“Trump Isn’t a Fascist — But Is he leading America towards one?

In a previous article published elsewhere, I questioned whether President Donald J, Trump was a fascist and concluded the evidence didn’t support such an accusation. However, I’m not so sure this lets him off the hook. So, I started digging deeper and what became clear was there was, at least, a prima facie case of accusing him of being a proto-fascist. 

Now, such an accusation is rare given that, under normal conditions, proto-fascism ordinarily refers to any political movement whose activities make the emergence of fascism more likely. So, I have chosen this definition to explore whether Trump, intentionally or otherwise id now leading a proto-fascist movement that could ultimately lead the US into fascism. Unquestionably, many left-leaning authors and academics have argued this to be the case, but because they say it is so, doesn’t make it fact.

The argument for or against

Proto-fascism has many distinct elements and if any accusation is to stand, it’s imperative an accuser should be able to demonstrate clear examples of behaviour or practice in each element to argue their case. The following are some of the key elements of proto-fascism:

2. Extreme leader-centred politics – under normal circumstances it could be argued personal loyalty to Trump over institutions or even the Republican Party would be sufficient, but given the nature of the American political system and the power enshrined in the role of the presidency, I’d argue this is nowhere near enough. Let’s face it, history shows how many past presidents demonstrated leader-centred politics. 

Take examples like Andrew Jackson, who claimed to be the sole direct representative of the "common man; FDR, who centralized all major administration decisions within his own office while bypassing collective cabinet governance; and, of course, let’s not forget Richard Nixon.

But, I’d argue Trump is something more. He demonstrates a model of authoritarian populism (a model where politicians fearmonger, scapegoat marginalise groups for a host of societal problems, and chip away at democratic norms, like persecuting journalists, where political identity, party loyalty, and national purpose merge into a single personal brand. Rather than relying on traditional party structures or institutional norms, his political movement (MAGA) is anchored entirely on his personal charisma, direct grievance-based communication, and individual authority

2. Ultranationalist rhetoric – The whole MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement kicked off when Trump first announced his presidential campaign in 2016 and trademarked the term between 2012 -2015. Since its inception no-one has ever asked the most obvious question – when was America ever great? Was it during its founding years post-1776, when America created a radical foundational framework of constitutional law? But if so, what about the institutional slavery of the era? Or how about the post-WWll era when the US had an unmatched industrial boom, though it came at the same time as “Jim Crow” laws and rigid limitations on social and professional laws for women. Some might argue it was during the 1960s with the Civil Rights laws and mass technological innovation, though it came at the price of defeat in Vietnam, as well as a number of political assassinations. Yet, even today, Trump continues to push the whole meaningless MAGA campaign as part of his broad ultra-nationalistic rhetoric

Additionally, and though denying endorsement of the historical isolationist roots of the “America First” model and despite being one of the key slogans of the KKK, Trump has pushed a response that argues there has been too much globalisation and too much immigration.

3. Scapegoating of perceived internal enemies – Just like Mussolini did in Italy, so, Donald Trump has argued liberals and socialist are to blame for subverting the nation, inciting civil unrest, and destroying national self-belief portraying the US as infected by radical leftism and arguing only ruthless Trumpist (nationalist) action could purge this threat.

Just as Mussolini’s fascism evolved into scapegoating race, in their case Jews, so Trump attacks Mexican immigrants and Muslims. Recently, he described Muslim Democratic candidates in the midterm elections as “jihadists,” adding to Islamophobic statements recently made by other Republican elected officials. Trump also delivered another tirade against people of Somali descent, saying: “They’re not smart, they have no aptitude, they have nothing going, and they’re telling us how to run our country.”

Throughout his rise in politics, Trump has vilified Muslims and people of Arab descent, stoking anger among his backers and building support for immigration restrictions, including banning Muslims from the United States. But in the past few months, anti-Muslim rhetoric has become increasingly normalized in the ranks of the G.O.P., particularly after the election victories of prominent Muslim politicians, including Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral race and Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in the recent Michigan Senate primary.

