Danielle Smith is Donald Trump’s Mini-Me

Trump has descended into fascism. Smith is treading the same path

“Yes, It’s Fascism.” That’s the title of a January 25 essay in The Atlantic by Jonathan Rauch. Like many observers, Rauch resisted using the word for years. He understood its rhetorical toxicity, its abuse as a catch-all insult, its tendency to shut down thought rather than sharpen it. But something changed. Over the past year, Rauch writes, what once looked like Donald Trump’s familiar effort to treat the state as a personal plaything “has drifted distinctly toward doctrinal and operational fascism.”

That judgment matters because Rauch is not a hot-take artist. He is a liberal institutionalist who has spent much of his career defending norms, restraint, and pluralism. When writers like Rauch, historians like Robert Paxton, and political scientists like Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt converge on similar conclusions, it is not because they suddenly became hysterical.

It is because the pattern changed.

So what are Canadians to make of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, an open admirer of Trump who has visited Mar-a-Lago, echoed his grievances, courted his allies, and adopted what can only be described as a Trumpian style of “ungoverning”? The answer is not that Smith is Donald Trump. Canada is not the United States. Alberta is not Washington. Context matters. Institutions matter.

But trajectory matters too.

The uncomfortable truth is that Danielle Smith is treading the same authoritarian path. Not in rhetoric alone. In behaviour. In institutional contempt. In her willingness to subordinate democratic norms, minority rights, and the rule of law to ideological and political ends. She is not a clone yet. But she is unmistakably a Mini-Me.

This is an argument about pattern, not personality.

From Libertarian Populist to Libertarian Authoritarian

Several years ago, political scientist Duane Bratt described Smith as a libertarian populist. More recently, after watching her govern, he changed his diagnosis. Smith, Bratt now argues, is a libertarian authoritarian — the same term Professor Trish Miller-Roberts has applied to Trump. The distinction matters. Libertarian populism flatters “the people” while railing against elites.

Libertarian authoritarianism uses the language of freedom to justify the concentration of power and the erosion of checks and balances, she argued in an insightful paper. Henry Ford’s famous aphorism neatly illustrates the paradox at the heart of libertarian authoritarianism. He said that customers could have their cars in any colour they wanted as long as it was black. Citizens can exercise their freedoms in any way they choose as long as the libertarian authoritarians agree with it. If they don’t agree, then they are happy to use the power of the state to enforce compliance.

Smith’s governing record fits that latter description with growing precision .

The shift is not semantic. It is structural. It reflects a move away from democratic contestation toward executive dominance, where governance is respected only insofar as it produces the “right” outcomes and institutions are tolerated only when they comply with the “right” ideas.

Willingness to Override Democratic Rights

Consider Smith’s use of the notwithstanding clause. The clause is meant to be a last resort. Infrequently and hesitantly deployed. Smith invoked it last fall to end a teachers’ strike. She then used it three more times to force through anti-trans legislation. These were not emergency acts to preserve public order. They were ideological overrides of rights protections because the courts, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the democratic process stood in the way.

This is not conservatism. It is executive impatience with constraint. It is political convenience.

Trump displays the same impulse. When institutions frustrate him, they are declared illegitimate. Judges are enemies. Elections are rigged. The law is an obstacle, not a boundary. Rauch identifies this as one of the key shifts from patrimonialism to fascistic governance: the normalization of contempt for liberal legality and democratic constraints.

Smith has followed suit.

Building Politicized Enforcement Power

Albertans made it clear they do not want a provincial police force. Smith pushed ahead anyway. Her government is deliberately expanding the role of Alberta sheriffs as the foundation of a future provincial police service. What began as a limited peace-officer function is being elevated toward full policing authority, with broader enforcement powers, greater operational independence, and a clear trajectory toward an Alberta-run alternative to the RCMP. The transformation is intentional and already underway, even if it is not yet fully realized as of early 2026.

This move is often defended as administrative tinkering. It is not. It is the creation of a more centralized, politically responsive enforcement apparatus, less embedded in municipal accountability.

The parallel to Trump’s empowerment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not exact, but it is instructive. ICE became a symbol of politicized law enforcement, operating with extraordinary discretion, shielded by rhetoric about sovereignty and security, and implicated in serious abuses. Rauch points to the expansion of paramilitary-style agencies as a hallmark of authoritarian drift.

Smith’s Alberta sheriffs are not ICE. But the instinct is the same: when institutions resist, build new ones more loyal to the executive.

Surrounding Herself With Extremists

Personnel is policy. Here too, the resemblance is striking.

Smith’s cabinet, caucus, and premier’s office are crowded with MAGA sympathizers, separatists, Christian nationalists, and far-right activists. Figures like Deven Dressen are not fringe anomalies; they are part of the governing ecosystem. Trump did the same, surrounding himself with ideologues, conspiracy theorists, and grievance entrepreneurs who shared his contempt for liberal democracy.

This is how movements become regimes. Not overnight. Gradually. Through normalization.

Courting the Far-Right Media Ecosystem

Smith’s media strategy reinforces the pattern. Like Trump, she has shown an disturbing comfort with far-right outlets and online influencers who function less as journalists than as amplifiers. The Western Standard. Rebel News. Ben Shapiro, the American libertarian podcaster. Influencer ecosystems that reward outrage, grievance, and loyalty over accuracy.

This is not about media pluralism. It is about bypassing scrutiny and cultivating an alternative information environment where truth is contingent and criticism is treason.

Paxton had a phrase for this: the radical instrumentalization of truth.

Open Alignment With Trump and MAGA Networks

Then there are the connections. Visits to Mar-a-Lago. Meetings with Trump allies. Shared rhetoric about sovereignty, elites, and betrayal. The overlap between MAGA networks, the United Conservative Party base, and Smith’s inner circle is no longer speculative. It is visible. It is documented. It is strategic.

Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way, and Daniel Ziblatt describe the regime Trump has built as competitive authoritarianism: elections persist, opposition exists, but the playing field is tilted through abuse of power, intimidation, and institutional degradation. That framework fits Alberta imperfectly, but uncomfortably well.

A Dangerous Trajectory, Not Yet a Destination

Danielle Smith has not yet become a full-fledged Donald Trump clone. She does not command a national security apparatus. She has not incited violence. Canada’s institutions remain stronger than America’s. Context matters.

But trajectory matters more.

Smith is pushing at norms. She is weakening institutional checks. She is redefining rights as inconveniences. She is surrounding herself with extremists. She is cultivating grievance, as her never-ending complaints about federal overreach amply demonstrate. She is making peace with separatists. She is building an executive-centric model of governance that treats opposition, courts, and civil society as obstacles rather than partners.

That is the perilous path Trump walked. Step by step. Until the pattern became undeniable.

The final form of Alberta authoritarianism will not look exactly like Trump’s version. It doesn’t need to. Fascism is adaptive. It borrows local colours. It exploits local resentments. In Canada, it may arrive draped in libertarian language rather than national flags. In provinces, it may advance through administrative power rather than coups.

But the warning signs are no longer subtle.

Danielle Smith is not an aberration. She is a prototype. And that is what should worry Canadians most.