Has the Eagle Landed ? Part 4
Is it an ism or is it art ?
Welcome to the final part of my series, looking at the evidence, statements made by and the behaviour of, the current US president and administration, in order to answer the question;
- is the US becoming an authoritarian, fascist state?
In Part 1 I looked at definitions of fascism, explored the concept of Trumpism and gave some examples of the President’s behaviour that have led many leading academics, social and political commentators on both sides of the house, to highlight his authoritarian tendencies.
In Parts 2 and 3, I examined the top ten characteristics of an authoritarian regime, as identified by Shelley Inglis, executive Director, University of Dayton Human Rights Centre, University of Dayton. As part of this I looked at research showing that the combination of an authoritarian administration and right wing political views, increased the likelihood that the regime would use misinformation and the spreading of FAKE NEWS to further their political agenda.
I cited numerous examples of behaviour and policy making, and referenced multiple statements made by the president and his entourage which can clearly be seen as demonstrating the top 10 characteristics.
To validate and provide points of reference for the narrative and to give a balanced assessment of the president’s leadership style, I cited bi-partisan studies, NGOs and first hand accounts, all of which corroborate this evidence.
As pointed out in Part 3, being authoritarian does not automatically make a government fascist. A typology of authoritarian regimes by political scientists Brian Lai and Dan Slater includes four categories. These four concepts are useful measurements of the particular style of authoritarian states and may give both an indication of future measures as well as helping to provide some insight to the President’s motivation.
machine (oligarchic party dictatorships);
bossism (autocratic party dictatorships);
juntas (oligarchic military dictatorships); and
strongman (autocratic military dictatorships).
Don't be put off by the word dictatorship. As has already been discussed, a key tenet of Trumpism is absolute loyalty. Although not displaying the brutality of some of history’s more infamous dictators, by so utterly dominating the Oval Office and domestic policy making, attempting to silence media opposition, blaming mistakes on sleepy Joe Biden, and regularly firing his staff based on the slightest perceived show of personal disloyalty, Donald Trump may as well be a dictator.
He is a de facto intellectual dictator.
In spite of his penchant for sending the virtually paramilitary ICE operatives to smash down the doors of US residents in the middle of the night, Donald Trump does not meet the criteria to be called a military dictator. Yet
.
Indeed the current situation in the heart of the White House means that the administration meets all the criteria of an oligarchic party dictatorship. Perhaps a feature of Trumpism that has been downplayed is his willingness to take what he sees as the best of each situation, and adapt it after applying his own, often unconventional, personal take on the subject, creating something that is neither one thing nor another.
Adding his own, autocratic style. A hybrid version of a dictatorship if you like.
A Muskoligarchy.
His propensity to express drastically contradictory opinions, in a short period of time, on a wide range of topics ranging from, in his first term, criticising President Obama for the amount of time he spent on the golf course to himself spending 25 of his first 100 days as president, on the golf course, to bombing Syria without congressional approval, after having previously insisted that President Obama needed the approval of congress to do the same.
The second Trump presidency has started off with as many, if not more u-turns and climb downs, most notably the ongoing debacle of tariffs and the remarkable about face that enabled the Air Force One donation by Qatar.
Remember Trump described the Qatari government as “..historical funders of global terrorism”.
Perhaps the president's flying palace should be renamed Air Force you owe us One!
Accepting such a lavish offer somewhat tarnishes his claim to be a man of the people and could be seen to contradict some of his more populist policies. Especially at a time that he is asking working class Americans to suffer for the common good. A practice which incidentally, as history has shown us, rarely bodes well for the incumbent!
In a recent speech to Congress President Trump suggested that Americans might “feel a bit of pain”, from his economic policies. The president who had promised in his inaugural address that “the Golden Age of America begins right now” was all of a sudden suggesting that “there will be a little disturbance”. His treasury secretary said the economy might need a “detox” period, while his billionaire Commerce secretary said a recession would be “worth it” adding that, “his mother-in-law would not mind missing her Social Security check”. In the same interview he also claimed that “the only people who scream when they dont get their social security cheques, are fraudsters”!
