government

United States federal government

A wealthy constitutional democracy with real electoral and civil-liberties constraints, but also global military reach, carceral and border harms, weak social guarantees, ecological burden, and extensive intelligence and law-enforcement surveillance capacity. United States federal government scores low because of coercive violence, documented human harm, and ecological harm, with weak accountability reinforcing the negative evaluation.

Why this matters: The U.S. federal government is a useful calibration anchor because its constitutional structure is real but its coercive and military footprint is unusually large.

Letter grade F Malignant Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 6, 2026

Final Score -17* F - Malignant

FMALIGNANT-17 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material30

Bonus+5

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap35

Penalties-52

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

F - Malignant

The score turns mainly on Ownership, with the largest penalty coming from Coercive Violence.

Strengths

Ownership5/10
Governance5/10
Labor Sovereignty4/7

Penalties

Coercive Violence-15
Human Harm-14
Ecological Harm-8
Reversibility-5

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims13
Direct axis claims13
Coverage13/20

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	5 / 10	USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. That places United States federal government in the middle of Ownership: there is some mission, member, producer, or public-interest constraint, but decisive control is not fully democratic. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 118 scored entries below, 6 tied, 102 above on Ownership. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	5 / 10	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That places United States federal government in the middle of Governance: there are accountability mechanisms, but they stop short of broad democratic control. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 127 scored entries below, 20 tied, 79 above on Governance. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	3 / 10	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That keeps United States federal government low on Extraction: the business model makes extraction from workers, users, suppliers, customers, or the public central rather than incidental. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 39 scored entries below, 22 tied, 165 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	4 / 7	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That places United States federal government in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 112 scored entries below, 39 tied, 75 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	3 / 7	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That places United States federal government in the middle of Solidarity with the Unemployed: some access, severance, retraining, openness, or mutual-aid value is present, but it is not central or durable. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 81 scored entries below, 45 tied, 100 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	3 / 7	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That places United States federal government in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 48 scored entries below, 39 tied, 139 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	2 / 5	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That places United States federal government in the middle of Market Conduct: the product has real value but still uses meaningful lock-in, gatekeeping, market power, or dependency. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 31 scored entries below, 22 tied, 173 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	3 / 5	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That places United States federal government in the middle of Product Integrity: the product has real use value but is compromised by incentives, monetization, lock-in, quality degradation, or risk. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 37 scored entries below, 23 tied, 166 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	2 / 5	Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. That places United States federal government in the middle of Scale Integrity: scale brings useful reach but also weakens accountability, transparency, or local constraint. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 31 scored entries below, 18 tied, 177 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] context USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership. [2]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	U.S. rights outcomes remain strongly dependent on elections, courts, agency leadership, and contested constitutional culture, so good behavior is materially reversible. U.S. rights outcomes remain strongly dependent on elections, courts, agency leadership, and contested constitutional culture, so good behavior is materially reversible. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence U.S. rights outcomes remain strongly dependent on elections, courts, agency leadership, and contested constitutional culture, so good behavior is materially reversible. [6]
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-14	Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report serious U.S. rights problems, including criminal-legal, migration, death-penalty, discrimination, and national-security harms. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report serious U.S. rights problems, including criminal-legal, migration, death-penalty, discrimination, and national-security harms. That warrants a severe Human Harm penalty because ordinary operation, documented misconduct, or institutional power creates serious injury, deprivation, abuse, or foreseeable human damage. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 16 scored entries below, 3 tied, 207 above on Human Harm. Linked evidence Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report serious U.S. rights problems, including criminal-legal, migration, death-penalty, discrimination, and national-security harms. [7]
Coercive Violence ? Direct or institutionally enabled killing, torture, detention abuse, armed repression, forced displacement, violent domination, or nonconsensual crisis-line emergency escalation that exposes callers to confinement or force. Range: -30 to 0.	-15	U.S. federal war, national-security, border, policing, detention, and death-penalty powers create serious coercive-violence exposure despite constitutional constraints. U.S. federal war, national-security, border, policing, detention, and death-penalty powers create serious coercive-violence exposure despite constitutional constraints. That warrants a substantial Coercive Violence penalty because the institution uses, enables, profits from, or materially supports violent domination, detention abuse, war, or armed coercion. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 6 scored entries below, 0 tied, 220 above on Coercive Violence. Linked evidence U.S. federal war, national-security, border, policing, detention, and death-penalty powers create serious coercive-violence exposure despite constitutional constraints. [8]