4. Hostility toward liberal-democratic constraints - Certainly we have seen how Trump promised to use the Justice Department to punish his political opponents, including use of “long term prison sentences,” he had already investigated 10 of his political opponents during his first term alone. But it’s not as simple as that, because clearly Trump has repeatedly flouted the law. Take how he pardoned the Proud Boys convicted of storming the Capitol despite it being an obvious attempted coup. Or how he pardoned Charles Kushner, his daughter’s father-in-law and then proposed him as US Ambassador to France. He also pardoned his former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, in a proclamation that vowed, in his words, to "end a grave national injustice".

Trump has expanded presidential power by aggressively centralizing control over the executive branch, advancing a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, and securing landmark Supreme Court rulings that dismantle decades-old constraints on the presidency. In particular, he has used the Supreme Court as in the case of Trump v. Slaughter ensuring he has the authority to remove heads of independent federal agencies at will, overturning a 91-year-old legal precedent (Humphrey’s Executor) previously protecting officials from politically motivated firing. Then add how he attempted to unilaterally direct state National Guard units to respond to urban crime and public unrest, overriding objections from local and state officials and triggering challenges in federal courts.

5. Delegitimization of elections – Most people are aware of the almost farcical attempts by Trump to accuse his opponents of electoral tampering and fraud. In all, there were over 60 cases where judges, including judges appointed by Trump and other Republican presidents looked at the evidence and said there is no widespread case of fraud. Nearly all cases were dismissed or dropped for lack of evidence or lack of standing.

6. Political use of grievance and fear to mobilise supporters – During Trump’s terms of office he has mobilised his base by tapping into deep-seated public resentment and existential anxiety, then by framing cultural shifts, economic changes, and institutional norms as deliberate attacks on ordinary citizens, he transforms personal discontent into a powerful, unified political movement.

a)    Trump validates the feeling that traditional status, economic security, and cultural dominance have been unfairly stripped away;

b)    He directs public anger toward institutional power brokers, mainstream media, and political opponents, presenting himself as the sole protector of a betrayed populace;

c)     Instead of focusing on complex structural or global policies, his narrative externalises the cause of personal hardship, pointing to outsiders or corrupt systems as the root of decline

7. Admiration for authoritarian leaders - Trump has a well-documented history of expressing admiration for authoritarian rulers and "strongman" global leaders such as Putin and Kim Jong Un and has frequently and publicly praised their centralized power, tough governance styles, and ability to command absolute authority within their respective nations

8. A willingness to portray political opponents as enemies of the state - three weeks before the 2024 election, Trump pushed to the forefront of his campaign a menacing political threat: that he would use the power of the presidency to crush those who disagree with him and later (and repeatedly) has called Democrats more dangerous than U.S. foreign adversaries. Meanwhile, The U.S. Justice Department remains under increasing pressure from Trump to pursue cases against people he perceives to be political enemies, a move that is raising alarm bells not only with former prosecutors but also inside Trump's own Republican party.

The conclusion made by academics

In a 2026 academic paper by political scientists Nitasha Kaul and Barry Buzan, they explicitly analysed Trump 2.0 and concluded his administration was firmly on a “protofascist trajectory," but distinguished this from saying America is already a fascist regime: and arguing Trump's political project displays characteristics that could easily move toward fascism.

                The Roman bundle of sticks ("fasci") were adopted as a symbol by fascists. 

Others, like Professor Jason Stanley in his book, “How Fascism Works” argued that in 2015, following his presidential candidacy announcement, the Trump campaign used a succession of fascist political tactics, though he fails to mention any of them. Elsewhere, Stanley likened immigrant detention centres to concentration camps. He joins Professor Nikolaus Wachsmann in describing the immigrant detention system release programme as being consistent with the Nazi pre-war concentration camp system because the camps serve their purpose forcing many immigrants out of America.

While Prof Cas Mudde has argued America is currently not a fascist state, he recognises how the radical and alt-right easily hang on to Trump’s populist coat tails while strengthening their own position.

Of course, it must be recognised some academics approach it from a liberal or left-leaning position making their analysis vulnerable to pro-Trump supporters suggestions of bias, but seldom counter any of the accusations against Trump and invariably reduce  the discussion to name-calling.

