Talk:United States/Archive 119

This is an archive of past discussions about United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 115

←

Archive 117

→

RfC: Is Elon Musk a principal official for purposes of the infobox?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No, given how he is currently described in reliable sources. -- Beland (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Should Elon Musk's name and title or non-title be listed in some form (the details of which should be determined through a separate discussion) in the list of principal officials in the Government section of the infobox?

A. Yes

B. Yes, if a descriptive sentence exists in the body of the article

C. No

D. Other

Chetsford (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Survey

A, Yes As an encyclopedia, we should depict reality as it exists, not merely repeat official documentation.
There is no guideline as to what specific officials are included in infoboxes on Nation articles and it is customary across the project to identify both titular and customary/informal state leaders in the rare cases where an informal leader wields "head-of-state analogous" power.
(For example, we long included[1] Aung San Suu Kyi in her statutory position of State Counsellor of Myanmar, in addition to the President of Myanmar, despite Counsellor having no succession role and virtually no formal authority; it was informally understood to be the penultimate post. Similar use has been done for party leaders in socialist states in situations where the party roles are bifurcated from the state apparatus [e.g. Egon Krenz]).

Musk is, formally, a government official [2] so his status on that point is verifiable, the only question remaining is whether his specific status carries with it powers of sufficient primacy to warrant infobox inclusion.
His significant executive power has been widely chronicled WP:RS.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]
It is the official position of 14 of the U.S.' 50 constituent states that Musk enjoys "limitless and unchecked power" and the "full power of the Executive Branch". [3]
Moreover, the fact that this is "head-of-state analogous" power (albeit not authority) is evident by RS documenting him singularly receiving foreign heads of state in the Dillon Room (the head-of-state receiving room) at the Blair House presidential residence and even exchanging diplomatic gifts;[4] co-hosting press conferences in the Oval Office;^[3] engaging in representational business with foreign ambassadors on behalf of the U.S.;[5] having a government residence [6], etc.

No body content is necessary as government posts are not routinely itemized in Nation articles as a precursor to simple parameter insertion in the infobox. Notably, Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, Mike Johnson, and John Roberts are all listed in the infobox but not mentioned in the body of the article. Nor is even the title of Speaker mentioned in the article, though it is included in the infobox. Chetsford (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC); edited 13:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

- C, No. While the executive branch actions and court cases are very significant, it’s too early to mention musk on this page. Dw31415 (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC); edited 13:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

C No. There isn't any clear consensus in reliable sources as to the level of power or nature of his role, and as such, it would qualify as WP:OR to list him as proposed. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC) ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

C, at the moment it seems he is not even due weight in the body, let alone the infobox. CMD (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

CMD - just a quick point of clarification for the benefit of the eventual closer ... is your position that Donald Trump should be removed from the infobox (he's also not mentioned in the body of the article, only in the infobox)? Chetsford (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not a gotcha when there is a bullet point the size of two paragraphs about the President. CMD (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it - thanks! So is your position B, then? That, if included in the body, then it's appropriate? Chetsford (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Obviously not, a closer can read what I wrote. To answer the question in good faith, there hasn't been a discussion on the body as far as I have seen, and I'm not pre-empting it. CMD (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

- C, No..... Simply not seeing how a random link to this gentleman helps anyone in understanding of this country.Moxy🍁 02:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

C – We have been listing constitutionally specified officials in the infobox and leaving out other officials of informally established importance, such as the senate majority and minority leaders (see the talk page archives). The reality we depict is indeed dependent on documents and third party analysis of them. Musk is not a regular government official (see Special Government employee); his power has been chronicled by outlets that are made overly excited by his presence; the lawsuit filed by 14 states is rife with lurid language and has not been adjudicated; and his symbolic presence and gestures have not been shown to be outside what is customary. Musk's influence has not been shown to be greater than that of other wealthy donors. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
C – Per the arguments of Dhtwiki. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
A, per Chetsford. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
C, only list the most important positions there --FMSky (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Which is why I'm !voting A. As widely documented by RS -- and is the official view of 14 states -- this is among the most important positions. Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
C. The OP may be interested in the concept of a Éminence grise – someone whose influence and power far exceeds their nominal authority – and the most recent entry in the list of examples. (Also, principal officer needs to be re-pointed to something more generic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing -- I previously addressed using that as a potential parameter filler here [7]. Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

C. He's a presidential advisor who's been given too much power, not an officer of the government. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
C Heads of the three branches of govt (including the VP, since they are president of the senate) is sufficient. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
D, only include in body. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 21:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
C, per WhatamIdoing, Malvoliox and Dhtwiki. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
C Absolutely not. You don't just include people as a leader of the country based on how much influence they have. EchoVanguardZ (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
C No, just because Musk is reported to have significant influence on the government, as special government employee, it does not mean we should list him in the infobox. Having a signifcant influence on the government does not mean they should be listed in the infobox. Otherwise you can list mega party donors, or in the case of the UK put Morgan McSweeney in the UK infobox. It should be reserved for the actual official officeholders. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 07:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
A: Yes, absolutely. Consider also adding Putin to the list. The USA is descending into a Kleoptocracy, and a dictatorship. Sorry if this is a shock to anyone. This is an encyclopedia, let's stick to the actual facts. Signofgehenna (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Facts are completely irrelevant here. WP:TRUTH. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
C We should only include the de jure heads of state and the legislature, not any de facto ones like Musk. Trump is the president and could fire Elon at any moment, just because Elon has a lot of influence doesn't make him a head of state. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
C. No—it may be true that, de facto, he appears to currently be powerful than the House Speaker or Chief Justice. But, in that case, we might as well remove the phrase "federal presidential republic" from the infobox, given that republic means "a state in which political power rests with the public" and it appears that political power is now vested in the money. It may be true that Musk is currently among the most prominent figures in American government, and that's widely reported. But it's not officially true that he's chief anything (other than by net worth), not even according reliable sources. We'll simply have to wait for the sources to catch up before acknowledging the reality that Musk is effectively a top US government (un)official. We also have to acknowledge that what power he does have is through the president. He's a top donor to Trump. Sure, Trump is letting him run things—for now—but it's really Trump, not Musk, in whom power officially and legally resides; listing Trump as president covers Musk in that sense. Even as a an SGE, what makes him chief SGE, and worth listing but not alongside other SGEs? 1101 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
C. I hate to burst your fantasy world bubble of doom and destruction and a nazi flag over the statue of liberty but the opposition exists. Democrats exist. They oppose Trump regularly and its insane that people genuinely believe Elon Musk is a dictator. This is not Russia. Elon Musk is a government employee, yes. But he is not an autocratic dictator. DotesConks (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
A. Yes EarthDude (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
C. No. It's interesting that immediately preceding this is a discussion on whether the article should mention the trend from a democratic republic to an oligarchy. If Musk is listed in the Info box, then we need to add discussion of the change to an oligarchy. (If you did list him in the box, what title would you give?) Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

