Rubric: 0 = no restrictions · 3 = proposals introduced in Congress · 6 = EO signed but blocked by courts · 8 = EO active, limited enforcement · 10 = full legal exit ban enforced

Rubric: 0 = normal processing · 2 = delays 10+ weeks · 4 = selective denial for targeted groups (court ruling or policy) · 6 = broad slowdown + selective denial · 7 = freeze or suspension announced

Rubric: 0 = normal operations · 2 = isolated route suspensions (commercial) · 4 = 20–30% capacity drop or major hub disruption · 6 = outbound ban or near-total suspension

Rubric: 0 = baseline enforcement · 3 = localized operations reported · 6 = multi-state operations + expanded categories · 9 = sustained nationwide targeting patterns + community-level impact · 13 = mass-scale systemic operations across identity categories

May 4 note: Holds at 9/13. The April 29 House vote (215–211) approved a budget resolution framework opening the path to up to $70B more in ICE/CBP funding via reconciliation — committee text due May 15, 2026. This is not enacted funding yet. It is a legislative framework. Combined with the existing $75B from the One Big Beautiful Bill, the enforcement infrastructure is locked in structurally regardless of this week's vote.

Rubric: 0 = protections intact · 2 = proposals or legal challenges filed · 4 = protections suspended or under active court challenge · 6 = multiple protections eliminated + due process narrowed · 8 = systematic weakening of legal status protections across identity categories, multiple pending challenges at highest court level · 9 = within this framework, the highest defined structural level — full enacted elimination across categories

May 19 note (corrected back to 8): Last week's 9/9 was too high. DACA is severely weakened but not eliminated — renewals continue. TPS terminations are real and ongoing but partially blocked by courts. Birthright citizenship is challenged but the executive order has never gone into effect and SCOTUS appears likely to rule against the administration. These are serious, documented erosions — but pending rulings and partial court blocks distinguish this from full enacted elimination. 8/9 reflects systematic weakening across multiple categories with structural threat imminent, not complete strip.

Rubric: 0 = no official targeting language · 2 = occasional rhetoric from lower officials · 3 = consistent rhetoric from senior officials · 4 = cabinet-level dehumanizing language normalized and unchallenged · 5 = systemic official framing of communities as existential threats

Rubric: 0 = normal executive activity · 3 = EOs testing legal limits, courts blocking · 6 = pattern of bypassing Congress + agency purges · 8 = sustained retaliation against institutions resisting · 10 = unchecked unilateral authority, no functional legislative or judicial constraint

Rubric: 0 = protest legal, political participation unobstructed · 2 = isolated arrests at protests · 4 = FTO designations applied to domestic groups · 5 = journalists arrested or prosecuted; OR significant structural weakening of minority voting rights protections · 6 = material support charges used against activists or organizers · 9 = systematic prosecution of nonviolent political expression AND structural erosion of minority political representation capacity

May 19 update (4 → 5): Louisiana v. Callais (6-3) substantially weakened Section 2 protections in redistricting cases, making it significantly harder to challenge maps that dilute minority voting strength. The court finalized the ruling immediately, bypassing its normal 32-day waiting period, to allow Republican-controlled states to redraw maps before the 2026 midterms. 12–19 majority-minority congressional seats are at risk nationally. This is scored as a political participation constraint — the structural capacity of minority communities to elect representatives of their choice has been materially diminished. It is not scored as judiciary capture.

Rubric: 0 = courts functioning independently · 2 = political pressure on courts, attacks on judges · 3 = enforcement of rulings blocked or ignored in specific cases · 4 = courts consistently siding with executive or rulings unenforceable · 5 = emergency docket consistently expands executive power while limiting practical judicial restraint · 6 = judiciary functionally captured — courts unable or unwilling to rule against executive broadly

May 11 update (4 → 5): A shadow docket ruling allowed expanded immigration stops in Los Angeles based on appearance, language, and apparent occupation — conditions that Justice Sotomayor, in a 21-page dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned could enable racial profiling in practice. Justice Jackson separately described the conservative majority's pattern as procedurally altering judicial constraint in favor of the executive. The significance is not the tone of the dissents alone, but that multiple justices now describe emergency docket procedures as structurally limiting practical judicial restraint. Courts are still ruling against the executive in many cases — this score does not reflect capture. It reflects a demonstrated pattern of the emergency docket expanding executive authority with minimal process and limited remedy for nonparties.

Rubric: 0 = free movement of capital · 1 = citizenship verification EO proposed or in process · 3 = formal requirement to verify citizenship to maintain accounts · 5 = selective account closures by status · 7 = broad capital controls or outbound transfer limits enforced

Rubric: 0 = stable corporate domicile · 1 = individual firms repositioning for tax or governance reasons · 3 = politically-motivated relocations cited in earnings or public statements · 5 = broad corporate exodus citing domestic political risk

Rubric: 0 = baseline levels · 1 = notable year-over-year increase in second citizenship inquiries · 2 = Americans become top applicant pool globally · 3 = investor citizenship applications surge 50%+ YoY, media coverage of wealth advisors reporting outbound demand · 4 = confirmed relocations of major family offices or executives citing political risk · 5 = systemic, documented departure of high-net-worth individuals citing domestic instability

Current read (May 4, 2026): Moved 2 → 3/5. Americans are now Henley's single largest investor citizenship applicant pool globally, after a 75% surge in applications in 2025. This crosses the rubric threshold for "surge 50%+ YoY with media coverage of wealth advisors reporting outbound demand." Source caveat: Henley is a private consultancy with financial incentive to show demand. Treat as directional signal, not precise measurement. Cross-reference with Treasury TIC data and FT Wealth reporting.

Rubric: 0 = normal advisory · 1 = one or two allies tighten language around border entry · 2 = multiple allies warn about enforcement, civil unrest, or identity-based risk · 4 = widespread "reconsider travel" advisories · 5 = "do not travel" or "leave immediately" from major allies

Rubric: 0 = fully integrated · 1 = withdrawal from international bodies or sanctions on allied officials · 2 = sustained diplomatic ruptures, allies building workarounds to U.S. participation · 3 = formal isolation, sanctions against the U.S., or expulsion from key bodies