“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.

Why the Homeland Party is a fascist party

With the recent split in Patriotic Alternative we have seen the rise in a new political party, the Homeland Party. This rather nauseous group of anti-refugee nationalists pretends to be in support of the democratic parliamentary process. However, a little digging quickly reveals the extent of its fascist pedigree.

Let's take a look at some of its key values:

1. They say they believe the most important unit in society is the traditional family and that society should be geared towards the promotion of traditional values and creating a safe place to raise children.

2. They support the ideal of a monocultural, high trust community (ie anti-immigration) where people help their neighbours.

3. They believe in the principle of a nation-state that truly represents the interests of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people - so no place for ethnic minorities or multiculturalism

4. They also believe the countryside should be managed and protected by those who best understand the land and have put down roots. A concept that could have easily been taken from Mosley's British Union of Fascists playbook.

5. The Homeland Party also argue that the economy and private industry should be run for the benefit of our people, not multinational corporations or international finance.  As part of this they believe we should become less reliant on foreign imports and more self-sufficient, to maintain a sustainable domestic market of local produce and meaningful work. Quite clearly this is only a very short step away from the notion of the Corporate State as defined by Gentile and in this country by Alexander Raven Thompson.

It is transparently obvious from this analysis that the Homeland Party is nothing more than another fascist party dedicated to the elimination of our hard-earned Liberal democracy.

This is a party that carries traditional racist and antisemitic values close to its heart. David Gardner, a senior activist in the Homeland Party, writing on the Telegram social media site stated:

"If the jew doesnt do it with their holocaust myth to protect them, then no one else really does. If we removed the jewish people in those power positions, there is no route for this evil power to seep in White people”

You don't get much clearer.

Homeland may not be a sizable force but their presence is a clear indicator that fascism has not gone away, it has simply sanitised its propaganda to make it look more attractive.

As always, the price of peace is eternal vigilance. 

Fascist and PA activist Kris ‘Charlie Big Potatoes’ Kearney imprisoned for nearly five years

In the last twenty-four hours, another far-right extremist has been jailed – this time because he thought it appropriate to distribute the manifestos of terrorist groups online.

Kristofer Kearney

Kristofer Thomas Kearney, 38, who is probably better known within the far-right community as “Charlie Big Potatoes” and, until yesterday had an active Telegram account, pleaded guilty in March to two offences of disseminating terrorist publications.

The media are reporting that he is believed to be the first member of far-right group Patriotic Alternative to be convicted of terrorist offences, although it must be mentioned the group are not averse to working alongside those who have, or are later convicted of criminal offences. Last month, James Allchurch — who allegedly suggested a politician’s daughter should be raped was convicted of 10 of 15 counts of distributing material intended to stir up racial hatred via his online radio station, Radio Albion. The material included references to hanging black and Jewish people. Following his conviction PA  offered him their full support and condemned “draconian restrictions on freedom of speech”. Additionally, PA Talk (their nasty ultra-nationalist podcast) previously were happy to broadcast an interview with the far-right extremist and convicted criminal, Blair Cottrell who, among his many ‘achievements’ can boast how he is the former leader of the white supremacist group, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

As for Kearney, the offences relate to two Telegram posts that he distributed on January 23 and March 8, all in  2021. These posts disseminated dozens of documents encouraging extreme right-wing terror attacks, including the manifestos of Christchurch mosque killer Brenton Tarrant and Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway. Alongside this, he unashamedly distributed two other far-right manifestos related to Texas Walmart mass killer Patrick Crusius and John Earnest, who killed a Jewish woman and injured three others attending a California synagogue in 2019.

The court heard previously that Kearney told fellow Telegram users Adolf Hitler “showed people the way” and “did nothing wrong” as he shared posts encouraging violence against Jews and Muslims. He also shared a “Punish a Muslim Day” letter, in which readers were encouraged to “butcher a Muslim” for 500 points, remove a woman’s headscarf for 25 points and bomb a mosque for 1,000 points, it has been said.

During 2021, Kearney also posted a numbered list and links to 89 extreme right-wing documents.

An image of Kearney with a National Action flag was also shown to the court, which the defendant said was taken at an anti-grooming gang rally in  Darlington. Although he denied membership, he is known to have been an active member of the neo-Nazi group until a week before it was proscribed.

Kearns seen saluting with members of National Action

In his lacklustre defence, the self-described British fascist said that he was “horrified” to have shared videos which encouraged violence and described some of the phrases used on his channel as little more than a “rallying cry” for people to get involved in community groups. Instead, he argued they were not aimed at promoting violence and denied that his intention was to prompt anyone who saw the material he posted to then go on to seriously injure people or damage property – this is despite that on one occasion alone, he called for people to ‘Butcher a Muslim’.

Kearney told the court the point of setting up his channel was to “spread the right-wing and the fascist world view”.

