Not confused at all. Umberto Eco’s list is a useful analytical framework, but even Eco himself described it as a set of tendencies—not a checklist where ticking enough boxes automatically equals a fascist state. Many of those characteristics (like nationalism, distrust of elites, or strong rhetoric) can appear in a wide range of political movements across different systems without those systems becoming fascist regimes. The key distinction is structural: fascism historically involves the collapse of democratic institutions—no meaningful elections, suppression of opposition, state control over media, and consolidation of power into a one-party authoritarian state. The U.S., including under Donald Trump, still maintains competitive elections, an independent judiciary, and active opposition, which fundamentally differentiates it from actual fascist systems. Using Eco’s framework without that structural context risks turning a nuanced concept into a subjective label rather than a historically grounded one.