WASHINGTON — In a June 5, 2025, opinion piece titled “The Seizure of Power: An Historical Reflection,” labor law scholar Matthew W. Finkin draws alarming parallels between former President Donald Trump’s actions during his current term and the Nazi regime’s early years in power.
The essay, originally a lecture delivered at Mander Hall in London, warns that Trump’s consolidation of executive power bears a resemblance to Adolf Hitler’s Machtergreifung—the so-called “Seizure of Power”—and raises urgent concerns about the erosion of democratic governance and the rule of law in the United States.
Finkin, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois College of Law, asserts that recent executive orders issued by Trump target the foundational pillars of an independent civil service, weaken judicial authority, and place unprecedented control in the executive branch’s hands.
Drawing on historical documentation from Nazi Germany, Finkin suggests that what is unfolding in the United States is not merely political overreach, but a structural threat to constitutional democracy.
Finkin identifies a pattern of purges within the executive branch that echoes the Nazi regime’s 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service.
According to Finkin, Trump has systematically dismissed officials in the Department of Justice, security services, military legal counsel, and even inspectors general of key departments.
These actions, he notes, are aimed at eliminating dissent and ensuring loyalty.
Finkin writes that a March 2025 executive order allows for dismissal based on post-appointment conduct, including private speech and associations—a chilling parallel to Nazi Germany’s policy of removing officials whose political activity did not align with the national state.
He reminds readers that Germany’s law was not only about eliminating non-Aryans but also dismissing anyone deemed politically unreliable.
Finkin argues that the Trump administration’s attempts to reshape legal interpretation also align with the Nazi-era belief in the Führerprinzip, or “leader principle.”
In Nazi Germany, the will of the Führer became the law.
Likewise, Trump’s executive order “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” centralizes legal interpretation in the office of the president and attorney general, declaring their views on law “controlling” for all executive agencies.
According to Finkin, this effectively dismantles independent regulatory bodies and undermines statutory interpretation by career legal professionals.
“No employee of the executive branch may advance an interpretation of the law… that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion,” the order reads, raising alarm about the legal legitimacy of agency actions moving forward.
The creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, spearheaded by Elon Musk, further blurs the lines between public governance and private influence.
Finkin writes that DOGE, an ad hoc agency operating in a legal gray zone, has begun issuing performance directives across federal departments, demanding weekly accomplishment reports from employees under threat of dismissal.
This “polycratic” structure, he notes, mirrors Nazi Germany’s dual system of authority, where state power and party ideology intertwined.
Finkin emphasizes that agency heads have responded inconsistently—some resisting DOGE’s authority, others complying or remaining silent—further destabilizing traditional checks on power.
Finkin discusses Trump’s efforts to “coordinate” agencies under White House control, using language reminiscent of the Nazi term Gleichschaltung—the enforced alignment of all institutions with party ideology.
Under Gleichschaltung, Nazi Germany dismantled legal independence, cultural freedom, and civil society.
Trump’s version, Finkin suggests, includes removing terms like “clean energy,” “disability,” and “race” from government websites, while renaming federal landmarks to promote nationalist rhetoric.
According to Finkin, this is more than semantics—it’s the politicization of language as a means of reshaping reality.
Finkin’s piece outlines additional warning signs.
He notes that Trump has replaced military leaders with loyalists, echoing Hitler’s restructuring of military command in 1938.
He also calls attention to an executive order denying U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented mothers—an act he compares to the 1935 Reich Citizenship Law, which stripped Jews and others of legal nationality based on heritage.
Moreover, Trump’s vocal desire to annex foreign territories—including Canada and the Panama Canal Zone—and his attempts to regulate public science and education funding according to ideology signal what Finkin characterizes as a creeping autocracy.
“Scientific research, social programs, and the nation’s role in the world are systematically dismantled,” he warns.
Finkin concludes with a sober reflection: unlike Hitler, whose political crime was part of a nationalist vision, Trump’s motivations appear centered on retribution and personal power.
Still, he notes that the judicial branch remains the last major check.
Should Trump defy the Supreme Court, the future of American democracy would rest on two forces: the public’s willingness to oppose him and Republican leaders’ willingness to respond.
