Talk:Trumpism

While the Trump regime obviously won't admit to it, it is no longer up for debate whether this movement is fascist and the page should reflect this. Anything else is dishonest and it is important we be objective. Rangooner (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I've been paying close attention to the academic literature on this subject and, as far as I can tell, you're right. Papers published within the last few months have begun to form a consensus on this subject.

It might be worth an RfC so that this can be brought into an ongoing discussion and we can hash it out, but it might be worth waiting a few months first to avoid jumping the gun. Scholarship moves slowly and it would be a shame to push this before it's consolidated because it might make users hesitant later when the consensus is clearer. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Never too soon to start reviewing good sources. What are you seeing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

A quick search gleans this study from March.

I'm sure there's plenty out there and more to come given that his actions are objectively fascist in nature. To be honest, I don't think it'd be jumping the gun here at all. Actually, it's surprising to me that the fascist nature of his actions is still mentioned here as if it's up for debate when Wikipedia should be unbiased and objective. The more accurate assessment would be that his actions and words are inherently and objectively fascist in nature, but he and the rest of his movement continue to deny it. I'll be keeping an eye out for any research regarding this. Rangooner (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, broken link. Study can be found here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159 Rangooner (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Mirror link:

https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2025.2481159 Rangooner (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought that the Republican party was synonymous with American fascism since at least the Patriot Act (2001) and its authorization of indefinite detention without trial. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't an academic consensus require scholars who have already stated their views in opposition to change their minds/ vacate their position? Has Trumpism changed so significantly that these academics' views are no longer valid? I'm not sure it has. From what I can see, this paper explicitly mentions that a polarised debate is ongoing. This appears to be a good source though so it should be added to the page on the debate. This would be an excellent paper to quote in the note to summarise the debate.

Abstract:

• This debate has unfolded in stark binary terms of presence or absence. Alarmists argue that Trumpism bears all of the hallmarks of fascism and should therefore be labelled as such. Sceptics suggest that this conclusion is premised on shallow historical analogizing that mistakes form for substance.
• This article makes an intervention into these debates, interrogating Trumpism through the prism of...
• although Trumpism does not conform to inter-war European iterations of fascism, and while the conditions under which they emerged are strikingly different, Trumpism nonetheless exhibits fascistic tendencies that have intensified in recent years. We refer to this as 'proto-fascism', and suggest that neoliberal capitalism has been centrally implicated in its emergence.

Joko2468 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

To an extent, yes. The consensus has yet to form. Although it looks like it's beginning to take shape, it's too early to call yet. That being said, many scholars are already flipping from not-fascist to fascist, such as Payne and a few others already noted on the page. However, I suspect Griffin, for example, might never fully endorse the fascist view because he has some stake in pushing his own definition of fascism, but he doesn't need to any more than every creationist had to accept evolution for evolution to be the consensus. I think waiting for a more concrete poll or meta-study to show the numbers is reasonable. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I support removing the word debated too, yes. It would simply be more accurate without it. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Have I gone backwards in reading comprehension? The source provided literally says that this is currently being debated. Joko2468 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Compared to before, there are increasingly more sources which acknowledge fascism in Trumpism. To equate both sides of the debate would be WP:FALSEBALANCE EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you back up this claim? If that is accurate then there should be a pro-fascism academic that incorporates this into their argument. Joko2468 (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, here's more research that directly identifies Trump as fascist:

https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150231210732 Rangooner (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

And third source directly and correctly referring to Trump's fascist politics as fascist:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.07.004 Rangooner (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Three sources do not make a consensus. Please provide a quotation from an academic source that says something in the vein of: "most scholars now agree". For the record, you can find more academic sources affirming the classification in the neo-fascism note (I added them). Joko2468 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it unlikely that someone would claim "most scholars agree that..." when it would require they gather a consensus from every single scholar on the planet? I just don't think it's likely we'll see that exact wording despite the fact that research backs up the common sense observation that he is fascist/neo-fascist/proto-fascist. Rangooner (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Research consistently* backs this common sense observation up, particularly from scholars who study fascism and authoritarianism. Rangooner (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

We don't need exact wording but one of the sources you've provided explicitly portrays this debate as ongoing. Reaching something approaching a consensus among scholars on classifying Trumpism as fascist would be monumental and I would very much expect that to be covered by reliable sources. Joko2468 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

