With regards to Paxton it's fairly simple:

I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now

• Robert O. Paxton On 1/11/21 at 5:13 PM EST

So after Jan 6, Paxton himself has called Donald Trump a fascist. Here is the full source. That doesn't mean that he previously thought he wasn't problematic though. On the contrary, he already compared the cult of personality and the crowds to Hitlers campaigns, saw "lock her up" and forceful handling of hecklers as threat of physical violence, compared the "Proud Boys" with storm troopers (Nazi) and squadristi (Mussolini), saw MAGA hats as uniforms and "America First" and the "arrogance of the leader" as following the fascist model. Compared Hitler's usage of the new medium of the radio with Trumps media influence on Twitter and Fox News. And how he established himself as a bullwark against the advancing left thus in the new and thus fear inducing forms of "feminism, Black Power, gay rights".

Though he was kinda surprised that compared to Germany and Italy in the interwar years, the U.S. is not remotely as fucked up and politically deadlocked as historical breeding grounds for fascism. So compared to that the crisis of Trumps refusal to concede the lost election seemed almost trivial to him. (So my interpretation of that would be that it's rather childish and immature not to concede but that the institutions, the general vibe, the status quo were well enough to shrug that off).

Also while Mussolini and Hitler at least initially gave themselves an anti-capitalism appearance, before teaming up with big business against labor, yet still forced the business people, sometimes against their will, into rearmament. Trump essentially gave big business the deregulation and access to markets that they asked for.

So while there was already plenty to work with, with regards to calling him a fascist, Paxton himself for a long time thought it was better to avoid this emotionally charged label and rather go with something more neutral, though not less damning, like: Oligarch or Plutocrat.

Trump's incitement of the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2020 removes my objection to the fascist label. His open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line. The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary. It is made even more plausible by comparison with a milestone on Europe's road to fascism—an openly fascist demonstration in Paris during the night of February 6, 1934.

So with regards to Paxton, yes, Trump is a fascist.

If you look at his 5 Stages of Fascism though:

1. Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor

2. Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage

3. Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite fascists to share power

4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.

5. Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy. (Summary version from Wikipedia)

You might realize that these are not focusing on a individual personality traits or mark out individuals as culprits, but that they describe societal developments.

So the question is somewhat ill-fated as it appears to focus on whether Trump personally is a fascist.

The problem is that the fascist system has several roles, from the storm trooper dealing out violence, to the ideologues legitimizing the violence with philosophy, to the demagogues who preach and enhance fears and the necessity for violence, to the opportunists who are not personally into it, but who nonetheless go along with it and thus enable it, and so on.

And each of them are vital for the fascist ascend to power and their continuous exercise of power. So which of these groups would you call fascist and what character traits would that entail?

• Just the ideologues? But without supporters in high places, demagogues, opportunists and most important executors, these would just be a bunch of weirdos and lunatics that no one would or could take serious?

• Just the executors as they do the actual harm? But what about the system that enabled them? Also how do you deal with that? How do you tell the brainwashed people scared shitless by a society on propaganda from the willing contributors that claim to have only followed orders?

• Just the demagogues? But what if they actually believe the bullshit that the ideologues have spread and what about the opportunists that didn't attempt to stop, but that encourage them. Or the executors who should have refused?

• Just the opportunists? But they don't actually believe that shit in the first place, they just go along with it, thus enable the crimes of others.

The thing is similar to the definition of "racism is prejudice + power" that many people seem to dislike and get wrong, an individual with prejudices or in that case an individual with an inclination towards authoritarian anti-democratic solutions, "might makes right" and whatnot, is on it's own questionable, BUT for racism and fascism, so entire structural systems of society that permeate every aspect of social life, you'd need more than just 1 fucked up individual. You need people that go along, that actively support, that look the other way, that ease people's discomfort with injustice and so on and on.

So the problem with asking "Is XYZ a fascist" is that people often look at that with the expectation of "are they an awful human being" and if that is not necessarily the case, they might reject the label despite it fitting, because despite not being the worst person on earth, someone can still be an instrumental asset to the worst crimes in human history.

