The Rise of the Neo Nazi - This is Only the Start

Below is a high-level overview of some of the points people highlight when drawing parallels between Donald Trump’s stance on diversity programmes and developments in 1930s Germany (i.e., during the early Ruling Party period under Adolf Hitler). Of course, Trump’s actions and 1930s Germany are very different contexts and histories, so these comparisons are not perfect; however, certain themes recur in commentaries and critiques:

1. Targeting specific groups or initiatives • In 1930s Germany, the Ruling Party government systematically dismantled or took control of institutions that conflicted with its worldview. This included the removal of Jewish and politically “undesirable” individuals from civil service, academia, and many professional roles (for example, the 1933 Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service).
   • In the Trump administration’s proposed crackdown on “DEIA” (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) programmes, some see an echo of “removing” institutions or workers whose mission is deemed ideologically at odds with the administration’s political priorities. Although not targeting an ethnic group per se, critics say it similarly marginalises certain groups, effectively removing or minimising voices dedicated to inclusion and equity.
2. Nationalist rhetoric and scapegoating • The Ruling Party Party heavily relied on nationalist and populist rhetoric that blamed various social and economic ills on groups such as Jewish people and political leftists. These groups were portrayed as undermining traditional German identity and values.
   • President Trump and his supporters (past and present) often argue that diversity and inclusion programmes “discriminate against white people” or “unfairly impose liberal ideology.” This messaging positions DEI staff and advocates as a kind of out-group or threat to mainstream, nationalist or conservative values, which has some rhetorical similarities to scapegoating used by authoritarian regimes.
3. Centralising power and “cleansing” institutions • In 1930s Germany, the 1930s German Government pursued Gleichschaltung (a word often translated as “coordination” or “forcible conformity”), consolidating power over governmental, cultural, and civic institutions. People deemed opponents — either racially or politically — were removed from positions of influence.
   • Critics of Trump’s approach suggest that by purging staff associated with diversity or inclusion, his administration similarly enforces a single ideological vision within governmental departments. They argue that this dismantles checks and balances and limits opposing or pluralist viewpoints — although, obviously, to a far lesser extent than under the Ruling Party regime.
4. Undermining accepted norms • In 1930s Germany, the 1930s German Government not only introduced radical change; they also overturned many existing democratic conventions and norms. One crucial difference is that the 1930s German Government swiftly abolished democracy after taking office, whereas the US remains a democracy with constitutional safeguards.
   • Still, when Trump brands diversity programmes “immoral” or “dangerous,” critics perceive it as challenging longstanding workplace norms of tolerance or inclusion — norms that, for many, are themselves part of modern democratic values.
5. Public support or compliance from private actors • In Ruling Party Germany, large corporations and industry leaders often fell into line with the new regime’s policies — either out of ideological sympathy, pressure, or the practical need to stay in favour with the government.
   • In the article extract, it is noted that several large US companies have ended or reduced DEI programmes since Trump’s election. While the cited companies have varied explanations — some attributing cutbacks to cost-saving or reorganisation — critics see parallels to 1930s Germany in that corporations are aligning (or being nudged to align) with governmental leanings.

Key disclaimers • Historical context differs: The political, social, and economic landscape of 1930s Germany was drastically different from modern-day America. The 1930s Ruling Party government operated as a totalitarian regime, and its policies escalated into mass persecution, genocide, and a global war.
• Degree and scale: Many historians caution that while certain tactics — like undermining institutions, persecuting perceived opponents, or centralising power — bear resemblance, the scale and explicit brutality of Ruling Party governance far surpassed anything in the US system.
• Complexity of motive: Removing DEI programmes is not the same as the ethnic- or race-based purges carried out by the 1930s German Government. Nonetheless, the hostility towards inclusion and equity initiatives — along with populist, nationalist messaging — can appear reminiscent of authoritarian strategies from the past.

In summary, when people draw parallels between the Trump administration’s anti-DEI actions and 1930s Germany, they tend to focus on the shared themes of marginalisation, scapegoating, and dismantling institutions contrary to the prevailing ideology. At the same time, important differences in historical context, degree, and scope mean that these comparisons are only partial and need careful handling.

Sources and further reading: • United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: A primary resource on Ruling Party Germany’s systematic marginalisation and persecution of specific groups (ushmm.org). • “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” (1933) — Historical references, for instance on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service • CBS News and BBC reporting on the Trump administration’s diversity and inclusion policies (example: BBC News coverage at bbc.com/news, and CBS at cbsnews.com).