On Thursday, Yoon Suk Yeol, disgraced former president of South Korea, was convicted by Seoul central district court for insurrection, following his unsuccessful self-coup at the end of 2024.
Very late on the 3rd of December 2024, Yoon declared martial law in an effort to restore the autocratic rule of the fifth and earlier republics of South Korea. It was only in 1987 that major demonstrations forced the hand of the dictatorial president and general Chun Doo-hwan to accept democratic elections to the presidency. Despite the fact his close ally and appointed successor, Roh Tae-woo, scraped a win and became the sixth president, South Korea liberalised and democratised over the subsequent decade, and Chun and Roh were eventually convicted and sentenced to life and 17 years imprisonment respectively, for their roles in the coup which established the fifth republic and in the handling of the Gwangju Uprising and the resulting massacre of student demonstrators by military personnel.
As well as the martial law declaration, armed soldiers raided the National Electoral Commission, to ‘investigate’ Trumpean claims of voter fraud in the 2024 legislative elections. In April, the Democratic Party (DPK) retained their large majority in the national assembly, losing just 7 of the 180 seats they held, with Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) trailing on 108. It was around this time (in fact, just before the election) that Yoon began to discuss the implementation of martial law. By the attempted insurrection, he had drawn up lists which included prominent members of the opposition, major members of his own party, and critical commentators, for arrest and detention.
And yet he failed miserably. The actual declaration of martial law was ambitious – arguably more so than the coups of the 60s and 70s, in that it attempted to effectively dissolve the national assembly – blocking all ‘political activities.’ All parties, including the PPP, opposed the declaration and the speaker immediately convened a meeting of the national assembly, requiring just an absolute majority vote to put an end to the martial law. The Seoul police, armed, surrounded the assembly building and tried to block entry by legislators, with videos showing civilian support in legislators' attempts to scale fences to gain entry, and a particularly brave DPK spokeswoman grabbing a policeman’s firearm after he pointed it at her and asking him, “Are you not ashamed?” Assembly staff delayed police with fire extinguishers and used furniture to barricade the main assembly floor, successfully preventing access.
Once the speaker was sure a majority of members were present, he opened the session, which soon voted unanimously 190-0 to put an end to martial law. All but one DPK legislator managed to gain access, joined by 18 members of the PPP, comfortably surpassing the 151 votes required. It was a remarkable effort by these legislators, who, so late in the evening, convened despite significant risk and in the face of military opposition, to annul the declaration just 2 hours and 35 after its announcement. Finally, at half past four in the morning, Yoon relented, and confirmed that martial law had in fact ceased.
Just over a week and a half later, facing mounting public pressure, fourteen PPP members broke with the official party position and voted for Yoon’s impeachment, which required a two-thirds supermajority to pass. The constitutional court eventually upheld the impeachment, and Yoon was officially removed from office. Then, finally, this week, a criminal conviction: insurrection. The penalty: life imprisonment with hard labour. The only other options for such a crime in South Korean jurisprudence are life imprisonment without hard labour and the death penalty, though executions have not been carried out since 1998. This is therefore, effectively, the harshest sentence the courts could impose, given that a death sentence is really a life sentence, but without hard labour.
What Yoon thought he would accomplish is beyond me. The scale of such a coup surely obviously requires commitment to the cause both to a significant degree and among a quorum of important members of the executive, legislature, and vitally, the military. Such support just didn’t exist! At least not to a sufficient level.
However, South Korea does not have a good track record when it comes to keeping convicted presidents convicted. Both Chun and Roh were pardoned by the next president; the eleventh, convicted for abuse of power and corruption, was pardoned by the twelfth; and the tenth, convicted for bribery and embezzlement, was pardoned by the thirteenth - Yoon himself. At least for now, Lee Jae Myung, the current president and leader of the DPK, is unlikely to pardon Yoon, being one of the legislators to scale the aforementioned assembly building fences. But he is not without his own legal troubles. Still, the US could learn a lesson or two.

US senate primaries start the week after next so I’m going to postpone part II of the November congressional elections piece until next week.