That article states that the use of the word "fascist" is debated by "skeptics" rather than "scholars," which could refer to the general public, with that opposition likely only coming from his cult followers. They take the stance that his regime is proto-fascist/in the early stages of fascism. The other two journals I've presented to not use any such wording and directly refer to his politics as fascist. Rangooner (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it's clear that they're covering this in an academic context. "Alarmists" vs. "sceptics" divides the scholars into two camps. Regardless the link I provided on the main article better illustrates my point. Joko2468 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree and suppose we can't firmly say they're referring to the general public or other scholars given the ambiguous wording. And the link you provided highlights outdated research from before he came into office in 2025 and began acting as a fascist authoritarian. Rangooner (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems more sensible to say that, unless there is research that indicates Trump is not fascist, there is a consistent consensus from scholars that he is in fact fascist. Rangooner (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

There is such research: see Donald Trump and fascism#Criticism of the comparison where the academic debate is covered. Joko2468 (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

All of these source appear to be outdated and published in 2024 or earlier, before Trump even came into office and started exhibiting objectively fascist behavior. Rangooner (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Please invoke an RfC to discuss this further. There's too much editorial judgement in your reasoning. Joko2468 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say the same about your arguments as you haven't been able to produce any updated research on the contrary. Rangooner (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand that it's important claims here are verified and that we can't necessarily just call a spade a spade without evidence to prove it is a spade. But when we don't see any trustworthy, up-to-date research that indicates Trump is indeed not a fascist, I think it's dishonest and violated the integrity of Wikipedia's mission to provide factual and unbiased information rather than leaning into the uninformed opinions of skeptics. At the same time, if I told you the logo for Wikipedia is supposed to be a globe and provided ample verification of this, and you you disagreed, would we not be able to refer to it as such because skepticism about whether or not it's a globe exists? Alright, I'm done. Rangooner (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What I meant is that it isn't appropriate for two editors' views to hold so much weight on such a controversial matter. You can invoke a Request for comment to invite more editors to discuss this towards a consensus. See the one I invoked above on academic sourcing.

I'm not sure I understand your last point, I'm not disagreeing with you on the definition of "sceptic" but scholars will often seek to assign technical names to different camps in an academic debate. For an example, see how Ivan Gomza characterises the debate of the fascist classification of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (I worked on this content). Joko2468 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Who decides whether the research is sufficiently up-to-date? Journalists and celebrities are not the only people saying Trump is not a fascist. Some scholarly sources from the last couple of years do, too, as already mentioned on the page. We use polls and metastudies to show consensus on, for example, the Copenhagen Interpretation. The social sciences are also much less likely to form consensus, being softer on defined terms and peer review than the hard sciences. I agree that it's clear that most recent studies present Trump as a fascist, but it could simply be a wave that's yet to be met with resistance. It's a difficult subject to tackle with more nuance than you might expect. 2601:486:100:9780:58A6:DBA5:3244:4EAD (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we have to go off the sum of the evidence based on reliable sources and I've provided high quality evidence that this change wouldn't be appropriate (see my reply from 11:05). Editors' meta-analyses are sometimes used to build consensus but only when there is no other alternative. Joko2468 (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

On a separate note, I would like to add this quotation from the provided source to the neo-fascism note: "This debate has unfolded in stark binary terms of presence or absence. Alarmists argue that Trumpism bears all of the hallmarks of fascism and should therefore be labelled as such. Sceptics suggest that this conclusion is premised on shallow historical analogizing that mistakes form for substance... although Trumpism does not conform to inter-war European iterations of fascism, and while the conditions under which they emerged are strikingly different, Trumpism nonetheless exhibits fascistic tendencies that have intensified in recent years. We refer to this as 'proto-fascism', and suggest that neoliberal capitalism has been centrally implicated in its emergence."

I think this is simply an improvement but does anyone object? Joko2468 (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this should be controversial unless an academic source is provided to support the FALSEBALANCE claim above. If someone disagrees, please revert this and we can discuss. Joko2468 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

"neoliberal capitalism has been centrally implicated in its emergence" Sure, blame neoliberalism for this mess. But Trumpism is a reaction against neoliberalism's main doctrine of free-market capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is interesting but please see WP:NOTFORUM. Joko2468 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Opinion is not fact. And applying labels such as “fascist” “Nazi” and “authoritarian” to innocent people or his supporters should be considered a violation of Wikipedia rules. This is incredibly dangerous and could potentially lead to furthering political violence. It has already lead to innocent people being murdered, harassed, stalked, assaulted, doxxed, etc.

