Anti-Trump protest in London.

Long Read — Trump and the European Right: A Strained Relationship

In this long-read analysis, Dr. Amedeo Varriale examines the increasingly strained relationship between Donald Trump and Europe’s right-wing and far-right leaders, focusing on Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, and Alice Weidel. Despite enduring ideological affinities over nationalism, immigration, and opposition to progressive liberalism, Dr. Varriale identifies four sources of divergence: Trump’s declining popularity, protectionist trade policies, controversial foreign-policy interventions, and the institutional constraints limiting the transferability of Trumpism to European political systems. Through comparative analysis of Italy, France, Britain, and Germany, he demonstrates how national interests, electoral calculations, and geopolitical considerations increasingly override transatlantic ideological solidarity. The study suggests that future cooperation between Trump and Europe’s nationalist right and far right may become more pragmatic and transactional than ideologically driven.

By Amedeo Varriale

This extensive commentary explores the relationship between US President Donald J. Trump and political figures from the European right who are currently polling strongly in Italy, France, Britain, and Germany. 

The first part of the piece will focus on how and why key right-wing and far right leaders such as Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, and Alice Weidel have, to varying degrees, recently been distancing themselves from Trump, while simultaneously analyzing their ideological convergences and divergences with him, and speculating about how their relationship may evolve as these leaders exercise, or potentially come to exercise, political power. 

The second part will argue that presently the relationship between Trump and the European right and far right is straineddue to a series of factors, ranging from the unpopularity of the President (at home and abroad), and his tariff dispute with the European Union (EU), to his unconventional foreign policy (particularly concerning Iran and Ukraine) and the limitations of reproducing his political model in the European context. 

The investigation is meant to be timely and pertinent in a moment of broad opposition towards Trump’s second presidency across Europe. In fact, it attempts not only to shed light on the present condition of international right-wing conservatism and populism but also indirectly contributes to ongoing debates surrounding the new right’s domestic and foreign policy vis-à-vis transatlantic relations.

Giorgia Meloni 

Giorgia Meloni.
Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy and leader of the Fratelli d’Italia party, speaks at an electoral rally ahead of the national elections in Turin, Italy, September 13, 2022. Photo: Antonello Marangi / Dreamstime.

As a right-wing leader Meloni’s relationship with Trump (and “Trumpism”) has always been ambivalent and has been previously defined as one of only “partial harmony” (Lazar, 2026: 56). While the Italian Prime Minister expressed her support for Trump on several occasions — she attended his second Presidential inauguration, spoke at CPAC 2025, and referred to his politics as “a model for Italy’s center-right” (Valenti, 2020) — her political vision and Italian concrete interests (as interpreted by Meloni’s government) do not always align with the American President’s. 

One reason why Meloni has been accused by political analysts and opponents of being excessively close to Trump is that JD Vance (a staunch promoter of the MAGA/America First platform) prefaced the English version of Meloni’s book (Giorgia’s Vision) as he saw affinities between Trumpism and Meloni’s agenda revolving around national identity, anti-immigration(-ism), and Judeo-Christian values. Actually, clear convergences between Meloni and Trump do not go beyond their opposition to illegal immigration and woke ideology. In fact, the former does not aspire to create an “illiberal democracy” (like Viktor Orbàn’s in Hungary) nor has she resorted to methods like those utilized by Trump’s ICE to tackle immigration in Italy. 

Also, while remaining a fervent sovereigntist, Meloni is substantially aligned with the EU’s elite and is in particularly good terms with Ursula von der Leyen (Alli, 2025: 4) and Manfred Weber’s European People’s Party (EPP) — a liberal-conservative group that does not share Trump’s radical views on globalization, trade, and immigration. To be sure, Meloni distanced herself from Trump on more than one occasion. First, she criticized Trump’s verbal attack on Pope Leo XIV, calling it “unacceptable” (Le Monde with AFP, 2026). Second, Meloni called Trump’s tariffs threat against the European countries that objected to his plans concerning Greenland “a mistake” (AFP & Rapporteur, 2026). Third, Meloni’s unequivocal pro-Ukraine stance is in conflict with Trump’s transactional approach, which is more conciliatory towards Russia. Fourth, Meloni’s government refused to allow Trump’s US to utilize the Italian airbase at Sigonella in Sicily for offensive military operations correlated to the war against Iran (Giuffrida, 2026). 

Together, these incidents led to a gradual deterioration of the relationship between Meloni and Trump. In fact, Trump accused Italy of not doing enough to support the US against Iran (Mazza, 2026) and claimed in an interview that Meloni “begged” for a photo with him at the G7 summit (also calling her unpopular) (Amante & Balmer, 2026; Cheetham, 2026). Trump also shared a meme of Meloni with the caption “restraining order needed” on his social media Truth Social (Duso, 2026). While in the first case Meloni responded to Trump calling him out for making up the story and stating “…neither I nor Italy ever beg” (Amante & Balmer, 2026), in the second case she decided to ignore Trump.

In the following months, personal relations between Meloni and Trump may even worsen, mainly as a consequence of Trump’s unpredictable character. However, they are more likely to stabilize, with the US and Italy continuing to cooperate strategically, as Meloni will possibly do her best to avoid new personal confrontations and prevent any significant diplomatic rupture. In fact, although with some flexibility, Meloni continues to support higher defense spending at a NATO level (Ciriaco & Colombo, 2026; Gagliardi, 2026), and this aligns with Trump’s long-standing demand regarding Europe. 

Even if the relationship between Meloni and Trump remains somewhat strained and they never become full-fledged political and ideological allies, under Meloni the Italian government will maintain the Atlanticist and Europeanist foreign policy pursued since 1945, entailing “a duty to remain close to America and to be among its most reliable and zealous allies” (Lazar, 2026: 55). This will occur regardless of the political color of temporary US administrations and Trump’s behavioral patterns. 

Moreover, Italy’s position at the heart of the Mediterranean exposes it to Russian military and intelligence threats, making continued US support essential for its defense. Concomitantly, the current conservative government fears that reduced US commitment may result in Italy being more dependent on the EU, possibly steering the country towards deeper integration and an additional loss of sovereignty. This scenario is not desirable to Meloni’s Brothers of Italy (FdI) party and most of her political class. Therefore, Italy seeks to balance strong bonds with both the United States and the European Union.

Marine Le Pen

Marine Le Pen
Marine Le Pen delivers a speech at a gathering of European far-right party representatives in Wenceslas Square, Prague, April 25, 2019. Photo: Dreamstime.

For several years, the relationship between Le Pen and Trump has been a positive one underpinned by mutual respect and (limited) reciprocal support. In fact, Le Pen was the only French Presidential candidate to openly endorse Trump in the 2016 American electoral competition and was the first to congratulate the tycoon before his victory against Hillary Clinton was even officialized (McAuley, 2016). Similarly, Le Pen’s right-hand man, Jordan Bardella, praised Trump’s nationalist politics, stating his success represented “a wind of freedom, of national pride blowing all over Western democracies” (Gozzi, 2025). Bardella also argued that Trump won because he “defended America’s interests” (Bardella, 2025). More recently, after Le Pen’s conviction in early 2025, Trump expressed his solidarity to the French politician by writing the message “FREE MARINE LE PEN,” and referring to the court’s ruling as a “Witch Hunt” on Truth Social (Solmaz, 2025).

However, a long-standing anti-American sentiment deeply ingrained both within the French general public (81% think Trump is dangerous) (see Odoxa, 2026) and in the ideology and political tradition of the National Rally (RN) (formerly National Front) has prevented Le Pen (and Bardella) from embracing Trump’s program fully. While the RN’s agenda on topics such as immigration, climate change, and the “culture war” against woke and gender ideology perfectly aligns with Trump’s, the French far right has disassociated itself from the American President’s foreign policy, particularly on trade and security. 

Regarding trade, although both Trump and Le Pen are protectionists, the former’s wide-ranging tariffs on imports — including French goods such as wine, luxury products, aerospace components — significantly damage French economic interests as an exporting country. 

Regarding security, while Trump wants European allies to spend much more on defense within the NATO framework, Le Pen instead promotes French strategic independence, calling for a reduced involvement and integration within NATO’s military command. Actually, once the conflict in Ukraine ceases, Le Pen aims to withdraw from NATO’s integrated military command altogether (Besch & Varma, 2025: 19). Notwithstanding, it was mainly Trump’s threats to Greenland, his hostile demeanor towards Volodymyr Zelensky’s Ukraine, his overthrow of Nicolás Maduro, and his military actions against Iran that marked a turning point in relations between the US administration, the RN, and much of the European right. 

For example, concerning Iran, Le Pen declared: “Nobody knows what Donald Trump’s ultimate goal is in Iran. Today, this war has taken proportions that were not foreseen, affecting many Gulf countries, and with consequences that directly impact us: the increase in energy prices” (Roundtable, 2026). Instead, concerning Ukraine, Le Pen denounced the “brutality” of Trump’s decision to freeze US aid to the Eastern European country (Guillou, 2025). 

Allegedly, Le Pen even told officials within her party to maintain a distance from Trump as he has turned into a political liability (Caulcutt & Nöstlinger, 2026). The same reasoning had previously led Bardella to cancel his appearance at CPAC after the MAGA ideologue, Steve Bannon, supposedly made a Nazi salute on stage (Reuters, 2025). 

Le Pen’s cautious distancing from Trump may result in a substantial change of the nature of their relationship, making it more withdrawn in public but more transactional — on farming, trade, defense spending, and military activities — in the event of a future Le Pen presidency. This transactional disposition seems very appropriate and likely to prevail since American and French interests do not always align in those areas. However, this does not necessarily mean that Le Pen and Trump will be openly antagonistic towards each other. After all, the two still share a common enemy identified by both in “the international(-ist) left” operating at an elite level within supra-national institutions such as the European Commission, Council of Europe, United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), and World Trade Organization (WTO). 

Given this, if Trump’s foreign policy shifts back to a more isolationist/non-interventionist one especially with regards to the Middle East (while simultaneously not abandoning Ukraine), there are stronger possibilities of an open rapprochement between Le Pen’s RN and Trump before the next Presidential elections in France and the US. Even so, in the more distant future it will be JD Vance (even more[1] nationalist, populist, and isolationist than Trump himself) who will play a key role in redefining the relationship between the American Republicans and European far right parties such as the RN and others. 

Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage.
Nigel Farage speaking in Dover, Kent, UK, on May 28, 2024, in support of the Reform Party, of which he is President. Photo: Sean Aidan Calderbank.

Farage and Trump have been friends and essentially political allies since the latter’s rise to power in 2016. The two partially share a weltanschaaung revolving around capitalism, the defense of borders, law and order, Western exceptionalism, and the preservation of national cultural identity. Moreover, both have always been skeptical of (if not opposed to) the gradual development of the European Union as a political and economic power, and its strategic relationship with China. 

Farage has spoken favorably about Trump on distinct occasions. For instance, he has stressed that Trump is a role model for him (and his party Reform UK) because the American President stands for “national interest” and keeps the promises made to his electorate (Bloomberg, 2025). Also, during a rally in the US, Farage has praised Trump as the “most resilient” and “bravest person” he has ever met (BBC, 2020). Undeniably, Trump holds a positive view of Farage as well, given he has expressed an interest in having him as UK ambassador to the US (Langfitt, 2016) and has always supported the Brexit project (Langlois, 2018: 7).

Against this backdrop, the relationship between the two became colder between late 2025 and early 2026. Today, it appears Farage does not have the same privileged access to Trump, and — at least on one occasion — the American President did not meet the British politician who had purposely traveled to the US expecting to reinforce their “special relationship” (Gross et al., 2026; Cobham, 2026). Since then, not only have Trump’s priorities shifted (he currently focuses on domestic issues rather than securing alliances abroad) but Farage himself discreetly distanced himself from Trump (Gibbons, 2026). 

One reason for this is Trump continues to be very unpopular among voters in Britain (Schofield, 2026; The Economist, 2025), including part of Reform UK’s electoral base (Mitchell, 2025). Research indicates that a significant portion of potential Reform voters — especially women — have trouble understanding why Farage associates with Trump (Dawson, 2026). While they may support the party on other policy issues, this perceived closeness to Trump could dissuade them from voting for Reform UK. After all, Trump’s hardline approach on “law and order,” exemplified by the Minnesota immigration raids (carried out by ICE), may have limited appeal among many moderate voters in Britain and continental Europe (see Wike et al., 2025). 

Another issue that has certainly (negatively) influenced the relationship between the two leaders is the Iran war. Although Farage has refrained from unequivocally condemning Trump’s campaign in the Middle East (which he initially supported) and has even stated Iran is a “bigger danger than Putin” (Mason, 2026), concomitantly, he has warned against British involvement in the war (White, 2026). The conflict with Iran has been devastating for the British economy,[2] mainly due to the sharp rise in oil and gas prices alongside general inflation. Thus, while Farage remains strongly opposed to the Iranian regime for pragmatic reasons, he has also had to state that Trump was badly advised on the war (Elliot, 2026) and that the UK should remain out of the conflict, inevitably distancing himself from the US administration’s position. 

The divergences vis-à-vis the Iran war have been exacerbated by broader economic and foreign policy disagreements. While Farage has always praised free markets, Trump is a pro-tariff protectionist. Additionally, over the years, Farage has endorsed the West supplying weapons to Zelensky’s government more explicitly than Trump. Perhaps these differences have further contributed to the increasing distance between the two political figures. 

Nonetheless, considering a circumstance where Trump remains US President and Farage becomes UK Prime Minister, it is likely the relationship between the two would be largely amicable, with their respective countries expanding collaboration in certain policy areas.By way of illustration, a Trump-Farage synergy is expected to lead to a large-scale UK-US free trade agreement and a general reduction of barriers and regulation for bilateral trade. 

Given this, America and Britain will presumably continue to cooperate at a NATO-level as — notwithstanding his confrontational statements — Trump does not have a concrete plan to withdraw from the transatlantic organization. Actually, it is possible that a Farage-led Britain could embrace Trump’s position on “burden-sharing” and pressure European allies (especially France, Germany, and Italy) to increase expenditure on defense. 

Similarly, Farage and Trump’s agreement on the immigration issue is very likely to result in greater cooperation on intelligence, security, and border control. 

Ultimately, their skepticism regarding climate change and policies to protect the environment could lead them to economize on climate policy and instead pursue an increase of oil and gas production. 

Alice Weidel

Election posters featuring Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).
Election posters featuring Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), displayed during the 2025 German federal election campaign. Such posters are reportedly often torn down or vandalized. Photo: Dreamstime.

Before 2025, direct contact between Trump and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) was relatively limited and intermittent, and to this day, a close relationship between Trump and the AfD’s leader, Alice Weidel, does not appear to have fully developed at either a personal or a direct political level. Be that as it may, in the weeks preceding and months following the 2025 German federal election, high-profile figures from the Trump administration such as Elon Musk, Marco Rubio, and JD Vance have publicly defended or openly expressed support for Weidel’s party. In fact, while interviewing Weidel online, Musk proclaimed, “only AfD can save Germany, end of story” (Le Monde with AFP, 2025). In the same context, Weidel reiterated (as she had previously stated during a Bloomberg interview[3]) that it caused her “physical pain” to see Trump and his entire family “disparaged” by the mainstream media (Alice Weidel, 2025). 

Instead of explicitly endorsing the AfD as Musk did, US Secretary of State, Rubio, disputed Germany’s domestic intelligence agency’s classification of Weidel’s party as “right-wing extremist” (Wertheimer, 2025). The US Vice-President JD Vance went even further, meeting Weidel at the margins of the Munich Security Conference (February 14-16, 2025) to discuss issues ranging from the war in Ukraine to freedom of speech and German politics (Reuters, 2025). Vance’s decision to meet Weidel can be interpreted as an act of legitimization by the Trump administration. 

Beyond pro-AfD statements, Trump’s officials have engaged with AfD politicians/lawmakers through private meetings in Washington D.C. (Pfeifer, 2025). For example, the more “moderate” national-conservative wing of the German party, which includes the popular Beatrix von Storch, is known to have had repeated contacts not only with Vance’s staff but also with representatives of the US State Department and National Security Council (Pfeifer, 2025). Although there are substantial differences between Trump’s distorted form of American exceptionalism and the anti-American latent Eurasianism promoted by the most radical faction of the AfD (mainly led by Björn Höcke), this did not prevent Trump’s loyalists from seeking ties with the AfD and inviting them to the US After all, until recently, Weidel, von Storch, and the AfD’s establishment have looked upon Trump favorably due to his campaign (or “culture war”) against woke ideology, immigration, Islam (Pfeifer, 2025) and liberal-progressivism in general. This alignment was broadly reciprocal. As the Anglo-German journalist Henry Donovan (2026) posits: “In MAGA World, the AfD was increasingly spoken of as Germany’s conservative insurgency – a mirror image of how Trump sees his so-called revolt against liberal elites” (Donovan, 2026).

Weidel and Trump hold common beliefs on several issues. First, both leaders have centered their platform on opposing immigration. Second, Weidel and Trump share a skepticism towards climate change policy and the introduction of renewable energy sources. Third, the two leaders embrace supply-side (or even “trickle-down”) economics and selective forms of protectionism simultaneously — and can be (paradoxically) described as “liberal-protectionist” (for an account of the AfD’s economics, see Cattani, 2016). 

Nevertheless, the ideological affinities between Trump’s MAGA movement and Weidel’s AfD were not sufficient to impede an almost sudden break between the American and German far right earlier this year. Trump’s unpredictability and risky political moves such as armed conflict with Iran, regime-change operation in Venezuela, and repeated threats to Greenland forced AfD leaders and key figures — including co-chair of the party Tino Chrupalla and Weidel herself — to markedly distance themselves from both the tycoon and the “Grand Old Party” (GOP). It was especially the strikes on Iran (highly unpopular among the German electorate[4]) that led Weidel to ask her party’s senior lawmakers to cut back on their trips to the US where they would regularly meet pro-MAGA Republicans (Pitel, 2026). Condemnation of Trump’s actions came from both Weidel and Chrupalla who in a joint statement remarked “renewed destabilization of the Middle East is not in the German interest and must end” (Hoyer, 2026). The fears of the AfD’s elite, particularly Chrupalla, is that Trump — who apparently “started off as a peace president” — would become another American president known for war campaigns and neoconservative interventionism (Hoyer, 2026). 

Overall, far-right parties like the AfD remain largely skeptical about US interventionism (sometimes described as “US imperialism”) due to its economic and migratory consequences, such as recession, higher gas prices, and mass migration towards Europe. This is the main reason why Weidel (sounding like her opponents from the pacifist far-left) also referred to the Iran War as “a catastrophe” (Pitel, 2026). However, the party appears divided, as there have been prominent figures within the AfD — especially Maximilian Krah and (to a lesser extent) Markus Frohnmaier — who continue to unequivocally support Trump despite the Iran war (Pitel, 2026). In early April 2026, the former expressed his opinion on social media: “a break with Trump would be harmful to the AfD in all sorts of ways. It must not be allowed to happen” (Pitel, 2026).

Surprisingly, as of this writing, Trump has not reconsidered his predominantly positive opinion concerning the AfD. In fact, the American President welcomed the AfD’s striking 44% electoral victory in the Saxony-Anhalt region in early September by stating (on Truth Social) “Wow! The Populist Party in Germany just had a really big night” and congratulated the party (Zakharova, 2026). In any case, although a near future (unlikely) scenario where an AfD-led Germany is simultaneous to a Trump-led America is still technically possible, predicting the type of relationship the two countries would have in such a context remains a difficult and problematic endeavor. 

In essence, as the political scientist Marco Tarchi explains, the AfD has three ideological currents: the first, is the national-conservative one, which is also economically liberal and is currently the majoritarian faction in the party led by Weidel; the second, is the “old-school” nationalist one, unfairly (according to Tarchi) labelled as neo-Nazi; the third, is the social-national one which was very successful in the recent elections occurring in the Eastern region(s) of the country and could possibly engage in dialogue with Sahra Wagenknechts’s party (BSW) (Tarchi as cited in Boezi, 2026, my translation). 

Currently, with the party on the rise electorally, it is unclear which one of these three factions will politically prevail and in which manner and degree they will interact with Trump in the event they obtain power. For example, AfD’s “national conservatives” could rekindle their relationship with Trump (especially if the Iran war ends abruptly) and be strongly backed by the latter when they pursue hardline “law and order” policies, including their signature policy, Remigration,[5]which may put Germany at odds with the European Union and part of the international community. Also, notwithstanding some of Weidel’s anti-American rhetoric, the AfD and Washington can have a transactional transatlantic partnership that stems from sovereigntism, meaning Germany would spend more on defense and rearm but buy American weapons (and American LNG[6]). How this very pragmatic settlement would fit in a major bilateral or multi-lateral framework is still uncertain. 

For instance, would the present NATO agreements remain the strategic “umbrella” for Germany yet? Regarding such potential developments from Trump’s perspective, providing AfD’s Germany with preferential treatment, in terms of both security and bilateral trade, America would be promoting the party’s sovereigntist ideology and at the same time even encourage Weidel government’s gradual distancing from the European Union. 

Reversely, in contrast with the EU’s common foreign policy, Weidel’s AfD could pressure an already Ukraine-skeptic Trump administration to realign with Russia, leaving Ukraine to its own fate. The predictability of the above-described scenario — it has to be recognized — is highly dependent on a series of factors, the main of which is the capacity and the will of the most anti-American views in the party to compromise with the idea of a new partnership with the US. Weidel herself should revise some previous hostile attitudes towards the military American presence on German soil.

Why Trump’s Relationship with the European Right and Far Right Is Strained: Four Factors

The relationship between President Trump and significant segments of the European right and far right has become increasingly strained. While — as mentioned previously — a substantial ideological overlap endures (especially opposition towards immigration and progressivism), several developments have resulted in tensions between Trump’s “America First!” agenda and the national interests of the European right-wing and far right parties led by Meloni, Le Pen, Farage, and Weidel. Today, Trump is no longer the ideological lodestar for Europe’s right and far right: with Meloni, relations are cold at best, while Le Pen keeps the MAGA movement at arm’s length, similarly, Farage is now more cautious in publicly expressing support for the tycoon, and Weidel has distanced herself and limited her party’s contacts with the US administration.

More specifically, there are four factors that have contributed to alienating Trump’s US from the European right and far right. First, Trump’s popularity has significantly declined both domestically and internationally (Hartig & Kiley, 2026; Dionne, Jr., 2025). A recent study shows his approval rating at a very low 32% in America, losing 15 percentage points since the beginning of his second term in January 2025 (Lange, 2026). At the same time, Trump’s approbation among the Republican electorate has also declined, standing at 73% (Lange, 2026). 

Considering the wider context, a YouGov survey (from October 2026) found that 85% of Italians have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, against 83% in France, 86% in Britain, and 85% in Germany (YouGov, 2026). After all, Trump’s political brand has become so toxic for the global right that nearly every time he became directly or indirectly involved in a country’s election — either by threatening annexation, tariffs, or by endorsing a candidate — his engagement has backfired on the candidates he endorsed. 

This occurred in the last Canadian election in April 2025, as Trump suggested Canada could become the US’s “51st state” while concurrently increasing tariffs against the country, and resulted in a Liberal Party victory and an unexpected defeat of the conservative pro-Trump candidate Pierre Poilievre (Dionne Jr., 2025). 

It also occurred in Hungary, precisely a year later, as Vance attended a Viktor Orbàn rally in Budapest with 1,000 supporters on behalf of Trump (Spike, 2026). However, this strategy did not produce the intended outcome as elections were ultimately won by Orbàn’s opponent, Péter Magyar. 

As simply put by two experts — Jeremy Shapiro and Zsuzanna Vegh (2025) — “His [Trumps’s] growing unpopularity means aligning with him may not appear politically advantageous for these forces” (Shapiro & Vegh, 2025). 

Second, Trump’s protectionism, which has taken the form of tariffs as a trade policy against EU nations, has led to an escalation of tension between the US administration and some of its rightist “allies” in Europe. In essence, while far right forces such as the RN and the AfD may embrace economic nationalism or protectionism theoretically, and even practically when it suits their own national economies, they instead wholeheartedly oppose it when US tariffs[7] on European goods risk damaging their own countries’ businesses, industries, and workers. After all, for years populists have presented themselves as the main defenders of rural and blue-collar workers, who now form their core constituency. 

Thus, aligning with Trump over his tariffs and trade measures (even if for purely ideological reasons) would be counter-productive and self-sabotaging for the European right and far right, as they ultimately damage artisans, luxury craft producers, exporters, farmers, manufacturers, and small-medium businesses in general, located in Italy, France, Britain, Germany and so forth. While there have been examples of populist politicians (e.g. Le Pen and Matteo Salvini) on the right defending Trump’s economic strategy (especially anti-China tariffs) the majority of rightists have either awkwardly ignored or condemned his course of action contra the EU. 

Among those who originally supported Trump but criticized him on anti-EU tariffs are Le Pen (who spoke of the American’s “brutal approach”) and Weidel (who called them “far too aggressive and self-defeating” and “fundamentally bad for free trade”) (Pitel, 2025). Instead, the conservative PM Meloni, simply called Trump’s tariffs “a mistaken choice” (Pitel, 2025). In fact, one commentator, writing for The Guardian has shrewdly suggested that “analysts have long noted the difficult challenge that Trump’s policies pose to nationalists in the EU: while they may agree with some of them principle, MAGA is ‘America first’ – while they are ‘France first,’ ‘Germany first’ or ‘Spain first’” (Henley, 2025). 

Third, Trump’s foreign policy — especially regarding Iran — emerged as increasingly at odds with the crypto-isolationist, selectively non-interventionist (see Greene, 2024) and sovereigntist foreign policy stances of the nationalist right in Europe. Trump’s involvement (alongside Israel) in a conflict that expanded beyond the initial strikes (February 2026) and targeting of Iran’s nuclear program became viewed as an indirect threat to Europe by part of the right and far right. This is due to the costs of the war, its negative economic consequences to international trade and oil, gas, and fuel prices, as well as its wider impact on mass migration and population displacement. For evident reasons, a large-scale war in Iran could result in a new wave of migration and increase in the influx of refugees in the Old Continent.

Also, the European nationalist right (but also part of the mainstream right) wants to avoid getting involved in an American-Israeli War that would potentially result in hardship for European soldiers and taxpayers. As discussed previously, far right leaders like Le Pen and Weidel have shown their disdain for Trump’s actions against Iran, whilst Farage called in question Trump’s judgement (Coates, 2026). In essence, Trump’s move against Iran (like the one against Maduro’s Venezuela beforehand) did not consolidate Trump’s “transatlantic alliance” with the European right and far righ but actually contributed to its deterioration (Riccardi & Spike, 2026).

Instead, regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the situation is more complex. Whilst some right-wing parties — inspired by Eurasianists ranging from Alexander Dugin to Alain de Benoist[8] — have remained staunchly pro-Putin and pro-Russia (e.g. AfD) others have shifted to more “mainstream” pro-Ukraine positions (e.g. FdI, RN, Reform UK). Unlike specifically extreme right parties (e.g. AfD), today, conservative (e.g. FdI) and populist radical right parties (e.g. RN, Reform UK) and leaders in Europe are increasingly skeptical of Trump’s conciliatory approach towards Russia. 

Unsurprisingly, Meloni often calls Russia an “aggressor” (Hook Global, 2026) and has clearly criticized Trump’s deal with the Russian President (to import a significant amount of Russian diesel fuel and temporarily lift US sanctions) calling it “a very risky choice” that legitimizes Moscow (Barbati, 2026). In the Italian Parliament, her party has consistently voted to aid Ukraine militarily. 

More surprisingly, the — once Russophile — RN has reassessed its position on Russia, because although the party has opposed sending French troops and military aid (for long-range strikes) both Le Pen and Bardella have publicly supported Ukraine’s right to defend (and recover) its sovereignty (Sandford, 2022; Par Le Parisien avec AFP, 2025; Crone & Klinke, 2025: 24, 44). Also, the RN supposedly interrupted all contacts with the Kremlin after 2022 (Crone & Klinke, 2025: 44). This shift towards more liberal-conservative positions has been prompted by the increasing influence of a new generation of identitarian, Gaullist, and civilizationist thinkers that advise the higher ranks of the party — such as Pierre-Romain Thionnet and few others (Crone & Klinke, 2025: 25). The “new” RN no longer considers Russia a bastion for traditional Christianity and European identity but instead views it as a multicultural melting pot (a “Eurasian empire” with a considerable Islamic population) that represents a menace to the sovereignty of a white, Christian, and Western, “Fortress Europe” (see Crone & Klinke, 2025: 25, 27, 40, 44). 

Shifting the focus to Britain, even Farage — possibly the greatest admirer and supporter of Trump in Europe — has recently spoken against Trump’s new Russian deal (Henrys, 2026) and now is more inclined to back Ukraine (even suggesting NATO adherence) (Keate, 2025) at the cost of disagreeing with the American President. 

It is difficult to say whether these parties and leaders are ideologically or strategically (as some are close to obtaining governmental power) driven to support Ukraine over Russia. However, what is evident is that whilst the US-Iran War is viewed as something occurring far from Europe’s borders and involving a nation that is culturally very distinct and of little interest to the Old Continent, the Russia-Ukraine War is a conflict at the heart of Europe involving a nation that has been invaded by an “alien” superpower. 

Moreover, far right and right-wing parties are much more comfortable with Ukrainian immigration than with Iranian immigration resulting from the War, as the former are perceived as “white” and “Christian” and the latter as “non-white” and “Muslim.” A further concept worth exploring is that introduced by the French political analyst Thibault Muzergues (2026): many of these right-wing and/or far right parties in Europe are presently led by a younger generation of politicians who have become increasingly wary of aligning with Putin’s Russia (France 24 English, 2026). Essentially, this new political elite adopts a different stance towards Russia than its predecessors did fifteen to twenty-five years ago (France 24 English, 2026).

Fourth, Trump’s political model, especially his modus operandi of leadership and exercise of executive power, is difficult (if not impossible) to reproduce in Europe. The particular institutional structure and political-cultural context of the US confer the American President significantly more decisional autonomy, power, and freedom of maneuver compared to the numerous checks and balances, political fragmentation, and institutional constraints characterizing systems such as the European Union. 

In the event that they assume office, leaders such as Meloni, Le Pen, Farage, and Weidel would operate in a very distinct context from Trump — one that involves specifically European parliamentary mechanisms, proportional electoral frameworks, coalition administrations, independent constitutional tribunals, and supranational regulatory bodies. 

Contrastingly, Trump’s institutional environment is shaped by a two-party system where — although restrained by courts, Congress, and the states — the executive is directly elected by the people and is able to exercise substantial authority without having to necessarily depend on a parliamentary majority. For instance, the American President has the right to pull out from most international agreements without the approval of Congress. Furthermore, Trump utilized executive orders to make US immigration policy stricter (also enforcing mass deportations) without always relying on new legislation. 

In summary, the impracticality of replicating Trump’s model in Europe ineluctably contributed to an increasing estrangement between the American President and the European right. 

Conclusion

This commentary examined the complex political and relational dynamics surrounding President Trump and successful right-wing and far right party leaders in Europe. The analysis revealed that although — overall — the relationship between Trump and the European right and far right is significantly strained, it has yet to reach a breaking point, nor does such an outcome appear imminent. After all, given the American and European economies are largely interconnected, especially considering trade and supply chains, finance, military security, intelligence, energy, and technology, a full rupture between the US and Europe’s major nations (and its potential future leaders) such as Italy, France, Britain, and Germany appears both undesirable and unrealistic. 

In any case, the main takeaway is that although there is strong ideological affinity between at least three of the four leaders discussed and Trump — Le Pen, Farage, and Weidel (more so than Meloni) are closely aligned to the US President’s views on state authority to combat globalization, immigration, woke, and modern liberalism — realpolitik combined with Trump’s trade and foreign policy have forced these parties/leaders to distance themselves from his actions and emerging legacy, primarily to defend their own national interests. 

Considering political realism, Meloni, Le Pen, Farage, and Weidel have all understood the political cost of aligning too closely with a foreign President who is experiencing a sharp decline in public support (both domestically and internationally) and who always prioritizes pursuing his own national agenda to satisfy his electoral base at home (MAGA) rather than strengthening transatlantic alliances. 

Furthermore, these leaders evidently see no benefit in attempting to imitate or replicate Trump’s failing political model in their own parliamentary (Italy, Britain, Germany) and semi-presidential (France) democracies. Considering Trump’s policies, all of the rightist and far right leaders mentioned above have no choice but to object to the President’s hazardous maneuvers on trade and foreign policy that damage their economies and long-term societal plans. Today, American tariffs on European goods, Russian “appeasement,” and new wars (e.g. Iran) (potentially causing an increase in global immigration), are not looked upon favorably by the leaders of parties who are — above all — sovereigntist (and except for the AfD — FdI, RN, and Reform UK, view Russia as a foreign threat to national sovereignty), nativist, culturally and economically nationalist, and partially isolationist. 

After Trump’s failed midterms election, it is likely the European right will distance itself from him and his political paradigm (namely “Trumpism”) even further. However, it is only natural that — if they take office — the European right and far right will seek coordination and cooperation with Trump’s America on most of the issues mentioned above (trade, security, intelligence, energy, etc.). Nevertheless, such cooperation is likely to become increasingly pragmatic, transactional and driven by strategic considerations rather than ideological affinity. 

As already stated, Trump is no longer considered an ideological point of reference or natural ally by any of the leaders and parties under scrutiny. On the contrary, Trump is perceived as an erratic, precarious, and unpredictable interlocutor whose imperatives and core aims usually diverge significantly from their own, especially on topics such as commercial policy and foreign policy. Ideally, future studies could shift the focus towards other right-wing political actors (e.g. Santiago Abascal, Péter Magyar, and Geert Wilders) and assess their affinity with Trump from a political-strategic and ideological standpoint.


 

References

AFP & Rapporteur. (2026, January 18). “Meloni calls threatened US tariffs over Greenland a ‘mistake’.” Rapporteur.https://www.rapporteur.com/news/meloni-calls-threatened-us-tariffs-over-greenland-a-mistake/  (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Alice Weidel. (2025, January 9). “Conversazione Integrale – Alice Weidel & Elon Musk Su X!” YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlFyJmQQNtQ&t=1854s (accessed on November 4, 2026).

Alli, P. (2025). “The role of Italy in shaping the transatlantic relationship under Trump.” European View (Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies), 24(1), pp. 1–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/17816858251341118

Amante, A. and Balmer, C. (2026, June 20). “Italy’s Meloni says Trump ‘totally invented’ story that she begged him for photo.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/meloni-fights-back-after-trump-tells-italian-tv-she-begged-photo-with-him-g7-2026-06-19/ (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Barbati, G. (2026, October 14). “Meloni warns Trump’s Russian diesel deal is ‘very risky’ and legitimises Moscow.” Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/14/meloni-warns-trumps-russian-diesel-deal-is-very-risky-and-legitimises-moscow (accessed on November 6, 2026).

BBC. (2020, October 29). ‘The bravest person I have ever met,’ Farage praises Trump at Arizona Rally.” https://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-us-2020-54727921 (accessed on  November 3, 2026).

Besch, S. and Varma, T. (2025). “Alliance of Revisionists: A new era for the transatlantic relationship.” Survival. 67(2), pp. 7–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2025.2481768

Bloomberg. (2025, October 24). “Farage sees Trump as role model who keeps promises.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-10-24/farage-sees-trump-as-role-model-who-keeps-promises (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Bloomberg Television. (2024, December 19) “Germany election: AFD candidate Alice Weidel on election, EU, Trump, energy.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeYB_Hmsu84 (accessed on November 4, 2026).

Boezi, F. (2026). “Maggioranza Giorgia ‘Sono Le Grandi Coalizioni Che Fanno Crescere I populisti’.” Il Giornale. Milan.

Cattani, L. (2016, October 9). “Il paradosso della Destra Liberal-protezionista: Il Caso di Afd.” Pandora Rivista. https://www.pandorarivista.it/articoli/paradosso-destra-caso-afd/ (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Caulcutt, C. and Nöstlinger, N. (2026, April 17). “Trump turns totally toxic for Europe’s far right.” Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-turns-toxic-europe-far-right-le-pen-national-rally-france-orban-defeat-hungary/(accessed on November 2, 2026).

Cheetham, J. (2026, June 20). “Meloni tells Trump to ‘focus on your own popularity’ as row escalates.” BBC.https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgqj77909jpo (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Ciriaco, T. and Colombo, G. (2026, July 5). “L’impegno di Meloni alla NATO: 17 miliardi in più in due anni.” La Repubblica. https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2026/07/05/news/meloni_nato_ankara_17_miliardi-425452124/ (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Coates, J. (2026, April 24). “Farage ‘starting to worry slightly’ about Trump amid Iran War.” The Independent.https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/iran-war-trump-farage-reform-b2964159.html (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Cobham, T. (2026, March 9). “Nigel Farage fails to meet Trump after flying to Mar-a-Lago” The Independent.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-trump-mar-lago-chagos-islands-deal-starmer-b2934715.html(accessed on November 3, 2026).

Crone, M. and Klinke, I. (2025). “Ruptures on the right: The Franco-German far right after Ukraine.” Rep. DIIS (Danish Institute for International Studies). https://www.diis.dk/en/research/ruptures-on-the-right-the-franco-german-far-right-after-ukraine (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Dawson, B. (2026, January 23). “Nigel Farage’s support for Trump is putting off potential voters.” Politico.https://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-support-trump-puts-off-potential-reform-voters-stevenage-woman/ (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Dionne Jr. , E.J. (2025). “Trump invites electoral backlash abroad, but Europe’s far right is far from dead.” BROOKINGS. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-invites-electoral-backlash-abroad-but-europes-far-right-is-far-from-dead/(accessed on November 5, 2026).

Donovan, H. (2026, March 9). “Why the AFD has fallen out of love with Trump.” The Spectator. https://spectator.com/article/why-the-afd-has-fallen-out-of-love-with-trump/ (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Duso, L. (2026, July 6) “‘Restraining order needed,’ Trump says of Italy’s PM Meloni ahead of NATO Summit.” Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/2026/07/06/trump-attacks-meloni-before-nato-summit-in-ankara-needs-a-restraining-order (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Elliott, F. (2026, April 24). “Farage ‘worried’ about Trump’s judgment amid rising UK-us tensions.” LBC.https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/farage-trumps-judgment-middle-east-5HjdYD6_2/ (accessed on November 3, 2026).

France 24 English. (2026, May 27) “Where does Europe’s far right turn? Populists look to distance themselves from Trump.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_C9lkNwX2Q&t=2375s (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Gagliardi, A. (2026, July 8). “Meloni: Pronti A aumentare spese militari, ma con i Nostri Tempi e Modi.” Il Sole 24 Ore.https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/meloni-trump-non-mi-pento-nulla-punto-all-unita-dell-occidente-AJJ4mnC (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Gibbons, A. (2026, April 23) “Farage distances himself from Trump, saying they haven’t spoken for months.” The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/23/farage-distances-himself-from-trump-not-spoken-in-months/(accessed on November 3, 2026).

Giuffrida, A. (2026, March 31). “Italy denies use of Sicily airbase to US planes carrying weapons for Iran War.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/31/italy-denies-sicily-airbase-us-planes-carrying-weapons-iran-war (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Gozzi, L. (2025, December 10). “French far-right leader tells BBC he shares US warnings on Europe “‘for most part’.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7nrze7g8wo (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Greene, T. (2024). “Fitting national interests with populist opportunities: Intervention politics on the European Radical Right.” International Relations. 38(2), pp. 137–164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117822111248

Gross, A.; Fisher, L. and Miller, J. (2026, March 9). “Farage misses out on Trump meeting as their relationship cools.” Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/93919282-0871-4cfe-bc98-62cee5477d8b?syn-25a6b1a6=1 (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Guillou, C. (2025, March 6). “Marine Le Pen timidly distances herself from Donald Trump.” Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2025/03/06/marine-le-pen-timidly-distances-herself-from-donald-trump_6738872_5.html (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Harari, D. (2026). “Economic update: Middle east conflict and the UK economy.” House of Commons Library (UK Parliament). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10601/ (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Hartig, H. and Kiley, J. (2026). “Confidence in Trump Dips, and fewer now say they support his policies and plans.” Rep. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/01/29/confidence-in-trump-dips-and-fewer-now-say-they-support-his-policies-and-plans/ (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Henley, J. (2025, December 10). “AFD responds to Trump ‘erasure’ claims with call for Nationalist Revival in Europe.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/10/afd-responds-to-trump-erasure-claims-with-call-for-nationalist-revival-in-europe (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Henrys, R. (2026, October 13) “Farage ‘disappointed’ with Trump’s diesel deal with Putin and describes Germany and other EU countries as the ‘real villains.’” LBC. https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/farage-trump-russia-ukraine-5HjdjpS_2/(accessed on November 6, 2026).

Hernández-Morales, A. et al. (2025, April 3). “Trump tariffs put Europe’s far-right leaders in a bind.” Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-tariff-europe-far-right-leader/ (accessed on November 12, 2026).

Hook Global (2025, October 19). “The aggressor must pay…’: Giorgia Meloni tells Europe not to back down on Putin sanctions.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye_0IZPUX8E&t=66s (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Hoyer, K. (2026, March 10). “Iran war is testing AFD’s faith in Donald Trump.” UnHerd. https://unherd.com/newsroom/iran-war-is-testing-afds-faith-in-donald-trump/ (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Jordan Bardella. (2025, January 20). “Jordan Bardella dans les 4v : « trump a Gagné parce qu’il a défendu les intérêts de l’amérique».” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SsWH7Scb2Q (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Keate, N. (2025, February 13). “Trump’s Brit ally Nigel Farage: Ukraine should join NATO.” Politico.https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-brit-ally-nigel-farage-ukraine-should-join-nato/ (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Lange, J. (2026, September 21). “Trump approval falls to record low of 32% as high costs bite, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-approval-falls-career-low-32-high-costs-bite-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2026-09-21/ (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Langfitt, F. (2016, November 22). “Trump calls for U.K.’s Nigel Farage to be ambassador to the U.S.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/22/503014904/trump-calls-for-u-k-s-nigel-farage-to-be-ambassador-to-the-u-s (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Langlois, L. (2018). “Trump, Brexit and the transatlantic relationship: The new paradigms of the Trump era.” Revue LISA / LISA e-journal, XVI-n°2. doi: 10.4000/lisa.10235.

Lazar, M. (2026). “Giorgia Meloni, an Italian trump?” The Journal of Illiberalism Studies, 6(1), pp. 39–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.53483/ACRV3620

Le Monde with AFP. (2025, January 10). “Musk doubles down on support for German far-right leader.” Le Monde.https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2025/01/10/musk-doubles-down-on-support-for-german-far-right-leader_6736883_143.html (accessed on November 4, 2026).

Le Monde with AFP (2026, April 14) “Italian PM meloni blasts “unacceptable” trump criticism of pope.” Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/04/14/italian-pm-blasts-unacceptable-trump-criticism-of-pope_6752402_4.html (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Mason, R. (2026, March 11). “Nigel Farage says Iran ‘bigger danger than Putin’ in New Statesman interview.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/11/nigel-farage-iran-us-war-putin-russia-new-statesman-interview-reform (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Mazza, V. (2026, April 15). “L’intervista integrale di Donald Trump al ‘Corriere’ su Giorgia Meloni.” Corriere della Sera.https://www.corriere.it/esteri/26_aprile_15/trump-intervista-corriere-meloni-a80287f2-cda8-4c1b-b0f1-e6de689c1xlk.shtml (accessed on November 2, 2026).

McAuley, J. (2016, November 9). “France’s Far-Right Marine Le Pen congratulates Trump.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-updates-on-the-2016-election-voting-and-race-results/frances-far-right-marine-le-pen-congratulates-trump/ (accessed on November 11, 2026).

Meloni, G. and Sallusti, A. (2026). Giorgia’s vision: Giorgia Meloni in conversation with Alessandro Sallusti (English edition). New York City: Skyhorse .

Mitchell, M. (2025, March 6). “Reform UK voters’ approval of Donald Trump Nosedives.” UnHerd.https://unherd.com/newsroom/reform-uk-voters-approval-of-donald-trump-nosedives/ (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Müller, C. (2026, March 5). “Ard-deutschlandtrend mehrheit lehnt angriff auf Iran Ab”, Taggesschau.https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-maerz-104.html (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Odoxa. (2026). Les Français détestent plus que jamais Donald Trump et pensent qu’il a perdu la guerre contre l’Iran.https://www.odoxa.fr/sondage/les-francais-detestent-plus-que-jamais-donald-trump-et-pensent-quil-a-perdu-la-guerre-contre-liran/ (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Par Le Parisien avec AFP. (2025, March 10). “Pour Jordan Bardella, La Russie représente « une menace multidimensionnelle pour la France ».” Le Parisien. https://www.leparisien.fr/politique/pour-jordan-bardella-la-russie-represente-une-menace-multidimensionnelle-pour-la-france-10-03-2025-2QLSOFLM3RFQXKNHRZJNMHPC6A.php(accessed on November 6, 2026).

Pfeifer, H. (2025, June 10). “Germany’s AFD seeks closer ties to Trump and Maga Movement.” DW.https://www.dw.com/en/afd-alternative-for-germany-beatrix-von-storch-donald-trump-markus-frohnmaier-jan-wenzel-schmidt/a-74254801 (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Pitel, L. (2025, April 27). “Europe’s far right at odds over Trump tariffs.” Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/af3c5cfe-6b63-4bc5-8c1d-73b1972c73c6?syn-25a6b1a6=1 (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Pitel, L. (2026, April 4). “Germany’s far-right AFD distances itself from Donald Trump over Iran War.” Financial Times.https://www.ft.com/content/9d5abad5-df48-4e56-908a-1a7e38bb182e?syn-25a6b1a6=1 (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Ramaswamy , S.V. (2025, January 19). “Will a ‘Trumpier than Trump’ JD Vance bring more populism to Trump’s economic agenda?” USA Today News. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/19/jd-vance-trump-economic-policy/77546297007/ (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Reuters. (2025, February 21). “France’s Bardella cancels CPAC speech over Bannon ‘Nazi’ salute.” https://www.reuters.com/world/frances-bardella-cancels-cpac-speech-over-bannon-nazi-salute-2025-02-21/ (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Reuters. (2025, February 14). “Vance meets with leader of German far-right AFD Party.” Reuters.https://www.reuters.com/world/vance-meets-with-leader-german-far-right-afd-party-2025-02-14/ (accessed on November 5, 2026).

Riccardi, N. and Spike, J. (2026, April 9). “Trump’s Iran war widens rift with European nationalists once viewed as Maga allies” City News Everywhere. https://halifax.citynews.ca/2026/04/09/trumps-iran-war-widens-rift-with-european-nationalists-once-viewed-as-maga-allies/ (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Roundtable. (2026, March 28). “Is Europe’s populist right turning away from Trump?” YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzkef-1i2xg&t=101s (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Sandford, A. (2022, April 17). “French election: What exactly is Marine Le Pen’s stance on Russia and Vladimir Putin?” Euronews. https://www.euronews.com/2022/04/18/french-election-what-exactly-is-marine-le-pen-s-stance-on-russia-and-vladimir-putin (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Schofield, K. (2026, October 5). “Donald Trump’s popularity in the UK has plunged to a shocking new low, Poll finds.” HuffPost. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-popularity-uk-plunged-111143727.html (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Shapiro, J. and Végh, Z. (2025). “When culture war and Trade War Clash: Trump’s troubled Alliance with Europe’s far right.” EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. https://ecfr.eu/profile/zsuzsanna-vegh/ (accessed on November 6, 2026).

Solmaz, F.Z. (2025, April 4). “Trump criticizes France’s conviction of Le Pen as ‘witch hunt’.” Anadolu Agency (AA). https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/trump-criticizes-frances-conviction-of-le-pen-as-witch-hunt/3528058 (accessed on November 2, 2026).

Spike, J. (2026, April 7). “On Hungary visit, Vance urges voters to support Orbán days before pivotal election.” Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-04-07/vance-says-hes-here-to-help-orbans-election-campaign-during-hungary-visit (accessed on November 5, 2026).

The Economist (2025, September 15). “Donald Trump is unpopular in Britain. Trumpism is thriving.” https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/09/15/donald-trump-is-unpopular-in-britain-trumpism-is-thriving (accessed November 3, 2026).

Valenti, F. (2020, February 7). ‘Trump è un modello’. La giornata americana di Giorgia Meloni.” Agenzia Italia (AGI).https://www.agi.it/politica/news/2020-02-07/giorgia_meloni_in_america_washington-7024117/ (accessed on October 31, 2026).

Villani-Lubelli, U. (2026). “L’ascesa di Alternative für Deutschland. Origini E Conseguenze politiche E istituzionali.” In: L. Rapone, Le destre europee del XXI secolo. 1st edn. Rome: Carocci editore, pp. 141–158.

Wallace-Wells, B. (2024, October 28). “The improbable rise of J. D. Vance.” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/11/04/j-d-vance-profile (accessed on November 3, 2026).

Wertheimer, T. (2025, May 3). “Germany defends AFD extremist classification after Rubio criticises ‘tyranny in disguise’.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4vz9jed5lo (accessed on November 4, 2026).

White, L. (2026, March 10). “Farage U-turns to say UK shouldn’t get involved in Iran War.” Bloomberg.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-10/farage-u-turns-to-say-uk-shouldn-t-get-involved-in-iran-war(accessed on November 3, 2026).

Wike, R. et al. (2025). “U.S. image declines in many nations amid low confidence in Trump.” Rep. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/06/11/confidence-in-trump/ (accessed on November 3, 2026).

YouGov. (2026). “How popular is Donald Trump in Europe?” October 2026. https://yougov.com/articles/55905-how-popular-is-donald-trump-in-europe-october-2026 (accessed on November 12, 2026).

Zakharova, D. (2026, September 9). “Trump hails AFD win in Saxony-Anhalt.” Politico.https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-congratulates-afd-saxony-anhalt-election-win/ (accessed on November 5, 2026).


 

Footnotes

[1] For detailed accounts of JD Vance’s political views refer to Benjamin Wallace-Wells (2024), and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy (2025).

[2] For an in-depth account on how the Israel/U.S.-Iran conflict has negatively impacted the UK economy, see Daniel Harari (2026). 

[3] The interview mentioned above can be found online at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeYB_Hmsu84.

[4] A recent survey shows that most Germans disapprove of Trump’s actions against Iran (and Maduro in Venezuela) — see Claudia Müller (2026).

[5] This particular AfD policy is concisely (yet comprehensively) discussed in a book chapter written by the scholar Ubaldo Villani-Lubelli (2026: 149-151). 

[6] Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). 

[7] Especially the 20% levy on all EU imports (see Hernández-Morales et al., 2025).

[8] Alain de Benoist is not strictly Eurasianist in the Duginist sense. While he supports multipolarity (objecting to American dominance and liberal universalism) and calls for an ethno-pluralist “Europe of the peoples”, he also believes Russia’s role is central in any anti-American, anti-Atlanticist, and illiberal continental project. 

Religious symbols on sand: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Orthodoxy Buddhism and Hinduism. Photo: Godong Photo.

Pluralism Triumphs in the 2026 US Midterms: Religion, Populism, and America’s First Muslim Senator

In this commentary for the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Rev. Dr. Colin Bossen examines the significance of the 2026 US midterm elections for religious pluralism, populism, and democratic citizenship. Focusing on Abdul El-Sayed’s historic election as America’s first Muslim senator, Rev. Dr. Bossen argues that the results reflect more than a resurgence of the religious left. They illuminate a longstanding struggle between competing populist traditions: an inclusive, multiracial populism grounded in economic justice and religious diversity, and an exclusionary populism associated with white supremacy and Christian nationalism. Drawing on American political and religious history, Rev. Dr. Bossen explores how changing patterns of representation challenge established boundaries of national belonging while exposing the continuing tensions between democratic inclusion, religious identity, and exclusionary nationalism.

By Rev. Dr. Colin Bossen* 

The United States midterm elections are being read as marking the resurgence of the religious left. From the abolitionist movement through Jimmy Carter’s presidency, it was once a dominant force in the country’s politics. In recent decades, it has been eclipsed by Republican-aligned evangelicals and Christian nationalists who comprise the religious right. In this regard, the 2026 US midterms have marked something of a realignment. Come January 2027, Protestant ministers and seminarians affiliated with the Democrats will outnumber those connected to the Republicans in Congress. Texas alone is sending the Presbyterian seminarian James Talarico to the Senate and Frederick Haynes III, senior minister of the Dallas Black megachurch Friendship-West Baptist Church, to the House of Representatives. Adam Hamilton, senior minister of the country’s largest United Methodist congregation, will be heading to the Senate from Kansas, a state that has not elected a Democrat to serve in the chamber since 1932.

As important as this turn is, it is less significant than the election of Abdul El-Sayed as a senator from Michigan. Numerous Protestant clergy on both the left and the right have long occupied congressional offices. The first Speaker of the House was Frederick Muhlenberg, a Lutheran minister. Richard Cain served as an African Methodist Episcopal pastor before he entered the House as a representative from South Carolina following the Civil War. After his final term in Congress, he spent the remainder of his career as a bishop. Many twentieth- and twenty-first-century examples can be found. The civil rights icon Adam Clayton Powell Jr., for instance, served simultaneously as pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church and as a congressman from New York. The arrival of figures like Hamilton, Haynes, and Talarico does not signify something fundamentally new.

In contrast, El-Sayed’s swearing into the Senate will be truly novel. He will be the first Muslim in the nation’s history to belong to the body. His entry into the chamber represents a change in the demographic and religious composition of the United States. While the first Muslim arrived in what is now the United States long before the nation’s founding, it wasn’t until 2006 that Keith Ellison became the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives. At the time of Ellison’s election, there were 2.4 million Muslims in the country, about 0.8% of the population. Today, there are about 5.5 million, representing 1.6% of all residents of the United States (Mohamed, 2026). At the same time, the number of people in the United States who identify as Christian has dropped significantly, falling from 78% of adults living in the United States in 2007 to 62% now (Smith et al., 2025).

These demographic shifts might partially explain why the period between Ellison’s and El-Sayed’s elections has been marked by a rise in Islamophobia. While anti-Muslim hate crimes hit their highest level in 2001, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, negative views of Islam are far higher now than they were then. Twenty-five years ago, 25% of adults in the United States said that Islam was more likely to inspire violence than other religions. The percentage is now 51% (Mohamed, 2026). Tellingly, tactics demonizing Muslims played an important role in several Republican campaigns. In Texas, members of the party tried to stir up fear of Sharia in their efforts to drum up support (Religion News Service, 2026) Attacking El-Sayed for his faith was a central part of the strategy against him. Both President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance went after him, with Trump calling him a “jihadist” and Vance claiming he was an agent of “terrible evil” (Hippensteel, 2026).

The most telling incident during El-Sayed’s campaign was not with either the president or the vice president. It was with Thomas Teepell, a former member of Missouri Republican Senator Joshua Hawley’s staff (Edwards, 2026. At a campaign event where Teepell identified himself as “Tommy,” he pressed El-Sayed to “disavow the Muslim Brotherhood.” The exchange went viral, with El-Sayed observing that implicit in the question was the accusation of “dual loyalties,” the claim that religious minorities have allegiances that rank higher than those they owe to the nation or the United States Constitution. El-Sayed observed that the same charge had been made against John F. Kennedy, the country’s first Catholic president, and asserted that his first loyalty would be to the Constitution. He turned the tables by pressing Teepell to “disavow any attempt to read any religious doctrine into the laws of our country.” Teepell refused to do so and implied that he viewed the nation’s founding document as inherently Christian.

The exchange represented a confrontation between populist traditions, both frequently infused with religious dimensions, long present within the United States. Teepell appeared to offer views similar to those I label in my scholarship white supremacist populists. Closely connected to Christian nationalism, they believe that White people, especially Christians, are the country’s only authentic citizens. In an op-ed that he penned while initially running for office, Teepell’s former boss Senator Hawley provided an example of this kind of populism. He linked concerns about the economic needs of the working-class with coded language around the threats that “globalists” and “illegal immigrants” present to the country (Draper, 2026; Hawley, 2018). Such language has long been a way to covertly peddle White identity politics. 

El-Sayed, in contrast, represented pluralistic populism. This variety of populism combines a capacious understanding of who belongs in the country with a sharp focus on economic security. He invoked Kennedy, whose own religious identity signaled an expansion of who could make a claim to authentic citizenry, and embodied in his candidacy a further enlargement of the demographic boundaries of the nation. At the same time, he provided a memorable three point campaign platform: “Money out of politics. Money in your pocket. Medicare for all.”[1]

The pluralistic and white supremacist varieties of populism have long contested with each other. El-Sayed wasn’t the only Democratic candidate connected to pluralistic populism who won in the midterms. Notably, Talarico and Gina Hinojosa, the successful Democratic candidate for governor in Texas, both are linked to it as well. Hinojosa has explicitly called herself a “populist” and centered economic issues (The New York Times, 2026). She is also a Catholic, with her faith alongside El-Sayed’s Islam and Talarico’s Presbyterianism embodying the inclusive vision of pluralist populism (Barone, 2026).

Despite their victories and the Democrats’ stunning sweep of the midterms, there’s little reason to think that conflict between different variants of populism will end anytime soon. It has been going on for much of the history of the United States. States like Texas have at various times been strongholds for both pluralistic and white supremacist populism. The Lone Star State (Texas) was a bastion of the original late nineteenth century Populist Party. Some of its leaders were Protestant clergy. Its members included precursors to the kind of multiracial democracy advocated by contemporary pluralist populists. In the early twentieth century it was a stronghold for the Ku Klux Klan. The archetypal white supremacist populist movement, it arguably provided the template for much of contemporary Christian nationalism.

All of this suggests that what is novel about the midterms is not the conflict between religious left and religious right. It is that a Muslim senator has now joined a coalition that includes not just Catholics and Protestants but figures like the new mayor of Los Angeles, Nithya Raman, a Hindu (Mukherjee, 2026), the longstanding Jewish senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders, and the soon-to-be Washington State House Representative Jaelyn Scott, the first openly Black transgender woman to serve in a state legislature (Seattle Gay News, 2026). The contest between pluralistic and white supremacist populism over who comprises the authentic citizenry of the United States remains far from settled. 


 

(*) Rev. Dr. Colin Bossen is an award-winning preacher, scholar, and social justice organizer. He serves as the senior minister of the First Unitarian Universalist Church in Houston, Texas, and as a Visiting Fellow at Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford. He is the author of The Political Theologies of Populism: the Garveyites, the Klan, and the Wobblies, 1905-1930 (Wayne State University Press, 2026) and American Populism and Unitarian Universalism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2026). Substack: colinbossen.substack.com


 

References

Barone, Camilllo. (2026).  “Meet the Catholics who shaped the 2026 midterms,” National Catholic Reporter, November 4, 2026. https://www.ncronline.org/news/meet-catholics-who-shaped-2026-midterms

Draper, Robert. (2026). “Josh Hawley and the Republican Populists, at War with Their Party,” The New York Times, April 28, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/28/us/politics/josh-hawley-populist.html

Edwards, Joe. (2026) “Who is ‘Tommy’” Report Identifies Man in El-Sayed Clash as Ex-GOP Staffer,” Newsweek,October 19, 2026. https://www.newsweek.com/tommy-abdul-el-sayed-muslim-brotherhood-michigan-12588556

Gregory A. Smith et al. (2025), “Decline of Christianity in the U.S. Has Slowed, May Have Leveled Off: Findings from the 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study,” Pew Research Center, February 26, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/decline-of-christianity-in-the-us-has-slowed-may-have-leveled-off/

Hawley, Josh. (2018). “GOP Senate candidate: America needs a border wall and an immigration policy to protect Americans,” Fox News, September 12, 2018. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gop-senate-candidate-america-needs-a-border-wall-and-an-immigration-policy-to-protect-americans

Hippensteel, Chris. (2026). “JD Vance steps up extreme attacks on Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed,” The Guardian, October 27, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/27/jd-vance-el-sayed-attacks

Mohamed, Besheer. (2026). “25 Years After 9/11, a Portrait of Muslim Americans,” Pew Research Center, September 3, 2026. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/09/03/25-years-after-9-11-a-portrait-of-muslim-americans/

Mukherjee, Trisha. (2026). “Nithya Raman, a practicing Hindu, elected as mayor of Los Angeles,” Religion News Service,Alex Garland, November 5, 2026. https://religionnews.com/2026/11/05/nithya-raman-a-practicing-hindu-elected-as-mayor-of-los-angeles/

Religion News Service. (2026). “The Texas Sharia Panic: How a Rallying Cry Became a Curriculum,” Complexified, September 21, 2026. https://religionnews.com/2026/09/21/the-texas-sharia-panic-how-a-rallying-cry-became-a-curriculum/

Seattle Gay News (2026). “Jaelyn Scott wins in a landslide, becoming Washington’s first openly Trans legislator,” November 4, 2026. https://www.sgn.org/story/171841

The New York Times (2026). “Gina Hinojosa on Why She Calls Herself a Populism (and Not a Progressive),” October 24, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/video/podcasts/100000011212069/gina-hinojosa-on-why-she-calls-herself-a-populist-and-not-a-progressive.html


[1] Medicare for all signifies universal healthcare for the United States.

National Guard troops stand on standby during a downtown demonstration opposing expanded ICE operations and supporting immigrant rights in Los Angeles, United States, June 8, 2025.

2026 US Midterm Elections: It’s Not Just Affordability, Stupid!

In this commentary for the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Lester Spence of Johns Hopkins University challenges interpretations of the 2026 US midterm elections that attribute the rejection of Trumpism primarily to economic affordability. While acknowledging the significance of rising living costs, Professor Spence argues that racial justice, civil rights, immigration enforcement, and democratic accountability were equally crucial in shaping electoral mobilization. Drawing on developments in Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Israel, he highlights the political significance of Black and Latino voter participation and broader progressive organizing. He contends that the Democratic Party’s future success depends not merely on addressing economic grievances but on strengthening the political power of constituencies mobilized against authoritarianism, racial exclusion, and democratic erosion.

By Lester Spence*

In November 2024, Donald Trump was elected President for a second time. The result? He gutted USAID (estimates suggest approximately 14 million lives could be lost if the cuts continue through 2030), slashed food assistance for approximately 2.4 million people/month. He sent over 70,000 people in concentration camps, and separated at least 145,000 children from their parents. The military occupied the nation’s cities (including the capital). He slashed the federal workforce, with losses disproportionately felt by black women and men, and relatedly weaponized the government against American universities (and civil rights more broadly).

Trump entered politics claiming he would drain the swamp, yet he has engaged in staggering levels of corruption. Much of this has been aided and abetted by his Supreme Court, through its decisions granting presidents immunity, eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, and enabling ICE agents to use racial profiling in immigration raids, among others. Finally, he deposed two heads of state in Venezuela and Iran, and entered into a war with Iran that has no signs of ending. Much if not all of this follows the Project 2025 plan established by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and funded by Elon Musk and other tech billionaires. 

Tuesday, November 3 was the first time voters had the opportunity to respond to the first two years of Trump’s second term. 

And respond they did. 

With the highest turnout in modern election history—the last time turnout was higher neither African Americans (in the South) nor women could vote—voters decisively rejected Trumpism. In doing so they gave the Democratic Party majority control of both the House and Senate, forcing Trump to spend the last two years of his presidency facing a bicameral Democratic majority for the first time.

Further, they elected the first Muslim-American (Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan), the first indigenous woman (Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota), the first openly gay man (Chris Pappas in New Hampshire). A record number of black governors were elected, including the nation’s first black female governor in Keisha Lance Bottoms. And 107 of the 165 candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, arguably the most important left political force in the country, won office. The newly elected mayors of Los Angeles and Washington D.C. are DSA members.

I’m going to use four elections, three domestic, and one international, to give a better sense of the scope. Mississippi is the poster-child for the American Deep South. It was the first state to institutionalize Jim Crow—in 1890 its state constitutional convention was held for the express purpose of eliminating African Americans from politics. Scott Colom defeated Cindy Hyde-Smith becoming the state’s first democratic senator since 1982, and its first black Senator since 1881.

Texas elected its first Latina governor as well as its first Democratic Senator in almost four decades, and while the Republican Party still controls the Senate, the Democrats will have more power in the state than they’ve had since the 1990s.

In Florida, Angie Nixon narrowly lost her campaign against Ashley Moody, but received almost 4 million votes as a Democratic Socialist, and as important with little to no support from the Democratic Party.  

Finally, I point to the elections in Israel. In response to the genocide in Gaza, combined with Netanyahu’s corruption, over 65.000 Israel migrants returned to Israel to vote, generating the highest turnout there in ages. Israel is in many ways as politically split as the United States. While Netanyahu’s political forces did not experience the type of losses Trumpism did. With this said, however, more Palestinian voters participated than ever before, allotting Palestinian parties more votes than they’ve ever possessed. Their votes will make the difference between a coalition with the capacity to stave off Netanyahu and expressly a nation willing to move against its ethnic-nationalist tendency, and a nation that accedes to it.

I bring this case up because while Americans tend to view its elections solely in domestic terms, the decision Israel makes are undoubtedly shaped if not determined by the US election—it is unlikely Israel parties would even consider working with Palestinian parties if the US election turned out different.

The key word analysts and some American politicians have turned to to explain this election is affordability. Americans rejected Trumpism because the price of gas skyrocketed, because bread became too expensive. Identifying the problem in the way centers the victory on voters who were primarily (if not solely) interested in affordability defined in this manner, and then tends to naturally generate solutions that will effectively solve the problem defined in this manner. 

Now affordability has become an issue over the past few years. US gas prices are higher than they were when Trump was elected in 2024. Bread prices are higher than they were when Trump was elected in 2024. These price spikes are real as are voter concerns about them.

But affordability, defined narrowly in this manner, does not explain Mississippi. It does not explain Texas. It does not explain Florida. What does? Trump’s attacks on civil rights and the apparatus used to sustain it, and relatedly Trump’s vicious anti-immigration policies. These attacks arguably led to turnout so high among black voters that the Republicans actually lost election in many of the redistricted seats they thought they would claim without problem once the Supreme Court neutered the Voting Rights Act.