He draws a final historical echo, referencing Nazi Germany’s concern for public opinion.
In one case, a national euthanasia program was halted due to public and religious backlash.
Finkin implies that sustained civic resistance in the United States could play a similar role in halting democratic decline.
Finkin’s piece, published by The American Prospect, serves as a grave warning.
The mechanics of authoritarianism often masquerade as legality.
His historical analysis reminds readers that what unfolds quietly within the halls of power can dramatically reshape a nation’s democratic destiny.
Trump is Hitler – how original :-|
If everything is Nazi, nothing is Nazi :-(
Just stop!
Hitler hated the Jews. Trump just took out the biggest threat to the existence of their homeland.
Trump will go down in history for taking out Iran’s nuke capability, at least with the Israeli people.
There’s no telling how our own country will see it, too many Trump haters.
They’re already trying to spin it as a negative.
Except of course the points raised by Finkin had nothing to do with that.
Finkin’s reflection serves as a warning, not a direct equivalence. He argues that without enforceable checks—from courts, Congress, and public institutions—sliding toward authoritarian governance becomes a real danger. The comparison to Hitler frames Trump’s actions as part of a historical pattern of democratic backsliding, urging vigilance and institutional resistance.
Every president removes people from the previous administration and installs their own.
It’s not like Trump is the first to do this.
Taking one point in isolation is not very useful here – it’s a totality of circumstances that is at issue.
Here are seven points he raised:
Trump has reportedly pursued loyalty vetting for federal appointees and career staff, including dismissal or marginalization of officials viewed as insufficiently supportive
Trump issued executive directives and policy actions aimed at expanding presidential authority—effectively diminishing checks by the judiciary and legislative branches
Trump has been accused of undermining judicial independence, threatening retaliatory action against judges and appealing to partisan legal structures .
Trump’s information tactics include amplifying disinformation, vilifying dissenters, and fostering “us vs. them” narratives with nationalist and patriotic framing
Trump fosters a strong persona-based political style, emphasizing charisma and loyalty over institutional norms—echoing early fascist models
Trump famously told the Proud Boys to “stand by,” and pardoned Jan 6 participants—actions seen by some scholars as activating a quasi-paramilitary “Brownshirt-style” following
Trump’s moves to privatize public institutions (e.g., postal service, Medicare) as part of Project 2025 echo similar centralizations, but within a neoliberal slant
However, as many scholars caution, Trump is not Hitler in terms of genocidal ideology or total wartime mobilization. Trump lacks the single-party dominance, racial totalitarian agenda, and wartime conditions that fueled Nazi Germany’s extremism.
He probably would have been better making the basic argument that many scholars have made (and over the last decade not just now) that the US is backsliding away from democracy. Then again, it would have been better if you guys had read this more carefully and teased out his specific argument rather than just reacting to the title.
I’m not worried about it. It’s not like Trump is putting people in Gulags or something.
You’ve been cheer leading him since day one, it’s very obvious that you aren’t worried about anything. Your second sentence is debatable at best.
“It’s not like Trump is putting people in Gulags or something.”
That is exactly what is being done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_administration#Use_of_El_Salvador
I wish people would just focus on Trumps actions and faults, of which there are many.
Instead of going to the Nazi narrative.
It’s not unlike the attempt by the antizionists to equate Zionism with Nazism. Just talk about what you don’t like about Israeli policy, politics, and polticians. Enough with the equating, so that dumb people can join your side.
Calling someone a Nazi is like calling someone a racist.
It’s been so overused by the left that no one cares anymore.
Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler. While people sometimes make comparisons between political figures and historical ones, especially when criticizing policies or rhetoric, it’s important to recognize the vast differences in context, actions, and historical impact.
Adolf Hitler led Nazi Germany, initiated World War II, and orchestrated the Holocaust atrocities on an unprecedented scale. Trump, while a highly polarizing figure, operated within the framework of American democratic institutions, and his actions, controversial as they may be, are not comparable in scale or kind to Hitler’s.
Criticisms of any political leader are valid and should be based on facts, policies, and behaviors. Comparing modern politicians to figures like Hitler hinder constructive discourse rather than help it.
The author does not claim that he is Adolph Hitler, that’s a strawman argument.