Dateline: September 13, 2025

Introduction

The United States is facing a problem that most Americans hoped was confined to the history books: a resurgent strain of fascist ideology. From authoritarian rhetoric in politics to armed militias at state capitols, fascism is not just a relic of 20th-century Europe—it is alive and operating within the U.S. today. The question is no longer whether fascism exists here, but how to counteract and remove its influence without violating the very rights and liberties that fascists themselves seek to destroy.

The challenge is steep: protecting constitutional freedoms, respecting due process, and avoiding the traps of censorship or violence—all while dismantling a political culture that thrives on division, disinformation, and intimidation. The solution is neither easy nor quick, but it is possible. This article lays out a factual, evidence-based roadmap for weakening and ultimately removing fascist influence from the U.S. population through nonviolent, lawful, and rights-respecting strategies.

Understanding the Legal Line

Any plan to reduce fascist influence must begin with a clear understanding of what the law allows and where it draws the line. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court held that even extremist speech is protected unless it is both intended to incite and likely to produce imminent lawless action (Stone, 2019). That precedent means the United States cannot and should not ban fascist beliefs or speech simply because they are offensive. What can—and must—be targeted are the actions that step into illegality: threats, organized harassment, paramilitary violence, and intimidation of voters or public officials.

Focusing on conduct rather than belief is not just legally necessary; it is strategically wise. Attempts to censor fascist speech often backfire, feeding a sense of martyrdom and persecution that extremists thrive on (Benesch, 2013). By contrast, transparent, due-process enforcement of existing laws removes dangerous conduct while denying fascists the propaganda win of being “silenced by the establishment.”

Economic Pressure: Starving the Movement

Money is the oxygen of political movements, and fascism is no exception. History shows that economic pressure—when done legally—can cripple extremist groups. Boycotts are a constitutionally protected form of political expression. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Supreme Court affirmed that organized boycotts aimed at social or political change are protected speech (Rosenberg, 2011).

Applying this lesson today means using boycotts, strikes, and “do-not-fund” campaigns against businesses, PACs, and media outlets that enable fascist politics. Pressure campaigns can starve organizations of revenue, while “buycotts” can redirect money toward pro-democracy enterprises. The goal is not to punish individuals for private beliefs, but to cut off the large-scale flows of cash that keep extremist ecosystems thriving.

Exit Programs: Offering a Way Out

While pressure is necessary, it is not sufficient. Fascism is also a recruitment machine that thrives on disaffection, grievance, and alienation. Breaking the cycle requires building credible “off-ramps” for people who want to leave.

Groups like Life After Hate specialize in helping former extremists reintegrate into society (Feddes, Mann, & Doosje, 2015). They provide counseling, job training, and peer mentoring, addressing the social and psychological roots of extremist involvement. Such programs are cheaper than endless surveillance or incarceration and more effective at reducing recidivism.

Scaling these initiatives requires investment from government, philanthropy, and community institutions—schools, unions, churches, and HR departments—who are often the first to spot someone sliding into extremist networks. Every person who exits weakens the movement and signals to others that there is life beyond hate.

What Actually Lowers Prejudice

Decades of social science research confirm a blunt truth: you cannot simply shame people out of fascism. What works is structured intergroup contact. Gordon Allport’s “contact theory” shows that prejudice decreases when individuals from different groups meet under conditions of equal status, shared goals, cooperation, and institutional support (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

That means deliberately building cross-community projects—mixed sports teams, civic service corps, disaster relief initiatives—where participants must cooperate and succeed together. These encounters don’t erase ideology overnight, but they chip away at stereotypes and reduce susceptibility to extremist recruitment. If embedded in schools, workplaces, and civic programs, contact theory can inoculate future generations against fascism’s appeal.

Protecting Institutions Without Overreach

Fascism thrives on spectacle and intimidation. Armed rallies, voter suppression tactics, and online harassment are designed to make democracy feel fragile. The counter is not mass arrests or sweeping bans, but surgical enforcement of existing laws against threats, weapons at polling places, and paramilitary intimidation.

