Is the US Heading Toward Fascism? A Data-Driven Comparison to 1933 Germany

Some people say yes and some people say that’s ridiculous—opinions are pretty much split by political affiliation. So I wanted to do a test. I figured I would ask a large language model to provide a factual comparison based purely on news reporting from major outlets like BBC, CNN, NPR, ProPublica, NBC News, and The Washington Post, to see where we actually stand.

The key insight: comparing the entire 1930s to 2025 is too broad. The more precise comparison is early 1933 Germany—the specific year Hitler took power, before the full apparatus of totalitarianism was established. This captures the moment when democratic norms began eroding but before complete authoritarian control was cemented.

---

Direct Comparisons: 1933 Germany vs 2025 U.S.

Paramilitary/Military Deployment

• Germany 1933: SA (Sturmabteilung) and SS deployed as “auxiliary police” in Prussian cities starting February 1933, wearing uniforms and armbands, conducting street patrols and raids
• U.S. 2025: Over 7,000 active duty military personnel deployed to border regions with civilian detention authority; hundreds of federalized National Guard troops sent to Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.

Mass Arrests

• Germany 1933: Approximately 45,000 people detained in first months after Hitler became Chancellor, held in makeshift detention centers
• U.S. 2025: Nearly 75,000 people with no criminal records arrested in immigration operations

Detention Without Due Process

• Germany 1933: “Protective custody” (Schutzhaft) allowed detention without charge or judicial review, people held incommunicado
• U.S. 2025: Over 170 documented cases of U.S. citizens detained by immigration agents, some held incommunicado for days without access to lawyers

Racial/Ethnic Profiling

• Germany 1933: Jews and Roma targeted based on physical characteristics and appearance
• U.S. 2025: Border Patrol officials acknowledging they consider “how they look” when determining who to detain

Judicial Independence Undermined

• Germany 1933: March 1933 Enabling Act allowed government to bypass courts; judges intimidated or replaced with loyalists
• U.S. 2025: Federal judges noting government specifically directed immigration judges to ignore court orders; evidence of systematic disregard for judicial authority

Detention Camps

• Germany 1933: Dachau concentration camp opened March 1933 as first permanent camp, initially for political prisoners
• U.S. 2025: Immigrants detained at military bases including Guantanamo Bay, Camp Atterbury in Indiana, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey

Elimination of Civil Rights Oversight

• Germany 1933: Dissolution of civil rights protections; shuttering of watchdog organizations monitoring government abuses
• U.S. 2025: DHS shut down Office of Immigration Detention Ombudsman, Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Masked Enforcement Agents

• Germany 1933: SA and SS wore identifying uniforms but also conducted nighttime raids with covered faces
• U.S. 2025: Federal agents wearing masks and full tactical gear conducting operations in residential neighborhoods, masked officers positioned on rooftops

“Internal Enemy” Rhetoric

• Germany 1933: Nazi propaganda about “enemies within” (innere Feinde), “traitors,” and the nation under existential threat from inside its borders
• U.S. 2025: Trump stated at meeting with 800+ military officials that America faces “a war from within” and is “under invasion from within,” calling it “no different than a foreign enemy”

Control and Delegitimization of Media

Germany 1933 – Gleichschaltung (Coordination) of the Press:

• Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels introduced the Schriftleitergesetz (Editor’s Law) on October 4, 1933, which fundamentally changed the work of journalists in Germany. Journalists had to register in a professional roster and only people with an “Aryan certificate” were accepted. When the law came into force on January 1, 1934, many hundreds of journalists lost their jobs
• During the first weeks of 1933, the Nazi regime deployed the radio, press, and newsreels to stoke fears of a pending “Communist uprising,” then channeled popular anxieties into political measures that eradicated civil liberties and democracy
• On October 4, 1933, it was declared that all editors must be Aryan. Censorship was heightened, and any person publishing actively anti-Nazi material was threatened or imprisoned. By 1935, over 1,600 newspapers had been closed
• The Propaganda Ministry, through its Reich Press Chamber, assumed control over the Reich Association of the German Press, the guild which regulated entry into the profession, and excluded Jews and those married to Jews from the profession
• Immediately after the nomination of Hitler as Reich Chancellor in January 1933, the Nazi regime began to systematically streamline the entire German media and culture industry under the leadership of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels

U.S. 2025 – Attacks on “Enemy of the People” Media:

• Trump declared The New York Times a “serious threat to the National Security of our Nation” and stated “Their Radical Left, Unhinged Behavior, writing FAKE Articles and Opinions in a never ending way, must be dealt with and stopped. THEY ARE A TRUE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”
• Over the past 10 years, Trump has written 3,500 posts on social media attacking the press—averaging an anti-media post every single day. He has used the words “fake news” nearly 1,500 times and the phrase “enemy of the people” in 70 posts
• Shortly after the beginning of the President’s second term, media outlets which published coverage Trump considered unfavorable were denied office space in the Pentagon: CNN, The Washington Post, The Hill, NBC News, The New York Times, NPR, and Politico. These were replaced by conservative outlets: Newsmax, Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, One America News Network, New York Post, and Breitbart News
• In February 2025, Trump indefinitely banned Associated Press reporters from pooled press events in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One because they continued to use the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of Trump’s preferred term “Gulf of America”
• Trump has escalated animosity towards the press and regularly threatens news organizations and has aggressively gone after whistleblowers. The first Trump administration had the Justice Department investigate eight journalists as part of probes into 334 leaks, and seized phone records for reporters at The Washington Post, The New York Times and CNN
• As Trump repeated this rhetoric day after day, Americans’ faith in the news media—especially among his supporters—dropped sharply. From 2016 to 2024, Republicans’ trust in national news organizations declined from 70% to 40%

The Pattern: Both regimes systematically delegitimize independent media as threats to national security, replace critical coverage with favorable outlets, restrict access for unfavorable journalists, and erode public trust in the press. The key difference is that Germany formalized control through law, while the U.S. approach uses informal pressure, access denial, and sustained rhetorical attacks to achieve similar erosion of independent journalism.

Book Banning and Censorship

Germany 1933 – The Book Burnings:

• On May 6, 1933, Nazi student groups and SA members raided Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Research. Four days later, on May 10, the entire library was publicly burned in Berlin’s Bebelplatz Square along with over 20,000 books
• On May 10, 1933, Nazi book burnings extended to libraries across dozens of university towns in Germany. According to the Munich Documentation Centre, “100 book burnings were recorded in seventy cities” between March and October 1933
• The bonfire engulfed more than 20,000 books, some of them rare copies that had helped provide a historiography for nonconforming people. Nazi youth, students and soldiers participated in the destruction, while voiceovers declared that the German state had committed “the intellectual garbage of the past” to the flames
• The Institute had pioneered research and treatment for gay, transgender, and intersex topics, offered gender-affirming treatment including hormones and surgery, and served as a community hub
• The books burned included research on LGBTQ+ communities, sexuality, and gender identity. The destruction was followed by expanded criminalization: Paragraph 175 was redrafted in 1935 to prohibit all forms of male homosexual contact, and around 50,000 gay men were detained, with 10,000-15,000 deported to concentration camps

U.S. 2024-2025 – Mass Book Banning:

