But in relationship to Trump, I'd say it is entirely possible he is on the path to fascism, that he is "fascistic", even if he is not ideologically oriented towards it. Trump is clearly not an ideologue, he is inconsistent and self-serving, he has no intellectualized basis. The Nazis and the Italians had programs and intellectualized movements, they had ideology. Trump's ideology is at best American exceptionalism, but he is still a liberal democrat as much as any president has been. Despite his remarks on the media he doesn't approve of, or his mistreatment of Mexicans at the border, these are not inherently fascist. The freedom of the press has actually been abridged in America numerous times throughout its history, and Trump has not in fact even gone that far. Abridgement of freedom of the press can be achieved by a liberal democracy as long as the purpose of doing so is rooted in liberal democratic principles and towards the goal of maintaining liberal democracy.
For instance, the freedom of the press is often abridged in liberal democracy in times of war or against supposed internal enemies. But this is not to abolish liberal democracy, though it could always fall down some unintentional slippery slope. It is done to "protect" liberal principles, namely the liberal democratic state from destruction. Liberalism is perfectly capable of abridging its own principles in the name of its preservation. However, the key is that it will not abridge the rights of the bourgeoisie in their republican truce vis-a-vis the state. The proletariat is not important, the rights of the non-capital owners is actually not important. Liberal democracy trended towards expanding rights for various reasons, but it does not require rights to always be universal and inalienable. But the exceptions must be justified in relation to the preservation of the liberal principle for the bourgeoisie themselves and their rights to equal representation through the liberal democratic state.
But I'd also say that the fact Trump could be on the road to fascism is largely irrelevant, because he could also be on the road to other things too, or maybe nothing at all. The fact is what Trump is doing right now is not illiberal, and that is what is significant about the whole liberal delusion that he must be a fascist. He is publicly and in action, very much a liberal. He has made some threatening comments about not leaving office, but this is not fascism in itself. A dictatorship with capitalism is not fascism. What Trump values is economic growth within the system of free capitalist property relations. He bases his whole presidency on the notion that the economy has grown under him, that wages have gone up, unemployment has gone down etc. and this is entirely a liberal democratic conception of how the state functions. Liberal democrats do try to solve the conflict of labor-capital, but they do it by promising economic growth under the liberal system. The growth affords the ability to both line the pockets of capital, and also pay workers more. In boom periods, it is easier to solve contradictions either through social democratic programs skimming some of the excess off the top, or through the capitalists themselves being able to afford more workers/higher wages, and often feeling compelled to do it through market competition for labor during the growth period.
Fascists on the other hand do not rely on economic growth in this normal sense. They are compelled, historically, to expansion and subjugation of internal populations to avoid the negative social implications of the economic cycle. But this is still not THE defining characteristic, it is rather in a unity with the fascistic dictatorship and the continued existence of labor-capital relations.
For instance, it seems easy to come to the conclusion that colonialism resembles fascism by the above characteristics. I think it does as a subset of the capitalist mode, which is why it is a relatively common idea that fascism is "colonialism turned inwards", but as I think is clear I disagree with the simple notion that that is all fascism is. It is specifically the social order described by the points above, all of which effectively necessitate each other. Colonialism does not necessitate dictatorship or a police state, it is a different social system. In a sense, the brutality in the colonies can be used to underwrite the relative freedom in the colonial power's core. There is extraction occurring, but the extraction often defends liberal democracy. It did this in America, where the constant move westward avoided some structural issues of conflict within the proper United States. But fascism is primarily a response to the conflict of liberal democracy, so its centralized state etc. is almost more primary. The logic of subjugation and expansion is kind of immanent to it, not necessarily a principle, as stated above. Germany did elevate it to a strong principle, but other fascist states merely elevated unity behind the state as a principle, but were still compelled to expansion and subjugation.