Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a respected expert on authoritarianism and a history professor at New York University, recently offered a sharp critique of former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric, labeling it as “fascist talk.” Her comments came after Trump made yet another bold statement during a campaign rally and on his Truth Social platform, this time about women, abortion, and the role of states in determining reproductive rights. Trump, the current Republican nominee for the 2024 election, proudly reiterated his role in overturning Roe v. Wade. But it wasn’t just his stance on abortion that caught attention; it was the way he framed his message that stirred deep concerns about his language.
At the rally, Trump declared, “If I win the 2024 election, women will be happy, healthy, confident, and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion because it is now where it always had to be — with the states, and with the vote of the people.” For Trump supporters, this might sound like a decisive proclamation, but for critics like Ben-Ghiat, it signals something far more alarming. On MSNBC’s “The Weekend,” Ben-Ghiat shared her unease: “It sends a chill down my spine when Donald Trump says women won’t have to think about abortion anymore.”
Ben-Ghiat’s concern is rooted in a deeper understanding of historical authoritarian movements. She drew a chilling parallel between Trump’s language about women’s rights and an earlier statement he made about voting. In a conversation with evangelicals, Trump reportedly said, “After this election, you will not have to vote anymore.” To many, this might sound like a simplification or an offhand remark, but to Ben-Ghiat, this is where the danger lies. “It’s fascist talk,” she explained, pointing out that fascist leaders often frame themselves as liberators from the burdens of decision-making. “I will free you from all decision making,” is essentially what Trump is saying, according to Ben-Ghiat. “Just trust in me, and you will not have to worry about any problems anymore.”
This rhetoric isn’t just about abortion or voting; it’s about the broader way Trump communicates his message to his followers. There’s an authoritarian undertone that implies people should relinquish their control, their choices, and their rights, trusting instead in the strong leader to handle everything for them. Ben-Ghiat warns that this kind of language, which strips away individual agency, is a hallmark of fascist regimes.
In another appearance on MSNBC, this time on the “Ayman” show, Ben-Ghiat delved deeper into the darker side of Trump’s rhetoric, drawing damning comparisons to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. Specifically, she highlighted the dangerous “dehumanizing rhetoric” that Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, have been using toward immigrants. She noted how this rhetoric mirrors the kind of language Hitler employed as he rose to power in the 1930s. “One thing about propaganda,” Ben-Ghiat explained, “is that you hear extreme things over and over again, and then they don’t seem so extreme anymore.”
This slow desensitization is what Ben-Ghiat refers to as one of Trump’s key tactics. Just as Hitler spent more than a decade dehumanizing Jews before fully implementing his genocidal policies, Trump has been maligning immigrants for nearly ten years. His messaging has become more extreme over time, but because Americans have been exposed to it repeatedly, it starts to feel familiar. “Now Americans have been hearing Trump malign immigrants for almost a decade now,” Ben-Ghiat remarked, “and so what Trump’s method is, is to slowly introduce more and more extreme ideas.”
One of these extreme ideas, Ben-Ghiat pointed out, is something called “remigration.” This is a deeply unsettling concept that Trump and Vance have begun to introduce in their messaging. It’s an idea that’s popular among the far-right in Europe and advocates for deporting people back to their country of origin, regardless of their citizenship status. The underlying notion is that if you want to create a white ethno-state, it doesn’t matter if someone is a legal immigrant or not—they should be sent back if they don’t fit the racial profile. “This idea of remigration is really scary,” Ben-Ghiat said. “It holds that you should be deported and sent back to your country of origin, regardless of your citizenship status.”
To Ben-Ghiat, this is part of a larger, more dangerous trend in American politics. Trump and his allies are taking Americans on what she describes as “a journey of language and a journey of concepts.” It’s a calculated effort to shift the Overton window, to make extreme ideas more acceptable by introducing them gradually. “It’s really disturbing,” she added, emphasizing that this is not just about policy disagreements but about fundamentally altering how people think and talk about issues like immigration and citizenship.
What’s perhaps most alarming about this journey is the way it normalizes hate and exclusion. When Trump first launched his campaign in 2015, many were shocked by his comments about Mexican immigrants being “rapists” and “criminals.” But over the years, that kind of rhetoric has become almost expected from him. Each new statement, no matter how extreme, feels like a natural progression from the last. This is how authoritarian leaders condition their followers—they desensitize them to the point where even the most outrageous ideas no longer seem outrageous.
This brings us back to the central concern that Ben-Ghiat raised: the authoritarian tendencies in Trump’s language. It’s not just about the content of his statements, but the way he presents them—as if he’s offering a solution to a problem that he himself has defined. He frames himself as the savior, the one who will lift the burdens of choice and decision-making off the shoulders of the American people. But in doing so, he’s asking them to give up something far more valuable: their freedom to make those decisions in the first place.
Ben-Ghiat’s warnings should give everyone pause. Whether it’s about abortion, voting, immigration, or any other issue, the language Trump uses has far-reaching implications. It’s not just political rhetoric—it’s a reflection of a deeper, more dangerous ideology that seeks to erode personal freedoms under the guise of offering protection and simplicity. And as history has shown, when leaders start using this kind of language, it often leads to a path of authoritarian rule.
For Americans, the challenge now is to recognize this language for what it is and to resist the allure of easy answers offered by strongmen. As Ben-Ghiat’s analysis reminds us, the cost of giving up our freedom, even in small increments, can be far greater than we realize. It’s a lesson history has taught us time and again, and it’s one we must heed now more than ever.
Login