Return to site

American Fascism Ascendant: The Authoritarian Turn in the U.S. and Its Global Ripples

October 15, 2025

Preface

Living in New York these days is not yet a challenge for me, but I already see the signs I once saw in a country where freedoms failed and which today resembles a medieval monarchy, still descending without a bottom in sight. That country will cease to exist the moment the regime that cements it collapses, and yet it keeps digging its own grave through contradictions between its policies, common sense, and science. America is moving along that same path.

Around me, people cheer for the torture of liberals in prisons, discuss murders of political opponents, and praise rapes and out-of-court lynchings as justice. They glorify starvation and forced labor. Some gather in small circles to listen to Adolf Hitler’s speeches, translated and rendered in his original voice through artificial intelligence. I am not exaggerating. I had to read Mein Kampf twice, once during my legal studies in an anti-authoritarian workshop, and later when I began to notice striking similarities between Hitler’s rhetoric and that of Trump and his entourage. What shocked me most was not the madness of those ideas, but their simplicity, their childish vulgarity, and yet the scale of destruction they unleashed. That one man’s delusions may have led to the death of every tenth person on Earth remains one of history’s most horrifying truths.

So I ask myself now: what is the point of no return? I do not ask this as a philosopher but as someone who has lived under totalitarian law, who has studied its perverse logic. In Nazi Germany, the Gestapo’s actions were “legal.” Every atrocity was formalized, rationalized, or voted into legitimacy. The system’s weapon was not only violence but the consent of frightened people. Fear and cowardice sustain tyranny far longer than weapons do. And that is the most dangerous illusion, that legality and morality can diverge without consequence.

The earlier and firmer a society resists a tyrant, the fewer will die in the end. The moment one begins to justify immoral acts as “necessary,” the descent accelerates. Every individual must hold their ground, professionally, personally, and morally, because the tyrant will soon make immorality appear lawful. History teaches this lesson again and again.

Benjamin Franklin warned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Thomas Jefferson echoed it: “When you abandon freedom to achieve security, you lose both and deserve neither.” Franklin D. Roosevelt defined fascism as “ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” Henry A. Wallace added that the true American fascist is one who “puts money and power ahead of human beings.” These words were written generations apart, yet together they describe precisely what America is facing now, the convergence of fear, greed, and submission into a single force that threatens to extinguish freedom itself.

And if you open Umberto Eco’s list of the Fourteen Signs of Fascism, you will find every one of them present in today’s America: the cult of tradition, the rejection of modernism, the fear of difference, the appeal to a frustrated middle class, the obsession with plots, the glorification of violence, and the fusion of religion with politics. Each of these signs glows red in the landscape around us.

In the following article, we will measure these signs not as abstractions but as data points, an attempt to weigh the degree to which the United States has already crossed into authoritarianism and to determine whether there remains any distance before the point of no return.

(Franklin, “Pennsylvania Assembly Reply to the Governor,” 1755; Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” 1787; Roosevelt, Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies, 1938; Wallace, “The Dangers of American Fascism,” 1944; Eco, “Ur-Fascism,” The New York Review of Books, 1995.)

Introduction

As of mid-October 2025, the United States is in the grip of an unprecedented democratic crisis. President Donald Trump, having returned to the White House after the 2024 election, has rapidly set about reshaping American governance in ways many observers describe as openly authoritarian – even fascistic. Behind closed doors, Trump’s own former Joint Chiefs chairman, General Mark Milley, warned that Trump is “a total fascist” and “the most dangerous person to this country,” calling him “a fascist to the core”[1]. Seasoned analysts who once hesitated to use the f-word now agree: “Trump is through-and-through a fascist,” an “aspiring dictator” who demands all political life center on himself and labels Americans of different races or opposing views as “enemies”[2]. This alarming transformation of American politics – the open undermining of constitutional norms and embrace of strongman tactics – is sending shockwaves far beyond U.S. borders. The rise of what scholars term a “wannabe fascist” leadership in Washington is not only upending American society, but also emboldening authoritarian forces abroad and destabilizing the post-WWII democratic order[3][4].

