A new study finds that while a large majority of Americans reject authoritarianism and political violence, a substantial minority supports a move away from democracy toward a government led by a strong leader. The research also reveals that smaller minorities would approve of the federal government using the military to enforce its policies and would be willing to engage in violence themselves. The paper detailing these findings was published as a preprint on the SocArXiv server.
The research was conducted by a team of scientists at the Centers for Violence Prevention at UC Davis. They initiated an annual, nationally representative survey in 2022 to monitor American attitudes toward political violence and democracy. The scholars explain that for nearly a decade, experts have raised alarms about the potential for political conflict and the fragility of democratic institutions in the United States.
In their 2025 survey, the researchers were particularly interested in public sentiment following the 2024 elections, which they note installed an administration that has advocated for the use of armed force against civilians. In response to this political environment, the team added new questions to their survey. These new items were designed to assess public opinion on violence initiated by the federal government and citizens’ personal willingness to use force either in support of or in opposition to its policies. The stated goal of the study is to provide evidence that can inform efforts to prevent political violence and preserve democratic governance.
To conduct the study, the research team administered the fourth wave of their longitudinal survey online between May 23 and June 13, 2025. The survey was managed by the research firm Ipsos and was available in both English and Spanish.
The participants were drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a large group of people recruited to be representative of the United States adult population. This panel is established using address-based probability sampling, a method that helps ensure the results accurately reflect the nation as a whole. All individuals who had participated in any of the previous three annual surveys and were still part of the panel were invited to take part.
Of the 9,179 people invited, 8,248 completed the questionnaire. The data from these responses were then statistically weighted to align with the demographics of the noninstitutionalized adult population of the United States. In the survey, “force or violence” was explicitly defined for participants as “physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.” Political violence was described as using such force “to advance an important political objective that you support.”
Respondents answered a series of questions about their views on democracy and authoritarianism. These included their level of agreement with statements like, “Having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy,” and a proposal to “suspend Congress for a few years so a strong leader can clean up the mess made by politicians in Washington.”
The new questions for 2025 asked about actions the federal government might take, such as using the military or private armed militia groups to enforce its policies, and whether it should arrest ordinary people or journalists for public criticism. Finally, individuals who had indicated that political violence was justified in at least some circumstances were asked about their personal willingness to commit acts of violence.
The results showed that a vast majority of Americans express support for democracy. The survey found that 88 percent of respondents considered it very or extremely important for the United States to remain a democracy. A majority, 61.1 percent, also reported believing that American democracy faces a serious threat. However, the findings on authoritarian sentiment painted a different picture. About one-third of respondents agreed at least somewhat that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy.” This represents an estimated 90 million adults.
Similarly, when asked to choose between “having election outcomes determined democratically” and “having political leaders I can trust to look out for my values and interests,” one-third of respondents chose the latter. About one-quarter of people surveyed agreed at least somewhat with the idea of suspending Congress for several years to allow a strong leader to take charge, with 11.6 percent agreeing strongly or very strongly. This corresponds to an estimated 30.9 million adults.
When asked about the federal government using force, about one-third of participants agreed at least somewhat that it “should use the military to help enforce its policies in the United States.” This includes 9.6 percent, or an estimated 25.8 million adults, who agreed strongly or very strongly. More than 10 percent of respondents supported the idea of the government using “private armed militia groups” for the same purpose. Between 15 and 20 percent of people agreed that the federal government should arrest citizens and journalists who publicly oppose its policies or the president.
Regarding personal engagement in violence, the numbers were smaller. Approximately 10 percent of respondents indicated they were at least somewhat willing to personally use force or violence to either support or oppose the government’s enforcement of its policies. The proportion of those who were “very or completely willing” to commit such violence was much lower. For violence in support of the government, this figure was 2.1 percent, representing about 5.5 million adults. For violence in opposition to the government, it was 2.7 percent, or about 7.1 million adults.
The researchers also looked at trends over time for questions that had been asked in previous years. They found that support for authoritarian positions has remained largely stable since 2022. There was no significant increase in these views either before or after the 2024 elections. Strong agreement with the statement that a strong leader is more important than a democracy has even decreased slightly over the four-year period.
The study has some limitations, which the authors acknowledge. First, the paper is a preprint, meaning it has not yet completed the formal peer-review process where other scientists in the field evaluate the work. The findings are also from a single point in time and are subject to potential biases from nonresponse or from participants giving socially desirable answers rather than their true opinions. The authors note that people may be hesitant to admit a willingness to commit violence, which could lead to under-reporting.
The survey was also conducted during a period when several high-profile events were in the news, including a widely publicized arson at a community event and the deployment of military troops for domestic law enforcement. These events may have influenced how people responded to the questions. The authors plan to conduct a sensitivity analysis in their final report to examine the potential impact of these events.
Future research will build on this initial analysis. The final report on the study will explore how these views on authoritarianism and violence vary by political ideology, party affiliation, and other demographic characteristics. The authors conclude that while most Americans reject violence, the substantial and stable support for authoritarianism could create a climate of acceptance for a transition away from a democratic form of government. They suggest that the large numbers of Americans who reject violence can play a role in prevention efforts.
The study, “Support for Authoritarianism and Use of Force by and against the Federal Government in the United States in Mid-2025: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Andrew Crawford, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Mona A. Wright, Aaron B. Shev, Daniel J. Tancredi, and Sonia L. Robinson.