• PEN America documented nearly 23,000 book bans in public schools nationwide since 2021, a number never before seen in the life of any living American. In the 2024-2025 school year alone, 6,870 instances of book bans affected nearly 4,000 unique titles
• 72% of book censorship demands originated from organized pressure groups and government entities including elected officials, board members, and administrators—not individual parent complaints
• State-sanctioned censorship mechanisms: Utah and South Carolina implemented processes creating state-mandated “no read” lists. Utah’s law puts books on a statewide ban list after they’ve been banned in any three school districts. Nineteen titles are currently on Utah’s state “no read” list
• Alabama’s Administrative Code forces public libraries to relocate or remove “any materials regarding transgender procedures, gender ideology, or the concept of more than two biological genders”
• Florida had 2,304 book ban instances, Texas had 1,781, and Tennessee had 1,622 in the 2024-25 school year. Among the most frequently banned books, 44% featured people and characters of color, and 39% featured LGBTQ+ people and characters
• The U.S. Department of Education dismissed 11 complaints about book bans, calling them a “hoax,” rescinded all guidance that book removal might violate civil rights laws, and eliminated the position of “book ban coordinator”
• 97% of book bans came from fear that districts had of being out of compliance with vague state laws, not from the laws directly requiring removal—a form of soft censorship through intimidation

The Pattern: Both 1933 Germany and 2025 U.S. target books about sexuality, gender identity, and LGBTQ+ topics for systematic removal. Both use organized youth/student groups and government pressure rather than grassroots parent concerns. Both create state-level mechanisms for banning books. The books burned in Nazi Germany in 1933 contained the same types of content being banned in U.S. schools in 2025—information about transgender people, gender-affirming care, and LGBTQ+ identities. Germany moved from book burning to criminalizing and imprisoning LGBTQ+ people within two years.

Civil Service Purges and Loyalty Oaths

Germany 1933 – Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service:

• On April 7, 1933, the Nazi government enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which excluded Jews and political opponents from all civil service positions
• The government could dismiss any civil servant who would not “support the national state at all times and without reservation.” The government no longer needed a reason to dismiss a worker—it could do so without cause
• Civil servants had to accept the new rules or lose their jobs. Most government employees chose not to challenge the rules
• On August 20, 1934, the longstanding oath taken by state officials was changed so they no longer swore loyalty to the German constitution but rather to Hitler as head of state. The old oath: “I swear loyalty to the Constitution, obedience to the law, and conscientious fulfillment of the duties of my office, so help me God.” The new oath: “I swear loyalty to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, obedience to the law, and conscientious fulfillment of the duties of my office, so help me God.”
• No German judge refused to take the revised oath. Only one prosecutor, Martin Gauger, resigned rather than swear the oath, explaining: “I could not swear an unlimited oath of loyalty and obedience to a man who is bound neither by the law nor the traditions of justice”
• When the Nazis assumed power in 1933, most German civil servants were conservative, nationalistic, and authoritarian in outlook. After political opponents were purged from the civil service, government workers shared the Nazis’ anti-communism. They regarded the Nazi regime as legitimate and felt bound to “obey the law”

U.S. 2025 – Schedule F / Schedule Policy/Career:

• On his first day back in office in January 2025, Trump issued an executive order reinstating “Schedule F” (now renamed “Schedule Policy/Career”), which strips civil service protections from career federal workers
• OPM estimates 50,000 federal workers (about 2% of the civilian workforce) will be reclassified as “at-will” employees, making them easier to fire. Some experts estimate this could affect up to 500,000 employees
• Trump’s executive order states that “career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership” require “action to restore accountability.” The White House said it would address “unaccountable, policy-determining federal employees”
• The purpose is explicitly stated as removing workers for “poor performance, misconduct, resistance to policy”
• Trump wrote: “If these government workers refuse to advance the policy interests of the President, or are engaging in corrupt behavior, they should no longer have a job”
• Trump made clear he expects “total loyalty — from cabinet secretaries down to the most junior agency employees.” Project 2025 architects plainly stated their aim is “to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will”
• The National Treasury Employees Union stated the reclassification requires workers to pass “a political loyalty test” rather than demonstrate expertise. Public policy professor Donald Moynihan said imposing loyalty tests and targeting bureaucracy in this way “is a hallmark trait of authoritarian regimes”
• Research shows “Impartiality and professionalism are consistently related to positive performance outcomes, higher public trust and confidence, and lower levels of corruption” whereas “Politicization was negatively related to government performance”
• 87% of Americans said “having a nonpartisan civil service is important for having a strong American democracy”

The Pattern: Both 1933 Germany and 2025 U.S. purge civil servants who cannot guarantee unwavering support for the leader’s policies. Germany formalized loyalty to Hitler personally through oath changes; the U.S. achieves similar effect by removing job protections for those who show “resistance to policy.” Both replace merit-based systems with loyalty-based systems. Germany’s civil servants mostly complied rather than resist; only one prosecutor refused the Hitler oath. The U.S. approach makes federal workers dependent on demonstrating political loyalty rather than professional competence. As one German prosecutor who refused the oath wrote, the problem was swearing “unlimited loyalty and obedience to a man who is bound neither by the law nor the traditions of justice.”

University Purges and Control of Academic Freedom

Germany 1933 – Cleansing the Universities:

• Nazi student groups and sympathetic faculty monitored universities even before 1933, flagging professors deemed politically unreliable—particularly Jews, Marxists, liberals and pacifists
• The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (April 7, 1933) mandated the firing of Jewish and other “non-Aryan” professors and faculty deemed politically suspect
• By fall 1933, 15% of university teachers had lost their jobs. Most were fired for political beliefs, while a third were dismissed because they were Jewish
• Nearly 900 professors signed the Vow of Allegiance to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialistic State in November 1933
• Prominent philosopher Martin Heidegger, as rector of Freiburg University, declared in May 1933: “The much celebrated ‘academic freedom’ is being banished from the German university… The concept of freedom of the German is now brought back to its truth”
• Curricula were overhauled to emphasize “national defense” and “racial science”—a pseudoscientific framework used to justify antisemitism and Aryan supremacy
• Entire departments were restructured to serve Nazi ideology
• Frankfurt University was specifically targeted first “precisely because it was the most self-confidently liberal of major German universities”
• World-famous scientists like Albert Einstein left Germany in 1933 after 20 years in Berlin

U.S. 2025 – DEI Purges and Accreditation Weaponization:

• Trump issued Executive Order 14173 on January 21, 2025, targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs with highly charged language calling them “dangerous”
• The order directs federal agencies to propose enforcement plans to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of institutions with endowments over $1 billion
• Trump signed an executive order on accreditation directing the Education Secretary to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating accreditation powers for those engaging in what Trump calls “unlawful discrimination” related to DEI
• The order requires accreditors to “prioritize intellectual diversity among faculty”—effectively mandating ideological requirements
• Trump called the accreditation system his “secret weapon” to “reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical Left”
• Vice President JD Vance characterized universities as “the enemy”
• Columbia University capitulated by removing DEI language from websites, then paid $220 million to the federal government, placed an academic department under receivership, and accepted oversight by an independent monitor
• Harvard fought back by refusing to comply; Trump retaliated by freezing $2.3 billion in federal funding for research on pediatric cancer, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease
• Trump attacked Harvard on Truth Social calling it “a Liberal mess” and “a threat to Democracy”
• The American Association of University Professors stated Trump is “weaponizing the accreditation process” and “removing educational decision making from educators and reshaping higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda”
• Public policy scholars noted: “While some universities may believe that compliance with the administration will protect their funding and independence, historical parallels suggest otherwise”
• Several universities engaged in “anticipatory obedience”—canceling events and removing DEI references before being asked
• The orders don’t define key terms like “DEI” or “illegal DEIA,” giving agencies “carte blanche authority to implement the order discriminatorily”

The Pattern: Both 1933 Germany and 2025 U.S. purge universities of faculty and programs deemed ideologically suspect, require loyalty demonstrations, weaponize funding and accreditation to force compliance, and reshape curricula to serve political ideology. Germany explicitly banned “academic freedom” as a concept; the U.S. redefines it as “intellectual diversity” requiring conservative hiring. Both use vague language allowing arbitrary enforcement. Germany’s most liberal universities (Frankfurt) were targeted first; the U.S. is targeting universities with large endowments. In fascist Italy, when Mussolini required professors to swear loyalty oaths in 1931, only 12 out of 1,200 refused—most justified compliance by insisting the oath had no bearing on their teaching. Similarly, many U.S. universities are engaging in “anticipatory obedience.” Scholars who study comparative education under authoritarian regimes note that universities that comply hoping to protect their independence historically discover this strategy fails.