The 2026 Freedom in the World report is expected in the coming week, and so I thought it would be interesting to try and pre-empt the report and the score it gives the US and examine the autocratisation of the US over the year 2025. I’ll briefly mention the UK’s score at the end too! The United States’ score currently stands at 84 out of 100 (53rd of 193 countries), and the UK’s at 92 (28th). The Freedom in the World Index makes detailed reports outlining their scores for each part of the index, providing detailed insight, clear methodology, and allowing analysis by outside observers. (The mass DOGE-orchestrated cuts on government funding for USAID mean the 2026 report may have fewer reports than usual, but I expect the US report will be as thorough as usual, the organisation being US-based.) I note I will certainly have missed things – there’s a lot of news in a year!

A1. Free and fair elections for the head of government. 4/4 (-)
There were no presidential election held in 2025.
A2. Free and fair elections for the legislature. 4/4 (-)
Only special elections for congress have been held in 2025 and all have been free and fair, though Trump has floated the deployment of law enforcement officers to polling stations, to ‘monitor’ them for non-existent large-scale voter fraud by undocumented immigrants.
A3. Impartial and fair framework and electoral laws. 3/4 (-)
The 2025 report describes districting in the US as ‘subject to some partisan manipulation’ and notes decennial redistricting following each census. Of course, this is a rather outdated understatement. This year, Texas instigated a gerrymandering war, by redrawing their maps between censuses to eliminate five Democratic districts (on the flawed overconfident basis of their 2024 Democratic vote shares, which is expected to significantly underestimate 2026 Democratic support, especially among Texan Hispanic communities). In response, California held a referendum to temporarily (until 2030) redraw their maps to eliminate five Republican districts. Missouri has eliminated one Democratic district, Ohio is expected to eliminate two or three, and Florida the same, while Virginia has a referendum in March to eliminate four Republican districts, though is facing opposition in the Virginia courts over the timing of the referendum and the wording of the legislation. This significantly undermines the confidence of the voting public in the fairness of the electoral process in general while disenfranchising voters in these districts in particular. However, the supreme court did not strike down the Voting Rights Act in 2025, which would have caused a flurry of redistricting to carve up minority-majority Democratic voting districts in the Deep South. As the supreme court is expected to rule on the VRA (and there is a good chance they will kill it) in the current session, I think the report may retain their score of 3 to give them space for a reduction if the VRA is scoured (though the racial element might mean the score is reduced in later categories instead).
A. Electoral Process. 11/12 (-)

B1. Competitive multi-party system free of undue obstacles to other parties. 4/4 (-)
No significant change here. Of course, the US has competitive elections only in swing districts, which are outnumbered by the vastly greater and increasing number of safe districts, and the two-party system is fairly strongly entrenched. But it’s still a 4/4.
B2. Opposition can take power democratically. 4/4 (-)
Same here, though a docked point for the gerrymandering rush could appear here. Really I think it already should be a 3/4. It’ll get more interesting I promise!
B3. Political choice is free from external domination. 3/4 (-)
In November, during the government shutdown, which became the longest in US history, Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the house of representative, delayed the swearing-in of the representative-elect Adelita Grijalva for over seven weeks. This is certainly ‘extrapolitical’ means employed by a politician to deny voters the implementation of their political choice. But the scales have to encompass the most liberal democracies and the most entrenched autocracies, so there’s a good chance we see no change here, given the existing 3/4 for domination by billionaires.
B4. Full political rights and opportunities for minorities. 3/4 (-)
Once again, I think a 2 is on the cards on the gutting of the VRA, and the SAVE act, which passed the house put is almost certainly dead in the senate, aims to significantly curtail voting rights for eligible immigrants and married women, by requiring a passport or birth certificate and matching photo ID to register to vote. But this was this year, and is very unlikely to pass. It is the case that deployment of law enforcement to polling places is likely to disproportionately discourage minority voters, but this has not really happened yet. I think there’s a good chance there is a reduction in the 25/28 score given so far, but I wouldn't predict any score in particular to lower.
B. Political Pluralism and Participation. 14/16 (-)

