The Democracy Index

June 6, 2025

Last week in The Democracy Index, we highlighted the implications of Elon Musk’s flameout from the White House, framing it in the context of Otto von Bismarck’s immutable lessons of political realities. Well, there’s no highfalutin historical comparison for the messy meltdown that occurred Thursday, as the inevitable rupture between Musk and Donald Trump unfurled in spectacularly rapid fashion. Within hours, Musk was highlighting Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein and calling for the president to be impeached and Trump was threatening to cut off Musk’s federal contracts — while Speaker Mike Johnson literally hid behind a baby when confronted by reporters about all of this.

While that fight dominated attention over the past day, there were many other significant developments affecting the health of our democracy. We track those in our interactive graphic here, breaking them down into six key categories and taking stock of our democracy’s health.

The Musk-Trump imbroglio is an entertaining spectacle, and may be somewhat of a sideshow, but it represents something core to the fundamental democratic challenge the Trump Administration poses. This administration is divorced from consistent principles and is instead governed by chaos, emotion, and grievance. So when these two men’s egos are bruised — the most powerful and richest people in the world, respectively — the day, and the country, is rocked.

In case you missed it, Elon — now out of government — began attacking Trump’s beloved “big beautiful bill,” calling it “massive, outrageous, pork-filled” and a “disgusting abomination.” When a reporter asked Trump about the post, during an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, he said he was “very disappointed in Elon” and began to catalogue some of his gripes. Musk immediately started live-tweeting during the rest of the press conference, claiming that Trump would not have won the 2024 presidential election without him and that Democrats would have taken control of the Senate. Of course, Trump clapped back on Truth Social by threatening to cut off Musk’s federal contracts and subsidies.

This back and forth went on all day (though it was mostly a one-sided attack from Musk) — and while the conflict may be showing signs of slowing, this absurd, public, day-long melee is the perfect representation of how the administration has conducted itself thus far: impulsively, vaingloriously, and without foresight.

Most disturbingly, though, is how quickly Trump turns to one of his favorite tools when engaging in political battle: weaponizing the government itself against his enemies — which now might include Musk. Trump has targeted individuals by ordering investigations and threatening prosecutions — by issuing orders directing the government to investigate Christopher Krebs and Miles Taylor, relying on baseless allegations, among a panoply of other threats directed at people ranging from former President Joe Biden to Bruce Springsteen and Beyonce. The fervid MAGA base may already be gearing up for a similar attack against Musk — provided the two don’t make up beforehand — with Steve Bannnon publicly calling for Musk’s immediate deportation of Musk, saying that the government “should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately.” While there may be few tears for Musk, aside from his legion of X reply guys, abusing the government’s power to target Musk’s company and personal status — if motivated by personal pique rather than genuine substantive concerns — should concern all of us. .

That insidious Trump tendency also extends to attacks against institutions writ large. The Trump Administration dramatically escalated on that front Wednesday night, when Trump signed a proclamation blocking the entry of nearly all new international Harvard students, even if they’ve already obtained visas. Within a day, Harvard University amended its existing complaint to challenge this order and request a new temporary restraining order, which was promptly granted by U.S. District Judge Allison Burrough.

That hostility to foreign nationals is also reflected in the return of one of the most notorious and odious Trump policies: the travel ban. On Wednesday, individuals from 12 countries (Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) are no longer welcome to enter the United States. Individuals from seven other countries (Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela) are now placed under additional travel restrictions. The administration claims that these new regulations will prevent terrorist attacks and prevent individuals from overstaying their visa limits. When Trump announced his “Muslim ban” during his first term, it was opposed with massive widespread outrage. The public and civic society universally expressed their revulsion, and the media comprehensively covered the fallout. Since the first Trump Administration spent years trying to get the legality of its first travel ban right — going back and forth with the Supreme Court three times — the legal issues may be slightly different now, but the dehumanization of the “other” at the heart of the order remains the same.

But, despite Trump’s protestations, this ban does not genuinely protect our national security. As P. Deep Gulasekaram, a professor of immigration law at the University of Colorado, astutely explained, this announcement by the administration is nothing more than “performative national security theater.” The relative weakness and unreliability of the United States on the world stage was highlighted by recent developments in the Ukrainian War. In an unprecedented, AI-led drone attack, Ukraine’s Operation Spider’s Web destroyed five Russian military bases and damaged more than 40 aircraft within Russia’s borders. We rely on our allies’ intelligence for our own security; but other countries will not be willing to share sensitive information if they do not trust us. That is why Ukraine’s decision to keep the American intelligence community in the dark about this operation beforehand is so troubling — evidently, they no longer see the United States as a safe, reliable partner.

That lack of trust is compounded by reasonable concerns about the government’s general incompetence — to take the latest example, this week, a 22-year-old, who graduated from college a year ago, was put in charge of the terrorism prevention program. The new head of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, the Department of Homeland Security agency dedicated to preventing extreme acts of violence such as domestic terrorist attacks and school shootings, has not worked in national security before — but does boast on his LinkedIn profile that the majority of his leadership experience comes from running a Model United Nations club.

These three developments this week — the travel ban, attack on international students, and the Trump-Musk fight — capture the mix of cruelty and amateurism that have defined parts of this Administration. Yet, while all of that was playing out, the Administration continued the quiet methodical work of attempting to hollow out our institutions and erode our freedoms. Russell Vought, the architect of Project 2025 and the head of the Office of Management and Budget, testified to Congress and detailed his plans to institutionalize DOGE. Although much quieter than the If enacted, his proposals would have far-reaching consequences for decades to come. So, behind the WWE show, real damage is being wrought. And we cannot lose sight of that.

Until next week,

The Democracy Index Team