Is Fascism a Real Concern in America—or Just a Lazy Insult?

Some Americans deploy the word fascist like a verbal flash-bang—stun first, define later. If the label means “policies I hate,” then everyone’s a fascist by noon. If it means a specific, historically grounded phenomenon, the conversation gets harder—and more useful. This piece takes the serious route: define fascism using respected scholarship, then stack that definition against U.S. government actions since 2000. Where the shoe fits, I’ll say so. Where it doesn’t, I’ll say that too.

---

What Scholars Actually Mean by “Fascism”

There isn’t a single, one-sentence definition, but the field clusters around a few anchors:

• Paxton’s stages and behaviors. Robert Paxton treats fascism as a process that evolves from movement to power to radicalization, marked by mass-based nationalism, hostility to liberal norms, a cult of violence/redemption, and collaboration with conservative elites [1].
• Griffin’s “palingenetic ultranationalism.” Roger Griffin distills the ideological core to a myth of national rebirth (palingenesis) through revolutionary ultranationalism—think phoenix-nation rising after cleansing decay [2].
• Eco’s “Ur-Fascism” checklist. Umberto Eco catalogs recurring traits—cult of tradition, anti-intellectualism, fear of difference, obsession with order, and the primacy of action over thought [3].

These frameworks converge on a regime type that fuses mass mobilization, ultranational myth, and authoritarian power, often backed by security services and compliant elites, while dismantling pluralism and the rule of law.

---

The Post-9/11 State: Security Maximalism with Democratic Guardrails

After 9/11, the U.S. built a behemoth security architecture. Some elements rhymed uncomfortably with authoritarianism; others showed the system’s immune response.

1) Extraordinary Surveillance

• PATRIOT Act, Section 215. Enabled bulk collection of Americans’ telephony metadata—at scale, in secret. Court rulings split until Congress passed the USA FREEDOM Act (2015), which ended government bulk collection and pushed queries to providers under tighter standards [4].
• PRISM and broader signals intelligence. Snowden disclosures exposed sweeping collection touching U.S. users and global platforms; they catalyzed the legal/political rollback above [5].

Case Study: Snowden and the NSA. In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA was collecting vast amounts of data, including domestic phone metadata and direct access from major tech firms under PRISM. The disclosures sparked global outrage, lawsuits, and congressional reforms. Unlike in a fascist regime, Snowden’s leaks were published by independent outlets (The Guardian, Washington Post), and the public debate forced legislative rollback. In a fascist system, such revelations would likely have been silenced, with the leaker disappeared or executed.

Fascism test: Mass surveillance can enable fascism, but by itself isn’t definitive. The key question is whether surveillance exists to crush pluralism and permanentize one-party power. Post-2015 reforms and ongoing judicial oversight cut against that totalizing trajectory [6].

---

2) Indefinite Detention, Black Sites, and Torture

• CIA detention and interrogation program. The Senate Intelligence Committee documented brutal, often ineffective methods and clandestine sites—an overt breach of liberal-democratic norms [7].
• Guantánamo and habeas corpus. In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Supreme Court restored detainees’ right to challenge detention—again, a brake reasserting itself [8].

Case Study: Abu Ghraib (2004). Photographs of U.S. personnel abusing detainees in Iraq shocked the world. A fascist regime would likely have normalized or glorified such brutality as strength. Instead, the Bush administration prosecuted some perpetrators—albeit low-ranking—while shielding higher officials. The scandal damaged America’s legitimacy but also demonstrated the role of investigative journalism (60 Minutes, The New Yorker) in exposing abuses—a democratic immune response absent in fascism.

Fascism test: Secret prisons and torture echo the toolbox of authoritarian states. The decisive counter-signal is that courts, Congress, and press investigations exposed and constrained the program. Fascism consolidates and deepens such practices; here, institutions partially reversed them [9].

---

3) Security Bureaucracy and Domestic Force Projection

• Creation of DHS (2002). A mega-department consolidated 22 entities under a domestic security mission [10].
• Police militarization. The Pentagon’s 1033 program and homeland-security grants accelerated transfer of military gear to local police [11].
• 2020 Portland deployments. DHS OIG later said DHS had legal authority to protect federal property but flagged planning/training deficiencies—including inconsistent uniforms/identification that fueled fears of unaccountable force [12].

Case Study: Portland Protests (2020). During the George Floyd protests, DHS deployed federal agents in camouflage uniforms who detained protestors in unmarked vans. Videos of individuals being pulled off the streets fueled comparisons to secret police. In a fascist state, such tactics become normalized and unchallenged. In the U.S., lawsuits, inspector general reviews, and congressional hearings scrutinized the actions, limiting their scope.

Fascism test: Visible paramilitary posture in the streets resembles what Eco warned about. The limiting factor: legal authority was debated and reviewed, oversight bodies issued criticisms, and operations were time-bounded—not a permanent brown-shirted vanguard [13].

---

4) The Law’s Elasticity (AUMF, NDAA 2012)

• AUMF (2001). Authorized open-ended force against terror actors, becoming a catch-all legal engine for global operations.
• NDAA 2012 Sections 1021/1022. Codified detention authorities in ways civil-liberties groups found dangerously vague [14].

