U.S. will become Germany of 1933 if warning of Donald Trump declaring trans people enemy No. 1 comes true

Journalist David Shuster issued a stark warning on X, drawing comparisons between the United States in 2025 and Germany in 1933. In his post, Shuster suggests President Donald Trump will declare transgender people enemy No. 1, as reports say the federal government is moving toward labeling them as violent extremists.

His post went further, referencing the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and likening the political reaction to a “Reichstag fire” moment, an event in Nazi Germany that allowed authoritarian leaders to consolidate power under the guise of fighting extremism.

The Klippenstein report

At the core of Shuster’s warning are recent reports that the Trump administration is considering new domestic terrorism threat designations that could target transgender individuals. Investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein has reported that national security officials are preparing to classify transgender people under a category called “nihilistic violent extremists.”

Likewise, the Heritage Foundation and its Oversight Project have pushed for the FBI to create a formal category called “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism” (TIVE), which they argue would allow law enforcement to better identify and disrupt potential threats.

However, while these discussions are real, the FBI has not yet officially adopted any such classification. While disturbing that they even exist, the current proposals remain just that — still proposals.

Trans-scapegoats post Kirk killing

Nonetheless, critics note that such broad and vague language risks sweeping in nonviolent activists, protesters, or even ordinary members of the transgender community. That ambiguity has fueled fears that the policy could become a tool to criminalize identity and dissent, rather than a narrowly focused counterterrorism measure.

The controversy comes at a time of heightened political tension following the killing of Kirk. Reports surfaced that the alleged shooter had referenced political ideologies in messages and notes, though many of these details remain disputed or unverified.

In the aftermath, MAGA-aligned politicians and conservative media figures seized on the event, pointing to what they claimed was a growing threat tied to “gender ideology.” The push for new federal extremist categories gained fresh momentum in that climate, with conservative organizations insisting that transgender extremism posed a unique and under-addressed danger.

For now, the reality is more nuanced than Shuster’s dramatic post implies, though his point stands. Discussions within the Trump administration and conservative policy circles are ongoing, but any move to broadly classify an identity group as an extremist threat would face intense legal and constitutional challenges. Civil rights advocates argue that such a designation would violate core protections of free speech, free assembly, and equal treatment under the law.

Still, Shuster’s post reflects a growing concern that the rhetoric surrounding transgender people is shifting from cultural debate to national security framing. That shift, critics say, risks weaponizing counterterrorism policy against one of the most vulnerable communities in the country. Whether or not the proposals become law, the debate has already intensified fears that history’s darkest lessons are being ignored.