Ecological Harm ? Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.	-8	The United States remains a very large high-income energy consumer and greenhouse-gas emitter, giving the federal government a material national ecological-harm burden. The United States remains a very large high-income energy consumer and greenhouse-gas emitter, giving the federal government a material national ecological-harm burden. That warrants a substantial Ecological Harm penalty because the institution causes or defends ecological damage that is more than incidental to the model. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 15 scored entries below, 1 tied, 210 above on Ecological Harm. Linked evidence The United States remains a very large high-income energy consumer and greenhouse-gas emitter, giving the federal government a material national ecological-harm burden. [9]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	National-security, immigration, policing, and intelligence activities create material public-accountability opacity even where formal transparency systems exist. National-security, immigration, policing, and intelligence activities create material public-accountability opacity even where formal transparency systems exist. That warrants a severe Accountability Opacity penalty because material facts, risks, conflicts, ownership, or accountability information are obscured from the public. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 52 tied, 174 above on Accountability Opacity. Linked evidence National-security, immigration, policing, and intelligence activities create material public-accountability opacity even where formal transparency systems exist. [10]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	U.S. federal institutions use national identity, borders, citizenship, oath, military, and security narratives in ways that can pressure identity alignment and exclusion. U.S. federal institutions use national identity, borders, citizenship, oath, military, and security narratives in ways that can pressure identity alignment and exclusion. That warrants a limited Identity Capture penalty because users, workers, customers, or publics are pressured into identity attachment that protects institutional power. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 24 scored entries below, 6 tied, 196 above on Identity Capture. Linked evidence U.S. federal institutions use national identity, borders, citizenship, oath, military, and security narratives in ways that can pressure identity alignment and exclusion. [11]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-4	The U.S. federal government operates large intelligence, border, and law-enforcement systems with surveillance powers that materially affect citizens and noncitizens. The U.S. federal government operates large intelligence, border, and law-enforcement systems with surveillance powers that materially affect citizens and noncitizens. That warrants a severe Surveillance Capture penalty because customers, workers, users, bystanders, or the public are exposed to invasive tracking, biometrics, or behavior scanning. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 13 scored entries below, 11 tied, 202 above on Surveillance Capture. Linked evidence The U.S. federal government operates large intelligence, border, and law-enforcement systems with surveillance powers that materially affect citizens and noncitizens. [12]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-3	United States federal government's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because United States federal government combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or… United States federal government's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because United States federal government combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional. That warrants a severe Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence United States federal government's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because United States federal government combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise. [13]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Openness to Dissent ? Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.	2 / 3	Freedom House continues to rate the United States as free, is relevant to partial credit because protected dissent and opposition activity. Freedom House continues to rate the United States as free, is relevant to partial credit because protected dissent and opposition activity. That supports partial Openness to Dissent credit because people can criticize, dissent, or challenge the institution without being managed into silence. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 200 scored entries below, 15 tied, 11 above on Openness to Dissent. Linked evidence Freedom House continues to rate the United States as free, is relevant to partial credit because protected dissent and opposition activity. [3]
Constitutional Spirit ? Credit for respecting constitutional rights and civil-liberties norms even where private law does not strictly require it.	2 / 3	The United States has enforceable constitutional-rights institutions and civil-liberties traditions, supporting a partial constitutional-spirit bonus despite major failures. The United States has enforceable constitutional-rights institutions and civil-liberties traditions, supporting a partial constitutional-spirit bonus despite major failures. That supports partial Constitutional Spirit credit because the institution respects speech, privacy, due process, conscience, or civil-liberties norms beyond bare legal compulsion. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 188 scored entries below, 23 tied, 15 above on Constitutional Spirit. Linked evidence The United States has enforceable constitutional-rights institutions and civil-liberties traditions, supporting a partial constitutional-spirit bonus despite major failures. [4]
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	1 / 3	The United States has formal public-budget, records, court, and oversight systems, is relevant to only limited cost-transparency credit because national-security and enforcement opacity remain material. The United States has formal public-budget, records, court, and oversight systems, is relevant to only limited cost-transparency credit because national-security and enforcement opacity remain material. That supports partial Cost Transparency credit because pricing, margins, fees, funding, or surplus allocation are made meaningfully legible. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 189 scored entries below, 11 tied, 26 above on Cost Transparency. Linked evidence context Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses. [1] The United States has formal public-budget, records, court, and oversight systems, is relevant to only limited cost-transparency credit because national-security and enforcement opacity remain material. [5]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 74/100