---

Who Gets Blamed?

Germany 1933

• Jews were blamed for Germany’s defeat in WWI, for communism, and for Germany’s economic problems
• According to the Nazis, expelling the Jews was the solution to economic crisis, failed schools, housing problems, and social disorder
• Hitler blamed Jews for all of Germany’s problems including disease, social injustice, cultural decline, capitalism, and communism
• Reality: Jews “suffered from the hyperinflation along with everyone else” and were scapegoated despite economic data showing most were not wealthy

U.S. 2025

• Trump claimed “most” immigrants “are on welfare, from failed nations, or from prisons, mental institutions, gangs, or drug cartels” and blamed them for “failed schools, high crime, urban decay, overcrowded hospitals, housing shortages, and large deficits”
• Trump blamed immigrants for crime across the country that is predominantly committed by U.S. citizens
• Trump described immigrants from Somalia, Afghanistan, and Haiti as coming from “hellholes” that are “filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime”
• Reality: Research is “absolutely clear” that immigrants are not responsible for increases in crime; data shows immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. Immigrants are “incredibly convenient scapegoats” because they can’t vote and live in fear

The Pattern: Both cases involve blaming a vulnerable minority group for systemic problems they did not cause, using rhetoric that portrays them as an existential threat to justify extraordinary enforcement measures.

---

Emergency Powers: How Martial Law Gets Positioned

Germany 1933 – The Reichstag Fire Emergency

• The Nazis blamed the Communist Party for the Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, and framed it as part of a communist uprising to violently overthrow the state
• President Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree on February 28, 1933, which suspended individual rights and due process, permitted arrest and detention without specific charge, dissolved political organizations, and suppressed publications
• The decree suspended democratic aspects of the Weimar Republic, declared a state of emergency, and removed basic freedoms like freedom of speech, right to own property, and right to trial before imprisonment

U.S. 2025 – The Border “Invasion” Emergency

• On January 20, 2025, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, stating “America’s sovereignty is under attack”
• Trump’s executive order required the Defense and Homeland Security secretaries to submit a report within 90 days on “whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807”
• A June 2025 Ninth Circuit decision extended broad discretion to Trump in declaring a national security emergency
• Trump fired the top judge advocate generals for the Army, Navy and Air Force—the top uniformed lawyers responsible for reviewing whether orders are legal. Trump’s defense secretary explained this was done to prevent them from blocking “orders that are given by a commander in chief”
• Trump anticipates his current actions will unleash massive protests, and analysts believe he will use martial law to overcome public protest

Key Structural Similarities: Both cases involve creating or exploiting a crisis to justify emergency powers, framing internal groups as existential threats requiring military response, using emergency declarations to bypass normal democratic processes, removing legal obstacles, and positioning military forces for use against civilian populations.

---

Military Actions Against Other Nations

Germany 1933 – Early Territorial Aggression

• Hitler withdrew Germany from the League of Nations in October 1933
• Began remilitarization in defiance of Treaty of Versailles restrictions
• Laid groundwork for territorial expansion with rhetoric about German-speaking peoples needing protection
• Used claims about national security to justify military buildup

U.S. 2025 – Military Actions and Threats

Venezuela:

• U.S. military began executing airstrikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea in September 2025, with at least 105 people killed in 29 strikes on 30 vessels as of December 22, 2025
• Trump ordered “a total and complete” blockade of all US-sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela, stating “Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America”
• Trump told NBC News “I don’t rule it out, no” when asked if he was ruling out war with Venezuela
• U.S. forces seized oil tankers off Venezuela’s coast, with Venezuela characterizing the actions as “criminal” and “theft and hijacking”
• Questions remain as to whether Trump complied with the War Powers Resolution, which demands the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities”

Threats Against U.S. Allies:

• Trump “declined to rule out using military force to seize the Panama Canal and Greenland, demanded NATO allies spend 5% of GDP on defense”
• Trump “called for absorbing Canada” and threatened to use “economic force” to merge Canada with the United States
• Trump compared NATO allies with debtors delinquent on bills: “If you are delinquent, we will not protect you”
• Trump’s threats against Greenland would invoke NATO’s Article Five, which requires alliance members to defend it—meaning any military action against Greenland would be an attack on a NATO ally
• Russia “reaffirmed its full support for and solidarity with the Venezuelan leadership,” while China condemned the U.S.’s moves as a “serious violation of international law”

---

The Geopolitical Bargain: Spheres of Influence

Germany 1930s – Coordinated Authoritarian Expansion

• Germany, Italy, and Japan carved out spheres of influence while other powers looked away
• Germany took Austria (1938) and Czechoslovakia (1938-39) with tacit acceptance
• Italy invaded Ethiopia (1935-36) without serious intervention
• Japan expanded in Asia and China while Western powers focused on Europe
• Each authoritarian power got its “lebensraum” (living space) while others pursued their own territorial ambitions
• The pattern: coordinated non-interference as authoritarian powers divided regions among themselves

U.S. 2025 – The Venezuela-Ukraine Trade

Russia and China aren’t explicitly demanding anything in exchange for staying quiet on Venezuela—they’re simply getting what they want elsewhere:

What Russia is Getting:

• Trump’s 28-point Ukraine plan gives Russia roughly 70% of what it wants, including territorial concessions, military caps on Ukraine, and lifting of sanctions
• The plan requires Ukraine to cede the Donbas region Russia doesn’t even fully control, cap Ukraine’s military at 600,000-800,000, stay out of NATO, and includes “de facto” US recognition of Crimea as Russian
• Point 13 states: “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy: The lifting of sanctions will be discussed. The US will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for energy, natural resources, infrastructure, AI, data centers, rare earth metal extraction in the Arctic”
• Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said they had “resolved all misunderstandings” with the US on Ukraine and have “reason to believe that the Americans are sincerely interested in this conflict being resolved fairly”

What China is Getting:

• Beijing is Russia’s main economic backer, buying discounted oil, gas and raw materials, paying Moscow tens of billions annually
• Beijing supplies Moscow with four-fifths of drones, electronic chips and other dual-purpose goods for the war
• China benefits from Russia’s reintegration into global economy and weakened US commitment to allies
• Trump’s strongest leverage would be sanctioning China or India (Russia’s key oil buyers), but so far he’s only imposed a symbolic 25% tariff on India

The Pattern: This is a tacit understanding where each authoritarian-leaning power gets its sphere of influence:

• U.S. gets Venezuela (Western Hemisphere)
• Russia gets Ukraine and Eastern Europe
• China gets economic dominance and tacit understanding on Taiwan
• Traditional U.S. alliances (NATO, Pacific partnerships) are weakened in the process

This mirrors the 1930s pattern where authoritarian powers coordinated spheres of influence while democratic alliances fractured.

---

Critical Differences That Still Matter

• Germany 1933: Rapid escalation to systematic murder within months; full one-party dictatorship by July
• U.S. 2025: Federal courts still blocking some operations; free press documenting extensively; electoral mechanisms showing signs of accountability (Miami mayoral election showing democratic response)
• Scale of violence: While 2025 actions are deeply concerning, they involve pepper balls and tear gas, not the systematic murders that characterized early Nazi operations
• Judicial resistance: U.S. courts are actively resisting, unlike Weimar judiciary which collapsed
• No enabling act: Congress has not suspended constitutional protections or granted the executive emergency dictatorial powers

The parallels are structural and procedural. The critical question is whether U.S. institutional resistance can reverse this trajectory, unlike Weimar Germany where institutions collapsed.

