An old acquaintance of mine, a seasoned diplomat who once served in the US, had initially caught me off guard when he casually used the term “fascist” to characterise former President Donald Trump. I became aware then that this term, though routinely misused as a derogatory term by the left, was in fact not an exaggeration. The diplomat in question was very sincere and the threat that Trump posed was a legitimate one, akin to a pre-war movement that had previously thrown the world into devastating conflict in the 20th Century.
Discussions speculating on Trump’s fascist tendencies had been predominantly confined within academic circles, until the veil was lifted by celebrated journalist Bob Woodward through his recent book. The shocking revelation consisted of an utmost clear alert from Gen Mark Milley, who headed the Joint Chiefs of Staff between 2019 and 2023, “No one has ever been as threatening to this country as Donald Trump. Now I recognise him as a true fascist. He is the country’s supreme risk.”
Even Kamala Harris has validated the usage of the term. She backed John Kelly, Trump’s longest-tenured chief of staff’s statement in the New York Times. He claimed Trump “embodied the definition of a fascist, would legislate like an autocrat if permitted to, and demonstrated no grasp of the constitution or the concept of legislative authority”.
What is of real consequence here is not the historical precision of such a comparison but what it signified – Trump’s potential intentions, were he to be elected for a second term. It’s still uncertain though, whether these authoritative allegations will have an impact on the choice of voters.
In a warning from The New York Times’ Shawn McCreesh, there is a notion that followers of Trump vote for him largely due to their disbelief in his capacity to accomplish many of his promises. Salena Zito from The Atlantic proclaimed in 2016 that while Trump is taken literally by the media, he is not taken seriously; whereas, his followers inversely take him seriously, but not literally. Democratic analyst, Micheal Podhortzer, however, fears that voters are drowsily steering towards authoritarianism, expressing worry that the United States is underreacting to the danger of a subsequent Trump administration.
Trump’s inflammatory verbal approach is best apprehended on both literal and serious levels. His tactics and rhetoric possess great resemblance to that of authoritarian regimes, characterised by xenophobic sentiments, defamation of immigrants and external nationals, overt deceit, denunciation of governing elites, and conspiracies of an overarching “deep state”. His tactics include – labelling political opponents as internal adversaries, penitently endorsing the possibility of inciting violence against opposition and state establishments, either through civilian aggression or deploying police forces. Elements of racism, disdain for female equality, open scepticism towards democratic institutions and applauding similar international autocrats, such as Orban, Erdogan, Putin, form integral components of his strategy.
This claim is far from hyperbole. In a statement made on October 13th, Trump expressed his intention to focus on prosecuting American citizens, who he believes pose more local threats than nations like China and Russia. He referred to them as ‘very bad’, ‘sick’ and ‘radical left lunatics’, suggesting their control through mobilising the National Guard or even the military as a last resort.
His stance becomes even more intense in a July 2023 post on Truth Social, envisioning a climactic battle, he includes his followers as allies in demolishing the ‘deep state’, purging warmongers in government, eliminating globalists, expelling communists, overthrowing a political class he perceives as loathing them, dismantling the ‘fake news’ media and finally liberating America from these perceived adversaries.
/”Trump has been vocally supportive of sweeping expulsions of unauthorised immigrants and has also proposed massive layoffs of public officials deemed “unfaithful”, as detailed in Project 2025. Yet, these propositions have been less than convincingly refuted by Trump.
While some advocates argue that Trump might not be sincere in these claims, others posit that he likely is, but would encounter structural and legal obstacles, including lack of support from those in his close quarters, in executing such extremities. On several occasions, key appointees such as Vice President Mike Pence, hesitant attorneys general and even his Supreme Court picks have expressed hesitation.
However, Trump’s frustrations are evident, and he’s hinted at being more discerning going forward, allowing only those who’ve proven their loyalty to him to serve in administration roles. Of note, the Supreme Court has controversially asserted that he could be immune to legal actions relating to some presidential duties.
These formal and informal checks and balances attest to the resilience of the US political system, something not seen in countries like Turkey, Russia, and Hungary, even when faced with a defiant president. However, can these safeguards persist through another term?
Is Trump a fascist? He’s undoubtedly an aspirational one. US history provides comparable examples, most notably the anti-immigrant, anti-Irish-Catholic campaign from the mid-1800s, the “American governance for Americans” Know Nothings. This movement was not opposed to using violence against perceived threats and, similar to Trump’s strategy of distancing himself from controversial supporters, its members would deny the existence of the group when questioned. Fittingly, Trump recently disavowed any connection to Project 2025, stating, “I have no knowledge about Project 2025. I’m ignorant of its initiators. Some of their propositions, I disagree with… I wish them the best for their endeavours, but I want to clarify that I’m not involved with them.”
Abraham Lincoln’s view of the Know Nothings, notable as the first Republican president, seems relevant here. He suggested that if they were successful, he’d consider migrating to a country like Russia “where despotism is unadulterated, without the insincere claim of cherishing freedom.” Perhaps Harris should consider sending him an invite.”/