On April 25, 1995, on the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the Elbe Day, which symbolizes the military collapse of Nazism and the liberation of Europe by the Allies, Italian author Umberto Eco was invited to deliver a lecture at Columbia University in New York. This same university recently capitulated to the Trump administration’s pressure tactics by adopting repressive measures against student mobilizations on its campus, particularly around the Palestinian issue, under threat of losing federal funding[1].

The text of this lecture was first published in The New York Review of Books, then integrated under the title “Eternal Fascism” in a volume of essays published in Italy in 1997, Five Moral Pieces[2]. Finally, in the context of the resurgence of populism in the world, particularly in Europe and the United States, this speech was republished in French in 2017 in the form of a booklet entitled Recognizing Fascism[3]. The emergence of Trumpism and its deleterious effects on our institutions and the values that underpin them recall the importance of this text in illuminating current debates on the drift of the American political regime. As Eco emphasized, “We are here to remember what happened and to solemnly declare that ’they’ must not begin again”[4]. He hastened to add that we must first know who we are talking about.

The Age of Extremes[5] is recent enough to provide us with the necessary historical references to grasp the profound changes currently taking place. In this sense, Eco’s analysis, who was born and raised in the cradle of fascism, constitutes a precious contribution to understanding why Trumpism is truly a fascism.

According to Umberto Eco, Mussolini had rhetoric, discourse, but no coherent and structured system of thought. While Nazism and Stalinism were true totalitarianisms, in the sense of “a regime that subordinates every individual act to the State and its ideology”[6], Italian fascism was certainly a right-wing dictatorship, but had no philosophy of its own. According to the author, “Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism. Fascism had nothing of a monolithic ideology, it was a collage of various political and philosophical ideas, teeming with contradictions”[7].

This is what gave it a certain effectiveness by allowing it to rally heterogeneous, even opposing tendencies, to crystallize evanescent frustrations, and particularly to convince “European liberal leaders that the new regime was implementing interesting social reforms, capable of offering a moderately revolutionary alternative to the communist threat”[8]. In short, rallying and embodying the criticism of the discontented while preserving the privileges of the powerful, such is the fascist compromise.

However, the political use of new technologies, and more specifically the commercial mode of operation of social networks, today considerably reinforces this dynamic by quickly allowing, and on a very large scale, to segment the electorate through targeted messages appealing to emotions, and then mobilize it around a discourse of denunciation. As Giuliano da Empoli very rightly states, “the traditional democratic game had a centripetal tendency: the winner was the one who managed to occupy the center of the political chessboard. [...] In the New World, politics becomes centrifugal. It is no longer about uniting the electorate around the lowest common denominator, but on the contrary about inflaming the passions of as many small groups as possible in order to then add them up - even without their knowledge”[9]. In the era of algorithmic parties designed by the engineers of chaos, “to conquer a majority, one must no longer converge toward the center, but add up the extremes”[10].

Thus, while this fascist compromise can take a thousand faces depending on the different contexts in which it manifests itself, and we have examples today on all continents (Trump, Putin, Modi, Milei, Orban, Meloni, Netanyahu...), Eco states a series of fourteen elements that allow us to recognize what he calls Ur-fascism, or primitive or eternal fascism, the universal core of fascism, regardless of the particular mask it wears. Let’s review each of these fascist invariants enumerated by Eco by illustrating them with examples related to the recent actions of the Trump government.

The cult of tradition. The discourse must be rooted in a narrative of origins that is often mythologized and syncretic, but whose values must bear the weight of history. Certainly, history is young in the New World, but this does not prevent Trumpist discourse from mobilizing different symbolism, starting with its slogan Make America Great Again (MAGA), aimed at fueling nostalgia and invoking a return to a grandiose past. Restoring pride to the American people by reconnecting with its imperialist temptations is also evident in President Trump’s allusions to manifest destiny, a notion used in the mid-19^th century to legitimize the conquest of the West and North of the continent as a divine mission[11]. This is also found in the praise of President McKinley (1897-1901), who annexed Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, and extends to the desires to take control of Greenland, the Panama Canal, to make Canada the 51^st state, or to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The reference to President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), whose portrait was reinstalled in the Oval Office by the Trump administration, recalls the white and Christian supremacist message of the one who organized the forced and murderous displacement of indigenous populations in the United States. The reverse of this traditionalist medal, as Eco points out, is that if the past is a guarantee of the present, and necessarily of the future conceived as the permanence of what was, there can be no progress, discovery, or advancement of knowledge. This introduces the next element.