So after a 2 hour talk with one editor a junp to an RFC dispite what is recommended at WP:RFC#BEFORE. I agree that between the 2 of us there is no consensus to add a random name with zero context in the article to the infobox. Your argument is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and an assertion that this merits an exception to the norm for these types of articles without any sources presented before or others input.Moxy🍁 04:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

"a random name" I don't think this is a GF description of the question, with all due respect. "zero context" I don't think this is a GF description of my thoroughly explained and sourced position. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes as seen above.....good luck. Moxy🍁 04:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

DW31415 - with regard to your !vote, can you clarify why it's too early and what threshold of earliness you're applying (i.e. what period of time needs to pass before it's not "too early")? Chetsford (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for requesting clarification. I mean that the current facts and reliable sources don’t warrant Musk’s inclusion on this page. Hypothetically, that might change, in my opinion, if more reliable sources were to name him as a shadow president or something similar. I think there is more to be written about Musk, DOGE and the current situation, for example at Talk:Constitutional crisis#Actions taken during President Trump's Second Term Dw31415 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense - thank you! Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis - I'm having a little difficulty understanding your line of thought. You said Musk should not be included because it is required one be listed in the body for inclusion in the infobox. But when asked if adding content to the body would ameliorate your concern, you also seemed to indicate it would not. Would it be safe to say there is no situation, short of Musk being elected Vice-President or Speaker (neither of which are mentioned in the body of the article but are not included in the infobox), that you think Musk should be included as a primary government official for infobox purposes? Chetsford (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Please stop making up positions and attributing them to me. My last message already answered this question. CMD (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've upset you, CMD. It was not my intention. Chetsford (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

References

^ "'President Musk' makes his presence felt in Washington". France24.
^ "Elon Musk tightens grip on federal government". Associated Press. February 4, 2025. Retrieved February 13, 2025. Elon Musk is rapidly consolidating control over large swaths of the federal government with President Donald Trump 's blessing, sidelining career officials, gaining access to sensitive databases and dismantling a leading source of humanitarian assistance. The speed and scope of his work has been nothing short of stunning. In a little more than two weeks since Trump took office, the world's richest man has created an alternative power structure inside the federal government ...
^ ^a ^b "Musk has been empowered to be 'virtual prime minister'". MSNBC.
^ "'Co-president' Elon Musk? Trump ally tests influence in spending fight". Washington Post.
^ "Inside Musk's Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government". New York Times. He is shaping not just policy but personnel decisions, including successfully pushing for Mr. Trump to pick Troy Meink as the Air Force secretary, according to three people with direct knowledge of his role.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typo in etymology section

Somebody forgot a space. At the end of the first pharagraph it says "… adopted by the Second Continental Congresson July 4th, 1776" when it should say "…adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4th, 1776". I am SpooklesMan, but I am on another device. 174.56.239.99 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fixed now. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Q3. Is the United States really the oldest constitutional republic in the world?

This answer says that San Marino adopted its Constitution in the year 1600, but does not give a reason as to why San Marino is not the oldest constitutional republic in the world. This confuses people who read the FAQ and the article. The FAQ should be updated to explain why San Marino is not the oldest constitutional republic for X reason. DotesConks (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the FAQ. The purpose is to say "don't add 'oldest constitutional republic' to the article despite what your teachers may have told you at school, because it's demonstrably untrue", not "other countries are lying so you shoyld go ahead and add this despite it not being true". ‑ Iridescent 04:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok, now I understand DotesConks (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Oligarchy vs Democracy

In the government section we may want to add that in 2025 the United states became, or moved towards, an Oligarchy governing system and away from Democracy? (See link for a paper talking about definitions.)

https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/oligarchic%20vs%20democratic%20societies.pdf

It does seem like it is now the era of monopolies, and barriers to entering the entrepreneurial landscape are starting to rise, along with wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. (See below links about rising monopolies, as well as the decline in new small businesses.)

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2022/12/entrepreneurship-and-the-decline-of-american-growth https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/health/primary-care-doctors-consolidation.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/04/11/america-has-a-monopoly-problem/

The new USA administration being filled with 13 billionaires, plus many more millionaires, with a drastic increase in the total wealth of the new governing figures overall, seems to be pretty conclusive evidence towards the change in governmental types being valid.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-tapped-unprecedented-13-billionaires-top-administration-roles/story?id=116872968

But I'm not a political historian so I can't be sure this is a valid definitional change. I'm hoping this topic of discussion will attract true experts who can chime in on this edit and either validate it or negate it. So please if you are knowledgeable about this topic, chime in to educate me/us. I just figured this seems like it needed to be updated, and if an uneducated person like me watching the USA political upheaval from afar (Not American! So I promise I don't really care about their weird Blue vs Red stuff!) now has questions about what to categorize the USA government as, then it might be time to change it.

Even if you disagree that it has not fully become one as of January 20th, it does seem to be moving in that direction, and it seems false to not mention it and to pretend that the USA is still a pure Republic Democracy?

So anyways, I figured it was worth discussing. Thanks for your time! 24.79.242.248 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a widely held view Bashir, Omar S. (1 October 2015). "Testing Inferences about American Politics: A Review of the "Oligarchy" Result". Research & Politics. 2 (4): 2053168015608896. doi:10.1177/2053168015608896. ISSN 2053-1680.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) Moxy🍁 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

from your source: According to several journalistic accounts but not Gilens and Page themselves, the findings show that the American system of government is best understood as “oligarchy.” which means America as an oligarchy was a widely spread view after their study's findings. This study was also pre-2016. Now, in 2025, it is a widely held view that America is at least transitioning into (if not already) an oligarchy and/or has oligarchs.

Stuart, Riley "Inside the rise of US oligarchs and how it opened a dark money 'floodgate'" ABC Australia [8]

Nover, Scott "Oligarchy Comes to America" Slate [9]

Bernie Sanders statement on oligarchy in America [10]

"Oxfam: Musk’s appointment to Trump’s administration signals that “oligarchy is taking hold of American democracy”" [11]

Parton, Hannah Digby "Commentary: Making American oligarchy great again" Salon [12] Appalling (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You could make an argument that the united states has been an oligarchy for a long time. Zyxrq (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Main problem is media as sources for something that has been covered widely by academic publications for decades. Moxy🍁 03:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A lot has changed since 2015 EarthDude (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

No, the U.S. remains a democratic constitutional republic. It's not like an oligarchy just took over, despite what some may make it look like. It's just a new administration that the Americans voted in. That's how it always has been: new administration, new set of people in charge of the government. BeProper (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@BeProper A minority of the American people voted in a President and Vice President. No one voted in the oligarchs. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

They are not oligarchs. They are echoing the voices of the American people. They have not done one single thing so far that I did not expect them to do back in November, and I expect that is the same with everyone else who voted for him who listened to what he was going to do. Americans spoke, and now it's being delivered to them. This is no different from previous administrations. BeProper (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

One more thing. Do you think I was happy back when Biden was doing what is in my opinion crazy stuff? No, of course not. It's the same thing here; some people are happy, some are not. All administrations have specific people that lead them---that doesn't make them oligarchs. BeProper (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

By the way, this is the last thing, he literally won the popular vote, and you say "a minority" of people voted him in? How does that even make sense? BeProper (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind Trump only won a plurality of the vote at 49.8% of registered voters and that 49.8% only made up around 23 percent of the whole population. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but half the population are minors who cannot vote, so you can't go by that. All adults had the chance to vote, and Trump won. BeProper (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What is the status on making this change? I would like to change the sentence, "The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional federal republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. " to "The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional federal republic and oligarchy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.

citation: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/oligarchy-in-the-united-states/C23926DB2E90E340C4DC2B2BCDEEE27C ClearConcise (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Recently the president of the US has declared himself king and the sole interpreter of the law. Is "constitutional" still an appropriate term? In fact, the term absolute monarchy would probably be more appropriate then "federal republic."

