Authoritarianism Isn’t Binary: Why the U.S. Is Entering the Most Dangerous Zone

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles breaks down one of the most widespread misconceptions circulating online: the idea that Donald Trump “can’t be authoritarian” because critics are still able to post about him on social media. Drawing on operational doctrine—not punditry—Nate explains why authoritarianism is not a binary condition but a spectrum along which countries drift over time.

Using the U.S. Army’s Human Factors: Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies as the analytical backbone, Nate outlines the inverted-U relationship between regime type and political violence: stable democracies on one end, stable autocracies on the other, and maximum instability in the hybrid middle—what political scientists call anocracy .

He then applies this framework to the United States, arguing that rising extremism, political violence, and the normalization of coercive tactics are not random. They are precisely what the doctrinal research predicts as a country slides away from full democracy but has not yet reached full authoritarianism .

Finally, Nate addresses the predictable pushback—that this is all just academic hand-waving or partisan rhetoric—by noting the doctrine’s provenance: originally published by the Special Operations Research Office, republished by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, and supported by U.S. Army Special Operations Command J3X, the Unconventional Warfare Directorate .

This episode is a clear, sober look at the mechanics of authoritarian drift and why America’s political landscape is showing exactly the warning signs the literature expects.

Stay ahead of the curve on national security, democracy, and the rule of law. Subscribe for rigorous, accessible analysis grounded in real doctrine—not partisan noise.

Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe