Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Will Our Democracy Survive? Will it Prove Fragile or Resilient?

Opinion

Will Our Democracy Survive? Will it Prove Fragile or Resilient?
black white and red star flag
Photo by IIONA VIRGIN on Unsplash

As the new administration settles in, many ask: How resilient is our democracy?

Since the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, America has undergone many challenges, but today, the foundational democratic system faces an alarming test. Amid this uncertain moment, key questions arise: Will our government's system of checks and balances withstand this unprecedented challenge, and how should ordinary citizens respond when their government appears to be moving away from its democratic ideals?


Framing this Critical Moment in U.S. Politics

The Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) and The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State University convened experts in history, political science, and law to examine the state of American Democracy under the Donald Trump administration.

Professors Lisa L. Miller of Rutgers, Beau Breslin of Skidmore College, and Henry L. Chambers, Jr. of the University of Richmond discussed our institutions and assessed their ability to survive the current political storm.

Will our Democracy prove fragile or resilient in the face of rising authoritarianism? Professor Breslin opened the discussion by describing the current moment in American political history as "alarming," emphasizing the increasing centralization of power. From there, the conversation unfolded into a debate on the resilience of our democratic institutions.

Assessing the State of Our Democracy

Professor Miller argued that the American political system has been in crisis for some time. "It is time to admit that we have a problem," she remarked, acknowledging the growing disconnect between the elites and the needs of ordinary citizens. Miller further argued that the actions of the new administration, particularly its disregard for traditional checks and balances, suggest that democracy is genuinely under threat.

Miller referred to specific actions that reflect an authoritative governing style, specifically key appointments in the administration, which, Miller argued, prioritize loyalty over competence. This approach undermines democratic principles and weakens government efficacy. Miller also pointed to the administration's early actions, including cutting federal spending, pardoning criminals while targeting law enforcers, and eliminating key civil rights protections, as clear signs of authoritarian overreach.

According to Miller, the President's reliance on executive orders instead of working through the legislative process signals that even with the Republican-held Congress, many of these orders would be unlikely to pass through Congress due to their popularity with the electorate.

The System: a Fragile Design

Professor Chambers focused his remarks on the Constitution and the roles of government and institutions. He stressed that any discussion of institutional resilience must begin with a deep understanding of the roles outlined in the Constitution.

According to Chambers, the core purpose of the American government is to serve its citizens, not any individual. Focusing on the oath taken by all elected officials and federal employees, precisely the idea to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, Chambers asked, 'What are those elected officials and employees supposed to be doing at this time?"

Chambers raised a critical question: What happens when the system of checks and balances begins to blur? In particular, he pointed to the recent executive decisions about funding and appropriations, asking whether the President should have the authority to refuse to spend money that Congress has already appropriated. He explains that if the executive branch gets all the power, who can stop that branch is not exactly clear.

Miller posited that the crossing-the-line moment will occur if the President ignores a Supreme Court decision.

The Role of Elites and Public Discontent

The conversation also explored the influential role of wealthy elites in influencing the current administration, with both Miller and Chambers expressing concerns about the extent to which the wealthiest individuals can shape policy. "It's crucial that we recognize the problem of elite influence and the concerns that ordinary Americans have about day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues that often don't make their way to the political classes," said Miller.

The panelists discussed the hyper-partisan environment that has come to define U.S. politics. With both political parties seemingly unable to offer meaningful alternatives, Miller argued that there is an urgent need for a broad political movement that presents an affirmative agenda for change—not just a reactionary stance against the current administration.

The Way Forward: What Can We Do?

The audience asked: What can ordinary citizens do in this political turmoil? Miller suggested that actions at the state and local level can significantly impact Washington, signaling what is and is not working for the people. For Miller, grassroots movements and local protests can effectively push back against government overreach.

On the other hand, Chambers reminded the audience that Trump ran as the candidate of change and that he won by a very slim margin. He added that if this is the 'change' people voted for, they need to explain how all this change has brought down the price of eggs.

To view the entire program video, please click here.