The Authoritarian Turn in Washington

Trump’s second term has unfolded as a concerted assault on the remaining checks to his power. In his very first hours back in office, he moved swiftly to “impose his will on the U.S. government” – and to immunize his followers from consequences[5][6]. On January 20, 2025, mere hours after being sworn in, Trump issued blanket pardons to roughly 1,500 people charged in the violent January 6, 2021 Capitol attack[6]. This unprecedented act freed hundreds of convicted rioters – including 14 leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys militant groups – essentially blessing the insurrectionary violence perpetrated in his name[7]. Lawmakers and police who defended the Capitol were outraged at this clemency for rioters who had assaulted 140 officers and caused multiple deaths[6]. But Trump made clear that those who acted on his behalf would not be held to account. The pardons sent a chilling signal: loyalty to Trump placed one above the law – a hallmark of authoritarian rule[8].

At the same time, the administration has aggressively purged or neutralized sources of institutional resistance. Career civil servants deemed insufficiently loyal have been removed en masse. In the Justice Department, senior nonpartisan attorneys were sacked, inspectors general across agencies sidelined or fired, and veteran FBI officials pushed out[9]. Trump installed ultra-loyalists in key roles – figures like Kash Patel and right-wing media personality Dan Bongino, who openly prioritize personal fealty to Trump over any oath to the Constitution[10]. The new Attorney General reportedly instructed DOJ lawyers that their first duty is to obey the president, even over their own legal or constitutional judgment[11]. Indeed, Trump has declared that he and his hand-picked Attorney General are the sole “authoritative interpreters” of federal law for the executive branch[12]. This amounts to a claim that the presidency can unilaterally decide what the law is – effectively nullifying the checks of Congress and courts.

Dissent, in turn, is being ruthlessly targeted. Administration officials have transformed ordinary levers of governance into tools for punishing opponents. Budgetary decisions and regulations are now weaponized to hurt states or entities aligned with the opposition[13]. Trump has ordered security clearances stripped from former officials he considers enemies, and he has floated the idea of prosecuting critics for speech he deems “unfavorable”[13]. Even federal judges are not off-limits: when courts have ruled against his policies, Trump unleashes public attacks on individual judges’ legitimacy[14]. The President’s personal vendettas have become government policy. In one notorious instance, Trump suggested that retired General Mark Milley – who had privately criticized him – deserved execution for “treason,” a shocking revival of tyrannical rhetoric[15]. Such threats are not empty words: Milley was inundated by death threats and felt compelled to install bulletproof glass in his home[16]. The message is unmistakable and ominous – those who defy Trump, whether military leaders, judges, or journalists, do so at their peril.

Meanwhile, Trump has cloaked himself in the mantle of an infallible, quasi-religious savior. During his inauguration in the very Capitol rotunda that his supporters had ransacked four years prior, the 78-year-old president cast his return as providential. “I was saved by God to make America great again,” Trump proclaimed to a cheering crowd[17]. This messianic claim of divine anointment underscores the cult of personality he has built. His core base now treats Trump’s words as gospel and his opponents as heretics. Indeed, the President has openly embraced an almost führerprinzip notion of leadership – touting his personal destiny and demanding absolute loyalty – while describing political rivals as evil, degenerate, and aligned with dark forces. It is a style and substance that historians note is eerily reminiscent of 20th-century fascist movements[18].

