Gen. John Kelly, who served as Donald Trump’s chief of staff longer than anyone else, recently voiced his apprehensions regarding the former president’s potential to embody fascist tendencies. In an interview with the New York Times, Kelly asserted that Trump “would govern like a dictator if given the chance.” Shortly after, Vice President Kamala Harris echoed his sentiments during an interview.
In typical fashion, Trump responded with his trademark style of rhetoric. On Truth Social, he labeled Kelly a “degenerate … who fabricated a story fueled by pure Trump Derangement Syndrome Hatred.” He also took to X (formerly Twitter), claiming Harris had gone so far as to label him as Adolf Hitler, a point that is factually incorrect, as she has not made such a comparison. Interestingly, it was Trump’s own running mate, J.D. Vance, who privately referred to him as “America’s Hitler” in a text message.
Kelly also offered a surprisingly detailed definition of fascism, a term that is often used both politically and as an insult. He described it as “a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, suppression of opposition, and belief in a natural social hierarchy.”
This definition closely aligns with historical understandings of fascism, a political movement that began with Italy’s fascist party in 1919 and expanded across Europe during the interwar period. Historian Federico Finchelstein, from the New School for Social Research, has characterized fascism as “a political ideology that includes totalitarianism, state terrorism, imperialism, racism, and, particularly in Germany, the Holocaust.”
### Perspectives on Fascism from Historians
The debate over whether the term fascism applies to Trump has been ongoing since his initial campaign and election on November 9, 2016. Early in this discourse, in a 2015 interview with a Vice reporter, Cornell University history professor Isabel Hull argued that Trump was “not principled enough to be a fascist,” leaning more towards a description of him as a “nativist-populist.”
Finchelstein even wrote an entire book delineating the difference between historical fascism and modern populism. He stated that while they share various traits, fascism is inherently dictatorial, whereas populism operates within the constraints of democratic systems.
However, populism can morph into fascism if it involves persecuting perceived internal enemies. Timothy Snyder, a Yale University history and global affairs professor, has consistently labeled Trump a fascist, asserting that Americans may growingly adapt to the “banality” of tyranny.
In the wake of the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, Finchelstein reevaluated his stance, arguing in a Washington Post op-ed that Trump had exceeded populism and was adopting a fascist identity, posing a significant threat to democracy.
Finchelstein’s transformation in perspective was mirrored by Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, who suggested that the term “fascist” had become “not just acceptable but necessary.”
Yet, not all scholars are in agreement. Richard Evans, an emeritus professor at Cambridge University, contends that Trump does not meet the criteria of a fascist, suggesting that the January 6 events were “not a coup” and that there was no premeditated plan to seize government control. He argues that Trump lacks the classic fascistic drive for conquest and expansion, and that labeling him as such detracts from analyzing his political behavior as a unique phenomenon.
Conversely, historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat from New York University offers a more nuanced view, suggesting that while the label of fascism may oversimplify Trump, it cannot be denied that he has created a new platform for fascist ideas and practices.
In my opinion, Trump would embrace a full fascist framework if he had the opportunity to do so. The crucial question remains: will the American public permit him to take that path? He has already implemented what could be termed “fascist-lite” policies within the limits of his authority.
He attempted to overturn a legitimate democratic election, nominated Supreme Court justices with the intention of dismantling Roe v. Wade and controlling women’s reproductive rights, and imposed additional procedural obstacles for immigrants seeking asylum, reminiscent of fascist racial laws. Moreover, he has threatened to deploy the military and law enforcement against political adversaries.
Thus far, he has been compelled to operate within the boundaries of the democratic system. Should the American electorate choose to place him in power again, there’s no certainty those boundaries will hold. If fascism were to resurface, it would be in the form of tragedy rather than farce.
