Which recent U.S. policies or actions are most commonly cited as authoritarian or fascist?

1. Capturing and weaponizing government institutions

A central charge is that the administration has sought to capture the “machinery of government” and weaponize state institutions against political opponents, a claim emphasized by Eurasia Group’s 2026 risk assessment and by Foreign Affairs reporting that the administration has begun deploying state levers in partisan ways ^{[1] [5]}. Academic work and longform analyses similarly argue that efforts to control parts of the electoral system and to use federal agencies for political ends are defining markers of the current authoritarian risk ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Attacks on elections, voting access and “the Big Lie”

Observers frequently cite the Big Lie and related actions as core threats: scholars warn that refusal to accept electoral defeat and efforts to control electoral mechanisms create conditions for elections that are “neither free nor fair,” and recent events in battleground states are read as potential precursors to broader voting restrictions ^{[2] [4]}. At the same time, international monitoring groups like Freedom House noted in 2025 that there were “no reports of significant interference” threatening the legitimacy of the 2024 outcome, a finding often invoked by those urging caution before declaring full democratic breakdown ^[6].

3. Legal harassment, media pressure and strategic lawsuits

The administration’s litigation strategy and public threats against rivals and outlets are frequently listed among authoritarian tactics: reporting documents major defamation suits that produced multimillion‑dollar settlements and critics warn that spurious legal actions can silence dissent without direct state censorship ^[5]. Commentators argue these tactics have the political effect of chilling critical journalism and penalizing institutional critics even when plaintiffs do not prevail in court ^[5].

4. Cultural purges: book bans, campus targeting, and minority scapegoating

Targeting of education and culture—campaigns against books, pressure on librarians, and public attacks on universities and LGBTQ communities—features in many condemnations of an illiberal turn and is compared to historical authoritarian patterns of crushing intellectual institutions and scapegoating minorities ^{[3] [7]}. Advocates for these measures frame them as restoring parental control or public decency, while critics see them as a deliberate narrowing of permissible discourse and an attack on institutional autonomy ^[3].

5. New security powers, emergency authorities and threats of repression

Policy changes expanding executive reach over taxation, terrorism designations, and security tools are commonly flagged as enabling repression; analysis notes a November 2024 House bill empowering Treasury to withdraw nonprofit tax exemptions on terrorism suspicions without transparent evidence as an example of a power that could be politicized ^[5]. Commentators also document campaign rhetoric promising prosecutions of rivals and talk of using the military and law enforcement to control dissent—signals that intensify fears of state repression if safeguards erode ^[5].

6. Definitions, debate, and the “proto‑fascism” framing

Scholars caution against simple labels: multiple academic pieces and reviews argue the phenomena align with “proto‑fascism” or a “new authoritarianism” that relies on legal administration rather than paramilitary takeover, and significant debate persists over whether U.S. developments meet the full historical definition of fascism ^{[4] [7]}. Surveys and commentary cited by proponents show growing expert concern about authoritarian drift, yet watchdogs like Freedom House and other observers provide countervailing evidence that institutions and elections retained important functions in 2024‑25, underscoring both the seriousness of the risks and the contested nature of the diagnosis ^{[8] [6]}.