By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asserted that the Trump administration’s foreign policy is dismantling the transatlantic alliance and ushering in an era of authoritarianism. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, she outlined a progressive vision for US foreign policy, contrasting it with the administration’s rightward shift. Ocasio-Cortez criticized actions such as the capture of Nicolás Maduro, threats to annex Greenland, and support for the war in Gaza, arguing that such hypocrisies weaken democracies globally. She advocated for a return to a “rules-based order” that prioritizes working-class interests and addresses income inequality to combat the rise of authoritarianism.
Read the original article here
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has voiced significant concerns, particularly at the Munich Security Conference, that Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions are actively attempting to steer the United States, and by extension the world, towards an “age of authoritarianism.” This assertion, made on a global stage, carries substantial weight and suggests a deep-seated worry about the direction of American democracy under the influence of Trump’s political movement.
The notion of Trump ushering in an authoritarian era isn’t merely an accusation; it’s perceived by many as a statement of observable fact, a stark departure from democratic norms and institutions. The context of this warning at an international security forum amplifies its importance, signaling to global leaders that the internal political landscape of the United States is becoming a matter of international concern due to these perceived authoritarian tendencies.
One of the key arguments underpinning this concern is the comparison of Trump’s approach to the characteristics of fascism. Scholars who have extensively studied this phenomenon point to a recurring pattern of mobilizing a populace through a sense of overwhelming crisis, the elevation of group identity over individual rights, and the cultivation of victimhood narratives that justify aggressive actions against perceived enemies. These elements are seen by critics as alarmingly present in the rhetoric and actions associated with Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.
Furthermore, the tactics employed by authoritarian leaders, as described by experts, seem to resonate with observations of the MAGA movement. These tactics often include invoking a romanticized and often fictionalized past, the pervasive use of propaganda to demonize opponents and legitimize violence, and a deliberate discrediting of intellectual institutions like the media and academia. The promotion of conspiracy theories, the insistence on a rigid social hierarchy, and the framing of “us” as victims of “them” are also identified as hallmarks of authoritarianism, all of which are seen as present in contemporary political discourse.
When examined against established lists of defining characteristics of fascism, the Trump administration and the broader MAGA movement appear to align with a significant number of these points. This includes a strong and vocal form of nationalism, a discernible disregard for established human rights, the identification and scapegoating of enemies as a unifying force, and a fervent embrace of militarism.
The MAGA movement is frequently characterized by its anti-immigrant sentiment and its deeply nationalistic and nativist underpinnings. The belief that only a select group of “true Americans” are entitled to specific rights and privileges, while simultaneously threatening to erode civil protections for marginalized communities, foreigners, and those outside a perceived white, Christian hegemony, is a recurring theme.
Culture wars, often waged against perceived “enemies” like “DEI” initiatives, LGBTQ+ individuals, and secular progressive movements, are seen as a core strategy to maintain a conservative and heteronormative vision of America. The use of inflammatory labels, such as “domestic terrorist” or “Antifa,” to broadly mischaracterize protestors and political opponents as violent revolutionaries is viewed as a deliberate tactic to justify the suppression of civil liberties and potentially even military intervention.
In terms of foreign policy, there’s an observation that interventionist and expansionist approaches are pursued when they align with specific narratives or objectives, rather than a consistent commitment to international cooperation or human rights. The embrace of misogyny and outdated gender norms, coupled with a vocal complaint about the perceived mistreatment of white men, further fuels concerns about the movement’s commitment to equality and individual autonomy.
The administration’s approach to the media, including efforts to defund independent journalism, stifle a free press, and suppress arts and intellectual discourse, is seen as a direct assault on the pillars of a democratic society. This is often accompanied by a self-serving narrative of victimhood, where accusations of “censorship” are levied by those who are simultaneously working to control and shape public information. The manipulation of regulatory power to suppress opposing viewpoints and exert administrative control over information dissemination to the public is a significant red flag for democratic governance.
Moreover, the use of governmental power, particularly the Department of Justice, for perceived retribution against political opponents is a serious accusation. The implementation of excessive national security measures and the federalization of law enforcement and military resources are viewed not as crime prevention strategies, but as tools to consolidate authoritarian control and legitimize the suppression of dissent in areas where there is opposition to Trump and his policies.
The integration of Christian Nationalist ideologies into government and the pursuit of faith-based rule of law raise further concerns about the separation of church and state and the potential for discrimination. The policy goals of weakening labor movements, protecting corporate interests, cutting taxes for the wealthy, and appointing cronies to positions of power are seen as indicators of a system prioritizing special interests over the public good.
The emphasis on anti-intellectualism extends to the pressure placed on universities, demanding government control over academic decision-making and data. Calls for “thought police” on campuses and the threat of dismantling academic departments that do not align with government-approved viewpoints represent a dangerous encroachment on academic freedom and intellectual inquiry. The defunding of private institutions and scientific research, alongside the redirection of funds to private and religious schools, further fragments the public education system and undermines critical thinking.
The “law and order” rhetoric is frequently employed to incite animosity towards minority groups, immigrants, and marginalized communities. This obsession with crime and punishment manifests in the militarization of domestic policy, the weaponization of the justice system, and a disregard for constitutional rights. Trump’s personal attacks on legal professionals and judges, along with his pursuit of prosecutions against perceived adversaries, highlight a pattern of using the legal system for personal and political gain.
Corruption, obstruction of justice, and cronyism are viewed as inherent tenets of the movement, with loyalty often prioritized over competence or ethical conduct. The abuse of executive powers, including the mass arrest, detention, and deportation of individuals without due process, and the alleged pressure on immigration judges to facilitate such actions, paints a grim picture of a system that undermines fundamental legal protections.
The administration’s attempts to end birthright citizenship, to circumvent term limits, and to disregard legal and constitutional mandates through executive orders and unnecessary declarations of emergency are seen as direct challenges to the foundations of American governance. The stated intention to deny, subvert, and overturn future election results further cements the perception of an assault on democratic processes. These extensive parallels between the observed actions and the established definitions of authoritarianism and fascism lead many to believe that the threat is not hypothetical, but already present and actively unfolding.