Is America Fascist? A Careful Look at the Evidence
A 6 Point Checklist the Media Won't Touch
Op-Ed/ Analysis
By Christopher Rixman | The 4th Mandate
The word “fascist” gets thrown around a lot these days—and usually without much care. Politicians on the right accuse public health officials of tyranny. Commentators on the left claim every conservative court ruling signals creeping dictatorship. And in the process, the term has been blunted, stripped of its historical weight.
That’s a problem. Because fascism is real. It’s a political structure—a system with identifiable components. And when used correctly, the term doesn’t refer to people we dislike. It refers to how power is organized and how dissent is managed.
So let’s cut through the noise and take a sober look at the actual formula. If we define fascism not as goose-stepping caricature but as the merging of corporate and state power, the suppression of opposition, the glorification of nationalism, and the erosion of democratic institutions, then we can begin to assess—objectively—where the United States currently stands.
This is not a partisan exercise. It's a structural one.
Erosion of Checks and Balances: Rule by the Executive Class
Over the last several decades, Congress has slowly given up its constitutional role as a check on presidential power. According to a 2020 Congressional Research Service report, the legislative branch has not formally declared war since World War II, yet the U.S. has engaged in numerous undeclared military conflicts under executive authority alone.
Presidential emergency powers, meanwhile, have become a permanent fixture. As of 2024, the U.S. was under 42 active national emergencies, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
Even the judiciary often defers to executive privilege, particularly in matters labeled “national security.” This erosion of checks isn’t limited to one party. Both Democrats and Republicans have expanded executive authority when in office, only to criticize it when out of power.
Where the U.S. stands: We are not under formal one-party rule, but are governed by an entrenched, unelected executive class. The consolidation of executive power, normalized across administrations, reflects an authoritarian drift. It does not yet demonstrate full fascism, but it lays the structural groundwork for it.
Suppression of Dissent: Especially on U.S. Foreign Policy
Democracies depend on the protection of dissenting voices. Yet in the U.S., dissent—especially regarding foreign policy toward Israel—has increasingly been met with professional, legal, and economic retaliation.
As of 2023, 35 U.S. states had enacted laws or executive orders that penalize contractors for engaging in boycotts of Israel, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In some cases, government employees were required to sign pledges renouncing participation in boycotts as a condition of employment or business with the state.
At the university level, students and professors who speak out against Israeli policy have been investigated, disciplined, or even deported, as in the case of Lara Alqasem, a U.S. student who was initially denied entry to Israel in 2018 for alleged ties to pro-Palestinian organizations, despite having a valid visa (Haaretz, Oct. 2018).
Where the U.S. stands: While speech remains legally protected, state-aligned economic and institutional pressure is increasingly used to silence political criticism—particularly on sensitive foreign policy issues. This practice aligns with the fascist pattern of narrowing public discourse through coercion rather than law. It is not full censorship, but it demonstrates authoritarian narrative enforcement.
Scapegoating Marginalized Groups: Immigrants as National Threat
Fascist regimes require scapegoats—internal “enemies” to rally the population and justify expanded state power. In the U.S., immigrants have long filled this role, especially under recent administrations.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported that ICE conducted over 185,000 removals in 2020 and over 142,000 in 2022. In 2019, investigative reporting by ProPublica and The Intercept revealed systemic abuse and mistreatment in ICE detention facilities, including child separation and indefinite confinement.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations have used Title 42 to expedite deportations without due process, citing public health emergencies (ACLU, 2022). Meanwhile, militarized border patrol units operate with expanded discretion and limited oversight.
Where the U.S. stands: The systemic scapegoating of immigrants meets a core fascist criterion: using fear of the “other” to legitimize state violence. These policies represent authoritarian governance rather than democratic inclusion. While not yet genocidal or totalitarian, they qualify as active authoritarian mechanisms consistent with historical fascism.
Media Consolidation and the Collapse of Adversarial Journalism
A truly democratic press holds power to account. It is supposed to investigate, interrogate, and challenge those in office—not offer them a safe space to recite talking points. Yet much of America’s media has now abandoned this adversarial role in favor of access, branding, and ideological tribalism.
Legacy outlets now function less as watchdogs and more as amplifiers—creating cozy, curated environments where officials from each party can air their narratives without challenge. Whether it’s a CNN anchor tossing softball questions to a Democratic senator or a Fox News host giving a Republican congressman uninterrupted airtime to spin, the dynamic is the same: comfort, not confrontation.
This is not journalism. It’s theater.
The press’s role in a democracy is to inform the public with facts, context, and rigor—so that voters can make decisions based on truth, not marketing. When media instead becomes an echo chamber, it betrays the public trust it was meant to serve. And increasingly, those echo chambers are bought and paid for by the donor classes aligned with each party, creating a profound conflict of interest. Editorial independence has been replaced by strategic messaging—tailored to corporate sponsors, political access, and audience retention.