It is perhaps in keeping with this tendency to flip from one view to another that makes it unsurprising that Trump’s management style is also a combination. A combination of machine and bossism oligarchies to be specific. Where bossism is defined as the domination of a political organization by a party and social control by dominating, and machine as a government or system where a small group of powerful entities, often related to technology or machine-based decision-making, holds significant control and power. The three alternatives of this system are, digital, technocratic or automation driven oligarchy.
Whoop! There's that elephant in the room again.
When it comes to Donald Trump, his instinctive style is autocratic but he allows limited input from a team of party oligarchs. Remember the current cabinet is packed full of billionaire donors to the Trump and MAGA causes. Many of whom, as the president brazenly boasted, have, as a result of the market chaos caused by his erratic imposition, reduction and suspension of tariffs: -” made hundreds of millions of dollars in the last few days”.
Oh that's alright then.
Isn't it? Is it?
It’s not, is it?
Contrastingly, the very notion of a deep state gives rise to the suspicion of a putative oligarchy, where business groups may be considered oligarchies if they meet the following criteria:
They are the largest private owners in the country.
They possess sufficient political power to influence their own interests.
The owners control multiple businesses, coordinating activities across sectors.
This sounds very much like the deep state, the common enemy of the people Trump promised to defeat and may enable us to go some way to understanding his adoption of the oligarchic style, once his autocracy within the Republican Party had been established.
The argument that the US is becoming, or is in danger of becoming an authoritarian state is, as we have seen, compelling. Even without the danger signs of leading Trump supporters and officials displaying salutes that reminded many people around the world of a Naziesque salute.
Let's not forget that if something looks, walks and quacks like a duck…it's probably a duck!
Equally as compelling is the argument that the brand of authoritarianism that comes naturally to the president is a hybrid of party and autocratic oligarchies that seems best summed up by the term muskoligarchy.
During his election campaign Trump himself said that he would be a dictator on day 1, perhaps hoping to appear more as a strict leader who knows what's best for the people and will do whatever it takes to achieve that than an actual dictator? A sort of people's dictator?
The premise of the "People's democratic dictatorship" is that the party and state represent and act on behalf of the people, but in the preservation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, possess and may use powers against reactionary forces.
The term, ironically, forms one of the Chinese Communist Party's Four Cardinal Principles.
So what then of the claim that the ideology behind this hybrid authoritarian movement, is ultimately, when you strip away the lies and misinformation, the slogans and rhetoric, the cronyism and nepotism, fascism ?
In World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA (2006), Cyprian Blamires, writes;- “ fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Opposed to Marxism, democracy, anarchism, pluralism, free markets, egalitarianism, communism, liberalism, and socialism, fascism is at the far right of the traditional left – right spectrum.”
As per my established format, I am going to take each of those characteristics and see how they stack up against Donald Trump and his government’s behaviour. As with each of the previous comparisons, I will use only the verifiable statements, behaviour and policies of the administration. I think it's important that the reader realises that all of the events I reference are easily verifiable and besides, it's usually the more extraordinary claims that DT doubles down on and inflates!
Dictatorial leader
The evidence of Trump’s dictatorial tendencies has already been established. Tendencies that mark him out as, what I have termed, an intellectual dictator.
What I mean by this is that he does all the thinking. Or at least he’s allowed to believe that he does. Trump has gathered a senior leadership team so bound to his will that, not only will they not warn him that something may not be a good idea, they back him up when it all goes wrong or is proven to be false!
He has achieved this deeply concerning situation via a combination of bullying, lying, appealing to populist views and surrounding himself with cronies.
We should remind ourselves that US politicians, including members of Congress and other federal officials, swear allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President or his office. The oath of office mandates that they "support and defend the Constitution". This oath is intended to ensure that officials are accountable to the laws and principles enshrined in the Constitution, not to the whims of the individual in the Presidential office,
Furthermore, his excessive use of executive orders whilst perhaps not having broken the constitution, have left it looking chipped and tarnished.
As of April the 25th, 2025, Trump was facing multiple legal challenges to some of his more controversial proclamations, such as those affecting refugees and asylum seekers, the firing of federal workers, closing down The Voice of America and the activities of DOGE and ICE.
