Trump and Modi: How Two Populist Leaders are Dismantling the World’s Largest Democracies

Researchers at UC Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute have identified Donald Trump and Narendra Modi as exemplars of “authoritarian populism,” a political style distinct from pure authoritarianism. Both leaders have been examined extensively by political scientists studying democratic erosion, though their methods, contexts, and impacts differ significantly in pace, structure, and institutional resilience.

The Authoritarian Populist Framework

Authoritarian populists are focused on nativism—preferential treatment toward native inhabitants over immigrants—and opposing pluralism, working toward a more uniform society instead of a multicultural one. Unlike pure authoritarians like Putin who maintain close ties with elites and seek to maintain a status quo, authoritarian populists often decry elites and blame them for citizens’ problems, though behind closed doors they maintain ties with elites.

The Lowy Institute observed that Trump’s bombastic style has brought forth rapid change, while under Modi, change has unfolded in a more gradual, deliberate way, though both align with the general authoritarian agenda to centralize and cling to power for as long as possible by whatever means possible. This fundamental difference in tempo—what one analyst called a fast track versus a slow burn—shapes how democratic erosion occurs in each context.

Both leaders have pursued what scholars call the “authoritarian playbook,” though with different targets and strategies shaped by their respective institutional environments.

Trump’s Approach to Independent Institutions

On February 18, 2025, Trump signed an executive order giving the president greater power over independent regulatory agencies—government entities Congress set up to be shielded from White House control, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Trump has fired inspectors general responsible for preventing inefficient or unlawful operations, appointed loyalists to key positions of power, launched investigations targeting Democratic fundraising capacity, cut funding to NPR and PBS while also suing CBS News and the New York Times, and given himself extraordinary new powers over the American economy through unilateral tariffs.

The executive order requires affected agencies to submit new regulations to the White House, set up White House Liaison offices, and regularly consult with and coordinate policies and priorities with the White House. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law.

According to Sweden’s Varieties of Democracy Institute, the world’s largest democracy could no longer be considered democratic, and described India as an “electoral autocracy.”

A survey of more than 500 political scientists by Bright Line Watch in April 2025 found that a majority believe the country is sliding from liberal democracy toward authoritarianism. Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard and co-author of “How Democracies Die,” stated that the U.S. has slid into some form of authoritarianism that is relatively mild compared to some others and certainly reversible, but it is no longer a liberal democracy.

Modi’s Institutional Erosion

Under Narendra Modi since 2014, key democratic institutions have remained formally in place while the norms and practices underpinning democracy have substantially deteriorated. India’s civil-liberties ranking has eroded year on year since 2019, dropping from 42 out of a possible 60 points in 2010 to 33 in 2023, moving India from the category of democracy to the terrain of a hybrid regime.

While India is a multiparty democracy, the government led by Modi and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party has presided over discriminatory policies and a rise in persecution affecting Muslims, with harassment of journalists, nongovernmental organizations, and other government critics increasing significantly under Modi. India’s ranking on the World Press Freedom Index has been consistently falling since Modi came to power in 2014, with India slipping to 161 out of 180 countries from 150 just a year prior in the 2023 report from Reporters Without Borders.

In 2021, Freedom House stripped India of its “free” status for the first time since the Emergency Era between 1975 and 1977, awarding India a “partly free” status. Sweden’s Varieties of Democracy Institute went further, stating that the world’s largest democracy could no longer be considered democratic, describing India as an “electoral autocracy”—a country that holds elections but lacks essential democratic safeguards.

Press Freedom and Media Control

Both leaders have attacked press freedom, though through different mechanisms reflecting their political systems.

Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history, making moves similar to those of authoritarian leaders he has often praised. Trump cheered ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show after the comedian made remarks about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk that criticized Trump’s MAGA movement.

Under Modi, media freedom in India has come under serious threat, with journalists trolled, harassed, and even arrested for doing their jobs. Modi has not held a single press conference since he took office, preferring to deliver messages through a monthly radio show or on social media. In India, police have arrested performers for jokes deemed offensive to Hindu deities or critical of Modi’s party, with comedians such as Kunal Kamra and Vir Das facing lawsuits, show cancellations, and harassment from nationalist groups for skewering the government.