Some scholars and politicians have gone further, arguing Trump is more than a "proto-fascist" but has descended into actual fascism. For example, Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly and former defence secretary Mark Esper have said that Trump meets their definition of fascism, as does Rosan Smits, in her recent book, “This is Fascism”.

Political Comment

It saddens me to know many staunch Trumpists will refuse to read this article because it opposes their idealised notion of their supreme leader. Those who do refuse are blind to critical comment and instead move forward in ignorance, always towing the “party line” of the omnipotence of their leader and refusing to see there is no such thing as a perfect ruler, no matter what party colours they fly.

Nonetheless, wwe must continue our investigation in the broad hope there remain a significant, but currently silent minority who hold dearly to the notion of an independent political mind.

With this in mind and If the elements making up fascism are put against Trump’s behaviour during both terms of office, then I would argue it would be unreasonable to accuse him of being an actual fascist and those who do are doing so due to their own substantial political differences.

However, I’d also argue the accusation Trump is steering towards proto-fascism are far more substantial. His association, and support of far-right groups like the Proud Boys, America First and the Oathkeepers, as well as historical engagement with the likes of Steve Bannon and others, a well-known defender of far-right ideology leave him vulnerable to such accusations. When this is coupled with the dissection of his political behaviour shown  above, we see how this label fits perfectly.

This is not to say he is a fascist, or that America is creeping down that road. Indeed, the “No Kings” march could never have happened if America had turned fascist. But the Republican party, along with the president are taking the nation dangerously close to it. Given the US has always favoured moderate politics, I’d argue Trump is steering the Republican party towards disaster during the mid-terms and, as a result leaving the door open to radical socialists, hiding as Democrats,who appear aimed at herald a new ultra-left dawn of extremism, the like of which America has never seen.

If this prediction turns out to be correct, the future for America and its relations with other countries is about to change substantially – and not necessarily for the better.

The antisemites are converging—and Jews will not be fooled

Further to my previous post discussing how the Far-right are being mainstreamed, I present an article by Fiamma Nirenstein taken from her online op-ed piece from the Jerusalem News Syndicate website.

The neo-Nazi siege of Jewish teens in Bulgaria exposed a disturbing reality: Jew-hatred from the far right and far left is increasingly feeding off the same hatred.

Teenage daughters of friends from Rome found themselves trapped this week in a hotel in Bulgaria, forced to endure the murderous chant of “Sieg Heil!” by a gang of Bulgarian antisemites.

The incident occurred on Sunday in Sofia, where neo-azis blocked the entrances to a hotel hosting Israeli and Italian Jewish youth delegations, chanting Nazi slogans and giving Nazi salutes before they were dispersed by police.

This time, the perpetrators wore the unmistakable face of Hitlerism. They are still with us, and today they feel emboldened by an atmosphere in which antisemitism has once again become acceptable.

Will the antisemites of the left, masquerading as mere critics of Israel, now seize this opportunity to cloak themselves in the mantle of human rights defenders, claiming to protect Jews from the “usual” fascists?

No, thank you. Jews can defend themselves. No one should be deceived.

The anguish of watching our children exposed to such hatred leaves no room for political disguises. It is genuine. The monstrosity of Nazi-style antisemitism—the classic racist variety—now dares to reveal itself openly because it has become part of a broader ecosystem in which movements with very different ideological origins converge on a common target.

That convergence matters.

The various factions are not necessarily coordinating with one another. But they all benefit from the growing legitimacy afforded to hatred of Jews, Judaism, Israel and Zionism. Together, they reinforce an environment in which antisemitism flourishes.

Bulgaria illustrates how these forms of hatred increasingly overlap. Throughout the year—and especially since Oct. 7, 2023—the country has witnessed the public display of neo-Nazi symbols, swastikas and repeated attempts to revive the annual march honoring Hristo Lukov, the leader of Bulgaria’s pro-Nazi Legions.

At the same time, anti-Israel activism has targeted Jewish institutions. In 2025, “Free Palestine” graffiti was sprayed across the Sofia synagogue, covering photographs of those murdered during the Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

On Oct. 9, 2025, Sofia’s Monument of Salvation, dedicated to those who opposed the deportation and persecution of Bulgaria’s Jews during World War II, was vandalized and covered in red paint. The city’s Holocaust memorial was desecrated as well.