Your personal bias is not a fact. It is opinion. And it must remain that unless it is fact.

Please refrain from making such accusations in the future on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) as it is a call to action that has real world consequences for innocent people. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

And furthermore- let that be considered a final warning to anyone here. Such calls to action and misappropriation of such labels with the intention of making a tongue and cheek call to action against people- will be handled appropriately. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Threatening editors is inappropriate and could result in a ban. See WP:HA and WP:FAITH. I can guarantee you that whatever concerns you have about the encyclopedia, behaving in this authoritarian manner will achieve nothing. Joko2468 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this. The only people who should "handle appropriately" anything are admins. Slomo666 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that it might be neo-fascist or authoritarian in practice, but because they avoid that, you should write that they do that, not label themselves as that. AtTheTownHouse (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I personally think it can be included but it should probably be placed in factions. ~2025-36440-88 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

While many self proclaimed fascists and neo fascist speak personal support for Trump, “trumpism” is not an actual ideology nor is it a neo fascist ideology. Trump does not exhibit the hallmark traits of being a fascist and he was elected into power via popular vote by the people of the United States, meaning well over half of public voters- voted for him. He still follows the constitution of the United States, the governing system/checks and balances are still intact, and any accusation on Wikipedia of him, his supporters, etc. being fascists is unfounded and potentially dangerous and could lead to innocent people being harmed. It is not a light accusation to make and has already lead to multiple individuals being physically harmed, harassed, and even murdered. Calling someone a fascist and or a Nazi is a call to action against them.

Do Not Do This. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Trumpism is indeed an actual ideology. In fact, any leader, politician, or faction can be described as having their own unique ideology - it's just that only some of them are notable enough for their equivalent -ism. Your personal opinion on whether Trumpism is neofascist or not is irrelevant. Many well respected scholars agree that he is, some who have made major contributions to the understanding of the nature of fascism (such as Robert Paxton). Many also think he is not a fascist. Even more would disagree with your assertion that no democratic backsliding has occurred under his tenure. Keep in mind that any serious academic is not using the term as a pure pejorative label or a call for action, but as a complex model for understanding mass movements and finding patterns in history. Anyway, it is not the responsibility of wikipedia to censor ideas just because some could use them as an excuse to harm others. Entity563 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore- I would like to formally request that the neo-fascism label be removed because it is neither based upon fact nor reality. It is opinion based on personal bias. It is also incredibly dangerous and should not be accepted on Wikipedia. ~2025-36860-67 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Ironically that is your own opinion based on personal bias. The reality is that there are many scholars that think so and it is being debated. The debate is objectively characterised in the note in the infobox. Readers can look at the content and make up their own minds, Wikipedia is WP:UNCENSORED. Joko2468 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to make formal requests. If you want to make an edit request you can, but not on a controversial change such as this one, certainly not if there is already a discussion on the subject ongoing. It would help you if you would lower your tone and act more civil.

Slomo666 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That would mischaracterise the fascism sources-- they all say that Trump or Trumpism is fascist or fascist-adjacent and do not refer to a faction within Trumpism. Joko2468 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If so it’s probably high time we admit scholars just have their own biases. Again I can see a case for neo-fascism in the info box but if it’s not in factions it’s just a case of “everybody I dislike is a fascist” ~2025-38155-89 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I sympathise but it isn't practical to do that. If there's a wider systemic bias in academia, then there's not much we can do about that: see WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Were Wikipedia to assume political neutrality as a principle, all hell would break loose. Your argument for including it as a faction just isn't valid and has no basis in the sources. Joko2468 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely not a case of "everybody I dislike is fascist."

Trumpism is largely defined by its ultranationalism and populism, and it has lead to significant Democratic backsliding in the United States leading to the United States being labeled variously an anocracy, an electoral autocracy, and an illiberal regime, which are all types of hybrid regimes.