All these developments have prompted democracy experts to ring loud alarm bells. In the Atlantic, legal scholar Aziz Huq observed that the United States is now witnessing the birth of a “dual state” – a system in which the facade of normal law and courts persists for many citizens, but alongside it a “prerogative state” of unchecked executive fiat is fast emerging[19][20]. In Trump’s America, Huq writes, a growing domain exists where “cruel caprice, not law, rules,” and dissidents or scapegoats can be selectively targeted for suppression[20]. Most ordinary Americans not engaged in politics may continue with life as usual – until the moment they land on the wrong side of the regime’s favor[21][22]. This insidious erosion of the rule of law, behind a veneer of normalcy, is exactly how fascist and other authoritarian regimes have historically consolidated power. By October 2025, the U.S. federal government had even entered a protracted shutdown – ostensibly over budget fights – as Trump and hardline aides like budget director Russ Vought used the funding lapse as leverage to force through their agenda. Yet even amid the shutdown that furloughed federal workers, the administration found means to channel resources toward its own priorities[23]. The President’s allies in Congress have been compliant, with Republican majorities in both chambers largely enabling these radical measures[24]. The overall picture at home is one of democratic backsliding on a scale the U.S. has never experienced, with institutions cowed or captured and opposition voices under constant threat.

Embracing Strongmen and Redrawing Global Alignments

The resurgence of American authoritarianism is profoundly affecting the world beyond U.S. shores. Trump’s “America First” in practice has increasingly meant America aligning with fellow strongmen. Longstanding U.S. commitments to liberal democratic allies and ideals have been cast aside in favor of transactional deals with authoritarian regimes that stroke Trump’s ego or share his illiberal worldview. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Western Hemisphere, where Washington’s policy has undergone a 180-degree turn under Trump’s second term – openly bolstering right-wing populists and undermining progressive or even centrist governments.

Argentina has become the most striking example. In October 2025, President Trump hosted Argentina’s new far-right president, Javier Milei, at the White House and announced a massive $20 billion financial lifeline to rescue Argentina’s floundering economy[25][26]. The aid package – the centerpiece of which is a $20 billion currency swap line funneling U.S. dollars into Argentina’s central bank – is explicitly aimed at propping up Milei’s government through its current economic crisis[27][28]. Trump did not hide the political nature of this intervention. Standing beside Milei in Washington, he bluntly tied U.S. support to Milei’s fortunes in Argentina’s upcoming midterm elections: “If he wins, we’re staying with him. And if he doesn’t win, we’re gone,” Trump declared, vowing not to “waste our time” on Argentina if Milei’s party faltered[25][29]. This was a startling public admission that U.S. foreign aid now hinges on an allied leader’s electoral success. Argentine financial markets, which had rallied on news of the U.S. bailout, tumbled at Trump’s suggestion that the money could vanish if Milei lost – underlining how directly Washington is meddling in Argentina’s domestic politics[26].

For Trump, ideology is clearly the driver of this new largesse. “I’m with this man because his philosophy is correct,” he said of Milei, praising the Argentine’s shock-therapy neoliberalism[29]. Milei, a self-described libertarian and radical privatizer, has been called “the world’s latest wannabe fascist” for his demagogic attacks on the establishment and vows to smash Argentina’s institutions[30][4]. Since taking office in late 2023, Milei has indeed behaved like a wrecking-ball populist: firing tens of thousands of public employees with a metaphorical “chainsaw” to the state, slashing social programs, and railing against leftists and elites in incendiary terms[31]. These moves endeared him to Trump, who sees in Milei a kindred spirit implementing the same playbook of extremist free-market policies and authoritarian populist rhetoric. (Notably, Trump had even invited Milei to stand on stage with him during Trump’s own inauguration in January 2025, calling Milei his “favorite president”[32].) The $20 billion U.S. bailout – highly unusual for an administration that previously shunned foreign economic aid – thus serves a dual purpose: it shores up Milei’s faltering regime and validates Trump’s claim that “MAGA philosophy” can be exported (Milei has eagerly echoed Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan with his own “Make Argentina Great Again” appeals[33][34]). American officials have barely disguised this intent. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent praised Milei’s “important strides” in free-market reforms and indicated U.S. help was predicated on Argentina continuing the Trump-aligned agenda – warning that any return to leftist “Peronist” policies would end the partnership[35][36]. In effect, Washington has put a stamp of approval on Milei’s experiment in authoritarian capitalism, intervening directly to prevent its collapse.

