I asked Google “Is America now a fascist dictatorship?” Here is the algorithms response, with my contradictory evidence to show otherwise. I would also like to point out that in recorded history, there have been around 5 fascist dictatorships which have been replaced peacefully. None of whom had the amount of weaponry currently walking its streets.
Google:
“Here's why the claim that the US is a fascist state is inaccurate:
Democratic Institutions:
The US has a constitutionally established system of government with checks and balances, free and fair elections, and an independent judiciary. These are not features of fascist states.”
Heathen:
1. Executive Overreach & Bypassing Congress
National emergency declarations & discretionary spending: Trump declared a “national emergency” to divert billions for his border wall without congressional approval, a move unprecedented in emergency declarations and widely criticized as undermining Congressional control of the budget .
Use of IEEPA to impose tariffs: His administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose sweeping trade tariffs, an interpretation courts have questioned as exceeding statutory and constitutional authority, because only Congress may levy tariffs .
Aggressive claims of unitary executive authority: In his second term, Trump openly articulated that the executive branch is an extension of himself, consolidating power over agencies like the FCC, SEC, and DOJ, effectively limiting independent oversight .
2. Undermining Oversight Institutions & Inspectors General
Mass firing of inspectors general and watchdog officials: In 2020 and beyond, Trump removed multiple inspectors general, independent watchdogs meant to oversee executive agencies, often with no stated cause, prompting bipartisan outrage and concern about retaliation and erosion of accountability .
3. Defying the Judiciary
Ignoring court orders on deportations: Trump’s administration proceeded with deportation flights despite federal court rulings halting them, raising alarms over executive defiance of judicial authority and possible constitutional crisis .
Targeting judges & threatening judicial independence: He criticized federal judges who ruled against him, called for impeaching them, sued entire federal judicial panels, and reportedly ignored one, third of court orders against the administration, actions legal experts described as unprecedented and authoritarian .
4. Politicization of the Department of Justice
Weaponizing the DOJ for political ends: Trump regularly used Justice Department resources to pursue political opponents, reassign prosecutors, investigate critics, and issue troubling threats toward law firms and judges, fundamentally breaching norms of DOJ independence .
Pardons that undercut judicial authority: His pardon of controversial figures like Joe Arpaio, after judicial rulings against them, was widely seen not just as an exercise of pardon power but as contempt for the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional limits .
5. Congressional Failures to Check Administration
Lack of enforcement and oversight: While Congress debated reforms like the Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA), there was minimal enforcement of constraints. Many proposals stalled, illustrating reluctance or inability to curb executive overreach .
Legislative acquiescence: Experts note that Congress often acquiesced to executive assertions of power, driven by partisan interests or fear of political retaliation, weakening its role as a co-equal branch of government .
Google:
Freedom of Speech and Assembly:
While there are debates about the limits of these freedoms, the US generally protects freedom of speech, press, and assembly, which are not hallmarks of fascism.
Heathen:
1. Revoking Press Access , Associated Press v. Budowich
On February 11, 2025, the White House indefinitely barred Associated Press reporters from press briefings, the Oval Office, and Air Force One over their continued use of the term “Gulf of Mexico” rather than Trump’s preferred “Gulf of America” .
AP sued the administration on February 21, 2025, alleging violation of First Amendment press freedoms. Although a federal judge ordered access restored, the administration promptly ignored the injunction and continued blocking AP coverage, including at a February Oval Office meeting .
2. Closing Down Voice of America and U.S., funded Media
In March 2025, the Trump administration dismantled the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which underpins Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Asia, and others, despite congressional authority over these entities .
Journalists and press freedom advocates filed suit in federal court, arguing the shutdown breaches protections intended to ensure editorial independence and the First Amendment .
3. Ending Federal Public Broadcasting Funding
On May 1, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14290, terminating federal funding to NPR and PBS via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, claiming bias in their coverage .
NPR and PBS filed lawsuits by late May, arguing that eliminating their funding is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment via suppression of dissenting or critical viewpoints .
4. Pressuring Higher Education & Student Speech
Universities including Harvard and Stanford sued the administration over deportation threats and federal investigations targeting pro, Palestinian student activists, including visa revocations under policies enforced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio .
Stanford student journalists and advocacy groups filed suit alleging its noncitizen journalists self, censored or quit due to fear of immigration retaliation, claims explicitly tied to expression of political viewpoints .
Harvard’s lawsuit (April 2025) asserts that the administration pressured institutions to enforce viewpoint diversity on campuses in a way that violates constitutional free speech guarantees .
5. Legal Targeting of Lawyers and Firms as a Chilling Mechanism
Multiple executive orders (e.g. EO 14230 & 14250) aimed at law firms including Elias Law Group, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey, revoked security clearances, prohibited federal contracts, and pressured firms representing critics of the administration .
Suits filed by those firms and the American Bar Association question these orders’ constitutionality, characterizing them as retaliation intended to suppress dissent and legal advocacy, protected speech under the First Amendment .
6. Censoring Access to Government Publications & Data
Beginning January 2025, thousands of government webpages and datasets, especially around DEI programs, public health, environmental justice, and LGBTQ+ content, were removed or edited under executive orders .
Lawsuits followed, including by medical associations and advocacy groups, arguing that these removals restricted access to information vital for public discourse, debate, research, and thus undermined free speech rights and government transparency .
