Por Eric Toussaint
 |
Photo by Diogo Lemos |
The distinctive characteristics of 21st-century neo-fascism
At least for now, Trump does not seek to convene large, fanatical mass rallies or to organize paramilitary shock troops like those in historical fascist movements in Italy and Germany. The storming of the Capitol on 6 January 2021, however, showed that he was capable of mobilizing a fanatical crowd and resorting to political violence. In January 2025, he granted pardons to around 1,500 people who had been prosecuted or convicted for their involvement in the assault and commuted the sentences of fourteen of the main perpetrators, including the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, some of whom had been sentenced to eighteen or twenty-two years in prison for their role in planning and carrying out the paramilitary assault on the Capitol.
So far, Trump has favoured relying directly on the state apparatus, notably the immigration and border control forces, the security forces and, in certain circumstances, the National Guard. He has thus deployed them in Los Angeles against the advice of the governor and the mayor and attempted to impose their deployment in Chicago and Portland despite opposition from local and state authorities. In Washington, D.C., he has even taken control of the Metropolitan Police and deployed the National Guard, thereby directly strengthening the federal government’s control over the capital.
This development is significant: rather than replicating the classic forms of historical fascism, Trump tends to use the state apparatus itself as an instrument of coercion to secure the loyalty of his supporters and to undermine local countervailing powers. He also seeks to control the institutions that produce and disseminate knowledge and information, to weaken countervailing powers and to impose his ideological conception of society.
Trump’s imperialist policy therefore does not represent a break with US practices throughout the 20th century. On the contrary, it continues the various methods employed during that period—military interventions, coups d’état, sanctions, economic pressure, support for allied regimes, and control of strategic areas and resources—but with a notable difference in the rhetoric that accompanies them. Whilst his predecessors generally justified their interventions in the name of defending the international order, democracy, or the fight against communism or terrorism, Trump more openly advocates the defense of the United States’ material and geopolitical interests, notably control over natural resources, strategic territories and transport routes. In some respects, this approach echoes the logic of Lebensraum (living space) invoked by Hitler to justify Nazi Germany’s territorial expansion. However, this shift does not signify a return to traditional colonial conquest. It is neither a matter of replicating the territorial conquests of Fascist Italy in Africa nor the policy of annexation and territorial expansion pursued by Nazi Germany in Europe. Trump is not reviving traditional territorial colonialism; rather, he is radicalising and making explicit a pre-existing imperialist logic by openly asserting certain objectives of spatial, economic and strategic control.
Trumpist neo-fascism: continuities and distinctive features
I use the term ‘neo-fascism’ here, not merely as a polemical phrase, but to denote a political orientation that bears strong similarities to certain fundamental traits of European fascism in the 1920s and 1930s while possessing characteristics specific to the present day and to US society.
Any comparison with historical forms of fascism must, however, be made with precision. Trumpism does not replicate Italian fascism or German Nazism exactly. As noted above, Trump has not, so far, sought to organize massive, disciplined and fanatical mass movements modelled on the fascist rallies of the 1920s and 1930s. Nor, at this stage, has he established any paramilitary shock troops comparable to the Italian fascist militias or the German SA. On the contrary, one of the distinctive features of Trumpist neo-fascism is that it relies directly on the existing state apparatus and seeks to transform it into an instrument of its policy.
Thus, whereas Mussolini and Hitler relied on paramilitary organizations to terrorize their opponents, impose their dominance on the streets and gain access to power through institutional channels[1], the Trump administration uses, or seeks to use, federal state institutions and forces, notably immigration and border control services (such as ICE) and, in certain circumstances, the National Guard. The state apparatus is seeing its role as a central instrument of repression, intimidation and control reinforced. This distinction is fundamental: 21st-century neo-fascism does not necessarily need to replicate the organizational forms of historical fascism to assume some of its political functions.
Characteristic features of fascist governments are also evident in the desire to control ideological and cultural production, notably through the questioning of certain teachings, the banning or restriction of certain content in schools and universities, attacks on diversity policies, and the desire to bring cultural institutions and the media that challenge presidential policy into line, as well as to sideline journalists who criticise it. Like historical forms of fascism, this policy does not regard education, culture and information as autonomous spheres: it seeks to subject them to an ideological worldview and to the interests of those in power.