These are only a few examples.

The attacks have come from both the right and the left, directed at the same targets: Jews.

This pattern is no longer confined to Bulgaria. Europe is increasingly afflicted by antisemitism from both extremes of the political spectrum. Across the Atlantic, the phenomenon is equally striking. A neo-Nazi such as Nick Fuentes and politicians such as Zohran Mamdani may come from vastly different ideological traditions, yet both participate in portraying “Zionism” as the embodiment of Jewish wrongdoing.

Who, then, still believes that one side merely offers “legitimate criticism of Israel” while the other alone represents antisemitic extremism?

The truly dangerous development is the convergence itself.

Vile are the Nazis. Vile, too, are the red-green antisemites. Vile are those who accuse Jews of orchestrating global conspiracies, and equally vile are those who portray the Jewish state as the source of the world’s evils. Different slogans, different histories—but increasingly the same target.

That convergence is poisoning Europe and spreading far beyond it.

it will eventually be exposed for what it is.

And Jewish children will not remain locked away in fear. They will walk out, calmly and confidently, toward life.

How the Far Right Entered Mainstream Politics in Britain, Europe and America

There’s no denying far-right parties in the USA and Europe have played a significant role in shaping our current political landscape. Strong electoral performances by far-right parties have taken their ideas from being seen as marginalised crankish ultra-nationalism into becoming mainstream opinion (the link is to a superb article defining what is "mainstream"): most recently the Lega and Austrian Freedom Party became part of coalition governments in Italy and Austria, while Marine Le Pen looks set (if polls are to be believed) to become the next French president.

Beyond the far-right itself, the 2016 campaigns of Donald Trump and the UK Brexit referendum emboldened the far-right and all this helped legitimise our ideas about immigration and national identity.

What is the “mainstream”?

Rather than complicating things, I rather like simple and for this purpose, (You can read a more in-depth analysis here ) I’m fond of Meguid’s definition, which argues:

“Mainstream parties are defined as the electorally dominant actors in the centre-left, centre and centre-right blocs on the Left-Right political spectrum. In this classification, the centre-left parties explicitly exclude left-libertarian parties, whereas the center-right categorization excludes right-authoritarian, or right-wing, populist parties.”

It’s neat and it’s simple. I like it.

A brief history

In the UK, one of the first far-right groups to appear was the British Brothers League, an anti-immigration, virulently antisemitic group established in 1901, to be replaced by the British Fascisti in 1923, 

Far-right politics came sooner in the US with the Ku Klux Klan in 1865, a virulently racist organisation, though during the depression other homegrown groups appeared, like the Silver Shirts or the Black Legion. But it was after the birth of Nazism around 1920 that far-right groups started to appear, such as the German American Bund.

Racism became more apparent when 40,000 klansmen marched in Washington on 8^th August 1925, just as when the British Union of Fascists (BUF) held a rally in Earls Court when 30,000 fascists assembled to hear Oswald Mosley. While they attracted huge crowds, the majority opposed fascism, as we saw when 100,000 anti-fascists rallied against the German American Bund’s rally in New York City in 1939 and in Cable Street (UK) in 1936.

Postwar, Professor Cas Muddle argues there have been four phases in the history of the far-right (you can read more on Muddle's theory here ). In the first wave between 1945 to 1955 membership coonsisted mostly of remnants from the past, while phase two membership between 1955 to 1980 was mainly of old Bund or BUF members, but included a new element concerned about immigration

The 1960s tends to be seen as the era of social liberalism, a time when in the US the Civil Rights movement were making significant gains, while in the UK we saw the birth of Race Relations laws. However, by the late 1960s, 

Enoch Powell, then a Conservative MP gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech indirectly leading to the emergence of the National Front, British Movement and the National Socialist Movement. While in the USA, under Lincoln Rockwell, we saw the rise of the American Nazi party, National States Rights Party and the John Birch Society.

Returning to Muddle’s model, phase 3 fell between 1980 and 2000 where the far-right concentrated mostly on immigration and race. Shortly before, in 1969, Enoch Powell delivered his infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech where he told a story about talking to a constituent who finished by saying to Powell: "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man".