Furthermore, with the power concentrated in the executive, is it fair to say the gov't still has 3 branches, if two have been rendered obsolete?

Damien.Otis.x (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Damien.Otis.x: the statement by the current president of the United States is just a provocation, Trump doesn't really think he's the king and sole interpreter of the law. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Project 2025 indicates that the republicans in the USA--who are now have control of all 3 branches of gov't--aim to change the fundamental structure of gov't, viz. investing all power in the executive and eliminating democracy. Donald Trump himself said that if he won, nobody in the USA would ever have to vote ever again. Whether or not the president thinks he is a dictator is irrelevant; not only is the USA president fundamentally untrustworthy, he is acting in accordance with the believe that he is the ultimate authority in the country. I say this as an outsider, a Canadian who does not have a bias towards the USA, and someone who has experience living in the constitutional monarchy that is Canada. It is alarming to see what is happening, and the misinformation pacifying the population. Damien.Otis.x (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not hearing the whole story. You need to live in the U.S. with a reasonable mind to understand it. It's really nothing like that. BeProper (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It is still a declaration. Wikipedia has never been about projecting intent or subjectiveness into the facts. The facts are, he declaired himself king. Why he did it or to what extent he believes it is irrelevant. 216.164.58.212 (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Stop twisting words and twisting facts. BeProper (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Nope. That's ridiculous. There ain't much more to say about it than that. BeProper (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

You could say that about all capitalist countries and by extension all democracies. The U.S. founding fathers such as Washington, Jefferson and Franklin were among the wealthiest people in the country but had broad support among the common people. TFD (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The view that the United States is an oligarchy does seem notable enough to mention in the Government and politics section. However, the view that the United States is a liberal democracy should still be included. I'm going to rewrite that section to offer a more balanced neutral point of view that mentions that the status of the US's democratic nature is disputed. JasonMacker (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I've made an edit, drawing from Oligarchy#United States and Plutocracy#United States, to include those descriptions as well. Let me know if anyone has concerns. JasonMacker (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. The US has shifted dramatically towards an oligarchy and Wikipedia needs to represent this reality. EarthDude (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This raises a couple questions which ought to be answered prior to making this change. When did this dramatic shift occur? In what ways has it tangibly occurred? Is Congress completely neutered by this oligarchy? Is the judiciary? Is the democratic process superfluous before the whims of this oligarchy? Furthermore, is this a consistent political trend that has been building up over the course of years as it is considered to be in, for example, Russia, or is this merely a response to the policies of the present administration (which at present has been in office for less than two months)? If the latter, would this "dramatic shift" stop if an administration of an opposing party were to be elected? If that is the case, would this "shift" be any more than power simply changing hands within the framework of a liberal democracy? If all of these can be answered with academic sources and a consensus thus formed, then the change would be warranted.

To be clear, I perfectly understand people's concerns about backsliding in this country, and I share many of them. However, to label the country an "oligarchy" when our leaders are people we dislike is poor precedent. I would encourage reflection on the fact that, despite there being long periods in the country's history dominated by unfettered electoral graft, disenfranchisement, and political corruption resulting in what we now would almost certainly call an "oligarchic" political system, the country has consistently been considered a "liberal democracy." Moreover, there have been periods in which the executive exercised similarly far-reaching authority, such as during Andrew Jackson's presidency. As someone else said in another, similar threat, the present funeral for American democracy seems somewhat premature. Vexedelbasy (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say that this began all the way in the 80s/90s and the trend has only been getting increasingly dramatic in recent times, ESPECIALLY this current administration. I will research on sources and references regarding this tho. Also, you raise a comparison of executive aggrandizement with Andrew Jackson, but Andrew Jackson did not advertise the corporation of his biggest donor in front of the White House. Neither did Jackson's administration see the wealthiest man on the planet handpick a group of unelected individuals, none of them with any security clearance, directly fiddle with the disbursement of funds to threaten agencies without the approval of congress. Neither did Jackson ever directly call himself a king. EarthDude (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The above comments are right there's no proof that there's any move to an oligarchy especially when the current administration says there intent, is making the government smaller 217.180.216.90 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

We say academic sources but non are really academic ...do we have real sources? Moxy🍁 18:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I put forward the political cartoon King Andrew the First as proof that the "King" metaphor for an empowered executive in American politics is practically as old as the country itself. Even if Trump's "long live the king" post is supposed to be doing the opposite, the point that "king" in relation to the executive is and has been a metaphorical descriptor of expanded executive power stands. He did not declare himself a constitutional monarch, as the constitution forbids this. He simply, though, in my opinion, disgustingly, presented his adoption of unitary executive theory as being akin to absolute monarchy.

As to the idea that the Presidency has never used its platform for self-aggrandizement, I'll also have to disagree. Scandals of the Ulysses S. Grant administration#Nepotism seems perhaps the best example of this, however, Warren G. Harding is another notable example of a corrupt president. Furthermore, however abhorrent to our modern expectation of advice by qualified individuals, the President theoretically has the power to be advised by whomever he chooses. If the President can be advised by whomever he pleases, and the executive has constitutional authority over the disbursement of funds, his taking their advice is entirely constitutional. Very little about Trump's use of executive power is unprecedented. Again, while I don't like what he's doing to agencies within his purview, this is constitutionally within his purview. Now, if the President and his advisors begin to suppress opposition or control elections, I will be the first to suggest that oligarchy or authoritarianism is a more apt descriptor.

This being said, it can be argued that the United States has seen a significant expansion of executive authority, as you said, since the 80s/90s. Whether this constitutes and oligarchy is somewhat up to interpretation but could be worth noting. It should be noted however that if, in your mind, these changes would be resolved by the election of a Democrat and the shift toward oligarchy would then stop, then it may be an ideologically rather than academically motivated change. Vexedelbasy (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

"...the executive has constitutional authority over the disbursement of funds...", "Very little about Trump's use of executive power is unprecedented." Both statements are blatantly false. Congress has that power, and no other administration in history has broken so many laws, the Constitution and tried to rule by decree while violating orders from the judicial branch and ignoring Congress as if it didn't exist. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, I wouldn't wish the task of defending Donald Trump upon my worst enemy, but Executive impoundments of congressionally-allocated funds have been commonplace since the early 19th century. It's a controversial practice, I grant, especially given that congress is supposed to have the "power of the purse," so controversial that Trump rescinded several of his impoundments, but it is a venerable expression of executive authority. Do I think that the executive should be able to do it? No.

As to things being unprecedented, you mention violating orders from the judicial branch and congress. This is, really and truly, not unprecedented. The degree to which it has been undertaken by the Trump administration is certainly unprecedented in the modern era, but not in American constitutional history. Perhaps the most obvious example was Andrew Jackson's notorious and blatant defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia resulting in the Trail of Tears. I'd also bring up Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and his subsequent nullification of the Supreme Court's rulings against said suspension. As for "ignoring Congress as if it didn't exist," most Presidents do this, especially in the modern era, as Congress is very frequently controlled by the opposition. Many Obama era reforms were undertaken via executive order because Congress simply refused to pass any policies he favored.

In my opinion, even as someone who opposes Trump, this administration's policies, though abhorrent, do not represent a significant shift away from the activities of previous presidents. That being said, they do smack of trying to find "loopholes" within the bounds of the constitution in order to turn the American political system into a more oligarchic, less democratic version of itself. My point is not that Trump does not represent a potential threat to democracy as we have come to know it in the past century, but rather that other American presidents have similarly used the means at their disposal in ways which would seem to us in the modern day to be overreach. In this sense, the US is not an oligarchy yet. Vexedelbasy (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vexedelbasy You keep stating that nothing that's happening is unprecedented, but then you give examples of individual occurrences of specific activities. What's unprecedented is all of these things being done at the same time, by a single individual. The results are far more profound than at any other time. Oligarchs didn't have near the power—the political or economic reach—back in Andrew Jackson's day as they do now. They didn't own and control the better part of the U.S. economy AND the government, or have social media to spread their influence worldwide. (There have been individual players, but they lobbied for their own interests. They weren't solicited and congregated by the President to further his interests.) And yes, T**** is trying to suppress the opposition: he's called for newspapers that counter him to lose their license and refused them access to the White House; he's withdrawn funding from organizations, agencies, and even states that oppose him; he's deported U.S. citizens! Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If you have a source to suggest that Trump has deported a United States citizen, I would ask that you present it in a broader RFC discussion. If you're referencing Mahmoud Khalil, he is not, nor has he ever been, a United States citizen. He was a permanent resident with a green card, which is also the case for many college demonstrators who have been arrested. Furthermore, just today, a federal court declared Trump's revocation the AP's press credentials to be illegal. There is still a free press. He can try all he likes to deny it access to the White House, but ultimately that won't stop it from reporting and being free.

Federal judges have also declared his administration's defunding of "DEI initiatives" to be illegal. This, in my mind, is probably the clearest indicator that the United States is not significantly more oligarchic than it was 10 or 20 years ago. It is in fact less oligarchic than it was 50, 60, and certainly 70 years ago. Again, opposition exists on all levels of the Federal government. It is, in fact, powerful. It controls 47% of the Senate, 48.9% of the House, numerous segments of the judiciary, and numerous state positions. The opposition party is also freely allowed to operate and is larger than Trump's party in terms of membership. Trump and his oligarch friends can't just do whatever they want without consequence. There are still checks and balances.

Listen, do I think that it's good that American society is dominated by the wealthy? No. Do I think that Trump's invasive use of executive power is good? No. It's certainly unprecedented in my or my parents' lifetimes. But that's just it. There was a time in this country in the last 60 years when vast swathes of the South simply could not vote. Further back, there was a time when both the Democratic and Republican parties were so dominated by rich special interests that Joseph Keppler made The Bosses of the Senate. Further back still, there was a time in the past 160 years when millions of people were enslaved and treated as property, and in which not even all White Men could vote, let alone women. The United States was undoubtedly an oligarchy then. In some sense you could thus make the argument that the United States has always been an oligarchy, however, that is not what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Thus, keeping all of that history in mind, to apply the term oligarchy to the United States after 3 months of Trump feels almost disrespectful. To claim that Trump has so completely executed his vision of a less democratic America in a quarter of a year, in my view, gives him far too much credit. Vexedelbasy (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vsxedelbasy You addressed only my last point, which was in reference to your statement, "if the President and his advisors begin to suppress opposition or control elections, I will be the first to suggest that oligarchy or authoritarianism is a more apt descriptor." His actions, even if reversed, were beginning to suppress opposition. To begin is to take the first step, and that he did. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that's more of a POV sort of thing. Personally it's hard for me to compare denying press access to the White House to suppression of the free press by violence or state force in actual oligarchies and authoritarian dictatorships. Even India, which is considered a flawed democracy (and not an oligarchy), is worse off in terms of press freedom than we are. Again, that feels almost disrespectful of the struggles for a free press in other parts of the world, especially when Trump hasn't even actually been able to do that given checks and balances. As such it's sort of a joke to call that "beginning to suppress opposition." The deportations are better evidence of that, in my view, as the people he has chosen to deport, while not US citizens, are those who opposed him. Still, there is largely nothing he can do about other forms of domestic opposition, chiefly political opposition. That is more my point. Trump might want to make the United States a full oligarchy. In fact, I have little doubt he does. However, the topic of discussion here is not Trump's motives. The fact that this discussion has even become about Trump himself seems to give away the crux of this issue. This was never supposed to be about Trump, but a wider trend. This discussion is meant to be over whether the United States is, as it stands, an oligarchy. Comparing this moment to both the history of this country and to the authoritarian regimes of other countries, I cannot honestly say I believe that.

Just because someone we personally dislike wins an election, this does not mean that democracy as we know it is dead. Just because someone wants to end democracy as we know it, that doesn't mean that it has already ended. As it stands the United States maintains all the fundamental institutions independent of the executive that it had before Trump. Trump's party can still lose elections, and it appears from most polling I've seen that it will lose them. We have not already lost our democracy, and there is no reason to be encouraging people to give up on opposing Trump by portraying it as though we have lost it. Perhaps, then, I will amend my previous statement so that it is less open to interpretation. When Trump and his allies successfully stop the free press from reporting unfavorable stories about him or the ruling party, when all opposition parties are either under the control of the government or are marginalized, and when these actions cannot be challenged or undone, then I will consider the United States an oligarchy. Vexedelbasy (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

100 2601:447:CF7F:3010:D9D5:D834:E8F3:5E99 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

We're still pure, my friend. Maybe do change it to "conservative democracy" and not "liberal democracy." Don't worry about oligarch nonsense---that's all false misunderstood stuff. BeProper (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

"Liberal democracy" does not use "liberal" in the left-right sense, but in the sense of freedom. The opposite of a liberal democracy is not a right-leaning conservative democracy, but an authoritarian-leaning illiberal democracy. Any changes or additions would also require reliable sources to support them.