The rejection of modernism. Which does not mean the rejection of technique, but rather the values of emancipation carried by the Enlightenment, notably rationalism which would allow the rise of modern science. This is reflected in the invalidation of the scientific approach, facts, data, in favor of legitimizing beliefs and irrational discourse, but true (precisely because it is irrational). This posture is manifested by the frontal attack against science and its protagonists, whether in federal agencies or universities, where a climate of fear now reigns in the face of increasing purges. As more than 1,900 American scientists pointed out in a courageous open letter published on March 31, thousands of researchers have been fired, grants have been blocked, scientific data is no longer accessible, and international scientific collaboration is hampered[12]. The signing by President Trump, on March 20, of a decree aimed at dismantling the Department of Education is part of this offensive against the development of scientific thought.

Action for action’s sake. Act, always more and faster, provoke movement to avoid at all costs taking the time for reflection and analysis. Multiply spectacular moves and plunge us into a whirlwind of decisions to ultimately control the agenda and impose its rhythm without any critical distance and in the greatest confusion. This is embodied in Trump by the staging of frantic signing sessions of presidential decisions, those famous decrees signed in a chain with big strokes of Sharpies[13]. According to this logic, intellectuals, specialists, and more broadly the circles of culture and knowledge are denounced as brakes on this transformative action which takes, for the moment, the appearance of a media saturation strategy that paralyzes any counter-argument based on critical and reflexive analysis of policies and their impact[14].

Disagreement is treason. Which amounts to saying: whoever is not with me is against me, and generates purges and witch hunts or other “enemies from within.” This goes totally against the modern idea of science, according to which everything is true until proven otherwise (which thus assumes being able to challenge assertions without fearing the stake), but also the democratic ideal which assumes the existence of a public space for debate and peaceful confrontation of different worldviews. The attacks carried out by the White House against those who resist it, whether political opponents, the media, and especially judges, the last safeguards of the rule of law, testify to this authoritarian drift[15].

Fear of difference. Because contradiction assumes diversity, whether in the realm of opinions, but also histories, cultures, origins, genders... All elements that come to weaken this homogenizing discourse and which must therefore be expelled from the social body to guarantee its purity. Here we find all the charge against wokism, this progressive call to remain awake and vigilant in the face of systemic discrimination that persists in society and which the conservative movement has completely reversed the meaning of to decry it as a radical movement that would only aim to indoctrinate youth and would have corrupted institutions[16]. This fear of difference is also found in the anti-immigration discourse that targets foreigners in a very violent manner, accusing them of “poisoning the blood of the United States,” importing “bad genes,” or even raping children and eating pets[17].

Appeal to frustrated middle classes. It is resentment, individual frustration, that gives strength to the fascist movement, and the more the situation deteriorates, the more this frustration increases and the movement strengthens. This is the virtuous effect of chaos on fascism, an element that gives us a very enlightening analytical framework on the Trumpian action in progress. The deepening of inequalities and the disconnection of the most privileged have been weakening the middle classes in the United States for decades[18]. However, this category designates both a way of life (the famous American way of life) and a hope for upward social mobility. If this perspective of intergenerational progress darkens, it is the legitimacy of the entire system that is called into question. Trump’s electoral base consists of white men without degrees[19]. If the context of the 2024 election allowed him to progress among categories that were traditionally unfavorable to him, such as men of Latin American origin and young people, the negative perception of the country’s economic situation and especially the feeling of deterioration in the financial situation of families strongly motivated adherence to the Republican camp. As most populisms do, Trump’s anti-system and anti-elite discourse has managed to seduce social categories in the process of downgrading. To counter the pessimism of frustrated middle classes regarding the political system in place deemed incapable of improving their lot, Trump sells them dreams by invoking a return to “America’s golden age” or proclaiming the “day of liberation.”

Nationalism and the obsession with conspiracy. Stirring the national fiber allows gathering the mass around a shared identity, which is reinforced all the more as it designates scapegoats and must fight enemies in the shadows. This nationalist withdrawal is a constant of fascist logic that nourishes a Manichean vision of a world divided between Us and the Others. The source of all evils is thus externalized, that is to say, external to Us and referred to the Others. In other words, what causes the problems of Trumpian America is not the Washington Consensus and its neoliberal policies that the Reagan government imposed on the world at the turn of the 1980s and which largely benefited its economic elites, but rather migrants (Latinos, Haitians...) and foreigners (from China, Europe...). It is therefore not about understanding how the economic, social, and political system works in order to transform it to satisfy the needs and aspirations of the greatest number, but about designating culprits, preferably those who do not resemble us. This nationalist and xenophobic rhetoric is reinforced all the more as it relies on conspiracy theory. The nation and its founding values would be undermined from within by its enemies (the Wokes, the Democrats, the judges, the Deep State...)[20]. Conspiracy theories, fueled by social networks and which largely benefited from the pandemic, resurfaced during the presidential campaign, notably during the assassination attempt on candidate Trump on July 13, 2024, in Pennsylvania[21].

The paradoxical strength and weakness of enemies. Enemies must be strong and everywhere to justify irrational action and massive mobilization of resources, but they must also be weak, to be defeated. We will not revisit the rhetoric of the internal enemy that justifies permanent control and purges, but we will rather focus here on the curious about-face of U.S. foreign policy during the first weeks of Trump’s second term. The reversal of alliance on the Ukrainian issue, symbolized by the rapprochement with Russia and the rejection of Europe, seems to testify to a willingness not to seek direct confrontation with the powerful of this world, Putin foremost. Similarly with China, to which (to be minimally consistent with the protectionist discourse aimed at the reindustrialization of the country) tariffs are imposed, but the policy of destabilization towards Taiwan and support for the North Korean regime (which sends troops to the Ukrainian front) are tolerated. For the moment, Trump’s bellicose and imperialist discourse is rather directed against the weakest (Denmark/Greenland, Canada, Panama...), or victims (Palestinian, Ukrainian) against whom it would be possible to make symbolic gains. Confrontation with the strongest may come one day, but since the regime always needs enemies to maintain itself, it is clear that “victory” will never be achieved, because action is what carries the movement. Thus, other reversals are to be expected to support this logic of strengthening adherence to the leader in opposition to enemies, even if it means constructing them out of thin air.

Life is a permanent war. In continuity with the previous paradox, life is perceived as a constant struggle, and pacifism appears as the enemy. In this conception of a world of tensions and power relations, there can be no rest, because the contestation of the repressive measures put in place, as well as the criticism of the feeling of fear and distrust that is maintained by the power, will inexorably resurface. Reality always catches up with us and we cannot live eternally in a parallel and phantasmagorical world. After the shock of the inauguration of the second Trump government in January and the avalanche of measures taken by decree, popular resistance is beginning to organize in the United States. The 1,200 demonstrations that were held simultaneously in the 50 American states, but also abroad, on Saturday, April 5, for the day of action against the Trump administration, dubbed Hands Off!, embody this awakening. Through the diversity of slogans and causes defended, it is a deep frustration with the government in place and the climate of terror that is slowly imposing itself, that the crowds expressed in these mobilizations[22]. The president’s first reaction was contempt, playing golf all weekend, then the rumor began to circulate that Trump wanted to organize a grandiose military parade in Washington, on June 14, on the occasion of his 79^th birthday[23]. One may wonder what is the purpose of such a display of the armed forces of the world’s first military power on its own soil, and especially to whom the message is addressed.

Popular elitism and contempt for the weak.The people is erected as the foundation of the leader’s legitimacy, but it is a formless mass that expresses itself only through those who proclaim themselves as its incarnations. This mass, source of power, must therefore be organized hierarchically so that any dissent, designated as weakness, is eliminated, so that the power of the mass does not come to overthrow the self-proclaimed leader. The links that are emerging between Trumpism and masculinism reinforce this policy of power and domination[24]. Women are today the first victims of this resurgence of male domination. Since Trump’s election, misogynistic and sexist discourse has exploded on social networks, particularly on X with the slogans “Your body, my choice” and “The patriarchy is back!”[25]. The repatriation of masculinist influencer Andrew Tate to Florida, in February 2025, under pressure from the American government to remove him from prosecution for human trafficking and rape[26], constitutes a strong marker of this ideological complicity.

The cult of the hero. In the fascist imaginary world, we are all (more than all) heroes. Heroes ready for combat, ready to serve, ready to defy death. An army at the service of the leader who, generally, stays far from the battlefield. This is somewhat what we saw, in a very watered-down version, but still deadly, with the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Of the various organizations linked to the MAGA movement, the Proud Boys well characterize this element of contemporary fascism[27] that agglomerates white supremacism, masculinism, and paramilitary-type organization.

Machismo. Since the will to power is often translated in sexual terms, the fascist warrior impulse also resonates this way and tends to denigrate women (or send them back to the kitchen) and deny gender diversity and sexual minorities. This relationship between male virility and fascist aggressiveness is not new, it was notably analyzed at the time of May 1968 by the Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action[28] and various feminist currents for whom fascism is linked to the primary oppression, namely patriarchy[29]. Let us recall that from the inauguration of Donald Trump for his first term, in January 2017, it was the feminist movement that first organized monster demonstrations against Trump to denounce his machismo and sexist remarks, which brought together millions of people around the world[30]. Mobilizations continued this year on the occasion of March 8, International Women’s Rights Day[31], particularly to denounce the criminalization of abortion in several American states.

Qualitative populism. To distance itself from representative democracy, based on a form of quantitative populism where each citizen votes and the majority wins, fascism conceives the people as a monolithic entity expressing a common will that does not need a count, because the leader is its interpreter. Parliaments thus become obsolete, as do all the counter-powers supposed to guarantee the rule of law. This direct link between the people and the leader, the very definition of populism, Trump has accustomed us to since his first term by flooding social networks with messages, then creating his own network, Truth Social, when he did not yet control Twitter (now X) with the complicity of Elon Musk. This unbridled use of direct communication is coupled with a criticism of all the instances of mediation that can intrude between the population and the executive power, whether they be parliaments, the justice system, or even traditional media. Authoritarian power cannot tolerate all these counter-powers that are nevertheless guarantors of a healthy democratic life. However, without these instances of mediation aimed at pacifying social relations, it is the return to the law of the jungle.

Newspeak. Finally, with a nod to George Orwell’s 1984, Eco recalls that all Nazi and fascist textbooks used a fairly simple vocabulary and grammar to avoid complex reasoning and criticism. The objective here was not to invent a new language, but rather to impoverish the language of use. It was in fact about purging it of complicated concepts, and especially those that allowed to reveal a reality that these authoritarian powers did not want to see. What better way to deny reality than to ban the words that serve to describe it? Difficult not to draw a parallel with what is happening today in the United States. Émilie Nicolas recently reminded us in her column that more than 250 words have already been banned from American federal government websites, or that automatically trigger an administrative investigation of those who use them[32]. And that is without counting the bans on books in public schools which, for the 2023-2024 year alone, amounted to more than 10,000 censored titles[33].

Umberto Eco, who died in February 2016, ended his text by calling for vigilance to unmask the resurgences of fascism. And, as if struck by a premonitory lightning bolt, he quoted this statement from President Roosevelt dating from 1938: “I dare say that if American democracy ceased to progress as a living force, seeking day and night, by peaceful means, to improve the condition of our citizens, the force of fascism would increase in our country”[34]. We are there.

Raphaël Canet