In America, Gov. William Wallace, in a speech argued “… segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. His speech was written by Klan member, Asa Carter.

Suddenly, minority views, previously seldom discussed were at the centre of mainstream political discussion.

The Overton Window

The Overton window is a political model describing the range of ideas and policies society finds acceptable at any given time and over the last few years there has been a sizable shift.

      How the model works -

·       Inside the window: Ideas are considered normal, sensible, and mainstream. Politicians can safely support them without looking extreme.

·       Outside the window: Ideas are viewed as radical, fringe, or unthinkable. Politicians risk losing votes if they back them.

·       The spectrum of acceptance: Ideas are often graded from "unthinkable" to "radical," "acceptable," "sensible," "popular," and finally turned into law

Far-right mainstreaming taps into long-held beliefs society and attempt to mobilize xenophobic and authoritarian tendencies. They grasp cultural and social fears about how our nation is being ‘invaded by outsiders or how minority values are becoming part of the norm.

Previously fringe opinions, traditionally associated with the far-right are being pushed into mainstream politics eg: demands for harsher immigration policies (particularly towards Muslims), increased ICE detentions, beating, forced deportations, dumping asylum seekers, and militarised border enforcement on the US-Mexico border – all measures once considered extreme, but now the norm.

But how did we move away from liberal democratic ideals? What changed? I’d argue there were a number of things moved our countries into taking more reactionary stances.

How Brexit in the UK helped mainstream the far-right

The UK formally voted to leave the European Union on 31^st January 2020, but it was the decade leading to it that shifted the Overton Window.

1.     Though it emerged in 1990, the United Kingdon Independence Party didn’t appear on the political landscape until September 1993, where they quickly introduced Nigel Farage onto the arena. Almost immediately, he proposed banning new migrants from accessing public benefits, denying social housing or free NHS treatment for the first five years as well as cutting the foreign aid budget by 75%. His populist platform was similar to the far-right agendas of John Tyndall’s National Front, or Nick Griffin’s British National Party who had long been calling for a ban on immigration and compulsory repatriation despite net migration at that time being slightly negative. Recording of illegal asylum seekers didn’t take place at that time but, as an indicator the total number of successful asylum seekers in 1993 was about 20,000.

2.     During Nigel Farage’s Brexit campaign, he was reported to police after unveiling a poster showing queues of mostly non-white migrants and refugees, with the caption: “Breaking point: the EU has failed us all.” in a MORI poll showing people believed Britain hosted 23% of all asylum seekers in the world, whereas the actual number was only 1,97%.

How senior politicians helped mainstream the far-right

Several senior politicians helped mainstream far-rights myths:

a)    Newt Gingrich pioneered a combative legislative strategy in the 1980s and 1990s that utilized polarizing language to brand political opponents as existential threats, laying the systemic groundwork for modern hyper-partisan discourse

b)    JD Vance has consistently articulated and popularised elements of far-right ideology from within national legislative bodies, merging traditional conservatism with common extreme right ‘cultural grievance’ politics and nationalism.

c)     Ted Cruz was a leading voice in the Tea Party movement before aligning closely with the MAGA wing. In his speeches, he encouraged deep racial and cultural anxieties in line with the Tea Party agenda.

d)    Nigell Farage agreed to, and appeared on six separate occasions on American, Alex Jones’ ‘Infowars’, a far-right podcast promoted by members of both Britain First and Patriotic Alternative and hard right elements in the GOP. Jones was sued in 2022 for defaming victims and families of the Sandy Hook shooting and juries awarded against him to the tune of $1.487.

e)    Farage also appeared on far-right American Rick Wiles extreme web radio. Wiles is also founder and editor of the extreme right and antisemitic Tru-News. Wiles has said that Jews seek to obtain control of countries to "kill millions of Christians” and has claimed that Jews are "deceivers" and "plot, they lie, they do whatever they have to do to accomplish their political agenda".

f)      Jack Anderson (Reform party consultant) was the subject of controversy in August 2025, when the Guardian revealed he had suggested Britain would have been better off it hadn’t fought Nazi Germany in World War Two and said the UK could “regain” former colonies in a future world of “meritocracy”, also claiming Russia is not our enemy”.

g)    Pete Durnell (Reform party - West Midland Regional Director) has been often quoted citing the far-right “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory and prophesying in March 2018 “the whole of Europe will be Islamic sooner or later”.

h)    Suella Braverman: Utilized inflammatory language while serving as Home Secretary by labelling migrant Channel crossings an “invasion,” directly echoing historic fringe nationalist talking points.

