Dunno.

When it becomes illegal to oppose the current government?

When there is any political ideology it is illegal to espouse that does not involve directly inciting people to commit crimes?

When it becomes illegal to stage mass protests about anything?

When the media is directly owned by the state, as it is in many places?

When journalists and activists are jailed, as they are in many places?

When the media feels in any way uncomfortable roundly criticizing the government?

When the media feels too uncomfortable to openly publish government secrets which were previously leaked?

When most people think the government is authoritarian and needs to be reined in?

When enough people think the government is authoritarian that, under a democratic system, they would be a powerful voting bloc?

When at least enough people think the government is authoritarian for the idea to be given serious consideration in mainstream debates? (Debate about specific programs that need to be curtailed, without a general sense that the government is comparable to a police state, do not count.)

When we don't see things happening like

a rightwing antigovernment political movement becoming very popular and taking over a significant portion of the legislature;

a leftwing anticapitalist political movement staging provocative long-term demonstrations around the country with, at the end of the day, mostly pretty reasonable interactions with various municipal police departments, and managing at least to significantly influence the debate;

a judge placing harsh limits on a practice by a city's police department that was found to be unconstitutional?

Wikipedia cites the following elements of authoritarianism:

(1) "limited, not responsible, political pluralism"; that is, constraints on political institutions and groups (such as legislatures, political parties, and interest groups), (2) a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency; (3) neither "intensive nor extensive political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public (such as repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of antiregime activity) and (4) "formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague.

Let's see:

(1) Not applicable.

(2) Nationalism and emotional support for the government in general is alive and perhaps too well, but politicians almost never attempt to use such emotional arguments to support keeping themselves in power rather than electing the other party.

(3) Political mobilization is fine. No repression. Prosecuting leakers, whether you oppose it or not, does not count.

(4) There are issues regarding Congressional oversight of certain executive programs, but there are certainly limits on the President's power. In fact, on the kinds of issues (economic, social) that the current President spends most of his time talking about, he seems to get his way remarkably rarely.

It is possible to criticize moves that are abuses of power or resemble those of an authoritarian police state in some aspects without literally, and incorrectly, calling the US an authoritarian police state.