Case Study: Targeted Killings and Drones. The Obama administration used the AUMF to justify drone strikes far beyond Afghanistan, including against U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen (2011). This raised constitutional concerns about executive overreach. Fascist regimes often expand emergency powers into permanent war footing. The U.S. case demonstrates how mission creep and broad interpretations of law can mimic that trajectory, though oversight (congressional briefings, media leaks) still functions.

Fascism test: Elastic emergency powers are classic on-ramps to authoritarianism. The presence of judicial review, press scrutiny, and statutory sunsets distinguishes the U.S. case from fascist consolidation—but the risk vector is real [15].

---

Where the U.S. Tracks Toward Fascist Dynamics

1. Perpetual emergency as a governing norm—two decades of “exceptional” powers normalize expanded executive tools [16].
2. Militarized policing and protest management—the state increasingly meets civic dissent with armored vehicles and crowd-control munitions [17].
3. National-rebirth rhetoric at the edges of power—elements of U.S. discourse occasionally invoke “restoration/cleansing” myths that map onto Griffin’s palingenetic frame [18].
4. Civil-liberties backsliding metrics—comparative indices show the U.S. remains Free but with rule-of-law erosion [19].

---

Where the U.S. Breaks From Fascism

1. Institutional checks still bite. Courts curtailed bulk collection and reaffirmed habeas rights [20].
2. Elections still change power—and did in 2024. Freedom House’s 2025 report notes the absence of significant interference threatening legitimacy [21].
3. No one-party state. U.S. parties fight dirty, but opposition media, NGOs, and courts remain legal and effective [22].

---

A Straight Answer: Is Fascism a Present Concern?

Yes—as a risk vector, not a completed project. Since 2000, the U.S. government has repeatedly expanded coercive capacity under the banner of permanent emergency. Several of those expansions were later narrowed—proof that checks exist. But relying on self-correction after exposure is like bragging that your smoke detector works because the kitchen already caught fire.

Democracies don’t die only at midnight. Sometimes they die at 2 p.m. on C-SPAN, in 900-page bills, with polite acronyms and patriotic logos. The antidote isn’t panic-branding every opponent a fascist; it’s relentlessly auditing how power grows, how it’s constrained, and whether the machinery of emergency shrinks back when the sirens fade.

---

Practical Guardrails That Matter (Non-Partisan)

• Sunset emergency powers by default and force re-justification with transparent metrics [23].
• Tie gear to doctrine and accountability—if police acquire armored vehicles, require strict policies and oversight [24].
• Fund the boring stuff that preserves freedom: access to courts, independent IGs, and protections for adversarial journalism [25].

---

Bottom Line

Historically, fascism emerges when a mass movement fuses with state power to deliver national “rebirth,” pulverizing pluralism along the way. Post-2000 America has not crossed that Rubicon. But we’ve built—and intermittently used—tools that could make the crossing faster if a determined leader and compliant elites tried.

If that vigilance ever feels tedious, congratulations—you’re doing the work that keeps Eco’s checklist a history lesson instead of a user manual [26].

---

TLDR Version

If you’re only using the word fascist against people or the government because you heard someone say it, or because you don’t like another person’s opinion, then reread this article and all the references.

References

1. Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (2004).
2. Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (1991).
3. Umberto Eco, “Ur-Fascism,” The New York Review of Books (1995).
4. USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215; USA FREEDOM Act (2015).
5. Snowden disclosures, PRISM program, 2013.
6. U.S. Court rulings on NSA metadata collection (ACLU v. Clapper, 2015).
7. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Torture Report” (2014).
8. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
9. Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse investigations (2004).
10. Homeland Security Act of 2002.
11. 1033 Program, U.S. Defense Logistics Agency.
12. DHS OIG Report on Portland Deployments (2021).
13. Congressional testimony on federal protest response (2020).
14. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012, Sections 1021–1022.
15. Targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, U.S. DOJ White Paper (2011).
16. Brennan Center for Justice, “Emergency Powers and National Security” (2020).
17. ACLU, “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing” (2014).
18. Griffin, palingenesis and political myth analysis.
19. Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2025; World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2024.
20. Court challenges to NSA programs; habeas corpus rulings.
21. Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2025.
22. World Justice Project, U.S. rankings.
23. Congressional Research Service, “Sunsets in National Security Legislation.”
24. Reports on 1033 Program oversight.
25. WJP Rule of Law Index (2024), civil justice accessibility.
26. Eco, Ur-Fascism (1995).

_____________________________

Dave Chamberlin served 38 years in the USAF and Air National Guard as an aircraft crew chief, where he retired as a CMSgt. He has held a wide variety of technical, instructor, consultant, and leadership positions in his more than 40 years of civilian and military aviation experience. Dave holds an FAA Airframe and Powerplant license from the FAA, as well as a Master’s degree in Aeronautical Science. He currently runs his own consulting and training company and has written for numerous trade publications.

His true passion is exploring and writing about issues facing the military, and in particular, aircraft maintenance personnel.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.