FTR, the article now has a footnote pointing out that some scholars use the term "oligarchy" and "plutocracy", and those are sourced, so perhaps this discussion has come to its natural conclusion. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

No longer true, though I do think that this discussion has come to its natural conclusion. The powers of the presidency have not changed since Biden was president. As such, the United States is neither a dictatorship nor an oligarchy. Vexedelbasy (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. BeProper (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

First paragraph too detailed

The first paragraph of the lead has become too detailed in the last few days, which also makes it too long considering it is supposed to be a brief introduction to the country containing only the most basic information. Thereore, I suggest trimming it down a bit; ideas can be collected and discussed in this thread. A start could be the removal of "[...] the latter legally classified as "domestic dependent nations" with tribal sovereignty rights" as this part doesn't appear to be necessary for a basic understanding of the U.S. and can be explained in detail in the geography section. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, the sentence "The U.S. asserts sovereignty over five major island territories and various uninhabited islands." could perhaps be merged with the sentence "It is a federal republic of 50 states and Washington, D.C. as its federal capital district."; i.e., "It is a federal republic of 50 states, its federal capital district of Washington, D.C., five major island territories, and various uninhabited islands." Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that it has been trimmed down a bit now to an extent which is more or less tolerable. Nonetheless, new input for trimming the first paragraph (or the lead in general) down further are still welcome. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You're doing a great job keep it up. Moxy🍁 01:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This "asserts sovereignty" phrasing was the subject of a huge dispute over whether the island territories are part of the United States or outside the United States but administered by it. This was a consensus compromise, please don't change it for the sake of brevity, at least not without retaining the delicate distinction. -- Beland (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

They dont have equal rights as mainland citizens so yeah they are people american colonies 103.165.29.184 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest trimming down information of the tribal and indian reservation information which reads: Over 574 federally recognized tribal governments and 326 Indian reservations are legally classified as domestic dependent nations with tribal sovereignty rights.; we don't even have the second-largest Exclusive Economic Zone status in there, which should be restored. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Exclusive Economic Zone is an obscure zoning that isn't talked about very much when it comes to countries overall. Simply not something that's discussed in summary articles beyond a sentence in some odd cases..... Simply not lead worthy. Moxy🍁 01:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I will disagree with any contemplated dumb-downs of the current lead. The first paragraph rightly describes the U.S. as a large union of states with additional territories, plus a full mention about the Native American tribes and their status. A complicated federal republic, and the details should be there. I agree with Moxy that the U.S. "exclusive economic zone" is a minor factoid and doesn't belong anywhere near the lead. The Indian nations, however, definitely do. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The Indian nations have been given as much space in the lead as they have in the body. CMD (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Such a deep level of detail is really not necessary or appropriate for a basic introduction to the country. Merely mentioning them is probably fine, but anything more goes beyond the scope, at least in my opinion, and belongs in the body. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any major objection against including the Indian nations in the lead (though I'd probably prefer to leave them out or have them in an efn); however, I don't think we have to explain their legal status in this detail, as this can be done in the article body without losing any relevant information. This is not a "dumb-down", as there is no oversimplification happening. Just write that they are within the U.S., e.g.:
The United States of America (USA), also known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It is a federal republic of 50 states, its federal capital district of Washington, D.C., five major island territories, and various uninhabited islands. The 48 contiguous states border Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, with the semi-exclavic state of Alaska in the northwest and the archipelagic state of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Within the U.S. are 574 federally recognized tribal governments and 326 Indian reservations. It is a megadiverse country, with the world's third-largest land area and third-largest population, exceeding 340 million. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

CMD writes: "Indian nations have been given as much space in the lead as they have in the body." Totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, as I think the body text should be expanded. As for the current lede sentence (it's only ONE SENTENCE), readers are often very curious about the Native American tribes and their status. And re an EFN: these should be reserved for expanding details like measurements, legalese, and such, not to hide away primary information about Indian reservations. I really wonder why some here wish to turn an article for adults into a reference work for children. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If readers are curious about them, we have an entire article dedicated to them which they can read. This article is about the U.S., and its lead should focus only on the most important and basic information necessary for readers to know about the United States; i.e., mentioning other things for context is fine, but explaining them in detail is usually not, at least not in the lead. Removing things that distract from the main topic and instead focusing on the essential information has nothing to do with creating a "reference work for children" but rather keeping the lead concise and focused. It's actually quite the opposite of that, because we assume that our readers know that we have separate articles containing this information which they can read, instead of bloating the already too long lead only for the sake of easier access to this information. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Focused and concise" or embarrassingly simplistic? Much of it read like a 7th-grade book report, with passive verbs and a lower vocabulary register: "There are 50 states and a capital. It has 340 million people. There are five territories. The largest city is New York." Much of that info the average U.S. middle schooler already knew. When compared to many other country articles in English Wikipedia, this lead didn't come off well at all. Recent changes are a vast improvement. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to; older article versions didn't have a wording like that, perhaps aside from some quickly reverted drive-by edits. Also, I am not opposing a "professional" or "complex" writing style and instead advocating for some kind of "simple English" writing style as you're implying. What I am opposing is an unnecessarily long and overly detailed lead section because that's exactly what a lead is not supposed to be as it should merely summarize the most notable key aspects of the article. And the current one appears to be one that needs trimming, at least from my POV. All featured and good country articles have lead sections which are way more focused and concise, and, as a result, shorter than this one (except possibly India's, but that article has its own history of complains about it). Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, I am [...] instead advocating for some kind of "simple English" writing style

This is reminiscent of the Simple English Wikipedia article for the United States. The current version is:

The United States of America, commonly known as simply the United States or America, is a sovereign country mostly in North America. It is divided into 50 states. 48 of these states and the District of Columbia border each other between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. They are bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwestern area of the continent and is separated from the other 48 states by Canada making it an exclave. Alaska is bordered by Canada to its east. The state of Hawaii is a set of islands in the Pacific located within Polynesia and is about 2,200 miles (3,500 kilometers) from the mainland. The country also possesses territories, and insular areas, in the Caribbean and Pacific. The capital city is Washington, D.C and the largest city by population is New York City with a population of 8.8 million people. With a population of 331 million people and an area of 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km²), the United States is the third most populated country in the world and the fourth-largest country in the world by total area. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I wrote that I am not advocating a simple English writing style. I'm fine with using a complex writing style as long as it's not unnecessarily long and overly detailed, aspects which primarily concern content instead of language. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear, but this article has a bad habit of doing just the opposite: devolving into lowest-common-denominator language and information. Readers are carried off to ever more WP links "so they can look things up themselves", making for an even bigger sea of blue. We never come anywhere close to "Good Article" status, and probably can't. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure. In country articles, we always have to find a balance between a tolerable article length and detail, and a tolerable amount of links to child articles. Both is extremely hard for the U.S. because a continent-sized superpower with hundreds of millions of inhabitants has both a lot of child articles to link to and a lot to write about. However, looking at some good and featured country articles, many of them actually do have a considerable amount of links as well but are way shorter in comparison, suggesting we should probably focus on trimming this article if we want to come closer to good article status. This article has a high density of sources of mostly acceptable quality, the majority of its information is more or less up to date, and it is not too badly written overall in my opinion. It's just very bloated in its current state, and we should move some of its content to sub-articles. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@ Maxeto0910: Not long ago, a few editors attempted to "cut some of the bloat" from this article. But rather than judiciously thinking through things, they excised massive text blocks that included some excellent material (while inserting weak verbs, conversational syntax, and lower-register vocabulary right out of the Simple English edition). I hope we can avoid future disasters like that. Yes, some of this article's text is overwritten and could be thoughtfully reviewed. No, the current lead paragraph, with details regarding the U.S. administrative state, is not "bloated". It reflects the complicated U.S. federal republic of states, territories, and Native American nations. The U.S. is not Germany and it's not Switzerland; this info is essential and should not be relegated to "backwater" text and editorial footnoting. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree the body text should be expanded, and overhauled. The information there isn't what I expected to find—it's boring and not very helpful even so much as an overview. It underscores the way our Native American history and culture is kept in the closet. However, I also think pretty much that whole third paragraph in the Intro (starting with 12,000 years ago) needs to go. Nothing that happened 12,000 years ago should be in an article about the U.S. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment. The first paragraph must adequately summarize the United States. Currently it does not even note the United States has territory in the Caribbean Sea, which is very unusual for a first paragraph description of any country. The first paragraphs is going to be larger than most country entries simply because the United States is larger than most countries. --Plumber (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Those territories were mentioned in the first paragraph, but not where they were located. I added in the "Caribbean and Pacific Ocean" for context. They are individually listed in an explanatory footnote without geographic context. -- Beland (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The United States is no longer a liberal democracy

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX Kowal2701 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't suggest a simple edit for this. It will probably require major changes.

The U.S. has moved away from its status as a fully functioning liberal democracy toward a hybrid system incorporating elements of electoral democracy, executive dominance, and selective authoritarianism. While elections still occur, executive overreach, the undermining of judicial independence, suppression of opposition, and politically motivated governance indicate significant democratic backsliding.

If one were to classify the U.S. now, a more accurate description would be an "executive-driven illiberal democracy" or a "competitive authoritarian system". While opposition still exists, state institutions are being reshaped to favor executive control, the rule of law is inconsistently applied, and political opposition is increasingly repressed. David G (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We would need to evaluate any sources we can gather. That being said it seems farfetched for change. Moxy🍁 03:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

While this is a major shift, I disagree that it is far-fetched. Here are some sources just to start with. In addition, Wikipedia's own Second presidency of Donald Trump justifies these claims.

Trump’s ‘bald power grab’ could set US on path to dictatorship, critics fear

Trump’s moves test the limits of presidential power and the resilience of US democracy

The New Competitive Authoritarianism

UN human rights chief ‘deeply worried by fundamental shift’ in US David G (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Many/most of the sources on Democratic backsliding in the United States also support this claim. David G (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I share the concerns about Trump, but the funeral for liberal democracy in the US is premature. This strikes me as just unhelpful soapboxing, and doesn't merit any further discussion. CAVincent (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe that an encyclopedia should reflect reality, and I've provided primary sources to show that the article needs updating. "I don't want to talk about it" should not be a valid reason to have an out-of-date page. David G (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi David, if you disagree with the statement in the fourth paragraph that the United States is a "liberal democracy" then you should provide some sources that analyze this question, ideally by defining "liberal democracy" or some other political system such as "competitive authoritarianism" and examining how the United States fits the characteristics of each of these systems. Providing evidence that reliable mainstream sources do not refer to the United States as a "liberal democracy" would also be useful, as would evidence that experts such as political scientists agree on this question. Simply stating that this is your opinion is not useful. Nor do any of your links address this; three simply observe that major changes are occurring in US politics and society, without addressing the question of whether the United States is a "liberal democracy"; the other is a political science analysis piece which does not even mention the United States, but just some other countries around the world. Best, Cfrhansen (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

At what point would you consider it valid, then? He already publicly claimed, multiple times, that he is above the law. He acts like it every single day, too, and nobody is stopping him. When one man has absolute power in the state, does it sound like democracy to you? 109.87.36.102 (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Your first source says that some critics fear this might happen, not that it already has. How many political prisoners are there, how many opposition leaders have been assassinated, which major news outlets have been expropriated and their editors jailed? Will Wikipedia (which is based in Florida) report you for posting this? TFD (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If Hungary is a democracy then the US is Pogchampange (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It's amazing the fantasy world some people on the internet live in. The opposition exists, and controls almost half of Congress. Federal state institutions were always under executive control, in as much as they weren't this is just a return to historical norm for the United States. I have not seen personally seen instances of rule of law being ignored (i.e. Trump has respected every court decision). And political opposition rather than being repressed is becoming increasingly unhinged with regular incitements to violence being expressed on social media (especially Reddit) toward elected and unelected government officials. That could eventually lead to repression (I hope not) if enough people start to believe the people trying to rile people up into violence. Ergzay (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

this Troopersho (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't of said it better myself 217.180.216.90 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

"I have not seen personally seen instances of rule of law being ignored (i.e. Trump has respected every court decision)." Then you are 100% blind. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Is he really 100% blind? Or is he simply a cutie patootie? :3 Troopersho (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

He has. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

When the Democracy indices and similar sources say that the US is not a democracy, then we should have this discussion. The latest V-Dem report puts us above Germany, the UK and a good chunk of Western Europe. The Economist Democracy Index is less sanguine, calling us a flawed democracy, but still puts us above Belgium and Italy. Freedom in the World is even less friendly, but we still get ranked Free. Until they come back with new reports, I don't think we should jump on anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

As of April 14, 2025, the United States is clearly no longer a liberal democracy. The executive branch has officially discarded the directives of the judicial branch which means that the United States would be more properly described as an autocratic state or an authoritarian dictatorship 2600:1700:4640:9AC0:B157:5221:DD9:9C79 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems a bit farfetched. For now, let's just leave it and see what happens after President Trump. I do have to say he's using a lot of executive power, but it hasn't gone wrong. BeProper (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The United States has never been a "liberal democracy". The United States is a Constitutional republic. Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Communism-socialism-is-part-of-my-past was, until recently, a constitutional republic? Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed rewrite of third paragraph

Based on my proposal in the previous discussion section, I've written some draft text to replace the third paragraph of this article:

The United States national government operates under a presidential system with increasingly centralized executive authority. While maintaining the formal structure of a constitutional federal republic, the balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches has been significantly altered by executive overreach. The national legislature remains bicameral, with the House of Representatives based on population and the Senate granting equal representation to each state, but congressional influence has been weakened by the expansion of unilateral executive actions. Although the Democratic and Republican parties continue to dominate American politics, political opposition faces growing institutional and legal challenges. Federalism persists, but state autonomy is increasingly subject to federal directives, particularly in areas of immigration, civil rights, and governance oversight.