In response, Trump has turned his rage towards targeting lawyers, punishing them for doing nothing more than filing lawsuits he opposes, or hiring lawyers he does not like. He has issued unprecedented executive orders penalizing five of the nation’s major law firms, and more are likely to come. These tactics, claimed by many constitutional lawyers to be blatantly illegal, are designed with one goal in mind: to frighten and bully lawyers who show any willingness to challenge his illegal actions. They are a fundamental attack on the foundation of the rule of law.
Centralized autocracy
This term refers to a form of government in which absolute power is held by the head of state and government, known as an autocrat. It includes some forms of monarchy and all forms of dictatorship. It is contrasted with democracy and feudalism.
The key tactics of these governments are:
1. Centralized Decision-Making:
The leader or a small elite group makes all major decisions without seeking input from others.
This can lead to quick decision-making but may also result in decisions that are not well-suited to the needs of the broader population.
I have already detailed clear evidence of this in the Trump administration but, in case you missed parts 1 to 3, here are some examples.
Writing in The Guardian just two weeks into Trump's second term, John R Macarthur, American journalist, historian, and author of books about US politics recalled how the investigative psychiatrist Robert J Lifton once explained to him that, “Trump is a solipsist, as distinct from the narcissist that he’s often accused of being”.
In everyday language, "solipsistic" often describes someone who is excessively self-involved, selfish, and doesn't care much for the needs or feelings of others. Forget the philosophy, this explanation echoes many first hand descriptions of multiple autocrats' personalities, by the people who knew them.
As for decisions that are not well-suited to the needs of the broader population, think tariffs and the enforced rehiring of fired, essential state employees.
2. Strict Control and Hierarchy:
Autocratic systems typically feature a rigid hierarchy with clear lines of authority.
There is a strong emphasis on obedience and following orders without question.
The leader maintains control through strict enforcement of rules and regulations.
This could be a blueprint, or record of, Donald Trump’s well documented demand for personal loyalty and his use of excessive executive orders.
3. Suppression of Dissent:
Opposition to the ruling authority is often met with harsh penalties, censorship, or outright suppression.
Freedom of speech and expression is limited, and citizens are discouraged from challenging the government's policies or actions.
The manner in which he has threatened both legal and media forms with prosecution, withdrawal of federal contracts and exclusion from the press pool all fit perfectly into this category.
In a blatant attempt to not only suppress dissent but to physically prevent certain ideas from being discussed, the president has authorised a, rapidly growing, list of words that are prohibited from being used by federal employees!
Words included on the staggeringly Orwellian, think doublespeak, list include:
Black, female, mental-health and injustice.
As well of course as, The Gulf of Mexico!
4. Lack of Accountability:
The leader is often not held accountable to any system of checks and balances or the public.
This can lead to abuse of power and a lack of transparency in decision-making.
Writing in Verfassungsblog, Kim Lane Scheppele Professor of Sociology and International Affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, states: -
“In the place of checks and balances, Trump advocates the “unitary executive theory,” which seeks the primacy of executive power, unshackled from constraints from Congress or even the courts”.
As Trump himself proclaimed on his Truth social platform in February this year, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”
5. Indoctrination and Propaganda:
Autocratic regimes often use propaganda and indoctrination to shape public opinion and maintain support for their policies.
This can involve controlling the media, promoting a particular ideology, and suppressing alternative viewpoints.
On the 3rd of May, 2025, the highly respected, Reporters Without Borders, RSF, posted this on their website;
“President Donald Trump marked World Press Freedom Day 2025 by announcing his intention to drastically cut funding for public media in the United States. Meanwhile, the same week, his administration launched the White House Wire, a taxpayer-funded propaganda site. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) urges Congress to reject any attempt by the Trump administration to eliminate duly appropriated funds for public media while using public funds to produce its own politically biased propaganda”.
The president’s barely disguised attempts to control the media in order to promote his own political agenda, combined with his efforts to coerce, blackmail and bully legal firms, lawyers and the courts themselves into only accepting cases approved by himself, cannot be seen as anything other than a hallmark of fascism.
6. Reliance on Force and Coercion:
Autocrats may rely on military or police forces to enforce their authority and suppress dissent.
They may also use threats and intimidation to maintain control.
Independent media has for some time now been highlighting the brutal activities of ICE, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Faced with scenes of single mothers and their terrified children being dragged from their beds in the middle of the night. Forced at gunpoint to kneel on the grass outside their homes in pouring rain. Transported 2000 miles from their home with their possessions, cash and savings seized, even mainstream media have begun to echo public outrage (if you're not a Trump supporter) or at least concern (from people who say they are having second thoughts).
