Because somebody had to compare Trump’s use of emergency powers to Hitler. That somebody is the Washington Post. The main difference as I see it is that Hitler and his enablers manufactured an actual crisis, while Trump simply claims there is a crisis with no evidence or even marginally coherent logic to back up the claim. One interesting thing mentioned in the article is that West Germany at first refused to put emergency powers in their constitution, but the U.S. and NATO allies insisted they do so and eventually prevailed. They have never been invoked.

The Weimar constitution, like ours, had classically liberal aspects that guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, religion and the right to private property. Yet born in the context of near-civil war conditions between right and left, it also gave the nationally elected president the power to dissolve the parliament and hold a new election within 60 days. Its Article 48 gave the president the power, “if public security and order” were “seriously disturbed or endangered within the German Reich,” to use the armed forces to restore them or suspend “for a while in whole or in part fundamental rights” guaranteed by the Constitution such as freedom of assembly and speech…

Terrorism, racist legislation and the suppression of opposition political parties all found justification in a supposed state of emergency that allowed an end to democratic institutions. Before March 1933, the invocation of emergency clauses of the Weimar constitution had been normalized. The willingness of parliament to cede authority to the executive eased the path for the transition from authoritarian to totalitarian dictatorship and to lawlessness.

Where the comparison holds is previously unacceptable use of emergency powers becoming normalized, which is how Germany took its first steps down the slippery slope.