At the Old Bailey, the court heard how material on Kearney’s Telegram profile did, in fact, depict or encourage violence in the battle against “white genocide”. After a rather long and somewhat tedious trial, Judge Richard Marks KC jailed Kearney for four years and eight months with an extended licence period of two years after finding the defendant ‘legally dangerous’. A notification requirement for a period of 10 years was also ordered.

The judge determined at an earlier trial of issue that Kearney shared the posts both recklessly and with the intention of encouraging terrorism, accepting that he may not have familiarised himself with all of the postings but rejecting the claim that he was completely ignorant of any material involving violence. He told Kearney on Friday:

“In this country, we have lived for many years in a multicultural society which most people regard as being enriching … Right-thinking members of any society regard tolerance, kindness, understanding and inclusivity to everyone regardless of their background as being of absolutely fundamental importance … Much of the material that you posted entirely negates those values and is extreme, vile, inflammatory, divisive and deeply offensive … Whilst I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your entire agenda and intention was not throughout to encourage acts of terrorism, I conclude from the nature, extent and volume of the material posted that such was your fanaticism in achieving your state of objectives that you were prepared and intended at least in part for that to happen if that is what it took.”

The defendant, who was part of the Army’s parachute regiment for two years, regularly featured on right-wing podcasts called Patriotic Talk and The Absolute State of Britain, and had set up a channel called Fascist Fitness to hand out exercise and fitness tips.

As a result of his incarceration PA now have a vacancy for a new “Head of Fitness” – racists, hooligan and thugs are welcome to send their CV in to Mark Collett, but applicants are advised to use short sentences and single syllable words. Having said this, with the recent splintering of PA and the creation of the new Homeland Party, applicants may wish to consider whether it is worth taking a job with an organisation that will struggle to see out the rest of the year.

What is Fascism?

Most of us have heard people accusing politicians of being ‘fascists’ or ‘Nazis’, but what do we really mean? Is it a legitimate accusation, or is it just another term we throw out with the intention of offending or labelling.

 Well quite clearly some of these accusations do not stand the test of analysis if we carefully analyse what we mean by the term ‘fascist’ or ‘fascism’.

 Opponents of fascism usually tend to categorise it as a ‘far right ideology, yet this is something that adherents would violently oppose. Indeed, Paxton (2004 p.) has argued:

“The ultimate fascist response to the Right-Left political map was to claim that they had made it obsolete by being ‘neither Right nor Left’, transcending such outdated divisions and uniting the nation.”

 

Furthermore, Jackson (2018) complicated matters even further by pointing out how any defining fascism is inexorably obfuscated by the fact that any interpretation will be tainted by the analysts own worldview. Thus, for example, a Marxist might see fascism as a creation of modernity that identified how capitalism was in a state of crisis and offered a violent response to fend off a true workers’ revolution. Alternatively, psychologists have argued fascism is either an adolescent rebellion (Erikson) or an alienation of man in the modern world (Fromm).

 

	British Union of Fascists	PNF – Italian Fascist Party	Swastika – symbol of the NSDAP – Nazi Party (Germany
Symbols of Fascist Organisations

 While interesting, none of this fully explains what is fascism and what underpins it ideologically. In an attempt to address this, Paxton (1998) argued several mobilising passions needed to be present for a movement to be described as ‘fascist’. These included:

• The primacy of the group toward which one has duties, superior to every right whether universal or individual;
• The belief that one’s group is a victim and that action again those enemies (both internal and external is justified);
•  A dread that because of liberalism, one’s group is sliding into a state of decadence;
• Closer integration of the group into a ‘brotherhood’ to protect its purity is critical even if this includes exclusionary violence;
• The authority of natural chiefs (always male) culminating in a national leader who will guide the group’s identity;
• The beauty of violence when it is devoted to the success of the group in a Darwinian struggle.

 Meanwhile, Finchelstein (2008) argued:

“Fascism is a political ideology that encompassed totalitarianism, state terrorism, imperialism, racism and, in the German case, the most radical genocide of the last century: the Holocaust.”

 While Griffin saw fascism as:

“Fascism should be seen as a revolutionary form of nationalism guided by the myth of the imminent rebirth of the nation in decadence.” 

 Other theorists have seen it as an expression of lower middle-class resentments (Lipset, 1963) while a multitude of observers have seen fascism as a sub-species of totalitarianism.

Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists

Clearly, we can see from all this there is no universal agreement on what is meant by the term. However, for our purposes and for future understanding of all posts that will follow in this blog, the following elements will generally be assumed to exist within the ideology of what is generally termed ‘fascism’. While far from definitive, it offers a starting point for future discussion:

1. A closed ideological system that places the state and the nation at the centre of all human life;
2. A rejection of political and cultural liberalism;
3. Opposition to the democratic process including parliamentary democracy;
4.  A total opposition to Marxist/ Communist ideology;
5. A belief in the notion of the Corporate State as defined by Gentile and Mussolini;
6. Totalitarian or authoritarian ambition;
7. The leader principle - the belief that the party and the state should have a single leader with absolute power;
8. Mass mobilisation of the population;
9. The creation of “the new man” - transforming the ordinary man into the “new man,” a “virile” being who would put decadent bourgeoisie, cerebral Marxists, and “feminine” liberals to shame;
10. A sense of victimhood - despite claims of superiority, fascists tends to claim the nation group has been victimized by others;
11. Ultra-nationalism that seeks to expand the nation's influence and power;
12. Racial scapegoating - exclusion of certain groups, often through violence;
13. Sexism and misogyny - women are urged to perform their traditional gender roles as wives and mothers and to bear many children for the nation;
14. Anti-intellectualism;

 What does this mean?