American political traditions, historically rooted in Enlightenment ideals, have undergone a shift toward a more populist and executive-driven governance model, with reduced emphasis on pluralism and institutional independence. The nation remains ethnically and culturally diverse, but political polarization and government policies have intensified divisions over identity, rights, and governance. Immigration, once a defining characteristic of American identity, is now subject to restrictive policies and mass deportation efforts. While U.S. cultural influence continues to extend globally, its role as a leading advocate for liberal democracy has diminished, and its international reputation is increasingly defined by transactional diplomacy, economic nationalism, and unilateral assertions of power.

It's just a draft, and will need linkifying, etc. David G (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Great summary, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Seems to me that there are plenty of American editors that are in complete denial of the reality of the situation. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"American editors" aren't the problem. It's the tendency of a few here to "sex up" the lead with long, involved details. The lead aready having reached its limit in length, this text belongs under "Government and politics: national government". With proper sourcing and links, it could reach consensus, I think, but in the lead it looks like grandstanding. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't make it any less true. Trying to sugarcoat it won't do anyone any favours. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

While I share many of the fears about Trump and democratic backsliding here, the fact is that Trump has not, in two months time, transformed the country into an illiberal or authoritarian state. Opposition is not muzzled. Far from it, there are polls I have seen projecting a Democratic victory in the 2026 midterms. Politicians critical of Trump haven't been imprisoned or exiled, and there is significant opposition from civil society. The president still requires congressional approval to pass laws. The courts still can review laws and executive orders. The fact is, unfortunate as it may be, that all that Trump has done is within the constitutional purview of the executive branch (which, for those unaware, is theoretically immense due to the age and vagueness of our constitution). I would thus suggest research on other periods in American history when the presidency exercised similar power, or when large swathes of the population were denied the vote and yet the country was still perceived as a liberal democracy. We may not like Trump or what he is doing, but this pity party is premature. Vexedelbasy (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This smells rotten of WP:POV, WP:SOAP and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Parts of the draft are quite polemical. It will take good sources (not just from the academic Left) to support it in "Government and politics". Meanwhile, it has no place in the lead. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Completely WP:OR as well Kowal2701 (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

These guys are getting too much leftist stuff. BeProper (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Outright rejected. That's one of the most slanted POV statements I've seen on here. Ergzay (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

"has been significantly altered by executive overreach" You have got to be kidding me. Two entire paragraphs to describe the imperial presidency? The concept is at least 60-years-old, and there have been discussions of executive overreach since Franklin D. Roosevelt's reforms in the 1930s. Just use the two words needed to describe it. Dimadick (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

"overreach" is non-neutral—you can't express that position. "...political opposition faces growing institutional and legal challenges." Opposition to or from whom? Needs a proposition and noun in there. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't read through it too much, but your whole immigration thing isn't right. Illegal immigrants are subject to deportation, not legal ones who keep our laws. BeProper (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2025

This edit request to United States has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the corresponding answer to "Official languages:" from "None at the federal level[a][discuss]" to "English" Source: official US gov website -> https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states/ JazzyBsolarjatt (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Not done... Although this seems reasonable with the new source.... there is currently an ongoing discussion in the section above - please join.Moxy🍁 01:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Done with different sourcing, per the RFC outcome. -- Beland (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The United States has no official language. Laws must be passed by an act of congress, not a narcissistic man child issuing royal decrees like a king. 71.51.187.175 (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly why Wikipedia is not considered a "reliable" source

Every major source has acknowledged English as the official language now, largely without controversy. But Wikipedia still lists it as "none at the Federal level" because some ideologue editors here don't like that fact. Get over it and update the article to the correct content already. It's making the website look even more discredited than it already does. 73.40.109.79 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX & WP:CONSENSUS. JasonMacker (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@73.40.109.79 -- I totally support making English the official language, but official English is achieved when a few congressional sponsors bring a formal bill to the U.S. Congress and it reaches a floor vote. An EO affecting the executive branch is not the same and, fortunately, many regular editors see the difference. Finally, if your written prose weren't that of a 14-year-old, others might take you more seriously. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

No orders by the U.S. president have any validity unless they are within the powers given to him by the U.S. constitution either directly or through legislation permitted by the constitution. TFD (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. The US constitution does not give Trump any power to designate an official language by himself. GN22 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The article in Chinese has already written down the news, while the English one has not yet changed at all. ChenSimon (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of God, just first write down the news, PLEASE? STOP THE ENDLESS ARGUMENT! ChenSimon (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

We already wrote down the news in Languages of the United States. GN22 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a GREAT sentence, which emphasizes "limited to the executive branch". Why not do the same in this article? ChenSimon (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"The US constitution does not give Trump any power to designate an official language by himself." And why would we think that Trump has ever read the constitution or is even vaguely aware of its contents? He acts and speaks in the manner of an absolute ruler. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, what does this have to do with anything? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The United States has no official language. Laws must be passed by an act of congress, not a narcissistic man child issuing royal decrees like a king. 71.51.187.175 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This change has now been made per the RFC outcome. -- Beland (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been trying to talk sense into these guys for months now. They finally did it, though. BeProper (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be a bit more civil just to take the win and not imply other editors were spewing nonsense, even if you honestly believe they are. -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

BeProper apologized on their talk page when I asked about it. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The official language of the United States became English, officially but not de facto. Trump signed the executive order.

The official language of the United States became English, officially but not de facto. Trump signed the executive order. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/abd-basinina-gore-trump-ingilizceyi-resmi-dil-ilan-edecek/3496359 Furkan1907 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

This is being discussed. Join the RFC above. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

What would a de facto official language even mean? 1101 (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The United States has no official language. Laws must be passed by an act of congress, not a narcissistic man child issuing royal decrees like a king. 71.51.187.175 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

"officially but not de facto" The term you need is de jure. Dimadick (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The RFC has closed and the article updated. -- Beland (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s a good point to say English as the official language “limited to the executive branch”

「An executive order was issued by President Donald Trump on March 1, 2025 to designate English as the official language, but it is limited to the executive branch of the government. 」

This sentence in Languages of the United States is GOOD enough, which covers the controversial point in the infinite discussion/argument above. ChenSimon (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The RFC on this question has closed, and the article updated. -- Beland (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2025

This edit request to United States has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change Main Articles links under History/Comtemporary from reading "History of the United States (1991–2008)" and "History of the United States (2008–present)" to read "History of the United States (1991–2016)" and "History of the United States (2016–present)" in order to match the up-to-date titles of those pages 2601:246:C982:A7E0:F9B5:381E:6E36:E28B (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Done Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I had done that before but it was reverted. --Plumber (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Correct positions of images