Trumpist neo-fascism and imperialism
Its imperialist character constitutes another essential dimension of this orientation. Similar to the fascist regimes of the 1930s, Trumpism does not view borders and territorial possessions as definitively established when national power is at stake.
The example of Venezuela is particularly telling. Following the US intervention in January 2026, Trump openly claimed control over Venezuela’s oil revenues and presented the country’s resources as something that should be put at the service of US interests. In late August 2026, he claimed that, with the Venezuelan government’s consent, he had secured 100-year concessions on 17 fields representing approximately 65 billion barrels of proven reserves – more than a fifth of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves[2]. Similarly, the stated intention to regain control of Cuba and overthrow the country’s authorities, the threats and operations directed against Iran, and the desire to secure access to energy resources all bear witness to a profoundly imperialist conception of international relations. Nor should we forget Trump’s claims regarding Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal, or his claim to the Strait of Hormuz, which he went so far as to describe as ‘American territory’, whilst asserting that the United States had total control over it[3]. From this perspective, the sovereignty of other peoples is subordinated to the right that Washington assumes for itself to determine what serves US interests.
Another feature of this approach is Trump’s determination to promote a neo-colonial policy, aimed at placing certain territories and peoples under the direct or indirect political, economic and military control of the United States and its allies. The ‘Peace Council’ project for Gaza constitutes, in this respect, an initial testing ground for this new form of domination, which could be extended to other regions of the world.
Furthermore, a distinction must be drawn between a neo-fascist government and a neo-fascist state. Trump and his administration constitute a neo-fascist government seeking to gradually transform the existing state into an instrument fully suited to its political agenda and, ultimately, to impose a neo-fascist regime on society as a whole. But this process is not yet complete. By 2026, a neo-fascist state had not yet been consolidated in the United States, even though a process in that direction was underway. The United States is therefore not comparable to Mussolini’s Italy in the second half of the 1920s and throughout the 1930s, nor to Nazi Germany from the mid-1930s onwards. The Trump administration has achieved successes in transforming the state apparatus, but it still faces institutional, judicial, social and political resistance. This process can be reversed, notably through popular mobilisation and election results.
It would therefore be misleading to seek in Trumpism an exact replica of 1930s fascism. Neo-fascism is precisely a political form adapted to a different era, a different state and different social and technological conditions. Its methods may be new whilst fulfilling certain comparable functions: designating scapegoats, glorifying nationalism and power, waging a radical struggle against the left, weakening countervailing forces, controlling ideological production, resorting to repression and legitimising imperialist expansion.
It is this combination of continuities with historical fascism and new forms specific to the 21st century that justifies the use of the term “neo-fascism » to characterise Trump’s political orientation.
Trumpist neo-fascism cannot, however, be characterized solely by its ideology and political methods. One must also take into account the class interests it defends. Like historical fascist regimes, it seeks to strengthen the conditions enabling large corporations and capital holders to increase their power and profits while mobilising the state apparatus to defend their interests.
In this respect, there is an important analogy with Nazi Germany. Hitler had secured the support of a decisive section of German big business and industrial circles, who saw the Nazi regime as a means of crushing the organized labor movement, suppressing left-wing organizations, massively rearming the country and guaranteeing a social order favourable to capital.
Trumpism shares a similar relationship with big business, but within a profoundly transformed capitalist system. Today, the major Big Tech companies occupy a position that they obviously could not have held in the 1930s. Big Tech – the giants of artificial intelligence, data, digital platforms, semiconductors and cloud computing – now constitute strategic sectors of US economic and military power. A significant proportion of these companies and their executives have sought or accepted closer ties with Trump, whilst his administration opens up new opportunities for them in terms of profit accumulation, deregulation and collaboration with the state.
Trumpism and the military-industrial complex
The arms industry represents a major point of convergence between Trumpism and the interests of big business. As in Nazi Germany, rearmament and preparations for war serve to stimulate certain industrial sectors massively while strengthening the political and economic clout of the military-industrial complex. However, the contemporary forms of the military-industrial complex are different from those in the past. The US military-industrial complex is now closely intertwined with Big Tech. Artificial intelligence, satellites, autonomous drones, big data processing, cyberspace, surveillance systems and new targeting technologies are playing an increasingly significant role in the conduct of warfare. The boundary between Big Tech and the military industry is thus becoming increasingly blurred.
