Changing My Mind: Time to call Trump a Fascist

Back on September 18, 2025 I published an article titled “Why I’m Not Crying ‘Fascist! Fascist!’” To me, at that point, labeling Trump and his cronies as “fascists” didn’t feel entirely accurate or helpful.

I shared the reservations of the Brookings Institution scholar, Jonathan Rauch, who recently published an excellent piece titled, “Yes, It’s Fascism.” Rauch begins his piece in The Atlantic this way:

“Until recently, I resisted using the F-word to describe President Trump. For one thing, there were too many elements of classical fascism that didn’t seem to fit. For another, the term has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, especially by left-leaning types who call you a fascist if you oppose abortion or affirmative action. For yet another, the term is hazily defined, even by its adherents. From the beginning, fascism has been an incoherent doctrine, and even today scholars can’t agree on its definition.”

I shared Rauch’s reservations about whether the “F-word” fit and about the way the term has been overused. For the left-leaning crying “fascism” seemed a kind of emotional catharsis that wasn’t going to sway the minds of Trump supporters — probably more likely to harden their resolve. But like Rauch I have changed my mind. And I have done so, again like Rauch, because the facts have changed.

There have been both changes of fact and of context. Among the latter the most significant is that Trump, in this second term, is no longer restrained by sane people with government experience working in the White House or other agencies of government. Consider, for example, the Vice-Presidents: Mike Pence’s stiff upper lip and personal restraint, now traded out for J.D. Vance’s rivaling Trump’s own indecency and racist dog-whistles. Or the difference between Jeff Sessions, or even Bill Barr, as the heads of DOJ, and Pamela Bondi. Lackeys all the way down. Trump, a deeply disinhibited man, now has no one saying to him, “Hold on, let’s think about that,” or “You can’t do that, it’s unconstitutional.”

Other things have also changed. Trump 1 was an “America First” semi-isolationist who did not evidence a key characteristic of European fascism, the drive for territorial expansion. Now, it’s “we must have Greenland.” And “this is our hemisphere” and tough luck for any who don’t go along.

Another characteristic of 20th century fascism was the glorification of violence and state violence. The glorification of violence has been there all along, though now ramped up as boats are blasted out of the water in the Caribbean. But most important are the enlargement and deployment of the paramilitaries of ICE and the Border Patrol, as well as the stationing of actual military, the National Guard, in American cities. The first two in particular seem to be functioning as private armies of the administration, masked agents of state violence, granted impunity to use illegal bullying tactics that defy the Bill of Rights.

In Rauch’s article he works through 18 characteristics of historical instances of fascism that he now finds evident in Trump 2. These include some that have been around from the beginning such as “demolition of norms” and “dehumanization” and “alternative facts.” But some are either new or ramped up this second go-round. Those include “territorial and military expansionism,” “blood and soil nationalism,” “politicized law enforcement,” “politics as war,” and “governance as revolution” (think DOGE and chain-saws). Rauch unpacks each of the 18, citing examples to fill out the picture.

Why is it important, now, to speak of “fascism”? So long as one gives defining content to the term, as Rauch does, and doesn’t deploy it only as rhetorical emphasis, it is important to call a thing by its proper name. Especially as one characteristic and tactic of fascism is to call a thing what it isn’t — see “Alternative Facts.” Here’s Rauch, “As Orwell, Hannah Arendt, and practically every other scholar of authoritarianism have emphasized, creating a reality-distortion field is the first thing a fascistic government will do, the better to drive its own twisted narrative, confuse the citizenry, demoralize political opponents, and justify every manner of corruption and abuse.”

The other reason for now saying, “Yes, It’s fascism,” is that it alerts us to the larger patterns, allowing us to see particulars as element in a larger strategy rather than as one-offs. Take, for example, what’s happening in Minneapolis with “Operation Urban Surge.” At least three characteristic fascistic patterns are in evidence there, “might makes right,” “politicized law enforcement,” and “police-state tactics.” Events in Minneapolis taken alone or in isolation can be viewed through a lens of “both-siderism.” But when looked at in the larger context of the fascist playbook, they take on a different meaning and valance.

Rauch concludes his article with an important distinction: we have a fascist leader but we are not a fascist country. At least not yet. Here’s Rauch:

“If, however, Trump is a fascist president, that does not mean that America is a fascist country. The courts, the states, and the media remain independent of him, and his efforts to browbeat them will likely fail. He may lose his grip on Congress in November. He has not succeeded in molding public opinion, except against himself. He has outrun the mandate of his voters, his coalition is fracturing, and he has neglected tools that allow presidents to make enduring change. He and his party may defy the Constitution, but they cannot rewrite it, thank goodness.”

Moreover, Rauch sounds a hopeful and defiant note even as he acknowledges that he has changed his mind on the use of the “F-word.”

“So the United States, once the world’s exemplary liberal democracy, is now a hybrid state combining a fascist leader and a liberal Constitution; but no, it has not fallen to fascism. And it will not.

“In which case, is there any point in calling Trump a fascist, even if true? Doesn’t that alienate his voters? Wouldn’t it be better just to describe his actions without labeling him controversially?

“Until recently, I thought so. No longer. The resemblances are too many and too strong to deny. Americans who support liberal democracy need to recognize what we’re dealing with in order to cope with it, and to recognize something, one must name it. Trump has revealed himself, and we must name what we see.”