The gambit has drawn fire both in Argentina and at home. Argentine opposition figures lambaste Trump’s bailout as neocolonial meddling: former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner acidly described the northern “help” as “food for today and hunger for tomorrow,” arguing it serves foreign investors while saddling Argentines with future pain[37]. In the U.S., congressional Democrats likewise blasted Trump for prioritizing a foreign bailout while the American government itself was shut down in budget deadlock[23]. They note that Trump rushed to aid Milei even as millions of U.S. federal workers went unpaid during the shutdown. American farmers, too, have complained the deal may backfire – Argentina’s agriculture stands to benefit (by stabilizing its currency) just as Argentine soybeans are undercutting U.S. exports in China’s market[23][38]. But such criticisms carry little weight in Trump’s Washington. The administration seems willing to breach previous norms – and perhaps U.S. law – to reward a foreign leader who flatters Trump and mirrors his hard-right politics. “The extent to which the Trump administration is willing to support a political ally” like Milei, Reuters noted, is extraordinary[39]. Indeed, it represents a throwback to Cold War-era U.S. behavior in Latin America, but now ideologically inverted: instead of containing leftist revolutions, Washington is bankrolling a radical right-wing regime and openly trying to sway another country’s elections in the process[40]. The United States, in short, is acting less like a model democracy and more like a patron of an emergent illiberal axis in the Americas.

Conversely, when foreign governments take steps that offend Trump’s autocratic sensibilities, his administration has shown it will intervene punitively. A dramatic case came in Brazil. In September 2025, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal convicted former president Jair Bolsonaro – a close Trump ally – of a plot to overthrow Brazil’s democracy after his 2022 election loss. It was a landmark moment: Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison for “attempting to violently abolish democracy” and related crimes[41][42]. Rather than applaud Brazil for holding an anti-democratic leader accountable, Trump reacted with fury. He denounced Bolsonaro’s conviction as a “witch hunt” and swiftly moved to punish Brazil’s government for jailing his friend[43]. Within hours of the verdict, the Trump administration hiked tariffs by 50% on many Brazilian exports to the U.S., and slapped sanctions on the very judge who presided over Bolsonaro’s trial[43]. Even more astonishing, Washington revoked the U.S. visas of most of Brazil’s Supreme Court justices in retaliation[43]. These measures – effectively targeting Brazil’s judiciary and economy because it dared to prosecute an ex-president – were without precedent between democratic allies. President Trump baldly stated he was “very unhappy” with the verdict and implied Brazil would face more consequences[44]. His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, openly threatened that the U.S. “will respond accordingly to this witch hunt,” dismissing Brazil’s judicial process as unjust[45]. The Brazilian government was incensed. In a rare rebuke of Washington, Brazil’s foreign ministry slammed Rubio’s comments as an unacceptable “threat” against Brazil’s sovereignty and said its democracy “would not be intimidated” by the United States[46]. The episode sent U.S.–Brazil relations to their lowest ebb in decades. It also telegraphed a clear message around the world: under Trump, the U.S. sides with authoritarian figures over democratic institutions. Any country that holds Trump’s favored strongmen to account (whether Bolsonaro, or hypothetically others like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán or Turkey’s Erdoğan) risks diplomatic or economic retaliation from Washington. Conversely, those strongmen can count on Trump’s backing even when they violate democratic norms or the rule of law. This alignment of the United States with an axis of illiberal leaders – and against the institutions of liberal democracy – marks a stark realignment of American foreign policy, one reminiscent of the 1930s in its ideological polarity.

In some cases, Trump’s Washington has even signaled support for extra-legal or military actions to reshape foreign governments. U.S. hardliners close to Trump have saber-rattled at leftist regimes in Latin America that they see as hostile. Reports emerged that the administration was contemplating steps such as a naval blockade or other intervention against Venezuela, whose socialist government Trump has long sought to topple[47]. In concert with right-wing regional allies, the U.S. has stepped up military assets in the Caribbean, hinting at preparations for a possible “putsch or military intervention” aimed at Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro[48]. And while pouring cash into Milei’s Argentina, the Trump administration has pushed that country to sever its remaining ties with China – pressuring Buenos Aires to halt a major currency swap it had with Beijing and even discussing stationing U.S. troops on Argentine soil in the name of “stabilization”[49][50]. All of these moves underscore a revived neo-imperial posture: the U.S. is aggressively leveraging its power to install or support regimes aligned with Trump’s reactionary worldview, and to isolate or destabilize those that aren’t. The ideological litmus test is clear. As one analyst put it, the administration’s goal is “reasserting U.S. imperialist control” in the hemisphere by any means, treating politically left-leaning governments as adversaries to be subverted[51].