In other words, Trumpism is an authoritarian movement promoting ultranationalist populism. That fits several definitions of generic fascism. You would have to be completely ignorant about what fascism is to not at least see the strong parallels. This is why it's a subject of serious academic debate. ~2026-12612-86 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that call Trumpism neo-fascist. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Should the List of ideologies list Neo-mercantilism or mercantilism since it alligns a lot with trump's trade views Robloxgamer469 (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source to add that (ideally an academic one), it's not mentioned at Economic policy of the second Trump administration. As editors we just collate sources and don't conduct original research. Joko2468 (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Based on this, I see a justification for a Trumpism article focusing mostly on his policies, actions, leadership style, attitudes and actions toward private and government institutions, ditto to allies and enemies, and I've probably left out a lot. For MAGA (spelled out), we would start with the slogan and campaign aspects of it, and focus more on the political interplay between Trump and his acolytes in and especially out of government, and just kind of a tribal identification, in the way that the Tea Party was. (It would be interesting to compare and look at overlaps there, as well as variation between them.) Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't "his policies, actions, leadership style, attitudes and actions toward private and government institutions", etc., just be what is ordinarily described in the usual articles about him, his presidency and his administration? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

A fair question. I was trying to summarize at a very high level the content of a sampling of journal articles on Trumpism to see how that might break down and what the common threads are. Also, the sheer volume of them. We might also ask why Obamaism (search journals) has only a small fraction of that number, and why there are reports about Bushism (search), but they tend to be about verbal gaffes. I get the strong feeling, call it hunch until we have a better sampling, that there really is a serious academic study of Trumpism that merits the article. (While looking for examples for this comment, I noticed quite a few articles on Clintonism, and it all boils down pretty much like our articles have it: Obamaism no, but Clintonism yes, and Bushism yes, but not in the same way.) Also, we are indented deep in the middle of a !vote here. Your question merits a response, but maybe we should move to a better venue; maybe the Draft talk page? Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. As note of emphasis, I'll point out that ObamaismObamaism is a redirect to Political positions of Barack Obama, which is a more run-of-the-mill article about political history and philosophy. Similarly, the opening sentence of Clintonism says it is about "the political and economic policies of [the Clintons]". There is already another article about the Political positions of Donald Trump, which basically says that "Trumpism" is a synonym for those. As you noted, the Bushism article is about something different, but it has a hatnote that says "For his political ideologies, see Political positions of George W. Bush. For key foreign policy principles, see Bush Doctrine." Is it redundant to have separate articles about "Trumpism" and the "Political positions of Donald Trump", and is it beyond-the-pale to add a third article about the "MAGA movement"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Those articles are approaching size limits. An article about Trumpism itself is necessary. The article about his political positions is didactic, but there is something to be said about the beliefs of a mercurial individual, the notion of "Trumpism"—which does exist in scholarly literature, and a movement of followers of Trumpism. In researching the MAGA movement draft, I did find an article that distinguishes between "Trumpism" and the "MAGA movement". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Presidents of the United States/Donald Trump task force, WikiProject Presidents of the United States, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Conservatism, and WikiProject Discrimination have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move, support split — I have been envisioning an article for the MAGA movement for a while, particularly after reading an article about intellectualism in the MAGA movement recently; this is a great opportunity to effectualize it. The analogy that would work best here is that the Tea Party movement did not assume the entirety of the ideology of fiscal conservativism in the United States. Rather, fiscal conservativism was the basis for the Tea Party movement. A similar relationship exists here between Trumpism, which has been extensively discussed, and the MAGA movement, which has minimal coverage but is clearly notable. I have a draft of what such an article would look like, but I didn't back it up and it is still on my local computer. I will publish it at Draft:MAGA movement when I come home. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I have published the draft. Sitting down and writing this, the most difficult aspect is discerning the ideology and the movement, but it is clear there is a consistent brand between Trump's three campaigns—arguably, even the White House now. This will also resolve some of the mess at Make America Great Again; at the least, it is an appropriate host for MAGA hat. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• (also) Support split. Discussion has convinced me that MAGA may well support Trump and Trumpism. (I also voted above to support the move, which may well be be a preliminary step before splitting.) —RCraig09 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose move, support split. Guz13 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose move, support split per arguments given. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose move, support split based on this reasoning. Mathglot (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

  Support split per above Kowal2701 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support split per BD2412. It makes since that the MAGA movement and Trumpism are separate topics. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 12:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose move, support split. The scope of the political ideology Trumpism and the political movement MAGA are not the same and the proposed name change would massively destabilise the article. The MAGA movement ought not to be conflated with support for Trump since many of his voters have done so reluctantly. The Background and context section should remain on this page as the context it provides is designed to be relevant to the ideological content. Joko2468 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose move, but support split, "Trumpism" is a sociopolitical ideology, and MAGA is a sociopolitical movement associated with the ideology. Let this page be focused on the ideology, and split and create a separate article on the MAGA. Ahammed Saad (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page does not include the high prevalence of organizations like the "KKK" or "Nazism". Please include how trumpism is highly connected to the "KKK" and "Nazism". As 99% of both groups consider themselves part of the Maga movement and are the biggest supporters.