C1. Policy determined by the elected executive and legislature. 2/4 (-1)
The 43-day shutdown only confirmed the ill functioning of the legislature, which has seemingly abandoned its mission to dictate policy, morphing almost immediately into a large congress-shaped rubber stamp. Policy appears to be significantly directed by unelected members of Trump’s cabinet and Stephen Miller, an advisor (and white supremacist fascist), in particular. Concerning is the apparent influence of MAGA influencers like Laura Loomer on the president’s actions, such as the firing of the National Security Agency chief. Trump has repeatedly used ‘national emergency’ related powers to levy tariffs, far in excess of the powers delegated by congress when such legislation passed and this week’s supreme court finding that Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA are unlawful came almost a year late, and so won’t be considered in the report, perhaps allowing for a reduction.
C2. Effective safeguards against corruption. 1/4 (-2)
Perhaps a two point drop is an ambitious prediction, but it’s rather hard to say there are any effective safeguards against corruption at the top of the federal government. The president has immunity; the press has capitulated under the control of spineless amoral billionaires; all the inspectors general, whose roles are to root out corruption, have been fired; and Trump’s blatant corruption on an enormous scale, like his acceptance of a $400 bn plane from the Qatari government, an obvious breach of the emoluments clause of the constitution, continues unabashed. Probably the most damning indictment of the American system is the revelation that the independence of the DoJ from the executive was upheld simply by the politeness of the majority party. Trump appointed lackey, Pam Bondi, who was confirmed by the Republican majority in the senate, has utterly debased the position of attorney general, in a seemingly irreparable manner, acting as a mouthpiece and attack dog for the president, pursuing criminal cases against his enemies. If the only safeguard against corruption is the grand jury, then all it takes is a sway in public sentiment and the government can target the opposing political party indiscriminately.
C3. Open and transparent government. 2/4 (-1)
The Department of Defence has kicked out all serious journalists, while the White House press secretary attacks, berates, and obfuscates any adversarial question posed to her, and consistently spreads misinformation. And then, of course, the Epstein files. That’s not transparent government, and in direct violation of the specific law that insists upon it.
C. Functioning of Government. 5/12 (-4)
POLITICAL RIGHTS: 30/40 (-4)

D1. Free and independent media. 2/4 (-1)
News coverage in general remains directed by a small group of very rich men. However, this year, Trump has frequently targeted publications and channels which are critical of him. The biggest names in print to fall are probably the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Times, both acquired by billionaires (Bezos in the case of the latter), decimated, and completely stripped of the editorial independence they once previously championed, in order to protect the other business interests of their spineless owners. Meanwhile, on the televised side, David Ellison, Trump ally and Paramount Skydance owner, bought CBS and to Trump’s praise, appointed political commentator and faux-centrist Bari Weiss as chief-of-staff. Experience in TV journalism? Nada. A willingness to kowtow to Ellison’s conservative agenda. Oh, for sure. All of this is instigated and exacerbated by Trump’s insistent litigation; his playbook is crystal clear by now: sue the broadcaster or newspaper for an absurd amount for some ridiculous slight; wait and settle. And for the most part, these outlets just seem to roll over! Whether they are worried about the extensive costs of a drawn-out legal battle, or simply wish to placate the bully in the hope that it will all go away, it is damning, and utterly ineffective. If there’s one thing Trump’s tirades should teach the US media (and universities and other organisations for that matter), it is that submitting does not work. He’s had your lunch money once before: he’s going to try again. Trump’s FCC chair, Brendan Carr, has gone after broadcasters who cross the president with such vigour, threatening to revoke their licences, that even Texan Senator Ted Cruz has voiced his opposition (on the grounds that he would be worried to see Democrats try to claim such powers).
D2. Freedom of religion. 4/4 (-)
Freedom of religion, like freedom of speech, is strongly constitutionally protected, and while anti-Muslim hatred and other bigotries are inflamed by the Trump administration, the right to practice one’s religion remains fairly steadfast.
D3. Academic freedom and freedom from indoctrination. 2/4 (-1)
Quite happy to exploit the federal government’s powers in any way he sees fit, Trump has repeatedly demanded varied concessions from universities, in exchange for his release of billions of dollars of funding. Much of this funding stems from contracts which Trump has no legal power to cancel, but it’s not like that sort of inconvenience stops him. His effort to deny Harvard $2 bn failed in September when a US federal court ruled that such an attempt was violative of the institution’s first amendment rights. In their infinite wisdom, government officials decided to put down in writing their demands of the university, which included the government’s acquisition of all hiring and admissions data and the establishment of an “external party … to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.” I think we can all tell what that really means. The demands feature twice the caveat “which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith” and twice more a paraphrased forms. Which is to say, the government has no intention of releasing the funding, reforms they insist upon or not. Harvard published the letter. It has still not yet received most of the funding due to it.
D4. Freedom of political expression. 3/4 (-1)
The administration has repeatedly attempted to deport documented immigrants, particularly students, who hold views in contrast to their own, most notably in the case of Mahmoud Khalil for his outspoken support of the Palestinian people in the face of the genocide against them. Other detentions include those of Rumeysa Ozturk, who was kidnapped by masked DHS against in civilian clothing, and that of Mohsen Mahdawi, who has described his potential deportation to the West Bank as a “death sentence.”
D. Freedom of Expression and Belief. 11/16 (-3)

E1. Freedom of assembly. 3/4 (-1)
The disgraceful use of less lethal ammunition and chemical weapons like tear gas and pepper spray on protestors, and the instigation of violence with protestors by ICE agents has been widespread in 2026, though there were incidents in 2025 sufficient in my opinion to see a reduction in score. ICE may also have employed, in cases, hexachloroethane, rather than typical tear gas, which is a suspected carcinogen, and can be lethal in high concentrations, and have used this or normal tear gas near schools and on children, for whom it is even more dangerous. In 2026, two protestors were blinded by ICE agents, who fired less lethal munitions at point-blank range, at their faces. It hardly needs mentioning, but less lethal munitions, can be lethal at close range, especially if they damage the brain or important blood vessels. The 2025 report notes “police officers rarely face punishment for violence against protestors.” No change there.
E2. Freedom for non-governmental organisations. 4/4 (-)
The Republican controlled congress launched an investigation into hundreds of nonprofits in June for their purported support of undocumented immigration. But there has not been such widespread stifling of dissenting groups that I think the report will dock a point here.
E3. Freedom for trade unions and labour organisations. 3/4 (-)
Not much change here either.
E. Associational and Organisational Rights. 10/12 (-1)

F1. Independent judiciary. 2/4 (-1)
Trump repeatedly and consistently launched into deranged tirades against ‘activist’ judges who oppose his blatantly illegal or unconstitutional moves, and he is joined by such efforts by pretty much all of his cabinet and much of the legislature. Meanwhile, in appointing fascist/incompetent attack dogs to leading positions in the DoJ and FBI, he has completely undermined their independence. Neither organisation can be said to be remotely so, and in fact, both vigorously pursue the racist nationalist and partisan agenda of the convicted felon, up to and including employing thousands of DoJ personnel in the redaction of Trump’s own name from the Epstein files.
F2. Prevailing due process in civil and criminal matters. 2/4 (-1)
Undocumented immigrants, documented immigrants, and US citizens alike have been detained arbitrarily and on the basis of their race, language, or workplace, and held in inhumane conditions, without access to lawyers, for months and months. ICE consistently flies detainees (including children) out of state, to Texas, in order to draw more favourable conservative judges, for those who manage to get habeas corpus petitions in front of a judge in the first place. In March, 238 Venezuelans were flown to El Salvador and faced indefinite imprisonment in the notorious Salvadorian prison Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) in a flagrant violation of judge Boasberg’s order that the planes turn around (read here: 24/03/25. Almost none had criminal convictions. The whereabouts of over half are “unknown” as of January, according to Rubio, the US secretary of state. Bukele, the Salvadorian president, claims all Venezuelans held in El Salvador have been deported to Venezuela, in a July prisoner exchange. I hope so.
F3. Freedom from war and illegitimate physical force. 3/4 (-)
Though this score thoroughly deserves a reduction as of February, the executions of innocent civilians by ICE in Minnesota, and the attack on Venezuela were January developments.
F4. Equal treatment under the law in practice. 1/4 (-1)
There can surely be no pretence that ethnic groups are treated equally in the US. On top of the existing systemic disparities in wage, employment, education, housing, conviction rates, and sentencing, and the already strained immigration and asylum systems, federal agents, like ICE, may now detain people in the US on the basis of their ethnicity. The Kavanaugh stop, named for the supreme court justice, Brett Kavanaugh, whose concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo appeared to throw out decades of legal precedent and the fourth amendment, permits police stops and detention on the basis of the aggregate of discriminatory factors, like ethnicity, language, and occupation. Need I really say more.
F. Rule of Law. 8/16 (-3)