Moving Forward Together

At The Network for Responsible Public Policy, we remain committed to fostering thoughtful, fact-based conversations that educate the public on our time's most pressing political issues. Our mission is to encourage dialogue based on truths. Please join us as we continue to explore key issues with renowned experts.

Our upcoming events:

Thursday, March 27 at 7:30P PM (Eastern) - Is Rule of Law Enough to Protect Democracy? A panel discussion moderated by Susan Herman, the inaugural Ruth Bader Ginsburg Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School

Thursday, April 3 at 7:30 PM (Eastern). The War in Ukraine. A continuing conversation moderated by Gideon Rose, former editor of Foreign Affairs and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

To register for an upcoming NFRPP program, please visit our website at nfrpp.org and click on subscribe. All our programs are conducted virtually via Zoom and Facebook Live. Videos of all previous programs are available free of charge on our website for personal viewing and classroom use. Please visit nfrpp.org

For further information about the Network for Responsible Public Policy, please email info@nfrpp.org.

Jennie Smith Wilson is a board member and program host of the Network for Responsible Public Policy.




Read More

Person holding a sign in front of the U.S. capitol that reads, "We The People."

The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries

Getty Images

A Republic Under Strain—And a Choice Ahead

Americans feel something shifting beneath their feet — quieter than crisis but unmistakably a strain. Many live with a steady sense of uncertainty, conflict, and the emotional weight of issues that seem impossible to escape. They feel unheard, unsafe, or unsure whether the Republic they trust is fading. Friends, relatives, and former colleagues say they’ve tried to look away just to cope, hoping the turmoil will pass. And they ask the same thing: if the framers made the people the primary control on government, how will they help set the Republic back on a steadier path?

Understanding the strain Americans are experiencing is essential, but so is recognizing the choice we still have. Madison’s warning offers the answer the framers left us: when trust erodes and power concentrates, the Constitution turns back to the people—not as a slogan, but as a structural reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latest Attack Threatening President Trump Reflects Rising Political Violence in US

President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on April 25, 2026, after the cancellation of the annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner.

Latest Attack Threatening President Trump Reflects Rising Political Violence in US

For the third time in three years, Donald Trump has come under threat by an attacker. Many facts remain unclear after a gunman stormed the Washington Hilton on April 25, 2026, during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

As the investigation into the shooting continues, Alfonso Serrano, The Conversation’s politics and society editor, spoke with James Piazza, a political violence scholar at Penn State, about what is driving the rise of political violence in the U.S. and what can be done about it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democracy Requires Losing. Americans Are Forgetting That.
an american flag hanging from a pole in front of a building
Photo by Calysia Ramos on Unsplash

Democracy Requires Losing. Americans Are Forgetting That.

Americans believe in democracy. What they don’t believe in is losing.

That distinction matters. Democracy depends on its participants’ willingness to accept loss. Without that, elections stop resolving conflict and start producing it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol Building.

An in-depth examination of the erosion of checks and balances in the United States, exploring Project 2025, executive overreach, and the growing strain on constitutional democracy—and the critical role of citizens in preserving it.

Getty Images, Rudy Sulgan

The Mirror Has Cracked: How the Three Branches Failed America

James Madison warned that the government would always mirror human nature — its virtues and its flaws. “What is government itself,” he asked, “but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” The United States was built on a radical promise: a participatory government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Today, that mirror is cracking in real time. What once reflected a nation striving toward freedom and equality now reflects something far more chaotic — a government drifting from its constitutional purpose and reshaped by loyalty tests, political revenge, and a blueprint designed to consolidate power.

In 2026, that reflection is unmistakable: a government shaped not by three independent branches, but by a president’s loyalists and a coordinated plan to remake American democracy from the inside out. The framers built guardrails — separation of powers, checks and balances, and independent institutions — to prevent the rise of authoritarian rule. Yet the country now faces a blueprint, Project 2025, that overrides those protections by placing independent agencies under presidential control, replacing civil servants with loyalists, and weaponizing the Department of Justice. This is not drift. It is design. And it has left the nation with a government that no longer reflects the people but instead reflects the ambitions of those who seek power without accountability.

Keep ReadingShow less