For example, states already have authority to restrict firearms at voting sites or government buildings. Election workers can be trained in de-escalation and supported with rapid legal recourse when harassed (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). These measures target unlawful conduct without criminalizing belief, protecting both democracy and civil liberties.

Countering Disinformation

Fascist movements rely heavily on disinformation. From Nazi propaganda in the 1930s to QAnon conspiracies today, lies are the bloodstream of authoritarian politics. Treating disinformation like a public health problem is more effective than reactive censorship.

Research shows that “prebunking”—exposing people to the tactics of manipulation before they encounter falsehoods—significantly reduces susceptibility (Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021). Media literacy education, prebunking campaigns, and context labeling on social platforms can help create an information immune system. The key is to counter lies quickly, locally, and with trusted messengers, not just federal agencies or distant experts.

Democracy Must Outperform the Grift

One of the most powerful ways to dismantle fascism is also the simplest: make democracy work better than authoritarian alternatives. Extremist movements gain traction in conditions of economic despair and political paralysis. By delivering tangible improvements in housing, wages, healthcare, and local governance, democratic institutions can cut into fascism’s recruitment base (Mounk, 2018).

Visible anti-corruption enforcement is equally crucial. Fascist leaders often rise by exploiting public disgust at corruption and dysfunction. Transparent accountability can undercut their claim to be the only “authentic” alternative.

Mobilizing the Non-Aligned Majority

Contrary to the noise, most Americans are not ideological extremists. They are the non-aligned majority—people who may feel disillusioned but not committed to fascism. Engaging them requires offering low-risk, practical ways to participate: attending a school board meeting, joining a local union action, volunteering at a polling station, or participating in neighborhood watch programs.

Every act of democratic participation builds resilience. Just as importantly, organizers must follow up—transforming a one-time volunteer into a consistent participant. Fascist movements grow when democratic institutions fail to retain their own citizens.

Counterspeech Over Censorship

The antidote to fascist propaganda is not silencing, but overwhelming counterspeech. This means rebutting lies with receipts, highlighting hypocrisies, and spotlighting defectors from within the movement.

Counterspeech is most effective when it is factual, rapid, and distributed across trusted networks (Benesch, 2014). The strategy should not amplify extremist content by endlessly repeating it, but rather expose its falsehood and redirect audiences toward verifiable information.

The Ethical Red Lines

Finally, it is vital to avoid tactics that betray democratic principles. No doxxing. No harassment. No broad political litmus tests for employment or public services. These approaches not only backfire, but they mirror the very authoritarianism they claim to resist.

Instead, focus on behavior rather than belief, on rights-based enforcement rather than arbitrary punishment, and on transparency rather than secrecy.

Conclusion

Removing fascism from the U.S. population is neither a fantasy nor a call for violence. It is a long-term project requiring patience, consistency, and faith in the democratic process. The strategy rests on three pillars:

  1. Cut off fascism’s resources—money, recruits, and platforms of intimidation.
  2. Deliver tangible improvements in people’s lives through democratic institutions.
  3. Guard the rights and liberties of all, even those who would deny them, because democracy’s strength lies in its refusal to mirror authoritarianism.

The choice facing America is stark: fight fascism on its terms and risk becoming what we oppose, or defeat it by proving that democracy works, rights matter, and freedom is stronger than fear.

https://endfascism.xyz

References

Benesch, S. (2013). Dangerous speech: A proposal to prevent group violence. World Policy Institute.

Benesch, S. (2014). Countering dangerous speech to prevent mass violence during Kenya’s 2013 elections. Journal of International Law and Politics, 47(2), 425–451.

Feddes, A. R., Mann, L., & Doosje, B. (2015). Increasing self-esteem and empathy to prevent violent radicalization: A longitudinal quantitative evaluation of a resilience training focused on adolescents with a dual identity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(7), 400–411.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.

Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348–384.

Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to save it. Harvard University Press.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

Rosenberg, G. N. (2011). The Hollow Hope: Can courts bring about social change? University of Chicago Press.

Stone, G. R. (2019). Perilous times: Free speech in wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism. W.W. Norton.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.