Major US Big Tech companies now constitute a key pillar of the US military-industrial and technological complex. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Nvidia, OpenAI, Palantir, Anduril and SpaceX provide the Pentagon and intelligence agencies with essential capabilities in cloud computing, artificial intelligence, data, chips, satellites, drones and autonomous systems.
This alliance between political power, Big Tech’s major capital and the arms industry is a key feature of Trumpist neo-fascism.
The US military-industrial complex, dominated by Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Boeing, is now increasingly intertwined with the technology and digital complex dominated by Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Nvidia, Palantir and the major artificial intelligence conglomerates.
Nationalism, militarism and authoritarianism can be mobilised to protect and strengthen the interests of the most powerful factions of capital. Contemporary neo-fascism must therefore be analysed not only as a political ideology and a form of government, but also as a specific response by the ruling classes to a period of crisis, international rivalry and profound transformation of capitalism.
Big Tech: a new component of the power structure
Another distinctive feature of Trumpist neo-fascism, therefore, lies in the transformation of capitalism itself. The fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s developed within the framework of industrial capitalism dominated by heavy industry, the steel, chemical, automotive and arms industries. Twenty-first-century neo-fascism is developing within a capitalist system in which Big Tech companies occupy an unprecedentedly strategic position. The digital giants control not only vast markets, but also essential infrastructure: communication platforms, social media, search engines, data centers, cloud services, satellite systems, artificial intelligence and data processing.
The rapprochement between Trump and some of the leaders of Big Tech is particularly significant in this regard. These billionaires are not merely external financial backers; some control infrastructures that now play a direct role in shaping public opinion, the flow of information and the organization of society. Economic power and communicational power can thus be transformed into political power. The extreme concentration of wealth and the concentration of control over digital infrastructure are mutually reinforcing.
This development is also altering the relationship between capitalism, militarism and war. As noted above, the arms industry and Big Tech are becoming increasingly intertwined. Big Tech companies provide the armed forces with capabilities that have become essential: artificial intelligence, data analysis, satellites, military cloud computing, drones, autonomous systems, cybersecurity, reconnaissance and surveillance. War itself is becoming a vast arena for the application of technologies developed by private capital.
There is therefore a continuity, but also a fundamental difference, with historical forms of fascism. Like Nazism, Trumpism relies on rearmament and the interests of the military-industrial complex, but the contemporary military-industrial complex has evolved significantly. The military power of the United States now depends as much on mastery of advanced technologies, data and digital infrastructure as it does on traditional arms production.
This development is particularly important for understanding the logic of Trumpist power. Nationalism, militarism, the concentration of executive power and the defence of the interests of big business can now be linked to the power of the Big Tech giants. Twenty-first-century neo-fascism therefore does not replicate the economic structures of 1930s fascism: it adapts to a financialized, globalized and digitalized form of capitalism, in which a handful of large corporations wield economic and technological power comparable to, or even greater than in certain areas, that of entire states.
Conclusion
Contemporary neo-fascism may take forms different from those of historical fascism. It does not necessarily need to build the same mass organisations or maintain the same paramilitary militias: it can rely on an already powerful state apparatus, on security and border control forces, on the military apparatus and, at the same time, benefit from the support or cooperation of capitalist groups that control part of society’s technological, media and information infrastructure.
But this trend is not irreversible. The progress of Trumpist neo-fascism does not guarantee a predetermined outcome. In the United States, as in the rest of the world people are resisting and refusing to give in. This resistance can shift the balance of power and pave the way for a turning point in favour of the people. Trump’s headlong rush can be stopped: nothing has been decided yet.
Notes.
[1] The National Fascist Party had only 35 out of 535 MPs when the King called on Mussolini to form a government. As for Hitler, he was appointed chancellor despite the NSDAP losing two million votes in the November 1932 elections (falling from 37 per cent to 33 per cent of the vote), and in any case would have been unable to form a government on its own.
[2] The White House, ‘President Donald J. Trump Announces Historic Oil Agreement to Secure American Energy Dominance and Drive Venezuela’s Economic Recovery’, 31 August 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/, accessed 6 September 2026.
[3] The White House, ‘President Trump Was Right: America Controls the Strait of Hormuz’, 28 August 2026,https://www.whitehouse.gov, accessed 7 September 2026. See also: Times of Israel, ‘Trump says “no talks” with Iran, posts map showing Hormuz as “new US territory”’, 18 August 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com, accessed 7 September 2026.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário