From the text of the definition above: "having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority"
That's what.
Well....I agree that the strict wording of the text would contradict the label of empire as applied to the U.S. Of course, strictly speaking, it would also contradict the use of that term for the Brits who at the height of their “empire” shared power with native local rulers in India and elsewhere. Indeed, nearly empire in history, has been a power sharing arrangement.
Good point.
We don’t have an Empire, but we are paying for one.
Does that make it better, or worse than having an Empire?