G1. Freedom of movement. 4/4 (-)
No notable change here that I know of.
G2. Freedom to own property and establish businesses. 4/4 (-)
Or here.
G3. Personal social freedom and of appearance, and from domestic violence. 3/4 (-)
Or here.
G4. Equality of opportunity and freedom from economic exploitation. 3/4 (-)
Or here!
G. Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights. 14/16 (-)
CIVIL LIBERTIES: 43/60 (-7)

Freedom in the World Index: 73/100 (-11) (77th of 193 countries in 2025)

Such a score as this would put the US in the vicinity of 2025’s Israel, Namibia, and Brazil, and fairly close to the free/partly free distinction that Freedom House makes. It would significantly eclipse the largest drops between 2024 and 2025 which were of 7 points in each of Kuwait and Tunisia. It is the entire drop in points in Hungary from 2017 to 2025. The shocking, stunning, and sudden democratic backsliding in the US should raise great alarm. And the score should reflect this. The index utilises the full range of scores: from 100 in Finland down to 1 in Turkmenistan and South Sudan, and -1 in Russian-occupied Ukraine. There’s plenty of space for the US to drop down the rankings. But while I hope, I think there's a good chance it won’t be so low. We'll have to wait and see!

The UK’s 2025 score is most easily analysed via the eight points in which it scores three. I will note the points where the UK could find itself docked points, though they are much fewer. The only point lost in the political rights section is for C2 (corruption safeguards), noting primarily the millions of pounds worth of coronavirus-response-related contracts awarded to Tory peer Michelle Mone. The only change I can think of in the political rights section would relate to the postponed council elections under B2. I would still argue there’s a very “realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support through elections,” it’s just that in some councils this opportunity is delayed until after restructuring. Not every council has elections every year. This will be moot by next year’s report as Labour have u-turned on new legal advice and will no longer allow the requests by councils to postpone their votes in this year’s local elections.
Meanwhile, there are two docked points in D, for the third and fourth points relating to academic freedom and political expression. In both cases, significant legislation (the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2023), noted in last year’s report, went into force in 2025. Under academic freedom, the 2025 report notes the new Labour government halted implementation of the former, so that has changed this year, as the government is now enforcing it. But, I really can’t see a 2/4!
Under E, the UK loses a point for restrictions on freedom of assembly, particularly the overly restrictive (and unlawful) use of the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act 2022 by then home secretary Suella Braverman, but also litigation against protestors for climate action and for pro-Palestinian causes, and buffer zones in which demonstrations are illegal around abortion clinics. The wholly disproportional (and unlawful) proscription of Palestine Action would certainly have docked a point if the UK were at 4, but once again, I struggle to see the justification for 2/4.
F, Rule of Law, is the lowest scoring segment, with threes for F2, F3, and F4. Regarding due process, the government has made a positive development just too late, this January, by passing a partial repeal of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, scrapping wide-ranging conditional immunity for those involved in violence during the Troubles and allowing civil claims. Racially discriminatory use of stop-and-search powers persists and there have been no moves to allay concerns regarding counter-terrorism legislation. Likewise, I haven't come across any significant improvements or regressions in either of the other two points, regarding freedom from physical force and equal treatment under the law.
In June, the House of Commons voted 379-127 to decriminalise procurement of one’s own abortion. However, the UK score for G3 (personal freedoms) is already 4/4, so there is no room here to improve. G4 (economic exploitation) is then the last 3/4, due “changes to immigration rules in 2022 [which] have reportedly led to an increase in modern slavery in the social-care sector.”
Overall, while a small reduction of one or two points is feasible, I think the UK’s score will hold largely steady and if so, will be a fair representation of the attempts by Labour at boring governance. Given the choice between these two countries' governments (as we may well be given at the next general election, in a way), I know exactly which I prefer.