---

Verifying the Facts

All comparisons are based on reporting from major news outlets including BBC, CNN, NPR, ProPublica, NBC News, and The Washington Post. Key documented facts include:

• Over 170 U.S. citizens detained by immigration agents in 2025 (ProPublica investigation compiling news reports, court records, and videos)
• Some U.S. citizens held for three days without access to lawyers
• Federal agents wearing masks during residential operations
• Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino acknowledged to a reporter that agents consider “How do they look?” when determining who to detain
• Despite Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stating “No American citizens have been arrested or detained,” multiple federal judges and news investigations have documented this is false
• 105 people killed in U.S. airstrikes on vessels near Venezuela as of December 22, 2025
• Trump’s 28-point Ukraine plan documented in international reporting

---

Prompt to Generate This Analysis

If you want to verify or explore this analysis yourself with an AI, here’s the comprehensive prompt that would generate these fact-based comparisons:

“Please provide a detailed comparison between early 1933 Germany (the year Hitler took power) and the United States in 2025. Structure the analysis as direct parallels with specific examples from each time period. Include the following aspects:

1. Domestic enforcement tactics: Compare paramilitary/military deployment in cities, mass arrests, detention without due process, racial/ethnic profiling, undermining of judicial independence, detention camps, elimination of civil rights oversight, use of masked enforcement agents, and ‘internal enemy’ rhetoric.

2. Scapegoating: Compare who gets blamed for societal problems in each period versus what the actual data shows about those groups.

3. Emergency powers: Compare how emergency/martial law was positioned and implemented in each case, including what legal obstacles were removed.

4. International aggression: Compare military actions against other nations and threats against allies in each period.

5. Geopolitical coordination: Examine how authoritarian powers coordinated spheres of influence, including what Russia and China are getting in exchange for looking the other way on U.S. actions.

6. Media control: Compare how each regime delegitimized independent press, restricted access for critical journalists, and systematically eroded public trust in media.

7. Book banning and censorship: Compare the targeting of books about sexuality, gender identity, and LGBTQ+ topics, and examine the mechanisms used to remove books from public access.

8. Civil service purges and loyalty requirements: Compare how each regime removed civil servants based on political loyalty rather than professional competence, and examine oath requirements and employment protections.

9. University purges and control of academic freedom: Compare how each regime purged universities of ideologically suspect faculty, weaponized funding and accreditation systems, required loyalty demonstrations, and reshaped curricula to serve political ideology.

Base all comparisons on factual reporting from major news outlets like BBC, CNN, NPR, ProPublica, NBC News, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and research organizations like PEN America, the American Library Association, and the American Association of University Professors. Provide specific citations. Include key differences that still matter, particularly regarding institutional resistance and democratic mechanisms that remain functional.”

---

Conclusion

This isn’t about political affiliation—it’s about documented facts and historical patterns. The structural similarities between early 1933 Germany and 2025 United States are striking: militarized enforcement, mass roundups, detention without due process, scapegoating of minorities, defiance of courts, rhetoric about internal enemies, military aggression against other nations, and coordination of spheres of influence with other authoritarian powers.

The question isn’t whether these parallels exist—the reporting shows they do. The question is whether American democratic institutions can reassert control and reverse this trajectory, or whether we continue down the path that 1933 Germany followed.

You can’t look at these patterns in a vacuum. The Venezuela action, the domestic enforcement operations, the weakening of NATO, and the tacit coordination with Russia and China on spheres of influence are all part of a larger pattern that mirrors how authoritarian powers operated in the 1930s.

History doesn’t repeat, but it often rhymes. And right now, the rhythm is uncomfortably familiar.

I had to update this when I realized that Claude was not really researching similarities, it was just waiting for me to prompt it on what to look up. So I pressed it a little and Oh Boy! This led to my next task, this time for Chat GPT. What is a true patriot?