That outrage was amplified when it became clear that the ICE agents had assaulted the wrong family and that they were in fact US citizens.
Less well publicised is the fact that there’s growing concern that President Donald Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to bring National Guard troops under federal control and deploy them within the U.S. This speculation may be partly because one of President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive orders, which declared a national emergency at the southern border set an April 20 deadline for the Departments of Defence and Homeland Security to recommend whether to use the Insurrection Act.
The president has already been increasing domestic military use. As recently as April 11th, he issued a new memorandum titled: "Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions.”
It’s worth noting that there is no invasion of America.
Militarism
This can be defined as;
the belief that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.
This is another section that almost writes itself! I could literally make a list of the President’s actions that mark him out clearly as a militarist. In case you haven't been paying attention to recent world events though, I will add some context.
Since coming to power for a second time, Donald Trump has threatened to take back the Panama Canal, make Canada the 51st US state and to annex Greenland.
According to Trump, the preferred modus operandi in Panama would be for the US to partner Panamanian security forces, rather than use military force. In the case of Canada he refused to rule out an invasion of Canada and stated that military force was an option regarding Greenland. As part of Denmark, Greenland is under the protection of NATO and Canada is a founder member.
All three acts would be illegal.
Obviously.
I have already detailed the use of paramilitary groups and when you add to all of this, the president’s discussion of invoking the insurrection act it is dramatically apparent that far from being the isolationist some call him, the president’s behaviour resembles closely that of a militarist.
Forcible suppression of opposition
This best summed illustrated by a post on the web site of The Hague based think tank, The International Centre For Counter Terroism, ICCT:-
“During Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and presidency political discourse in the United States became more hateful and divisive. Threats and actual violence against groups and individuals singled out and demonized by Trump increased. The targets of his verbal attacks were most of all racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, the news media collectively and individual journalists, and well-known politicians, mostly Democrats. There was a rise in bullying incidents in schools against minority students. Assuming that aggressive rhetoric by influential political leaders affect their supporters’ words and deeds, we examined Trump’s online and offline hate speech, the rhetorical reactions of his followers, and the violent consequences suffered by their declared enemies. We found that contrary to an old children’s rhyme (“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”) Trump’s aggressive, divisive, and dehumanising language was seconded by his followers and inflicted directly or indirectly psychological and physical harm to Trump’s declared enemies”.
Belief in a natural social hierarchy
As previously examined, Donald Trump’s election victory heralded the rise of an anti-elite elite, as shown by the composition of a cabinet full of ultra wealthy donors and of course, the bizarre appointment of Elon Musk head of DOGE.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Trump is the very definition of an elitist. He was born into a wealthy family and, like his father, made most of his fortune in shady real estate deals.
His business plans have favoured luxury hotels, golf resorts and high end real estate.
Although Trump provides his critics with more than enough evidence to accuse him of racism, religious bigotry and misogyny, his own version of the natural social hierarchy is based on the belief that Brand Trump is the new elite and as long as you are wealthy enough to help fund the brand and agree with his anti liberal, anti corporate elite and of course if you support his so called anti woke agenda then you can join his small inner circle.
The goal of the populist, anti elite mantra isn't to remove the elite. It is to replace them, perhaps because he has already tried unsuccessfully to join them. Perhaps his new money and need to be the centre of attention, closed doors for him.
Doors to real wealth and power. The wealth and power that sees sitting US presidents being told they don't have the necessary security clearance to be read in on certain secrets.
Doors guarded by the CEOs of the three biggest corporate investors in the world. Doors founded on old money and the illusion of sophistication.
Corporations like Black Rock, Vanguard and State street, who, at the time of writing, control between them, just short of $26tn.
Subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race.
When he was asked in the Oval Office about the plunging number of cargo ships coming into American ports, Trump responded that this is a positive development, despite the fact that it will likely produce empty shelves and potentially lost jobs for dockworkers and truckers. “When I see that, that means we lose less money,” he said. If it hurts Americans, in other words, it’s the price we have to pay to bring down the trade deficit.