Even beyond the Americas, the ripple effects of Washington’s authoritarian turn are profound. Perhaps nowhere has felt it more acutely than Ukraine and Europe’s security order. In early 2025, President Trump executed a sudden reversal of decades of U.S. policy by halting American military aid to Ukraine – a nation still battling Russia’s brutal invasion. Without consulting NATO allies or Congress, Trump suspended all arms shipments to Kyiv in March 2025 and declared that the U.S. would pursue a rapid peace deal aligning with Moscow’s terms[52][53]. He browbeat Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an Oval Office meeting – scolding Zelenskyy for lacking “gratitude” and demanding Ukraine negotiate immediately with the Kremlin[54]. Facing the loss of critical U.S. support, a beleaguered Zelenskyy acquiesced: he issued a public statement “pledging to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts”[54] and signaled Ukraine’s openness to a ceasefire and concessions. Trump triumphantly told Congress that Ukraine was now “ready to come to the negotiating table” and claimed he had “strong signals” that Russia, too, was “ready for peace”[55][56]. The abrupt U.S. pivot sent geopolitical shockwaves. The Kremlin in Moscow openly celebrated Trump’s move to cut off aid as “the best possible step towards peace” on Russia’s terms[57]. European governments, by contrast, were alarmed and felt betrayed. America’s NATO allies suddenly faced the prospect of a Russian victory in Ukraine and had to scramble to increase their own military support to Kyiv in the absence of U.S. leadership[58][59]. Diplomats described Trump’s pro-Russia shift as “the most dramatic geopolitical shift in generations” for Washington[53]. Since the 1940s, the U.S. had consistently led coalitions to contain Moscow’s aggression – but now an American president was siding with the aggressor. It became painfully clear to Europe that under Trump, the U.S. would abandon even a fellow democracy under attack if it suited his personal or political interests. This new reality has shaken confidence in the United States as an anchor of the free world. One European official lamented that the transatlantic alliance is now effectively “on pause” until American democracy is restored – “we are holding our breath,” he said, “to see if the U.S. comes back to its senses”[53].

Around the globe, authoritarian leaders have cheered Trump’s stance. Russia’s Vladimir Putin, of course, welcomes an American president who echoes Kremlin talking points and undermines NATO unity. China’s state media has highlighted U.S. domestic turmoil and human rights controversies under Trump, undercutting U.S. credibility to criticize Beijing. In the Middle East, dictators and monarchs see less pressure on their abuses, given Trump’s disinterest in democracy or press freedom abroad. Even traditional U.S. allies have begun hedging their bets. Without Washington consistently championing democratic values, countries like Germany and France are cautiously engaging more with powers like China, and regional blocs are exploring greater strategic autonomy. The moral leadership of the United States – long a cornerstone (however imperfect) of the international order – is now gravely damaged. As The Atlantic observed, we are witnessing the emergence of a de facto “Axis of Autocracy”, with Trump’s Washington at its center rather than opposing it[60]. Leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán or India’s Narendra Modi find an affirming friend in the White House, while proponents of liberal democracy feel increasingly isolated.