Even a superficial reading of the above clearly shows that the term “fascism” is frequently misused and often reduced to a term of abuse. The trouble with this approach is that it leads to a dead end. If we allow this continue, where does it lead and, more importantly, what terms can we then adopt when we need to actually describe genuine fascist movements. Indeed, in the coming weeks, I will hopefully demonstrate that in the last thirty years, we often describe extreme, or far right groups as ‘fascist’, when in fact they may be nothing of the sort, even though many of their views may be repugnant to decent minded people.

 Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this post and do feel free to comment. In the meantime, have a great weekend.

 

References:

Finchelstein, F.  (2008) On Fascist Ideology Constellations. 15(3) 320 – 331

Griffin, R. (2002) Cruces gamadas y caminos bifurcados: las dinámicas fascistas del Tercer Reich” in Mellón, J.A. (ed.): Orden, Jerarquía y Comunidad. Fascismos, Dictaduras y  Postfascismos en la Europa Contemporánea, Madrid, Tecnos, p.103-149.

Jackson, P. 2018) Colin Jordan and Britain’s Neo-Nazi Movement – Hitler’s Echo. Bloomsbury, London.

Lipset, S.M. (1963) Political Man. Doubleday. New York

Paxton, R.O. (1998) The five stages of Fascism. Journal of Modern History. 70(1) 1 – 23.

Paxton, R.O (2004) The Anatomy of Fascism. Penguin. London

Welcome - I am back!!

First, and before I go any further, thanks for visiting my blog – I hope you’ll find it informative and interest you enough to make you want to come back. As I sued to 10 years ago, at the bottom of all my posts, I’ll leave space for you to comment, or ask questions on any of the topics, so feel free to participate in any way you feel appropriate. Most of my posts will be about fascism past and present as well as the far-right in the UK and some of my opinions won’t meet with everyone’s approval, particularly if you are, or have been a supporter of a British far-right, fascist or neo-Nazi group – so be warned. I’m not setting out to offend people, but equally, I think it would be dishonest if I tried to pretend that I have no opinion on the matter. I do (I would describe myself as anti-fascist) and with this in mind, you need to know that discussion and different views will always be welcomed, but any offensive comments directed directly towards me or any contributors will be deleted and repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments.

Harsh I know, but I want this to be a safe space for moderate and liberal people to speak freely and without fear of being abused.

As for me, I first became “interested” in the far-right as a teenager and watched with interest and concern as groups like the National Front, National Party and British National Party grew and then faded away into near oblivion. It didn’t take very long for me to move from being a student sitting on the side-lines into becoming an activist and one of the early members of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) in the South-West of England. As the years went by and the clashes between the far-right and ‘anti-fascist became fewer, I returned to being a student (albeit informally) as I was particularly interested in understanding their history and political ideology. In all this I was fired by a single question – ‘How could ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic ‘political soldiers’ attract support after all the misery and horror of the Second World War’?

I never really found an answer.

But what I did notice was that over the years, I heard liberals, left-wingers and ‘anti-fascists’ call their opponents “fascist”, “Nazi”, “far-right”, or “neo-Nazi” without regard for whether these labels were accurate. As I listened, it seemed most of the people were using these terms as abuse rather than with any concern for accurate political labelling. So, Margaret Thatcher became a “Nazi” with no evidence she was antisemitic (yes, that is how it should be spelt!) and Tony Blair was a ‘fascist’ because of his action against Saddam Hussein. Then, as this labelling became more common the power behind the words started to wane, until finally two mates drinking in a pub arguing about their local club football match might end up calling each other ‘fascist’, almost as an amiable (but with no offence meant) slur.

So, I decided to resurrect this blog, but this time I. I wanted to define these terms and see if others were also concerned about how we are watering down our language by using terms like ‘Nazi’. In all of this, I wanted to rediscover:

What is fascism?

What is Nazism?

What is neo-Nazism?

What do we really mean by the ‘far-right?’

With this as a foundation, I began to set about the task and as I did, I realised that it was impossible to discuss these terms without looking into the history of British and European fascism. So, it became clear that another aspect of this blog would be to go on to explore the nature and history of the far right in Britain tracing its roots from about the start of the twentieth century and following through to the present day. As part of this, it became clear to me that it was essential to look at the people behind these groups and how their views made them into some of the most hated people of their time.

I hope you agree it’s an exciting project and I look forward to sharing it with you.