Excluding these leaves a misinterpreted understanding of trumpism and what it is. ~2026-35919-4 (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I have personally seen these terms used quite a bit within my family and friend circles, so I believe it would be fit for them to be added. Despite being listed as "informal," "derogatory," and "humorous" by the Wiktionary article, I now mostly see Trumpster used as a genuine name for them, though those descriptors could still be used for many cases of the term.

2016, use of Trumpster by Douglas Kellner in American Nightmare: Donald Trump, Media Spectacle, and Authoritarian Populism (per Wiktionary)

2017, use of Trumpster by Paul Schwartz in A Citizen's Perspective: Society, Hypocrisy and the 2016 election (per Wiktionary, see above citation)

2020, use of Trumpster by Barry Mitzman in Trumpster Joseph diGenova’s Significant Washington State Legacy (potentially informal or humorous given its nature as used in the title of an article)

2021, use of Trumpster presumably by Sen. Kevin Cramer: "You’ll have somebody, they’re a freedom fighter, they’re a patriot, they’re a tea partier or they’re a Trumpster, but then they want to toss out the Constitution when it isn’t convenient." Per rollcall.com, per cramer.senate.gov

2023, use of Trumpster by Alex Henderson in 'Pretty weak sauce': Trumpster Peter Navarro has 'next to no defense' in contempt of Congress trial (potentially informal or humorous given its nature as used in the title of an article and use of the term "pretty weak sauce," albeit as a quote)

2025, use of Trumpster via an unattributed quote, Roger S. Cadena Examining Latino Voters Who Say “I’m a Republican but not a Trumpster”

2016, use of Trumper by Andrew Mercer of the Pew Research Center in Why 2016 election polls missed their mark via an unattributed quote, "The idea of so-called “shy Trumpers” suggests that support for Trump was socially undesirable, and that his supporters were unwilling to admit their support to pollsters."

2021, use of Trumper by Frank Bruni in There’s a New Wizard of Oz. It’s Donald Trump., in The New York Times‎ (per Wiktionary)

2022, use of Trumper by Rich Barlow in Are Trump Republicans Fascists?, indirectly quoting Jonathan Zaitlan, "He says critics of Trumpers fling “fascist” facilely and without historical reference. But that doesn’t mean there’s no danger from violent Trumpers, he adds..."

2024, use of Trumper by Cameron Joseph in John Thune’s leadership win shows limits of MAGA’s reach in Senate, in The Christian Science Monitor (per Wiktionary, see above 2021 Wiktionary citation for Trumper) ~2026-54562-7 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I support adding trumpster. Robloxgamer469 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Trumper is indirectly there already as part of 'Never Trumper' reaction to "RINO" Republicans label. Trumpster could be worth looking into though if it has precedent in being used by Trump supporters & others though. Adpocalyptic (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there any reason as to why the infobox was suddenly removed? ~2026-67453-3 (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I was a bit jaded at first but Blairism, Third Way etc. don't have infoboxes. The infobox did describe a movement, which isn't the subject of this article. Joko2468 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The page says “significant illiberal, authoritarian and autocratic beliefs”. The page also calls him “far right” and relates him to fascism. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

All of these things are perfectly well sourced. — Czello ^(music) 15:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

So to you CNN is an accurate non-biased source when it is the complete opposite. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPCNN, CNN is reliable. Besides, that is not the only source. The sources for "authoritarian", for example, are academic in nature. — Czello ^(music) 15:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

CNN is not reliable, it calls Trump a far right extremist who hates blacks and woman. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If you think CNN insn't reliable, that's a conversation for WP:RSN. Currently, however, the consensus is that it is. And, as I said, it is not the only source on this article. — Czello ^(music) 15:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Most mainstream news outlets are liberal. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If you say so. — Czello ^(music) 15:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Not really. Fox News is pretty conservative and it too is considered a mainstream news outlet. Same for the Wall Street Journal, at least in the opinion section. ~2026-82459-6 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I said "Most mainstream news outlets are liberal.", I never said all were. TheCgamingbruv (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Should at least say "Trumpism contains significant beliefs described by experts as authoritarian, illiberal, and in some cases autocratic."