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you guys please put all image's positions to the right (there are three on the left) in accordance with MOS:IMAGELOC, thanks Consuela9890 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Not done.... I'm actually the one who was involved with the editing of this guideline. This is not an absolute that needs to be implemented without consideration..... For example we recommend portraits to be facing inwards towards the text..... thus resulting in left angled images MOS:PORTRAIT.Moxy🍁 22:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Moxy Thanks for the reply! I was actually unaware about MOS:PORTRAIT, I'll be keeping that in mind next time I make an edit! But what about File:Nouvelle-France map-en.svg in the "European exploration, colonization and conflict (1513–1765)" subsection of "History" section, for instance? I don't know about the video in the "Post–Civil War era (1865–1917)" subsection, but for images such as those like the example I gave (isolated images that are not portraits) I personally don't see how it could originate any issue by placing it on the right. When it comes to the 3rd image (the image of the UN HQ), maybe placing it on the right could worsen the visual appeal of the article but, nevertheless, since it can potentially improve it I think we can have a discussion about this.Consuela9890 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

If no one objects.... Let's say two days... I will implement it. Moxy🍁 00:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a bit of variation of the pictures' positions in this article is very nice, but don't let that stop you from performing the edit if you wish to do so. Lova Falk (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Done I have moved the 1st and 3rd images to the right. Perception312 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—5.111.98.182 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

We can't help you if we don't know what you need fixing.CRBoyer 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Closing unactionable report. There's only three sets of coordinates in the article (country, capital, and largest city), and they're all correct. Deor (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Official language

The United States does not have an official language. Please fix the inaccuracy in the info box. 2600:387:B:3:0:0:0:80 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The infobox does not say English is the official language, it says English is the National language. There is also a footnote explaining that this is a de facto, not official, status. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing it. 2600:387:B:3:0:0:0:80 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

On the basis of a community decision, yes. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

And none of them have shown any act of Congress that designated it as such. Malcolmmwa (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. As explained to you in an edit summary, you can challenge the result of the RFC if you want, but until you do that, you disagreeing with the reasoning of people who contributed to the RFC does not change its outcome. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Primarily in North America, located in these continents (hatnote)

^[a]. Is what I propose should be added to the article, however @Ghost writer's cat believes that because these territories are not incorporated into the US they don't count. That doesn't make sense, as when a country owns territory they are considered apart of that continent. He has reverted my edits and I am putting the proposal here to avoid WP:EW. DotesConks (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The South American territory is? Anyway, this seems to still be trivia, similar to the last time this was discussed. Are you stating the United Kingdom is a South American country too? CMD (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis The United Kingdom is located in Europe primarily and has overseas territories in every continent. That is what it should say. We can't just ignore the little land that the UK still owns just because culturally the UK is associated with Europe. DotesConks (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@DotesConks I didn't say they don't count; I said your statement was inaccurate. Territories are not part of the parent country. (This is in reference to your statement regarding the location of the U.S.) This is clearly explained in the article I referred you to. Did you read it?

Your note reads, "Due to its overseas territories, they have land in Oceania, Asia, and South America." (Again, you're referring to the U.S. as "they". You've already been corrected on this. TWICE.) That detail is immaterial 1) because of what I already stated in bold above (and for the second time, at least), and 2) it's not relevant as the territories are already identified elsewhere. Your persistence on this issue, in light of all the information to the contrary, and refusal to consider the advice being given to you is becoming tiresome. Educate yourself on U.S. territories before you push this any further.

Currently, mention of the U.S. territories is scattered throughout the article with little more than a list of countries. Since this is a subject you're interested in, you might consider consolidating the information on territories into one or two paragraphs in one location. (However, keep in mind there's information already under "Subdivisions", as well as a whole separate article—the one I've referred you to—so keep it general if you do this.) Ghost writer's cat (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ghost writer's cat Have you ever heard of semantics? You are getting really stuck up over my definition of territory. It doesn't matter. The US owns land in Oceania, Asia, and South America. It has governed such land. Therefore it is on these continents through a presence. And do not tell me to educate myself when I have had nearly 2 decades of experience with American history and the constitution. DotesConks (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Also WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Saying America is located in North America and making no reference to overseas territories does not obey this manual of style. DotesConks (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of key points, it can not include every detail of the >10,000 word article. CMD (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis Correct. But US territories are very important to America and should be included in the lead. The hatnote helps with explaining why the US is "primarily" in North America while acknowledging other lands, such as Guam or Puerto Rico. DotesConks (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Territories are important, their placement along arbitrary lines that have nothing to do with the territories does not. The territories already very prominently mentioned. CMD (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

English is the official language of the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand, but that hasn't been updated yet on their pages.

English is the official language of the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand, but that hasn't been updated yet on their pages. 2601:249:1A80:22E0:F0B8:711F:65EF:1382 (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

You need to post this (or make the correction) on the appropriate pages. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong definition.

Duplicate topic of discussion above. CMD (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'America' is from Canada to Argentina. The term cannot be hijacked by the United States OF America. Please someone add a paragraph about the definition. It's not sufficient to have a small Disclaimer about the AmericaS There is one America. MariaCMoore (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@MariaCMoore I agree, but there are people here who rabidly insist that the colloquial use of "America" for the United States be accepted as the preferred usage. With zero substantiation, they keep claiming that it's the most common use of the word "in English-speaking countries" and that the desires of people from any other country don't matter. You can find these debates in the discussion on the Redirect (above) and in the Talk archives for this page. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2025

This edit request to United States has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As of April 14, 2025, the United States is no longer a liberal democracy. The executive branch has officially discarded the directives of the judicial branch which means that the United States would be more properly described as an autocratic state or an authoritarian dictatorship. 2600:1700:4640:9AC0:B157:5221:DD9:9C79 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

See above section....first section.Moxy🍁 23:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[1] "'President Musk' makes his presence felt in Washington". France24.

[2] "Elon Musk tightens grip on federal government". Associated Press. February 4, 2025. Retrieved February 13, 2025. Elon Musk is rapidly consolidating control over large swaths of the federal government with President Donald Trump 's blessing, sidelining career officials, gaining access to sensitive databases and dismantling a leading source of humanitarian assistance. The speed and scope of his work has been nothing short of stunning. In a little more than two weeks since Trump took office, the world's richest man has created an alternative power structure inside the federal government ...

[msnbc-3] "Musk has been empowered to be 'virtual prime minister'". MSNBC.

[4] "'Co-president' Elon Musk? Trump ally tests influence in spending fight". Washington Post.

[5] "Inside Musk's Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government". New York Times. He is shaping not just policy but personnel decisions, including successfully pushing for Mr. Trump to pick Troy Meink as the Air Force secretary, according to three people with direct knowledge of his role.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[a]