Relatedly Trump’s concentration camps combined with his deployment of masked ICE agents both turned a significant percentage of Latino votes against him, it also increased their turnout. With the mandate the Democratic Party and progressives in general are thinking about next steps, with some believing that investigations and efforts to legislatively respond to Trump’s actions as well as those of his Supreme Court should be a significant component of the Democratic Party agenda.

I have no crystal ball here, but I suggest that going forward it makes more sense to wield the power the Democratic Party has in enhancing the political power of the two populations most willing and interested in persistently turning out in favor of progressive priorities, and it isn’t clear they can do so effectively solely thinking about “affordability.”


 

(*) Lester Spence is a Professor of Political Science and Africana Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He specializes in the study of black, racial, and urban politics in the wake of the neoliberal turn. An award winning scholar (in 2013, he received the W.E.B. DuBois Distinguished Book Award for his book, Stare in the Darkness: The Limits of Hip-hop and Black Politics) and teacher (in 2009, he received an Excellence in Teaching Award), he can regularly be heard on National Public Radio and the Marc Steiner Show.

A gas station worker operates a valve.

Europe’s Energy Trilemma: How Affordability vs. Diversification Fuels Populist Politics

In this commentary, Nikoletta Syvak examines Europe’s energy trilemma—the competing imperatives of affordability, energy security, and environmental sustainability—and how tensions between diversification and rising energy costs fuel populist politics. As the European Union seeks to reduce its dependence on Russian fossil fuels and accelerate the green transition, populist actors exploit economic grievances by portraying Brussels’ energy policies as burdens imposed by distant elites on ordinary citizens. Drawing on developments in Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Germany, Syvak explores how affordability concerns challenge European solidarity and create opportunities for populist mobilization. She argues that addressing this dilemma requires targeted household compensation, greater transparency about diversification costs, and pragmatic energy policies that balance strategic independence with economic affordability and public trust.

By Nikoletta Syvak*

Energy insecurity has become an increasingly important driver of populist mobilization in Europe, exposing tensions between technocratic policymaking, socioeconomic grievances, and democratic legitimacy. As the EU balances energy diversification, affordability, and environmental sustainability, populist actors frame rising energy costs as evidence that Brussels prioritizes geopolitical ambitions over ordinary citizens’ needs. Yet these grievances reflect genuine economic pressures rather than merely populist narratives. The challenge is to address these concerns without undermining European solidarity or long-term energy security.

On October 29, 2026, speaking to the press in Luxembourg on the sidelines of the EU Energy Council, Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen warned that the upcoming winter “will be a difficult period for many European citizens.” He noted that the situation had reached the point where EU citizens would simply be unable to pay their heating bills. The problem, he emphasized, lies not in a physical shortage, but in prices: if they cannot pay the bills, “then it doesn’t matter how much gas is available.”

 According to Jørgensen, the current crisis is more significant than the shock of 2022, because it now affects not only gas but also oil and petroleum products, which turned out to be a consequence not only of the war in Ukraine and the damaged energy infrastructure but also of the situation in the Middle East. In essence, the commissioner described the main contradiction of European energy policy: the EU seeks to reduce its strategic dependence on other countries; EU citizens want energy to be affordable. These two goals intersect, but they are not the same, and the gap between them has become one of the most fertile grounds for populist politics in Europe. 

This commentary asserts that it is not the populists who create the contradiction between affordability and diversification, but they can politicize this crisis. Whether the EU will be able to implement its energy security program depends on whether it manages to bridge this gap before the populists continue to exploit it.

Brussels Confronts the Energy Security–Affordability Dilemma

The European Commission’s assessment of the energy crisis currently unfolding in the EU can be judged by the meeting held in October 19 in Bratislava, which was attended not only by Jørgensen, a member of the European Commission for Energy, but also by the energy ministers of the Visegrád Group countries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia). During the press conference, Jørgensen noted that the EU was dependent on Russia, but now the Union is getting rid of this dependence. However, the problem is that, as Jørgensen added, the EU now depends on the global market, so events in the Middle East affect the situation with the energy crisis in Europe. According to the Ember analytical center, due to the rise in prices caused by the war involving Iran, wholesale electricity futures in Central Europe have increased in price by more than 60% compared to the pre‑crisis level.

During the European Council meeting (October 15–16, 2026), ministers drew attention to their request: they asked to postpone the introduction of Emissions Trading System 2 (ETS2) until 2030, to allocate funds from the EU budget for the development of oil and gas infrastructure, and to provide greater flexibility in the phased withdrawal from Russian gas. Seven EU member states insisted on making amendments to ETS2, but the leaders only asked the European Commissionto analyze the consequences of these changes. On October 28, Jørgensen added that over the past two decades, a quarter of oil refineries in the EU have closed, which has led to a reduction in domestic production capacity by approximately 10%, and that the diesel fuel market will be under pressure until at least 2027.

The European Commission’s response is logical: support should be targeted and temporary, and it should not hinder the transition away from imported fossil fuels. While this position is reasonable, it also implicitly acknowledges a fundamental reality: ending energy agreements with Russia did not free Europe from the risks associated with fossil fuel imports; it merely shifted their source, leaving households to bear the costs of this transition.

Two Approaches to EU Energy Policy

The first logic is responsible for diversification: according to the European Commission’s report on the state of the Energy Union for 2025, Russia’s share of EU gas imports decreased from 45% in 2021 to 19% in 2024 and 12% by August 2025. Regulation (EU) 2026/261, adopted on January 26, 2026, turns this into law: supplies of Russian LNG should end by the end of 2026, and pipeline gas supplies by September 30, 2027, with a possible extension until November 1, 2027. The Law on Zero-Emission Industries and the Law on Essential Raw Materials apply the same logic to environmentally friendly technologies.

The second approach is affordability: Draghi’s report says that EU companies pay two to three times more for electricitythan US firms, and four to five times more for gas. Households are not deprived of attention: according to Eurostat, in the second half of 2025, the average price of electricity for households in the EU was 28.96 euros per 100 kWh, which is a stable indicator, but still significantly higher than the level that existed before 2022.

In policy research, this is called the energy trilemma: security, affordability, and sustainability cannot be achievedsimultaneously. Diversification is a long-term insurance policy, but insurance premiums are already being paid due to newinfrastructure, more expensive supply routes and carbon prices. These surcharges are borne by households and industry,and they are visible on every account.

Where Tensions Arise: Supply Chains in the Clean Technology Sector

The same need to find a compromise is once again evident in the very process of the energy transition. According to theInternational Energy Agency, China’s share in each stage of the production of solar panels: polysilicon, ingots, plates,cells and modules-exceeds 80%, production costs there are about 35% lower than in Europe, and Chinese economies ofscale have helped reduce the cost of solar energy by more than 80%.

However, these data are primarily a structural feature of the market, not a threat in themselves. China is an indispensablesupplier for Europe during the transition period, and cheap environmentally friendly technologies are one of the mostreliable ways to reduce electricity prices in the long term. However, the EU’s sustainable development program: benchmarks for domestic production in accordance with the Zero Net Profit Industry Act, trade protection tools, andsupply diversification – increases initial costs to reduce the risk of concentration.

Thus, the dilemma surrounding natural gas and solar power takes the same form. Environmental sustainability is expensive today; tomorrow’s most affordable energy supply carries the risk of concentration. Neither of these options is wrong, but each results in losers who can be mobilized.

Populist Narratives

According to the ideological definition of Mudde (2024), populism divides society into “pure people” and “corrupt elite”. With regard to energy, this turns a political compromise into a moral conflict: ordinary people pay the bills, while distant Brussels pursues geopolitics or ideology at their expense. As Huber et al. (2021) show, populists in power tend to persist in seeking concessions and abandonment of EU energy and climate policies, often in conjunction with governments with unpopular views. The European Commission is not a populist player in this case. This is a technocratic analogue, against which a populist story is told.

Robert Fico, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, is a prominent figure in the world of populism. His government maintainsthat cutting off Russian energy supplies would cause severe harm to households and businesses. Slovakia and Hungary were the only two countries to vote against Regulation 2026/261, and on April 24, 2026, Slovakia filed a lawsuit to have this regulation declared invalid in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Fico promised that in 2026, energy prices for 90% of households would remain unchanged. The pattern is clear: cheap energy is presented as a symbol of national independence, which is defended through vetoes and legal proceedings. 

Andrej Babiš, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, has taken a different approach. The Czech Republic has already reduced its reliance on Russian gas imports to 7% by 2023. The Babiš government has been more critical of the EU’s energy policy than its predecessor, and the Czech Republic has joined efforts to delay the implementation of ETS2. In areas where diversification has already been achieved, the focus has shifted from supply routes to climate and pricing instruments.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party represents an opposition position. Initially, its proposal to abolish the carbon dioxide emissions fee and the Building Energy Act was rejected, but in July 2026 it was reformed by the law on building modernization. The AfD speaker called the government’s policy “ineffective and inhumane”. Without accountability for the government’s actions, everything is simple: every euro spent on carbon fees is a cost imposed by the elites.

Hungary added a note: the Viktor Orbán administration filed a lawsuit against the gas ban in February 2026, but lost power in April. Nevertheless, in October, Hungary still supported the Visegrad Group’s call for flexibility regarding the Russian phase-out and the effort to modify the ETS2. The demand for affordability is not solely driven by populism: populists are simply the most successful entrepreneurs in this area.

Consequences for the European Union

The first risk is division: legal disputes, the threat of a veto, and demands for national exemptions, Italy reportedly soughta waiver from ETS2, similar to the one granted to Spain and Portugal in 2023, undermine the concept of a unified energy strategy, one exemption at a time.

The second risk is coalition-building: when it comes to affordability, populist governments are no longer isolated, they can join forces with mainstream governments under the pressure of fiscal and electoral considerations. 

The third risk is external: the EU, which is struggling to maintain its own diversification rules, weakens its credibility in dealing with Russia and its negotiating position with other suppliers, including LNG exporters and manufacturers of clean technologies.

The Commission’s proposal for targeted and temporary assistance is essential, but not sufficient. The success of diversification will depend on the willingness of all citizens to share the burden. 

To counter the appeal of populists, three measures are necessary: First, give priority to compensation. The funds from the Social Climate Fund and ETS2 should be distributed to low- and middle-income households, as the European Commission is already discussing with the European Investment Bank. 

Secondly, it is important to ensure transparency of security costs: importance to clearly identify the costs of security measures, as well as the additional costs associated with the 2022 crisis, in order to fully assess the benefits of diversification. 

Finally, it is necessary to apply a more practical approach to energy policy: reducing the risks of excessive dependence of the country on any one source, while ensuring access to imports at competitive prices, including from China. After all, Europe’s energy security depends not only on pipelines, terminals, and supply chains, but also on the support of its citizens.