This breakdown is not accidental. As Pew Research Center reports, over 90% of U.S. media is owned by a handful of corporations. Reporters are incentivized to protect sources rather than challenge them. Newsrooms are gutted while branded “personalities” dominate airtime.
The Epstein case remains a textbook example. According to court records and reporting by the Miami Herald's Julie K. Brown, Jeffrey Epstein received a sweetheart plea deal from federal prosecutors in 2007, a deal that was concealed from his victims and never fully explained. Yet legacy media rarely questioned the deeper implications: Who protected him? Why? Was intelligence involved? Instead, they obsessed over tabloid-friendly distractions like “who’s on the flight logs” while avoiding the systemic rot those logs may reveal.
And yet—independent journalism still exists. Outlets like ProPublica, The Intercept, and unaffiliated Substack reporters continue to investigate powerful institutions. Whistleblowers still leak. Investigations still get published. The First Amendment remains intact, even if the economic structure of mainstream media discourages its use.
Where the U.S. stands: The mainstream press has largely surrendered its adversarial role, replacing accountability with access and investigation with curation. This trend undermines public trust and democratic literacy. While not state-run, the press often functions as a filter for elite interests. However, independent journalism remains legally protected and operational—for now. That may be our last line of defense.
Corporate-State Mergers and Authoritarian Nationalism
Mussolini defined fascism as “the merger of state and corporate power.” That definition describes growing sectors of the U.S. economy today.
Palantir Technologies, funded by the CIA-backed In-Q-Tel venture capital firm, provides surveillance software to ICE, local law enforcement, and military contractors (The Guardian, 2020). Its predictive policing tools are already in use in several American cities.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government awarded billions in no-bid contracts to firms like McKesson and Pfizer, with limited transparency on pricing and terms (U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, 2021).
Under Trump, the acquisition of U.S. Steel was pitched as a patriotic act of economic nationalism. But as The Financial Times reported in 2023, the deal was less about economic competitiveness than consolidating key industries under nationalist control, bypassing traditional antitrust scrutiny.
Where the U.S. stands: The corporate-state merger is real and accelerating. While the U.S. still retains regulatory frameworks and nominal market competition, these partnerships have created a governance model in which corporate giants shape, enforce, and profit from public policy. This qualifies as a structural element of fascism, even if not ideologically labeled as such.
Surveillance, Militarization, and the Banality of Control
The post-9/11 security apparatus has reshaped everyday life in the United States. Domestic surveillance, predictive analytics, and paramilitary policing have become routine.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports that as of 2023, at least 85 cities use facial recognition software, often without public consent. The Department of Homeland Security operates 80+ fusion centers that collect and share data across federal, state, and local agencies, often with minimal oversight (Government Accountability Office, 2020).
The ACLU has documented the use of “geofence warrants,” where Google data is used to locate people near protest sites—a practice that critics say violates Fourth Amendment protections. Protesters have been kettled, tracked, and prosecuted using metadata gathered from phones and social platforms.
Where the U.S. stands: The surveillance infrastructure meets the criteria for authoritarian control. While used inconsistently and not yet deployed for full population management, the tools are operational, normalized, and difficult to roll back. This is not fascism in the traditional sense—but it is its technological enabler.
Conclusion: Fascism Isn’t Here—But It’s Not Far
So is America fascist?
Not in full. Elections still happen. Courts still offer resistance. Whistleblowers still emerge. You can still speak freely without being disappeared. But too many pillars of fascism are in place and functioning:
Suppression of dissent
Corporate-state integration
Institutional scapegoating
Surveillance infrastructure
Executive overreach
Narrative control through media consolidation
These patterns aren’t theoretical. They’re observable, documented, and in some cases—celebrated.
That’s why the word “fascism” must be used with care, not as clickbait or partisan insult, but as diagnosis. Misusing it turns it into theater. Ignoring it ensures we’ll miss the warning signs until it’s too late.
We don’t need hysteria. We need precision. And if we want to avoid real authoritarianism, we must recognize the system we're building before someone decides to use it as it was designed.
Sources
Congressional Research Service, Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, 2020
Brennan Center for Justice, National Emergencies and Executive Power, 2024
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Anti-BDS Laws in the United States, 2023
ProPublica / The Intercept, ICE Detention Conditions, 2019
Pew Research Center, U.S. Media Ownership, 2022
Miami Herald, Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice series, 2018–2020
The Guardian, Palantir and the Rise of Tech Surveillance, 2020
U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Pandemic Contracts Review, 2021
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Atlas of Surveillance, 2023
Government Accountability Office (GAO), Fusion Center Oversight, 2020
ACLU, Geofence Warrant Challenges, 2023
About the Author:
Christopher Rixman is the founder of The 4th Mandate, an adversarial publication dedicated to civil liberties, media accountability, and dismantling elite propaganda through evidence-based journalism.