Javier Milei’s far-right illiberalism targets mainly media/­alternative information and pluralism/opposition, but also the checks and balances/rule of law dimension. This is consistent with his anti-establishment, libertarian self-pres ­entation, which relies strongly on systematic delegitimisa ­tion of rivals. Surprisingly, the discourse of the Argentine left exhibits the highest illiberal means on checks and balances/rule of law and alternative media, indicating a tough stance towards judicial oversight and the information sphere. The discourse of the mainstream right(Juntos por el Cambio) is compara ­tively more liberal, especially regarding electoral integrity and inclusive citizenship. Weighted by emphasis, both the far right and the left reach overall levels around 2.65–2.66, driven primarily by their sustained focus on checks and balances, media and oppo ­sition. The mainstream right’s lower score(around 2.3) re ­flects both moderate intensity and a more balanced distri ­bution of rhetorical attention. The common thread Despite different configurations – Spain’s linear gradient vs Argentina’s bipolarity – an underlying pattern emerges here. Illiberalism is diffused through attacks on horizontal accountability and the information sphere. Leaders repeat ­edly advance non-trivial curbs or politicisation(scoring 2.3– 2.9 on our scale) in the areas associated with contestation. These mid-range illiberal cues, deployed frequently, matter even more than rare extreme statements because they normalise pressure on the information ecosystem, judicial independence and pluralism. Participation talk is sparse in both countries. When it ap ­pears, it contributes differently: Spain’s far right deploys distinctly exclusionary rhetoric on citizenship, while Argen ti­na’s patterns concentrate illiberalism in contestation regard ­less of bloc. Beyond intensity: the power of repetition Measuring how illiberal leaders sound is only half the story. We also need to know how often they deploy these frames. A leader might score moderately illiberal(around 2.5) when discussing courts or media, but if they return to these topics repeatedly, in interview after interview, that persistent mes ­saging shapes public discourse far more than occasional extreme statements. We therefore combined intensity with emphasis, weighting our scores by how frequently each leader discusses each institutional arena. This reveals two crucial patterns. First, illiberal discourse overwhelmingly targets contes ­tation, not participation. In Spain, approximately 84 per cent of coded mentions across all political blocs target contestation; in Argentina, the figure rises to roughly 90 per cent. Second, frequency amplifies risk. In Spain, once we account for emphasis, Vox’s weighted score on contestation reaches 2.72, compared with 1.81 for the left, a gap driven both by more illiberal content and more frequent deployment. The mainstream right sits at 2.37, suggesting some rhetorical accommodation. In Argentina, both the far right(Milei, 2.65) and the left(2.66) converge at similarly high levels when weighted by frequency, while the mainstream right remains lower at 2.30. These mid-range scores(2.3–2.9), re ­peated often enough, normalise pressure on democratic in ­stitutions without requiring extreme language in any single instance. Put simply, the illiberal playbook succeeds through repe ­tition. Mid-range attacks on courts, media and pluralism, deployed consistently across hundreds of interviews, mat ­ter more than rare incendiary statements. This is why early detection at the discursive level is essential; by the time policies change, the rhetorical battle has already been won. Why this matters: an early-warning system Our findings offer three critical insights for democratic ­defence: 1. The illiberal playbook is predictable. Far-right actors across contexts deploy remarkably similar rhetorical strategies: delegitimise rivals, politicise courts, attack media independence. This consistency makes the threat identifiable and therefore counterable. 2. Contagion is real, and traceable. Spain’s gradient pattern suggests mainstream-right accommodation of far-right rhetoric, particularly on media and checks and balances. Argentina’s weaker mainstream right shows how institu ­tional fragmentation affects contagion pathways, and might even show widespread contagion effects across the ideological spectrum. Understanding these dynam ­ics allows targeted intervention. 3. Discourse is an early-warning signal. By the time re ­strictive policies are passed, the discursive battle is ­already lost. Our framework functions as a diagnostic tool, identifying where illiberal rhetoric is being normal ­ised before it becomes law or even has violent non-­institutional expressions. Recommendations: where to focus democratic defence Based on these findings, we recommend that policymakers and civil society prioritise: Tracing illiberal talk – How far-right rhetoric erodes ­democracy before policies change 4