Trump is by no means the first leader to spin an economic downturn. The formula is clear: acknowledge the public’s pain, explain that the administration is working hard to make things better, blame your predecessor and reassure people with some variation of “we as Americans / Britons etc.”, will get through this together.”
As President Trump’s chaotic tariff policy u-turns caused huge problems for the global and more specifically, the US economy, the president and his and his administration are spinning the latest version of a story that often ends badly for the incumbent!
These latest demands for sacrifice by the President would not be out of place in the fascist playbook.
Regimentation of society and the economy.
We have looked at the president’s efforts to control media companies and legal firms and at his attempts to prevent his opponents from fundraising. All of which are, by definition, attempts to impose strict rules, discipline and control the social and economic narratives in the US.
In addition to these draconian measures, the president has also targeted American universities he believes are not toeing the party line.
In April of this year, Trump froze $2 billion of funding to Harvard university. Announcing the universities decision to use the courts to challenge the move, Harvard president, Alan M Garber, warned that the funding freeze would hamper critical disease research. Including Studies on pediatric cancer, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.
It's not just Harvard whose federal funding has been targeted. A new government anti-semitism task force says it has identified 60 elite universities for reassessment.
Regardless of the alleged circumstances behind the withholding of federal funding, many US academics and commentators have suggested it may be, not only a violation of federal law, but could violate the first amendment.
If the current US administration achieved all the criteria of an authoritarian regime, and by achieved, I mean have repeatedly displayed actions academically identified as being typical of such a regime;
-then they passed the test for displaying fascist traits with flying colours!
When you examine the facts, it is very difficult to pretend that the United States of America is not beginning to behave in a manner known to be typical of an authoritarian state and display many of the characteristics of a fascist government.
Now the $64’000 question is this. Do I think that Trump's ultimate goal is an openly fascist state, reminiscent of The Handmaid's Tale?
The honest answer is that I am not certain either way! Especially when you consider repeated references to, “a third term”.
The 22nd amendment prohibits anyone from being elected president for a third term. Trump himself recently denied that he planned to challenge the constitution and seek re-election in 2028.
However he is selling red Trump 2028 caps.
Trump supporters have discussed a loophole whereby Trump could theoretically serve as running mate for, let’s say, JD Vance. If victorious, Vance could then resign and his boss could take over by way of succession.
As reported by the BBC on April the 25th this year, “Andy Ogles, a Tennessee Republican in the House of Representatives, introduced a resolution in January calling for a constitutional amendment to allow a president to serve up to three terms - as long as they were not consecutive.
This would mean that only Trump of all living presidents would be eligible - Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W Bush all served consecutive terms, whereas Trump won in 2016, lost in 2020, and won again in 2024.
However, the high bar for constitutional amendments makes Ogles' proposal a pipe dream - although it got people talking”.
If not a good old fashioned fascist dictatorship then, what could Donald Trump's possible motivation be to carry out the office of The President in such a clearly unconstitutional way.
Is it so implausible to accept that Donald Trump, a convicted felon, man with a history of bankruptcy, fraud and deception, harbours a personal and professional grudge against the elites and is intent very simply, on gaining a seat at the top table of global, corporate financiers, bankers and hedge fund managers. Has he realised that there is no seat for him at the traditional table of the 1% and has set himself the task of rearranging the seating and the furniture, with himself at the head of the table? Has the Solipsist emerged?
Or has the Eagle really landed?
As John Lennon sang; “this ism that ism everything’s an ism ism, all we are singing is give peace a chance”.
You see it really doesn't matter exactly how Trumpism and Muskoligarchy are remembered, what matters is, was the world a safer, more compassionate and inclusive place as a result of him. Or was it in fact more dangerous, less compassionate and divided, as a result of Donald Trump.
Do more or fewer people live in oppression around the world? Has global hunger been reduced? Has the risk of nuclear war diminished? Do any civil liberties remain? Has the gap between the richest and the poorest widened or narrowed?
Surely that would be a legacy that stood the test of time.
Does he have any real say in the matter?
In Part 5, a bonus article, I will explore the possibility that Fascism is not new to the US. I will analyse evidence that shows that at least since the years before WW2, the signs of fascism were hidden, sometimes in plain sight, sometimes beneath great secrecy, both in American politics and the Military Industrial Complex.