To summarize it all: in the span of just a year, the United States has careened into a new and dangerous political reality. What was once the world’s most stable democracy is now exhibiting traits of a fledgling authoritarian regime – a scenario Americans of earlier generations never imagined possible on their soil. The term

“fascism” is no longer used merely as hyperbole or partisan insult; it has become a sobering analytical description invoked by historians, former military leaders, and democracy scholars to characterize the transformation underway[1][18]. The Trump administration’s actions – from pardoning domestic insurrectionists and purging independent officials, to subverting the rule of law and glorifying violence against opponents – closely follow the playbook by which democratic societies in the past have slid into dictatorship[9][61]. And unlike previous episodes of American isolationism or unilateralism, this time the U.S. is not merely retreating from global leadership – it is actively perverting it. The world’s foremost superpower is now exporting anti-democratic norms, empowering foreign despots, and undermining the very values of liberty and self-government that it once championed.

The rapid changes in America’s status quo have left allies and adversaries alike scrambling to adjust. Within the country, opposition voices warn that time is running out to check the march of authoritarianism. Beyond its borders, other nations – especially those on the frontline between democracy and autocracy – are having to calibrate their strategies in an era when the American bulwark can no longer be taken for granted. History offers stark lessons of what happens when fascist or proto-fascist movements go unchecked, and those lessons now feel urgently relevant. A senior U.S. diplomat, recently resigned, put it plainly: “If the United States succumbs to authoritarian rule, the dam holding back a tide of tyranny worldwide will break”. Already we see that tide rising: from Buenos Aires to Brasília, from Kyiv to Taipei, the fallout of America’s democratic collapse is being felt.

Whether this trajectory can be reversed – whether the American Republic’s constitutional safeguards can yet assert themselves and whether the global community can collectively defend the ideals of democracy and human rights – remains the paramount question of our time. The stakes could not be higher. As of October 2025, the United States stands at a precipice, and with it so does much of the world. The coming months will determine if this chapter marks the irreversible end of the American experiment in self-government, or if it is a dire warning shot that finally galvanizes democratic forces to act. The urgency of that choice, and the need for a coherent response, grow by the day[62][63]. In the meantime, the rest of the world watches anxiously, caught in the wake of America’s authoritarian turn – a wake that is already eroding the foundations of the international order as we know it.

* * *

· Nandita Bose, “Trump won’t ‘waste our time’ with Argentina if Milei loses in midterms,” Reuters, October 14, 2025[25][26].

· Jeff Mason et al., “After taking office, Trump pardons 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants,” Reuters, January 20, 2025[6][7].

· Tom Nichols, “The General’s Warning,” The Atlantic, October 16, 2024[1][18].

· Aziz Huq, “America Is Watching the Rise of a Dual State,” The Atlantic, May 2025[9][61].

· Ricardo Brito et al., “Brazil’s Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years after landmark coup plot conviction,” Reuters, September 12, 2025[43][45].

· Erin Banco et al., “Trump says Ukraine willing to negotiate, Russia ‘ready for peace’,” Reuters, March 5, 2025[52][53].

· Andrea Lobo, “US bankrolls fascist Milei regime ahead of Argentine elections,” World Socialist Web Site, September 25, 2025[40][64].

· Federico Finchelstein, “Javier Milei Is the World’s Latest Wannabe Fascist,” Foreign Policy, December 9, 2023[30][4].

· Associated Press, “Trump threatens to pull support for Argentina if its politics move leftward,” October 14, 2025[65][66].

Citations:

[1] [2] [15] [16] [18] The general’s warning - The Atlantic

[3] [4] [30] [62] [63] Wannabe Fascist Javier Milei Endangers Argentine Democracy

[5] [6] [7] [17] [24] After taking office, Trump pardons 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants | Reuters

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [19] [20] [21] [22] [61] America Is Watching the Rise of a Dual State - The Atlantic

[23] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [31] [32] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Trump won't 'waste our time' with Argentina if Milei loses in midterms | Reuters

[33] [34] [65] [66] Trump warns Argentina of aid cut if its politics move leftward | AP News

[40] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [60] [64] US bankrolls fascist Milei regime ahead of Argentine elections - World Socialist Web Site

[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Brazil's Bolsonaro sentenced to 27 years after landmark coup plot conviction | Reuters

[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Trump says Ukraine willing to negotiate, Russia 'ready for peace' | Reuters