A strict definition of "authoritarian" [1] doesn't fit the current US administration at all in many ways, since they've focused their attention on tearing down government, not building it up. In some ways they demand stricter enforcement of (pre-existing!) rules, but in many others they have acted to undermine government authority (e.g. with respect to environmental regulations). Generally the people who decry authoritarianism in the domain of immigration enforcement will turn around and decry loosening of regulations about things that they prefer to be regulated by the government.
[1] "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." per Google's definition.
I just gave you a correct definition of authoritarianism, and that isn't it. It's also untrue -- this administration has rather aggressively moved to deregulate a number of areas that prior administrations had regulated. For example, not even a week ago, people here were complaining about the administration's move to deregulate PFAS:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45239803
Say what you will about the wisdom of the change, they aren't replacing that power vacuum with direct executive power. This administration is not canonically left, nor right, and it certainly isn't "authoritarian" by any traditional definition.
As an outsider from Europe, it seems that is pretty much spot on to me. In Europe this probably applies to Hungary as well.
Setting that aside, you will see the that the citation for that definition [2] basically underscores the ambiguity of the term:
> Political scientists have outlined elaborated typologies of authoritarianism, from which it is not easy to draw a generally accepted definition; it seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.
I challenge you to defend the proposition that the current administration is attempting to "prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power", while simultaneously clearly acting to undermine many parts of said authority. There are actions by every administration that appear to be "authoritarian" when taken in isolation.
The parts about erosion of rule of law, etc. are clearly also applied to the current administration, but again, are mostly debatable -- these EOs are either within the power of the executive under current law, or they're overturned by the courts. I openly grant that our legislative branch has been on a 50+ year mission to abdicate responsibility to the executive, but that's neither exclusive to the current administration, nor is it "authoritarianism" to use the authorities granted to you under the law, and again, it's not unique for US administrations to overstep the law and be pulled back by the judicial.
[1] https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#cite_note-Cer...
Backing up, my point was that people use this word as an epithet, and have little understanding of any meaning at all, beyond “politician did something I don’t like”. The definition doesn’t fit, because people are just slinging insults.
The problem with picking an alternative definition from Wikipedia, in particular, is that it has absolutely been gamed to fit whatever the Current Thing happens to be. For that reason, you should favor a less chaotic source.
If enough people use the word "authoritarian" like that, then that's what it means.
It’s semantic nihilism in the same sense sense as saying “perpetual motion machines are impossible” is physical nihilism.
If you’re hunting for a contradiction this ain’t it.