Targeting of Minorities and Pluralism

Both leaders have overseen increased discrimination against minority communities, though the targets and methods differ.

Modi and the BJP regularly exploit the public’s exasperation with democracy to create the image of a decisive and powerful leader who has the nation’s best interests at heart, with the implication that he should be able to operate freely without any interference from a hostile parliament or judiciary. India’s 200 million Muslims, representing 14% of the population, have consistently been singled out in the ruling party’s targeting of minorities. The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act introduced religion as a criterion for refugees from neighboring countries to receive citizenship for the first time in India’s history, explicitly excluding Muslims.

The Trump campaign’s attacks on transgender rights depicted a small number of trans athletes as a fundamental threat to societal norms around gender and, instead of leaving space for various types of gender identity and expression, proposed strict government regulation of trans people’s participation in aspects of public life. The Modi government’s actions actively discriminate against Muslim employment, education, justice, and housing, especially in Kashmir and Assam.

Cult of Personality and Power Consolidation

Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, and Modi are all bombastic, divisive, and confrontational leaders who embody the archetype of strongman politics whereby power is focused on a single, would-be omnipotent individual. As well as sharing similar alpha-male psychological characteristics and developing cults of personality around themselves, they seek to rule for long periods.

Modi’s model is paradoxical not just because his electoral wins underwrite his authoritarianism but also in the way this is legitimized by social media and communication technologies. Modi is extremely shrewd in manipulating the political discourse within his party and the country at large to favor himself and diminish his rivals or opponents, with the likes of Trump and Bolsonaro being mere demagogues in comparison.

Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard and co-author of “How Democracies Die,” stated that the U.S. has slid into some form of authoritarianism that is relatively mild compared to some others and certainly reversible, but it is no longer a liberal democracy.

Surveillance and Digital Control

All of these authoritarian trends are underpinned by modern surveillance structures directed inward toward a country’s own citizens as much as outward, enabled by Big Tech and now AI. India’s Central Monitoring System allows government agencies to monitor all mobile phone, landline, and internet communications with minimal legal restraints. In the U.S., whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the mass surveillance of telephone records in 2013, which was found to be illegal in 2020, and now Trump’s alliance with Elon Musk has potential implications for his administration’s use of surveillance technology.

Pace and Reversibility

The critical difference between the two cases lies in pace and institutional resilience. The Lowy Institute analyst, having watched democratic freedoms be sliced away in India over the past decade, observed that watching similar changes taking place in the United States feels disconcertingly familiar, albeit at a much faster pace.

The sheer speed with which Trump is implementing the autocrat’s playbook is a key differentiator. This rapid pace has advantages and disadvantages for democratic resistance: it raises alarm bells more clearly but may also overwhelm opposition forces’ ability to respond effectively to each individual assault on democratic norms.

Modi’s slower, more deliberate approach has been arguably more effective at normalizing authoritarian practices. Since the beginning of the second Modi government, an emboldened BJP has launched a steady, comprehensive, and unprecedented attack on civil liberties, personal rights, and free speech across India. The gradual nature of this erosion—what some call the “salami slice” strategy—has made it harder for citizens to recognize each individual step as a threat to democracy.

Conclusion

Both Trump and Modi represent what scholars identify as authoritarian populism within democratic frameworks, but they operate in vastly different institutional contexts with different levels of democratic resilience. India is rated as “partly free” by Freedom House and is otherwise described as a hybrid regime, which is neither a full democracy nor a full autocracy, including designations such as “electoral autocracy” by V-Dem or “flawed democracy” by the Economist Intelligence Unit, descriptors that come after more than a decade of erosion of norms that support democracy.

The American system, while under significant stress, retains stronger institutional checks including an independent judiciary, active opposition, and a more robust civil society capable of mobilizing resistance. India’s democratic institutions, never as strong as those in the United States or United Kingdom, have been more thoroughly compromised over Modi’s decade in power.

Both cases demonstrate that democratic erosion in the 21st century often occurs not through dramatic coups but through the gradual or rapid undermining of democratic norms by elected leaders who maintain the formal appearance of democracy while hollowing out its substance. The question in both countries is whether remaining democratic institutions and civil society can reverse these authoritarian trajectories before they become entrenched.

This story was aggregated by AI from several news reports and edited by American Kahani’s News Desk.