None of these politicians were far-right, but all knew how to build a movement playing on people’s fears and each one took beliefs from the far-right playbook

How the media in the US and UK helped mainstream the far right

When the media saw the frenzy being created, they bought into the fear-inducing rhetoric suggesting how, without major controls, a future Britain would lose all sense of national identity. The Daily Mail headlined in December 2002 with “Now there’s one asylum claim every six minutes”, soon followed by the Daily Express, printing a headline “Asylum Seekers spreading AIDS around Britain”. A headline hardly dissimilar to the 1941 Nazi ‘Der Sturmer’ one arguing “Jews are lice – they spread typhus”.

Additionally, television in the UK became part of the mainstreaming process. GB News a right-wing station partly owned by the hedge-fund manager Paul Marshall, who researchers exposed in 2024 for endorsing far-right tweets such as one declaring “the native European population is losing patience with the fake refugee invaders”. Add to that how regular broadcaster on the station, Bev Turner kept her job despite previously suggesting COVID-19 may have been bioengineered to cause “less harm” to. Ashkenazi Jews,

GB News, US correspondent Steven Edginton also gave the far-right YouTuber, Connor Tomlinson an unexpected platform, Tomlinson is an advocate of ‘remigration’ who believes ‘English people are white’ and home secretary Shabana Mahmood, who was born in Birmingham, is ‘not ethnically, legally, or culturally English in any way’. Tomlinson appeared on 4 separate occasions, each time promoting an overtly far-right agenda. In the final interview, on 3 December, Tomlinson asserted “our Parliament is turned into a battle ground for the ethnic grudges of the Indian subcontinent” and followed up with a social media post the same day, which said: “We should ban those without native British ancestry from being MPs.”

Just as Edginton has been keen to hear from Tomlinson, he has also given four interviews to the far-right commentator Carl Benjamin (AKA Sargon of Akkad), the first on 9 July 2024 and the most recent on 26 November 2025.Benjamin is an ex-member of post-Farage and far-right UKIP, helped found Lotus Eaters Media and is a founding member of Restore Britain.

How Trump helped mainstream the far-right

People today often dismiss the significance of January 6^{th, 2021}, but let’s get real here, it was an attempted coup d’etat by the far-right. Admittedly, it was unplanned, a primary reason why it failed, but had it been better organised, America could have been a very different place today, being run by neo-fascists.

The Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers, (both far-right militias) along with the Last Sons of Liberty, Rod of Iron Ministries, Groypers, the Nationalist Social Club and multiple factions of the Three Percenters actively engaged in storming congress. What was noticeable that day was the large number of activists wearing neo-Nazi apparel and frequently making fascist salutes, suggesting this was more than a demonstration in support of Trump, but an active fa-right rebellion, evidenced later by the FBI who proved a number of neo-Nazi groups were active that day, including NSC-131.

Now, I’m not suggesting Trump is a neo-fascist, or even far-right, but what I am saying is his candidature and presidency substantially helped create a major radicalisation of the GOP. Looking at the party today, it seems the centre-right has little influence and hard/ far-right activists are in control.

Political comment

All too often I read about left extremism and left antisemitism. As I explained in a previous article these accusations are reasonable and fair, but we remain blind to broader political scenarios; we risk ignoring the extremism of the far-right. Cas Muddle identified a fourth phase of the far-right that went beyond 2000 where they become part of mainstream politics. In America, much of the ideology of the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers is promoted in both the Senate and House – viewing feminism as being detrimental to society, right-wing populism and nationalism (see MAGA).

And in the UK, it’s no different and Farage and now Rupert Lowe distort statistics and lie to promote a nationalist and racist agenda.

By ignoring the covert rise of the far-right, we open the door to division – tactics used so effectively in 1932 and by becoming part of mainstream politics, they bring with it an extremely disturbing credibility to their agenda. I deeply fear for our future.