Fascism is currently a toxic word... If Democrats accuse Trump of being a fascist, hackles rise on both the left and the right. The left uses it as an attack, and the right howls in protest, calling it a slander against Trump. Is it fair, even if it is a political mistake, to go public with it? Books, blogs, and columns have been written, including by me, defining what fascism is.
Update : 10/22/25 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/a-new-supreme-court-case-could-turn-the-national-guard-into-trump-s-personal-army/ar-AA1OU5bX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=68f90e287cc94d7a98118305d33fbc73&ei=22 This is scary..and well on its way toward a fascist type of rule and militarization by the feds...endangering free and fair elections, to boot. In addition, ICE has a paramilitary force that is trained, equipped, and resembles a military, but it is not required to swear an oath to the Constitution, unlike the US military. What if a deranged Trump wanted to try a coup in 2028 and unleashed them both or even just one, to accomplish this. I would not put it past him...since he has been signaling he wants a third term. The Supreme Court seems to be in Trump's pocket on the national guard issue...I am not optimistic.
Continuing with original post:
The first to describe Hungarian President Viktor Orban as a fascist was the late Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State and a person who lived through fascism, in a farewell book. She called him a modern fascist and explained what she feared the most for the future of America: fascism. Fascism: A Warning: Albright, Madeleine: 9780062802187: Amazon.com: Books
Since then, the books describing what fascism is or defining it as it fits Trump have been published, and there are too many to list here. Some are brain-numbing, but not suited for a public that wants bullet points and memes to make a case for something they can embrace and repeat.
The one update is that Orban's rise was peaceful, helped by the fact that Hungary has a unique language and is 94% ethnically and religiously pure. America is not: it is diverse, with white Christians soon to become the new minority. Trump's addition to an Orban kind of dictatorship is violence, as he excuses it and exhorts it, and backs it up with the use of it through the militarization of forcing it on unwilling others, either through abuse of national guards and active military, or potentially the masked forces outside any of the four military forces, geared for armed combat, ICE. However, like Orban, who grabbed power by using fear and threat of Syrian refugees altering the Hungarian culture, Trump has used the fear of brown people, whom he often brands as being murderers and rapists, who threaten "our" culture and adulterate our blood with their diseases.
Recently, a Facebook friend sent me a very learned and succinct definition of fascism and made the case that the Supreme Court was Trump's enabler to become a fascist dictator. There are all kinds of dictators: Roman, blood thirsty Pol Pots, to Communist, but fascist is a particular kind. I am reproducing that here without attribution but with permission. It is compelling.
What is Fascism?
Fascism historically refers to political
movements such as Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. These movements
showed several defining traits:
·
Strongman
leadership – One leader claiming to be the only voice of the “true nation.”
·
Rejection
of democratic limits – Undermining elections, courts, the press, and other
checks.
·
Nationalism
with grievance – Messaging built on humiliation, decline, or betrayal by
“enemies within.”
·
Use
of scapegoats – Minorities, immigrants, opponents, or institutions blamed for
national problems.
·
Glorification
of force and loyalty – Political violence is excused or encouraged, and dissent
is seen as disloyalty.
·
Fusion
of state and identity – The idea that the leader and the nation are
indistinguishable.
Recent Supreme Court
Actions That Are Enabling Fascism
Presidential
Immunity (Trump v. United States, 2024):
By recognizing broad criminal immunity
for a president’s 'official acts,' the Court reduces legal accountability.
Removing the threat of prosecution enables a leader to use state power against
opponents or elections with fewer constraints—a key condition for authoritarian
rule.
Cited: Trump v. United
States (2024) (immunity for official acts).
Weakening
Congressional Oversight (Trump v. Mazars, 2020):
By raising hurdles for Congress to
obtain presidential records, the Court hobbled legislative oversight. Opaque
executive power is harder to check, allowing abuses to flourish out of view.
Cited:
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP (2020) (new test limiting congressional subpoenas of
presidential records).
Dismantling
Agency Power & Independence (Chevron Overruled + emergency orders,
2024–2025):
Ending deference to expert agencies and
easing presidential control over independent bodies weakens the institutions
that carry out Congress’s laws. In parallel, emergency orders have allowed mass
layoffs at the Department of Education to proceed. Together, these moves make
it easier for a president to hollow out or capture the administrative state—a
classic step toward authoritarian consolidation.
Cited:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) & Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of
Commerce (2024) (Chevron overruled); Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) & Collins
v. Yellen (2021) (limits on agency independence/removal); State of New York v.
McMahon, No. 24A1203 (U.S. July 14, 2025) (emergency stay allowing Education
Dept. layoffs to proceed); emergency order allowing removal of FTC Commissioner
Rebecca Slaughter (Sept. 22, 2025) (shadow docket).
Unilateral
Spending Power (Border Wall Diversion):
By letting emergency reprogramming go
forward while litigation was pending, the Court signaled that a president can
redirect money Congress withheld. That undermines the legislature’s power of
the purse and lets the executive reward allies and punish opponents.
Cited:
Trump v. Sierra Club, No. 19A60 (U.S. July 26, 2019) (stay permitting diversion
of Pentagon funds for the wall).
Cuts and
Delays to Congress‑Approved
Spending (NIH grants, 2025):
Allowing grant terminations and budget
rollbacks to take effect pending appeal enables de facto cuts to programs that
Congress funded. Controlling the flow of money from the center is a well‑worn authoritarian tactic for
consolidating power.
Cited:
National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Ass’n, No. 25A103 (U.S.
Aug. 21, 2025) (partial stay allowing termination of research grants pending
appeal).
Major
Questions Doctrine Used to Disable Programs:
By requiring ultra‑specific congressional authorization for
significant actions, the Court disables broad policies and shifts practical
power to the executive’s choice to enforce or not. That asymmetry lets a
determined president dismantle programs without new legislation.
Cited:
West Virginia v. EPA (2022); Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS (2021) (shadow‑docket stay); NFIB v. OSHA (2022)
(shadow‑docket
stay); Biden v. Nebraska (2023).
Limiting Who
Can Challenge Executive Overreach (Standing):
By narrowing who can sue, the Court
reduces the number of cases that can even reach the merits. Fewer challengers
means fewer checks on aggressive executive action.
Cited:
United States v. Texas (2023) (no standing to challenge enforcement
priorities); California v. Texas (2021) (no standing in ACA challenge);
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune‑Hill
(2019) (legislative body lacked standing).
