan rioters/”hostages”

Trump has pardoned the people who committed political violence on 6 Jan 2021, and who tried to overturn an election. (Sources: CNN, Reuters, Texas tribune). Respecting the outcome of free and fair elections is a cornerstone of a well governed democracy.

Voter suppression

Recent actions by the Trump administration have raised concerns about potential voter suppression. Notable examples include:

1. Implementation of the SAVE Act: The proposed Secure America's Vote and Elections (SAVE) Act mandates in-person proof of citizenship for voter registration. Critics argue this could disenfranchise millions, particularly married women who have changed their surnames, as well as people of color, young voters, and transgender individuals, due to documentation discrepancies.

   glamour.com, Campaign legal, Brennan Center 

    

2. Dismantling Election Security Measures: The administration has disbanded federal efforts to monitor election interference, including the dissolution of an FBI task force focused on foreign influence and significant staffing cuts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). These actions may increase vulnerabilities to foreign meddling in U.S. elections. This item overlaps with the point around disinformation and misinformation (see next section).

   apnews.com

    

3. Reshaping the Justice Department's Role in Voting Rights: Plans to reduce enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and potentially prosecute local election officials have been reported. Such measures could undermine federal voting rights protections and intimidate officials responsible for overseeing elections.

   theguardian.com

    

These actions collectively suggest a pattern that may restrict voter participation and compromise the integrity of the electoral process.

Disinformation and misinformation

• The global engagement centre has been deprived of funding, and it was the state department’s centre for fighting global disinformation. (source: Cyberscoop)
• The Department of Homeland Security said on 11 Feb that personnel focused on misinformation, disinformation and foreign influence operations aimed at U.S. elections have been placed on administrative leave. (source: Reuters)
• It’s been suggested that the USAID cuts will also exacerbate the misinformation problem (source: Guardian)

Attacks on the free press

Trump’s ability to reach followers directly, previously via twitter, now increasingly via truth social, arguably reduces his need to control the free press, even though throttling the free press has certainly been a core part of the authoritarian playbook in the past. Nonetheless, Trump has long been critical of the press, so some sort of hostile action is to be expected, and does, indeed, appear to have happened:

• Trump has called for CBS to lose its licence, sued ABC news (source: Al jazeera)
• Trump's administration also denied Associated Press access to the White House for failing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America (source: NBC)

Attacks on civil society

Recent actions by the Trump administration seem to suggest an undermining of civil society organisations, particularly non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and nonprofits. These measures include funding freezes, policy changes, and executive orders that collectively pose significant challenges to the operational capacity of these organisations.

For this section, the elements which I think are most relevant are attacks by the administration on those parts of civil society which are likely to hold government to account for their actions. I have not found evidence of this, although I have found plenty of examples of the administration attacking other parts of civil society, notably the USAID funding suspension, and an executive order which targets NGO funding. The latter may end up targeting the parts of civil society which I'm particularly considering here, but I don't know its outcome yet.

“Capture” of the private sector 

The private sector can at times be a control over a government which is abusing its powers.

However recent actions by the Trump administration indicate a significant influence over private sector behavior, particularly through executive orders and policy directives that have prompted companies to modify their internal practices.

Impact on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives:

On January 22, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to terminate DEI programs and to address "illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities." This directive has led several major corporations to reassess and, in some cases, scale back their DEI commitments.

• Goldman Sachs: The financial institution has abandoned its policy of refusing to handle IPOs for companies with all-white, all-male boards, a reversal influenced by the administration's crackdown on DEI practices in the private sector.
   nypost.com
• Hollywood Studios: Several media companies are reevaluating their DEI policies due to increased scrutiny from the administration, with some opting to quietly continue diversity efforts without explicitly labeling them as DEI initiatives.
   ft.com
• Meta: Meta has decided to roll back its DEI programme. 

Influence on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing:

The administration's stance has also impacted ESG investing, with policies that may deter companies from pursuing ESG-related initiatives.

• Regulatory Changes: The administration is expected to challenge the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules requiring companies to disclose their emissions, potentially hindering transparency efforts related to environmental impact.
   internationalbanker.com
• Corporate Strategy Adjustments: Companies may face increased pressure to align with the administration's policies, potentially leading to a reduction in ESG-focused investments and initiatives.
   velaw.com

Importantly, some of these changes are self-imposed, indicating that some corporates are already adjusting themselves to align with the Trump regime, without needing to be prompted. This raises concerns about the private sector's ability to rein in the administration.