13 verified linked claims 13 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 13/20 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 15/20

13 verified linked claims

Source quality 14/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

13 direct claims across 20 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 6/10

13/20 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Freedom House rates the United States as free but below the highest-scoring democracies, reflecting real electoral and civil-liberties protections alongside significant institutional weaknesses.

Governance Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

2USA.gov describes the federal government as the national government of the United States, with authority formally mediated through constitutional public institutions rather than private ownership.

Ownership Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

USA.govPrimary public record · 100%

3Freedom House continues to rate the United States as free, is relevant to partial credit because protected dissent and opposition activity.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

4The United States has enforceable constitutional-rights institutions and civil-liberties traditions, supporting a partial constitutional-spirit bonus despite major failures.

Constitutional Spirit Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

5The United States has formal public-budget, records, court, and oversight systems, is relevant to only limited cost-transparency credit because national-security and enforcement opacity remain material.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

USA.govPrimary public record · 100%
Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

6U.S. rights outcomes remain strongly dependent on elections, courts, agency leadership, and contested constitutional culture, so good behavior is materially reversible.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

7Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report serious U.S. rights problems, including criminal-legal, migration, death-penalty, discrimination, and national-security harms.

Human Harm Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Amnesty International: United States of America reportGeneral web source · 58%
Human Rights Watch: United StatesGeneral web source · 58%

8U.S. federal war, national-security, border, policing, detention, and death-penalty powers create serious coercive-violence exposure despite constitutional constraints.

Coercive Violence Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Amnesty International: United States of America reportGeneral web source · 58%
Human Rights Watch: United StatesGeneral web source · 58%
ODNI: Annual Threat Assessment 2025Primary public record · 100%

9The United States remains a very large high-income energy consumer and greenhouse-gas emitter, giving the federal government a material national ecological-harm burden.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

IEA countries: United StatesGeneral web source · 58%

10National-security, immigration, policing, and intelligence activities create material public-accountability opacity even where formal transparency systems exist.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

ODNI: Annual Threat Assessment 2025Primary public record · 100%

11U.S. federal institutions use national identity, borders, citizenship, oath, military, and security narratives in ways that can pressure identity alignment and exclusion.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

12The U.S. federal government operates large intelligence, border, and law-enforcement systems with surveillance powers that materially affect citizens and noncitizens.

Surveillance Capture Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

ODNI: Annual Threat Assessment 2025Primary public record · 100%
Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%

13United States federal government's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because United States federal government combines major gatekeeping, coercive, or infrastructural power with pronounced claims of neutrality, administrative necessity, national legitimacy, safety, objectivity, or professional expertise.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

United States federal government official sitePrimary public record · 100%
Freedom House: United States, Freedom in the World 2025General web source · 58%
Amnesty International: United States of America reportGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

AGOOD51 Republic of Finland government · Finland

Competitors

AGOOD51 Republic of Finland government · Finland CPERFORMATIVE37 Kingdom of Norway government · Norway DEXTRACTIVE23 United Nations intergovernmental organization · Global FMALIGNANT-19 Palestinian Authority government / limited self-government authority · Palestine FMALIGNANT-52 State of Israel government government · Israel FMALIGNANT-60 Hamas armed group / de facto authority · Israel FMALIGNANT-61 People’s Republic of China government · China FMALIGNANT-70 Israel Defense Forces military · Israel

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for United States federal government Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding

View Full Audit Log