That all being said, Trump certainly has a lot of vices. One can actually almost claim without explicit sources that he is a liar, a fraudster, a cheater and a rapist as he does so blatantly, was sentenced for or even bragged about all of that in broad daylight. And yes that rape trial was a civil not a criminal case, but after

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

alone describes sexual assault pretty well and that's something he bragged about (even if that bragging was not meant to be public). Which aren't thing that put him closer to fascism, but might make you question his character and honesty when he denies things... And denying everything coincidentally has also been the tactic of his former lawyer Roy Cohn. Who otherwise worked with the McCarthy era prosecutors and mobsters...

Also his track record on racism ranges from housing discrimination of his Management company, to birther conspiracies about Obama, to the central part five for whom Trump called for the reintroduction of the death penalty in all major newspapers in NY and where he explicitly called for HATE:

"The problem with our society is the victim has absolutely no rights and the criminal has unbelievable rights" and, speaking of another case where a woman was raped and thrown out a window, "maybe hate is what we need if we're gonna get something done.

Which yeah undermines the justice system, promotes extrajudical violence, breeds a sentiment of fear (Despite again himself more likely than not (according to a civil trial) being a sexual predator). Or his reaction to the fact that a serial rapist later admitted the deed, which was confirmed by DNA evidence and the accused were released and sued the city

In June of that year, Trump called the settlement "a disgrace" and said that the group's guilt was still likely: "Settling doesn't mean innocence. [...] These young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels."

Which he apparently still stands by.

And you could go further with what he did in the case of Joe Arpaio. A Sheriff who was charged by the DoJ with:

Discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos;
Unlawful retaliation against individuals exercising their First Amendment right to criticize MCSO’s policies or practices, including but not limited to practices relating to its discriminatory treatment of Latinos; and
Discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency by punishing them and denying them critical services.  

A failure to implement policies guiding deputies on lawful policing practices;
Allowing specialized units to engage in unconstitutional practices;
Inadequate training;
Inadequate supervision;
An ineffective disciplinary, oversight and accountability system; and
A lack of sufficient external oversight and accountability.   

Use of excessive force;
Police practices that have the effect of significantly compromising MCSO’s ability to adequately protect Latino residents; and
Failure to adequately investigate allegations of sexual assaults.  

And who received a Pardon from Trump before he was even sentenced.

Constitutional scholars opposed the pardon, as "an assault on the federal judiciary, the constitution and the rule of law itself"

So again you don't have to do something, you can also willfully enable something.

To lots of half-assed denials or non-denials of white supremacy... you know what you can read the entire wikipedia article as that is too longer to cover in full detail. Though one case mentioned in the article might further be interesting with regards to fascism, where 2 white man attacked a Hispanic, homeless person sleeping outside of a subway station in Boston with the words:

"Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported."

So regardless of whether he himself has those intentions his followers certainly do more than occasionally feel encouraged to interpret his words like that.

And his own response:

“I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate. I will say that, and everybody here has reported it.” source

to a hate crime committed in his name was not to distance himself from the perpetrators or to argue that that is not what he or they stand for, but to excuse them arguing that his followers are very passionate (which includes these 2?) and that they want America to be great again (his slogan)... by beating up homeless people?

So again the question isn't so much if Trump himself is a terrible person, but Trump enabling and encouraging terrible people and a societal mood that goes beyond individuals being terrible, is the thing that brings it from individual malice to fascism. And yeah Trump does appeal to a crowd that is more and more exemplifying fascist stages and regardless of whether he started that dynamic or whether he merely positively interferes with it, that does at some point no longer matter.

Like Trump not conceding the election when you clearly lost is childish, but people storming a public building threatening to lynch representatives and take matters into their own hand, encouraged and supported by Trump is were apparently at least Paxton drew his line.

1.Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor

Not sure the U.S. passed that stage long ago, as that sounds like the plot of a lot of 80s action movies, of a country in decline and the willingness of an individual to take matters into his own hands and shoot everyone up... Or whether one might want to pick a more recent inception such as the tea party movement sawing distrust in public institutions creating some kind of gridlock and already championing some of the religious and neo-conservative themes present in that the Trumpist crowd is built upon. Though flirting with fascist ideas and exploring them publicly and complaining about democracy and democratic institutions, trying to game the system and complaining about a lack of national vigor ... hatred of millennials... has been a stable of U.S. conservative politics. So even before Trump the U.S. might have already jumped that stage.

Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage

Now Paxton is right, the U.S. is not nearly as deadlocked as Germany or Italy were in the 1920s, where the parliament literally had double digit fascists AND communists, monarchists, liberals, republicans and democrats (it's always a bad sign if that is a noteworthy quality of a party) and so on and where these groups couldn't even agree on a system of government let alone any concrete political proposals. Nonetheless there have been deadlock situations in the U.S. and Trump has already made concerning comments arguing:

“Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked Trump in the interview taped in Davenport, Iowa.

“Except for day one,” Trump responded. “I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.” source

The claims are not as strong as Hitler's who has and given the circumstances also could advocate for dismantling democracy in favor of an authoritarian leader principle, without losing voters in the conservative, fascist and monarchist block, but it's not that he hasn't made these claims either.

3. Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite fascists to share power

Well the conservative establishment has shared a lot of power with Trumpism, has turned a blind eye to almost all crimes, scandals and violations of the rule of law and democratic safeguards.

4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.

Now with regards to Italy and Germany, there were extra-democratic institutions able to provide a framework of government outside the law, while the U.S. has a longer democratic history and it's more that such structure evolve outside of the system by "small government", "privatization", giving out democratically regulated government responsibility to private actors, but it's not that they already have taken control as an oligarchy outside of democracy, have they?

5.Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.

So far the U.S. dodged that bullet and Trump lost his power grab attempt in 2020, though fingers crossed when people find out that Trumps visions don't come to fruition the response is realizing that it's bullshit and not reacting with more vigorous blaming of minorities and supplying him with more power to pursue his goals and purge his enemies.

So you might place the U.S. on stage 3 of fascism, so far having failed with stage 4.

A little more revealing might also the the "Anatomy of Fascism" by Paxton (2004):

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. (Source)

I mean read his inaugural address... Where he talks extensively of decline, unity, being abused and exploited by other nations. Praises the military calls for "A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.". I mean to be fair though, a lot of that shit is so deeply ingrained in American politics that I wouldn't be surprised to hear it from a Democrat either, unfortunately many Americans like rhetoric that is borderline fascist. Though it still hits differently with Democrats largely using that figuratively and with Trump often showing a more literal interpretation in his actions...

Now enough Paxton, let's take it over to Eco:

1."The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.

Again that kinda rings differently with actual conservatism at the beginning of the 20th century where people still believed in monarchism and strongmen government, but nonetheless there certainly is a strong social conservative undercurrent to Trumpism and for example with making Transidentities a major campaign point kinda cuts in that direction. Also the merger of evangelicals with Trump a known adulterer who doesn't even know how to hold a bible and has apparently never read it, kinda also fits with the contradiction despite calling for traditionalism. Also "Make America Great AGAIN" certainly is reactionary and backwards facing.

2. "The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.

I mean his followers more often speak of "post-modern (neo-marxist", but given how little any of them are paying attention to what that means, it might still somewhat fit the mold. Though again updated times updated labels for the enemy. What he's arguing for is still not an Enlightened world view and his anti-science stance with example just as Covid or Climate change speak volume.

"3. "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science."

Given how much he argues for change without having a plan or doing shit, that fits to a t.

4."Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.

Again look at the people in his team or his former team mates and that's a 100% fit.

5."Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

Fear of immigrants is certainly stoked and Trump has shown a history of racism. Not yet on the Hitler level where it explains everything... though actually "build the wall" and anti-immigration rhetoric is pretty much all there is to his program, isn't it?

6."Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

Again pretty close fit, just read his inaugural address...

7. "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_denial_movement_in_the_United_States#/media/File:20240524_Trump_groundwork_for_election_denial.svg Picture of when starts to question election results before the respective election...

8.Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

I'm running out of time, but I'm certain you can find those plentiful.

9."Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.

Now that is somewhat of an outlier in that while he has endorsed violence, torture and police brutality and argued for more not less and wants military parades for himself, apart from figurative scolding of his team mates for not fighting hard enough he has not yet made it officially his platform to go to open war and combativeness, though he hasn't effectively distanced himselves from those who do/did either...

10."Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.

I mean a sense of nationalism is often common but given how he uses the ingroup outgroup discrepancy in his inaugural address that's probably also close enough.

11."Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."

American dream?

12."Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".

... yeah.

13."Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".

Also pretty close to what he's doing.

14. "Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Well his crowd of "words have lost their meaning if they apply to us" certainly do that constantly.

Now this was a bit rushed so I might take a look at it again later, but yeah a shocking amount of points fit shockingly well while all fit at least in some regard.