"It is heavily debated by many scholars on whether or not Trump's ideology is considered fascist." ~2026-82459-6 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Some observers, including some scholars of 20th-century fascism, reject the label, arguing that Trump’s policies—such as deregulation, tax cuts, and opposition to government-mandated health measure and more with a "hypercapitalist" or "authoritarian populist" ideology than with the state-controlled economy typical of historical fascism. From this perspective, the goal is seen as reducing federal oversight rather than establishing a totalitarian state. ~2026-89201-0 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Take this to Donald Trump and fascism with reliable sources that you would like to include. It's explicitly presented as a debate in the infobox. Joko2468 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

We should use attribution and avoid putting minority views in WP:VOICE. DN (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

For a while, we've kept the "Right-wing to far-right" for the political spectrum, mostly because there are Trump-affiliated movements and parties like Reform UK that are not inherently labelled as JUST far-right. It's only recently when people started to change it. The GOP page itself has "right-wing" labelled on its political spectrum, not even far-right. And not everything that is defined as "radical right" is inherently far-right." Do you guys support or oppose changing it to JUST "far-right"? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"The GOP page itself has "right-wing" labelled on its political spectrum, not even far-right" Well, that throws Wikipedia's reliability right out of the window. How is an illiberal, authoritarian, autocratic, and neo-fascist political party just "right-wing"? Particularly when it is the main party responsible for the Democratic backsliding in the United States: "Backsliding in the 21st century has been discussed as largely a Republican-led phenomenon, with particular emphasis placed on the administrations of Donald Trump." Dimadick (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Because the GOP is much more than that. Also, I don’t know if you caught on but the neo-fascism it’s still heavily debated upon, as we are still talking about it to this day. Not trying to wash Trump‘s ideology, but let’s not take it too far either; after all Trump-aligned movements and parties like Reform UK and Republican Party of Chile are not labeled as “far-right” DougheGojiraMan (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Whether Francisco Franco was a fascist or not is also still debated on. There are even scholars who insist that Hitler isn't really fascist because his movement was too different from Italian Fascism. Others debate that Mussolini never succeeded in turning Italy fascist, because he failed to achieve totalitarianism and settled for mere authoritarianism. There will always be scholars who insist that nobody alive could possibly be truly fascist. ~2026-12612-86 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course the only thing you can come up with is slander. AllegiantAirEnjoyer (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The honest truth is because Wikipedia depends far too much on editorials written between 2015 and 2020 or earlier to identify the political orientation of the Republican party. Efforts have been made to correct this deficiency. They failed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to make changes for trumpism Sam200378 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

“Debated” should be removed. Sam200378 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Please provide more detail as to where/which use of that term specifically? DN (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Used to describe trumpism as neo-fascism ( debated ). based on the Jan 6 insurrection by far right extremists and recent events in Minnesota, and use of trump banners, there is no debate about it being a fascist or neo-fascist movement. Try to learn and Understand fascism more. Sam200378 (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources indicate that there is a debate, regardless of whether any of us agree with one side or the other, and making changes that are reliably sourced is very important here. If you are new to Wikipedia, welcome, I highly recommend getting help from the WP:TEAHOUSE to start making edits. If you look at the top of this talk-page it will also provide you with some tools and advice for starting discussions and making edits. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2017- Donald Trump veracity - composite graph.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

'Trumpism enabling the Alt-right' came up a lot as a debated topic whether on TV, or in widely shared trending posts on social media, or online newspapers, or archived material from congress, or research papers, or reports from psychological health studies and even every day conversation in general, especially in regards to support from & associations with groups described as "alt-right" I think even here at one point it came up in multiple [pages] which is a pretty wide range of places, so I found it odd after I was reading through and trying to learn more about the topic where I noticed it wasn't a part of the page - whether in brief description at the top (that references neo-fascism) or in deeper sections of the page, which is a bit confusing. Is there a particular reason why that specific term wouldn't be added as something used by opponents to describe him? (P.s. I know the cited sources I'm using here are a mixed bag but this is me asking a question on a point within conversations on a talk page, and not the same as me putting them in article) Adpocalyptic (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I'd agree with & support a proposal on amending the opening paragraph of: "There is significant academic debate over the prevalence of neo-fascist elements of Trumpism." to say prevalence of neo-fascist and/or alt-right elements of Trumpism. Adpocalyptic (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

One last reference to the links drawn between the two, from yet another platform Though I do wonder if 'proto-fascism' is better to use as a term over neo-fascist part Adpocalyptic (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Removing Bias. ~2026-66605-1 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a notice that there is a draft for the federal program naming spree (relevant to § Cult of personality) at Draft:Eponymous naming of United States government facilities and programs during the second Trump administration until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)