Google:
Diverse Political Landscape:
The US has a multi-party system, though dominated by two major parties. There are diverse viewpoints and robust public discourse, even if it is often polarized.
Heathen:
1. The U.S. Operates as a De Facto Two, Party System
Over 98% of all federal and state elected offices have consistently been held by Democrats or Republicans. Third, party or independent candidates almost never win seats .
The last time someone unaffiliated with the two main parties won a House seat was nearly 20 years ago; the last presidential candidate outside the two majors to carry any states was in 1968 .
2. Structural & Systemic Barriers Suppress Third, Party Influence
Duverger’s Law explains why winner-take-all elections in single, member districts virtually eliminate third parties: voters avoid voting for “wasted” candidates, and minor parties are squeezed out .
Ballot access laws require onerous, often expensive petitioning and signature thresholds, requirements typically waived for Democratic and Republican candidates, creating legal and financial hurdles for third-party campaigns .
The Commission on Presidential Debates enforces a 15% pre, debate polling threshold, making it extremely difficult for third-party candidates to participate in national debates .
3. Third, Party Candidates Have Limited Electoral Impact
Even candidates with significant support, Ross Perot (1992), Ralph Nader (2000, 2004), or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2024), failed to win electoral votes or substantially shift political power. These campaigns often served as spoilers rather than viable alternatives .
A 2025 Financial Times analysis captured the persistence of the duopoly, noting that even high, profile third-party candidates attract attention but rarely succeed due to systemic obstacles .
4. Public Demand for Alternatives vs. Institutional Gridlock
Recent polling shows a majority of Americans identify as independent, with only ~25–30% affiliating with either major party, a sign that many feel unrepresented and seek more choices .
Yet lawsuits and advocacy for electoral reform, such as ranked, choice voting or proportional representation, have gained traction precisely because the current system stifles broader representation and amplifies extremism .
Google:
Lack of a Single, Party State:
Fascist states are characterized by a single dominant party and the suppression of opposition. The US, despite political divisions, does not have this.
Heathen:
1. A Single Dominant Party?
Although the U.S. formally permits multiple parties, its political system is a de facto two, party duopoly. Democrats and Republicans control over 98% of federal and state elected offices, with third parties almost never winning seats, a hallmark of structural dominance by two parties .
Duverger’s Law explains why winner, take, all elections lead to two dominant parties, systematically marginalizing third-party options and limiting political pluralism .
2. Suppression of Opposition?
Legal and procedural barriers, like strict ballot access laws, polling thresholds for debates, and gerrymandering, functionally suppress third parties. Minor parties face disproportionately high signature requirements and are often excluded from national debates unless they meet unrealistic polling criteria .
Gerrymandering exacerbates the suppression of opposition by designing districts to minimize electoral competition, wasting votes and insulating incumbents from electoral challenge .
3. Comparisons to Fascist Features
Fascism, historically, involves an explicitly single, party authoritarian state, violent suppression of dissent, propaganda apparatus, militaristic mobilization, and control over institutions beyond electoral politics .
Experts carefully distinguish contemporary U.S. politics from historical fascism: historians like Ruth Ben, Ghiat note that strongmen, style populists operate from within democratic systems, not by fully dismantling multi, party rule .
While many critics, including former officials like John Kelly and scholars such as Robert Paxton, warn of fascist tendencies in U.S. politics (e.g. threats to deploy military internally, undermining judiciary, loyalty demands), they stop short of asserting the nation is a true fascist state with one, party rule .
Google:
No State Control of the Economy:
While there is government intervention in the economy, the US has a largely capitalist economy with private ownership and market mechanisms, not the state, controlled economy typical of fascist states.
Heathen:
1. Corporate Welfare, Subsidies & Rent, Seeking
In 2012, the federal government spent approximately $92 billion on corporate subsidies and tax breaks, often disproportionately benefiting large, well, connected firms rather than smaller competitors .
More recent estimates place annual corporate welfare programs, through subsidies, grants, and tax advantages, at $80 billion or more, spanning at least 125 different federal programs .
These subsidies distort markets by creating artificial advantages for politically linked companies, not purely market meritocracy.
2. Regulatory Capture & Revolving Doors
Regulatory capture occurs when government agencies are influenced or controlled by the industries they oversee, rewarding well, connected firms and weakening oversight .
The “iron triangle” dynamic, where Congress, regulatory agencies, and interest groups form policy, making cliques, creates closed systems rewarding elites and benefiting select businesses .
The “revolving door” phenomenon, where regulators become industry lobbyists and vice versa, further aligns public policy with corporate profit motives over public interest .
3. Lobbying Influence & Political Pay-to-Play
Investigative reporting documents a “pay-to-play” dynamic during the Trump administration, where access to policymaking was reportedly negotiated as a commodity, favoring donors and insiders .
Academics and watchdogs warn this oligarchic behavior resembles systems where government policies are shaped by elite economic actors, not competitive markets or democratic processes.
4. Academic & Policy Critiques: The Predator State
Economist James K. Galbraith described the U.S. as a “Predator State,” where public institutions serve private profit and elite interests, arguably replacing true free, market governance with state, enabled profit extraction .
This system undermines traditional capitalism by turning political favoritism and rent, seeking into primary sources of wealth accumulation, rather than innovation and competition.