What are the defining features of fascism and do they match current U.S. institutions?

1. What experts mean when they say “fascism”

Historians and political scientists do not agree on one checklist, but a working consensus places palingenetic ultranationalism—the myth of national rebirth—at the core, with peripheral but recurring elements such as charismatic leadership, militarism, contempt for electoral democracy, belief in hierarchies and elites, and the desire to subordinate individual interests to the nation ^{[2] [1] [6]}. Encyclopaedia Britannica and others list extreme militant nationalism, contempt for liberal democracy, and elitist social hierarchies as defining traits of 20th‑century fascisms ^{[3] [1]}.

2. How scholars turn lists into diagnosis—and its limits

Lists (Eco’s “Ur‑Fascism,” Britt’s 14 traits, Griffin’s palingenesis) are heuristic tools for comparison, not airtight clinical tests; scholars warn that fascism is historically specific and mutable, so matching some traits does not automatically prove a polity is fascist ^{[7] [8] [6]}. Roger Griffin’s emphasis on a “mythic core” illustrates that peripheral features (paramilitaries, corporatism, cult of a leader) can vary while the palingenetic nationalism remains central ^{[2] [9]}.

3. Features present in recent U.S. politics that analysts highlight as worrying

Multiple contemporary commentators and researchers point to concrete developments they say echo fascist patterns: concentrated efforts to centralize executive control over bureaucracy, purges of dissenting civil‑service professionals, federal campaigns targeting universities and civil society, scapegoating of minorities, and policy blueprints (Project 2025) that propose sweeping institutional changes—each cited as analogous to peripheral fascist tactics ^{[4] [10] [5]}. Organizations and scholars describe Project 2025’s proposals—e.g., politicized appointments, dismantling of agencies, and mass deportations—as evidence of an authoritarian program that could undermine institutional checks ^{[4] [10]}.

4. Counterarguments and qualifying context from the sources

Several sources stress distinction: some scholars classify recent trends as authoritarian populism or a “fascist‑adjacent” movement rather than a simple replication of 1930s fascism, noting that U.S. institutions still demonstrate resilience and legal constraints that classical fascist regimes demolished ^{[6] [11] [12]}. Surveys of political scientists and commentators show disagreement—some assert the U.S. is “quickly becoming authoritarian,” others emphasize differences in institutional capacity, federalism, and civil society that complicate a straight fascism label ^{[13] [11]}.

5. Where the sources agree: institutional vulnerability, not inevitability

Across reporting and scholarship there is agreement that democratic erosion is a risk when leaders weaponize state power, undermine independent institutions, and mobilize exclusionary nationalism; several analyses say U.S. institutions are vulnerable if these pressures continue or intensify, even if the full historical package of fascism has not been universally demonstrated ^{[14] [15] [4]}.

6. Practical takeaway for readers

Definitions matter: calling a polity “fascist” is a heavy, contested judgment that depends on core ideological aims (palingenetic ultranationalism) and systematic dismantling of democratic checks—claims some sources make about current U.S. trajectories via Project 2025 and executive centralization, while other scholars and commentators urge caution and emphasize remaining differences ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Available sources do not mention whether all classical fascist institutions (single‑party rule, state terror apparatus identical to 1930s models, or formal abolition of multi‑party elections) have been fully implemented in the United States; instead reporting documents overlapping features, deep disagreements among experts, and concrete policy proposals that critics say could produce authoritarian outcomes ^{[1] [10] [4]}.