What we are witnessing in the US now is both sad and alarming. The murder of the far-right activist Charlie Kirk is, in many ways, a tragedy.
Not only because a life was taken, but because it represents a serious attack on free speech and democracy. The political repercussions are not yet fully clear, but they appear to be serious.
The murder is not unique. Even though political murders are not particularly widespread in the US, compared to the over 20,000 murders that happen in the country every year, it's something that occurs regularly.
Just this past June, for instance, when the leader of the Democrats in Minnesota's state congress, Melissa Hortman, was killed alongside her husband, and state senator John Hoffman and his wife were shot and injured. All by the same perpetrator.
Splitting an already polarised country
Annonse
The Trump administration’s response to Kirk’s murder has been far broader and more severe than its response to the murders of elected politicians earlier this year.
One explanation may be how well-known the victims were. But it also seems the killing of Kirk carries a different kind of weight: It appears to have provided the authorities with a pretext to restrict critics’ freedom of expression and go after political opponents.
Both the murder itself and the reaction to it are dividing a society that is already highly polarised.
While some of Kirk's critics mock his assassination, a murder whitch in itself is a fundamental attack on democracy, some of Kirk's supporters respond with their own anti-democratic statements and attacks. None of this is good.
This incident didn’t create the divide – it only exposed it.
Something has shifted in the US since the year 2000
Well, there has been an interesting, fundemental development in the US since the year 2000, according to a new study.
The development documented by the researchers may be important for understanding what's currently happening. And the research behind it may perhaps contribute to understanding how crucial it is to protect several aspects of democracy at the same time.
The researchers behind the study have attempted to analyse why some societies are more resilient than others against moving in an authoritarian and anti-democratic direction. They have created what they call an index of democratic resilience. It's interesting.
What can be done
The study concludes that the countries with the greatest resilience built into their societies are better equipped to preserve their democracies.
Not exactly surprising, but it is important: These societies are more protected against democratic erosion and collapse. In other words, there is something we can do.
The key factors the researchers look at include:
Annonse
the institutions (are they free and independent?)
the political actors (how polarised, anti-pluralistic, or violent are they?)
civil society and civic culture (participation, powerdistribution and fairness between social groups)
the political community (trust in parliament and government, trust in law and order and the judiciary, and satisfaction with democracy)
It's interesting to see the development of these factors from 2000 until today.
Two of the four dimensions that can serve as protection against authoritarian and anti-democratic developments have declined sharply over the last 20 years.(Graph: Screenshot from Croissant & Lott, 2025)
In the US, we see that the curve for civil society (yellow line) and the curve for institutions (red line) has remained high, with only a slight decline in civil society towards the very end of the period.
The next two curves, however, are far more concerning: The political community (purple line) has consistently been lower and has dropped steeply since 2002.
The curve for political actors (turquoise line) – covering polarisation and political violence – has also been lower from the start. But from 2015, it plummeted.
The decline in these two curves points to increased polarisation, political violence, and anti-pluralist actors, along with reduced trust in politicians, authorities, the police, and the judiciary.
Norway, by contrast, looks very different.
Norway ranks so high compared with other countries that it serves as an outlier.
Norway stands out from every other country in the study.(Graph: Screenshot from Croissant & Lott, 2025)
The US is in trouble
The results can be interpreted in different ways. My take is this: The US faces a fundamental crisis.
Two of the most vital democratic safeguards have declined drastically over the course of few years. This leaves the door far more open to autocratic shifts and democratic regression – much like what we are now witnessing unfold in real time.
Academia in the US is under threat and faces financial punishment. The press is attacked with lawsuits and threatened with changes in funding and regulations. What emerges bares the signs of a culture war against the free flow of information. The result is less trust in society and a concentration of power.
Most recently, media outlets have been threatened with losing their licences if they allow mockery of political leaders, as seen in the Jimmy Kimmel case.
The assault on free speech is shockingly blatant and obvious. Would this even be possible without years of deepening polarisation?
What makes these weakened dimensions especially noteworthy is that they don’t simply erode on their own. They are shaped by broader social developments, and both events and key actors can play a role in either weakening or strengthening them.
A lot has happened in the US since 2000. To name just a few: September 11, 2001, the Iraq war, division in the media, increased polarisation in society and politics, financial crises, the pandemic, and the rise of a more religious and nationalist political movement. All may have contributed in their own ways.
Several countries were compared in the study.(Graph: Screenshot from Croissant & Lott, 2025)
A simple warning
It's important to note that this is one research article, not a definitive answer. It forms a basis for further study. And it can certainly be subject to criticism and objections.
But it's noteworthy that the study systematically points in the same direction as events we have been able to observe over time. And it's not the first time increased polarisation and declining trust in democratic institutions have been documented in the US, as the researchers also point out.
However, I think we can safely say there's a basis for issuing this simple warning: We must safeguard every part of our democracy.
The way politicians conduct themselves, the way we talk about political opponents, how the press operates, how schools and education work, and how politics is kept separate from professional independence – all of these things matter.
I also believe that research communication has a vital place in this. A public that understands science and scientfic methods, can tell truth from falsehood, and is able to engage with nuance rather than just extremes, is far better equipped to recognise danger and to resist harmful influence.
We must protect the parts that make up democracy, and we need the knowledge to do so.
