Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Do scholars label movements in the US as fascist in 2016–2024?
Executive Summary
Scholars and commentators have diverged sharply on whether movements in the United States between 2016 and 2024 qualify as fascist: a substantial cluster of academics, public intellectuals, and analysts have applied the fascist label or argued that fascist-style politics are present, while other specialists and many observers reject labeling the period’s mainstream right-wing currents as outright fascism and instead describe them as authoritarian, illiberal, or opportunistically useful to fascists [1] [2] [3]. Debate centers on definitions, empirical indicators, and political utility: some researchers emphasize broad social attitudes and organizational affinities that resemble historic fascist tendencies, while others warn that stretching the term risks losing analytic precision and political effectiveness [4] [2] [3]. This review extracts the key claims, surveys the evidence and dissenting perspectives, and catalogs where consensus and disagreement cluster across the period 2016–2024.
1. How many scholars used 'fascist' and why that matters — a contested count with clear patterns
Between 2016 and 2024 several prominent scholars, commentators, and some analysts publicly described elements of U.S. politics—particularly the MAGA movement and portions of the Republican Party—as exhibiting fascist characteristics, arguing that rhetoric, anti-democratic tactics, and organized extremist groups resembled interwar European models [1] [5] [3]. Other scholars, including specialists in fascist studies and historians, resisted direct equivalence, arguing that while authoritarian and exclusionary tendencies are present, institutional differences, the absence of a fully organized party-state, and the variable loyalties of extremist groups make the label imprecise or misleading [4] [2]. The dispute is therefore not about whether worrying anti-democratic tendencies exist; it is about whether those tendencies fit the established scholarly criteria for fascism or are better analyzed through adjacent concepts like authoritarianism, radical right populism, or antidemocratic mobilization [4] [2].
2. Evidence marshaled by scholars who affirm fascist features — data, tactics, and social attitudes
Researchers who endorse the use of the fascist label point to a mix of quantitative and qualitative findings: survey data documenting significant shares of the public endorsing racial or religious hierarchies and antidemocratic measures, documented networks of organized white-nationalist groups that celebrated or sought alignment with Trump-era rhetoric, and explicit policy agendas in documents like Project 2025 that critics read as authoritarian blueprints [3] [6] [1]. These analysts emphasize continuities in social division, conspiracy adoption, and willingness to subvert democratic procedures as diagnostic of fascist politics in practice even absent a fully codified single-party regime. They argue the concentration of these attitudes within influential political currents creates a plausible pathway for fascist outcomes, making the label an analytic warning rather than a binary claim that the U.S. government already is fascist [3] [5].
3. Counterarguments from specialists — definitional rigor and analytic utility
Scholars skeptical of labeling U.S. movements as fascist emphasize epistemic caution: fascism is a historically specific phenomenon with institutional, ideological, and mass-mobilization features that are not automatically replicable in contemporary U.S. politics, and stretching the term dilutes its explanatory power and can politicize scholarship [4] [2]. These critics note that some academics and even figures within fascist movements have refused the label for tactical reasons, and point out the U.S. military, bureaucratic, and civil institutional resilience that, they argue, reduces the plausibility of a classical fascist takeover. Their prescriptions favor analyzing threats to democracy through targeted concepts—democratic erosion, radicalization, or authoritarianism—rather than broad invocation of fascism [2] [4].
4. Middle-ground and evolving judgments — shifting views across 2016–2024
Several observers and historians recorded evolving positions across the period: initial skepticism from leading scholars gave way for some to greater emphasis on fascist parallels as events unfolded and as research produced data on public attitudes, extremist mobilization, and policy aspirations; this produced a spectrum of evolving verdicts with some prominent historians revisiting earlier hesitations and others retaining caution [1] [7]. The plurality of positions shows scholarly method at work—debate driven by new evidence, conceptual refinement, and political stakes—rather than simple partisan alignment. The outcome is a contested but robust literature that treats fascism as one of several analytical lenses, used variably depending on disciplinary priorities and evidentiary thresholds [1] [5].
5. Big-picture implications — what the disagreement tells policymakers and citizens
The central practical takeaway is that whether scholars call U.S. movements “fascist” or “authoritarian” matters less than the shared recognition of antidemocratic risks: researchers on both sides document populist mobilization, institutional stress, and extremist networks that endanger democratic norms [3] [5]. The debate shapes rhetoric, strategy, and public perception—labels can sharpen alarms or provoke dismissive backlash—so stakeholders must attend to specific behaviors and policies identified by scholarship rather than settle the question of nomenclature alone. The record from 2016–2024 shows robust academic engagement, competing interpretations grounded in evidence, and convergence around concern for democratic resilience even where conclusions about the word “fascism” diverge [4] [2] [3].