US historian Timothy Snyder draws parallels between the governing style of President Donald Trump and the methods employed by the Nazis. In a feature for the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung” (FAS), he cited U.S. official Greg Bovino, who, during ICE’s violent actions in Minneapolis, wore clothing that some observers likened to SS uniforms. Snyder said that Bovino presents himself as “Himmler or Heydrich”. Snyder also points to the online outputs of U.S. ministries, noting that they “contain content that is known as codes for white nationalism or fascism”.
Snyder was particularly harsh with billionaire Elon Musk, whom he calls “perhaps the most influential person in America”. Musk has altered the parameters of his platform X so that “it is now much easier to spread Nazi content”. He argued that Musk’s gesture of an outstretched arm was interpreted as a Hitler salute merely because it was a Hitler salute, and he found it amusing how some people refuse to see the obvious.
Snyder refutes the widespread German argument that comparisons to the Nazis are inadmissible because they trivialize the Holocaust or question its uniqueness. He claims that the belief “such things cannot happen elsewhere” is a form of negative national exceptionalism. According to Snyder, dismissing comparisons between contemporary developments and Nazi Germany renders Holocaust research useless. While history is unique, one must avoid the fallacy that nothing can be learned from the Holocaust. The opposite is true: those who take the Holocaust seriously study all elements that made it possible, thereby better understanding the present.
Snyder notes that there is currently a substantial number of Americans in senior positions who view the Third Reich as a positive example. We cannot analyze these individuals if we cut ourselves off from knowledge of the Third Reich. It is a perversion to claim that we want to resist fascism while simultaneously ignoring it.
Given the imperial tendencies of leadership in America, Russia, and China, Snyder stresses the importance of the European Union. It is vital today because it answers the question of what might follow empires. The EU seeks to create a large integrated zone that is neither built on exploitation nor on a core‑periphery dynamic. Many European nations have not grasped this; they fail to see that Europe embodies the hope that an alternative exists. Europeans must understand that their current greatest competitors are empires-only then might they recognize the importance of the EU as an alternative model.
Snyder’s analysis places Germany at the center of this scenario. Whether democracy will survive in the world depends on Europe, and Europe depends on Germany. For Germans this is not always comfortable; they are accustomed to thinking that they should not lead. But if they do not lead, they hand power entirely to Americans and Russians.
In this situation, the AfD is especially dangerous because it collaborates with American social‑media oligarchs. It seeks to allow those actors to dominate Germany’s information sphere. Snyder regards the AfD not as a German party but as an instrument of American tech giants. Musk and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance support the AfD because they want to dismantle the EU and thereby weaken EU rules on digital media control. They aim to make money, and spreading anti‑European fascism is their means. The AfD’s support, therefore, is part of a project to destroy European democracies and the EU.