What a fortnight! There was no lack of exciting goings-on throughout the two weeks at the Winter Olympics, held across several venues in northern Italy. And team GB got themselves a record medal haul out of it.
Never before has Britian won more than a single gold medal at the games, this time returning home with three, to go with one silver and one bronze. This match the greatest number of medals won at any previous games, in either of Sochi 2014 and Pyeongchang 2018.
Leading the charge was Matt Weston, reigning skeleton world champion, who added two Olympic golds to his collection, first when he won the men’s individual competition, and then with Tabitha Stoecker in the mixed competition, to improve upon their consecutive silvers as a pair in the world championships. Meanwhile, Huw Nightingale and Charlotte Bankes surged to victory in the mixed snowboard cross relay, claiming the third British gold of the event, and the first ever on snow!
After a short lull, the men’s curling team led by Bruce Mouat took revenge against Switzerland for their 6-5 loss in the group stage to make the final, where they lost to Canada 9-6 in a match neck and neck until a 3-0 score in the Canadian's favour in the ninth of ten ends. Then on the final day, one more medal, with Zoe Atkin in the women’s halfpipe freestyle skiing taking a fairly comfortable bronze.
And for each medal, there was a fourth place: a loss to Sweden in the mixed pairs curling bronze-medal match; a gutting pair of fourth places for Kirsty Muir in both of the big air and slopestyle disciplines of the women’s freestyle skiing; one by eleven hundredths of a second for Marcus Wyatt and Freya Tarbit behind the bronze medallists in the event Weston and Stoecker won; and one in the women’s snowboarding big air by Mia Brookes.
That is to say, the future of Team GB at the Winter Olympics looks bright! Muir is 21 and Brookes is just 19. Ones to keep an eye out for in the French Alps in 2030.
To add to the excitement there was plenty of controversy: a double touch and a profane rebuttal by the Canadian men’s curling squad; five medals but no golds for Norwegian biathlete Sturla Holm Lægreid, who admitted on live television to cheating on his girlfriend of six months (he had already admitted so to her – here he was making an emotional plea) just moments after winning his first bronze; and much grievance with the notoriously biased and opaque ice dance scoring, after French pair and favourites Cizeron and Fournier Beaudry beat American couple Chock and Bates.
But discourse on this year’s games would not be complete without mention of the disgraceful disqualification of Vladyslav Heraskevych, a Ukrainian skeleton racer, for his helmet with its images of over twenty Ukrainian sportspeople and coaches killed since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Told the only alternative acceptable to the International Olympic Committee was a black ribbon or armband, Heraskevych wore his tribute anyway and was disqualified and suspended under Olympic rules prohibiting expressions which would take focus from the individual performance of athletes on the field of play. Other Ukrainian competitors stood by Heraskevych, echoing the repeated sentiment: "Remembrance is not a violation.” Heraskevych has since become the 88th inductee into the Ukrainian Order of Liberty, the second-highest order of Ukraine.
Keen not to be outdone, the International Paralympic Committee have made the unbelievable decision to allow Russian and Belarussian participants to compete under their own flag. Initially suspended for endemic doping offences and since banned almost completely for the invasion of Ukraine, which crosses the four-year mark tomorrow, it will be the first time Russia has competed under its own flag since the 2014 Winter games in Sochi, Russia. The IPC president, who apparently lives in a world where Russia isn't abducting Ukrainian children to deliberately dilute the the national and ethnic comopsition of Ukraine, has defended the decision, saying, “We have a message to give that is one of inclusion and diversity.” Ukrainian sports minister Bidnyi makes clear: “in Russia, Paralympic sport has been made a pillar for those whom Putin sent to Ukraine to kill – and who returned from Ukraine with injuries and disabilities.” Too bad, Matvii, apparently, after four years, the death and violence just stops! Or no longer matters. Ukraine and Czechia will boycott the opening ceremony, and the Estonian public broadcaster will not air the games. They will not stand for the normalisation of Russian imperialism or play into the Russian propaganda machine. If only we were so bold.