In sum, the European Union’s energy dilemma is not merely a technical question of supply diversification, affordability, or environmental sustainability; it is also a political challenge with profound implications for democratic legitimacy and European integration. Populist actors do not create the structural tensions underlying energy policy, but they can transform economic grievances into narratives of elite indifference and national sovereignty. If the costs of diversification and the green transition remain unevenly distributed, public dissatisfaction may deepen political polarization and weaken support for common European policies. Addressing these risks requires transparent policymaking, targeted social protection, and a pragmatic approach to energy security. The EU’s long-term success will depend not only on reducing strategic dependencies but also on maintaining citizens’ trust and ensuring that the transition is socially sustainable.


 

(*) Nikoletta Syvak is a Graduate Student, Department of Political Science and International Relations, East China Normal University (ECNU). Email: syvaknikoletta@gmail.com

A statue of Anne Frank.

Does Criticism of Israel Justify the Exclusion of Jewish Historical Memory?

In this commentary, Dr. João Ferreira Dias examines the troubling intersection of antisemitism, political polarization, and the politics of historical memory through a controversy surrounding a proposed exhibition commemorating three centuries of Jewish life in Amersfoort, the Netherlands. Drawing on debates about collective responsibility, cultural exclusion, and multidirectional memory, Dr. Ferreira Dias explores how criticism of Israeli government policies can become entangled with perceptions of Jewish communities elsewhere. He argues that solidarity with Palestinians and recognition of Jewish historical suffering are not mutually exclusive, warning against the conflation of Jewish identity with Israeli state actions. The commentary underscores the importance of preserving inclusive historical remembrance amid contemporary geopolitical conflicts.

By João Ferreira Dias

Should the history of a Jewish community in Europe become entangled in controversies over the policies of the Israeli government? The question exposes a troubling tension between legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza and the tendency to hold Jewish communities elsewhere symbolically accountable for those actions. When Jewish cultural heritage and historical remembrance become politically sensitive because of events in the Middle East, the boundary between political solidarity and collective stigmatization begins to blur. A recent controversy in the Dutch city of Amersfoort illustrates how this tension can affect even the commemoration of a centuries-old Jewish community.

Workmen were renovating the synagogue on Drieringensteeg when Alexander van Dijkhuizen spoke to the Dutch newspaper Trouw. The building was approaching its three-hundredth anniversary. For Van Dijkhuizen, chair of Amersfoort’s Jewish community, an exhibition at the city museum was intended to be one of the anniversary’s main events. However, the museum had withdrawn from the project. Its director, Paul Baltus, cited tensions over the Middle East.

Baltus was concerned about the 85 volunteers who interact with visitors. He told Trouw that there had been no specific threat of violence. The museum had neither consulted the police nor conducted a risk assessment, and the exhibition was still at the conceptual stage. A small museum must consider what its volunteers can reasonably handle. In this case, however, the subject itself was deemed a risk before the exhibition had even taken shape.

In one strand of the cultural left, the distinction between oppressors and oppressed has come to do more than explain who exercises power over whom in Gaza. It has become a framework for determining what Jews elsewhere are perceived to represent. One can honor the Jews murdered under Nazism while still placing a contemporary Jewish congregation on the side of the oppressor based on the actions of the Israeli government. David Schraub has examined a related problem in debates about race: when Jews are viewed primarily through their presumed proximity to power, the prejudice they face becomes harder to recognize. In debates over Gaza, even making space for Jewish history in a museum can come to be perceived as taking Israel’s side.

In May 2025, the Bristol venue Strange Brew canceled a concert by Oi Va Voi, a British band whose music draws on klezmer traditions. The Bristol Palestine Alliance had objected to the band’s previous performances in Israel. Campaigners also claimed to discern a coded Zionist message on the cover of a solo album by the band’s Israeli guest singer, Zohara, which depicted her surrounded by watermelons. The venue later acknowledged that the cancellation had been a mistake and that the band’s Jewish identity and its guest singer’s nationality had likely subjected them to a level of scrutiny that other performers would not have faced.

The reporting on the Amersfoort exhibition identifies no comparable campaign. The museum allowed a dispute over Israel to influence what it would exhibit before any confrontation had even occurred. Follow that logic far enough, and a Jewish family could have lived in Amersfoort for generations, yet its place in the city’s museum would still depend on how calm the news from the Middle East happened to be.

Amersfoort’s Council of Churches condemned Israeli violence in Gaza and the West Bank in the same letter in which it called on the museum to reinstate the exhibition. Michael Rothberg has explored how the remembrance of one history of violence can deepen recognition of another. The churches suggested that anger over Gaza need not prevent Amersfoort’s residents from learning about the Jewish families who had lived in their city for centuries.

On November 6, following a meeting convened by the mayor and the councillor for culture, the city announced that it would work with the museum and the Jewish community to find a way to hold the exhibition. Offers of assistance had alleviated some of Baltus’s concerns, although the venue had yet to be determined.

At Borneoplein, a light is illuminated for each of Amersfoort’s Jewish victims of the Second World War on the anniversary of their death. An exhibition could offer visitors a glimpse into the lives commemorated by those lights. Amersfoort once had a Jewish theater society. In 1941, the community established a school for Jewish children excluded from public education. The congregation was reestablished after the war, and by 1949, the synagogue’s damaged interior had been restored. This time, the workmen on Drieringensteeg were preparing the synagogue for a celebration.

The Amersfoort controversy raises a broader question: should Jewish communities in Europe bear the consequences of political conflicts involving Israel? Criticism of Israeli policies and solidarity with Palestinians should not come at the expense of Jewish historical memory or cultural belonging. As the Council of Churches demonstrated, these commitments are not mutually exclusive. A democratic society must be capable of acknowledging different histories of suffering without turning remembrance into a political endorsement. Commemorating three centuries of Jewish life in Amersfoort is not taking Israel’s side; it is recognizing that Jewish history is an inseparable part of the city’s own history.

Students march toward Parliament in New Delhi, India, on July 20, 2026.

The Cockroaches March Again: Youth Resistance, Electoral Integrity, and India’s Democratic Crisis

In this commentary for the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Dr. Amir Ali examines the resurgence of India’s student-led protests against the Modi government, linking concerns over electoral integrity, institutional independence, and democratic backsliding to the socioeconomic consequences of neoliberalism. Focusing on the Cockroach Janata Party’s mobilization, he explores growing youth disillusionment with political institutions, educational inequalities, and diminishing employment opportunities. Dr. Ali argues that India’s Generation Z must connect its democratic resistance to a broader critique of neoliberal economic policies that have deepened inequality and undermined public goods. Drawing comparative lessons from recent electoral developments in Brazil, Serbia, and the United States, he advocates reclaiming socialism and secularism as complementary foundations for India’s democratic renewal.

By Amir Ali

India’s young cockroach protesters were back on the streets of New Delhi in early October. This was just a little over two months after the late July showdown with the government that earned the rare resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, when Delhi was experiencing the late-July humidity, occasionally relieved by monsoon showers. The October reemergence of the cockroaches happened when the Delhi weather was becoming milder as the onset of winter approached.

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) had called for a protest on October 10 and the Delhi Police, under the direct control of India’s powerful Home Minister Amit Shah, denied permission for the protests. Shah is a close associate of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and has an image as a tough, uncompromising strongman. Events took a more dramatic turn when Abhijit Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janata Party, along with two of his associates, was arrested as soon as the flight on which they were traveling landed in Delhi. The videos taken on cell phones from inside the plane and then posted on social media showed Delhi police personnel entering the aircraft. This reinforced the impression, now widespread in India, that the government was panicking. As protests were disallowed at the Jantar Mantar protest site in Central Delhi, a mushrooming of protest sites took place, wherever demonstrators found themselves being prevented from moving further by the police. 

The Delhi Police’s crackdown on protesters and journalists covering these events was brutal and again reinforced the impression that the Modi government was nervous, increasingly on the back foot and resorting to desperate, knee-jerk measures.

In the previous round in July, young cockroach protesters expressed their frustration at the decrepit state of Indian entrance examinations that in turn was a larger reflection of the moribund state of public education. They targeted the Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, and, as mentioned, were able to extract his resignation. In the October round of protests, they targeted the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar over discontent with the implementation of an extensive electoral roll revision exercise and an overall feeling that he was kowtowing to the Modi government. The demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation has, however, fallen on deaf ears.

Election Commissions Past and Present  

The Election Commission of India, for many years before the advent of the Modi government, was a widely respected and fiercely independent institution whose autonomy was ensured through Article 324 of the Indian Constitution. It is headed by two elections commissioners and one Chief Election Commissioner. Some prominent Chief Election Commissioners became well known for their ability to stand up to the government of the day to ensure that no incumbent government had the temerity to bully the Commission. Back in the 1990s, a redoubtable Chief Election Commissioner like T. N. Seshan made his commitment to his constitutional role clear in no uncertain terms.

Less than a decade later, in 2002, the Chief Election Commissioner J. M. Lyngdoh prevented Narendra Modi, who was then Chief Minister of the western Indian state of Gujarat from holding early elections to the Gujarat provincial assembly. This was soon after the vicious communal violence that the state had experienced in the months of March and April that year. Mr. Modi had been accused of not doing enough to control the violence. Lyngdoh’s opposition to holding early elections was premised on the inability of many displaced victims living in refugee camps to vote, and who were likely to do so against Mr. Modi. This led to Mr. Modi mocking the Chief Election Commissioner for preventing the elections from taking place by emphasizing his full name, which is James Michael Lyngdoh. These insinuations invoked Lyngdoh’s Christian identity and reinforced Mr. Modi’s notorious minority baiting. The elections were held later that year, and Mr. Modi won. 

More recent Election Commissioners who have resisted the Modi regime, such as Ashok Lavasa in 2019, have found themselves at the receiving end of the government’s ire. The controversial current Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar whose resignation, as mentioned earlier, became the focal point of this round of the cockroach campaign in October, seems far more malleable—indeed, compliant. Suggestions have been made that the Election Commission under him does the Modi government’s bidding, raising a question mark over the fairness of elections. A recent controversial piece of legislation, The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act 2023 granted effective lifelong immunity for actions that Election Commissioners took in office. The legislation also altered the appointment process. Earlier a three-member committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India selected election commissioners. This changed to replace the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, giving the government of the day the decisive upper hand in selecting election commissioners. 

One of the most controversial decisions that the Election Commission under Gyanesh Kumar has taken is to conduct the Special Intensive Revision of Rolls (SIR). The first state to conduct this exercise was Bihar in June 2025, just months before provincial assembly elections in that state were to be held in November 2025. The SIR has since been extended to many other parts of the country. The most disturbing aspect of the exercise is the Kafkaesque requirement of documentation where inclusion on the rolls depends on proving that a voter or the voter’s parents’ names figured in a previous electoral exercise conducted over two decades ago. This has led to people frantically looking for documents to ensure their inclusion on the current list by being ‘mapped’ on a two-decade-old list. The result, as has been widely reported, is the deletion and thereby disenfranchisement of 130 million people from the voter roll. More worryingly, the emphasis the Election Commission of India places on sanitized and ‘pure’ voter rolls is indicative of an almost ominous electoral cleansing. 

The Indian Express Reported Dissent within the Election Commission

The latest round of October youth cockroach protests was prompted by an incisive piece of investigative reporting in The Indian Express, one of India’s most influential national newspapers. Ritika Chopra, Resident Editor of the paper’s Mumbai edition, revealed that the other two election commissioners had expressed their dissent at the proceedings of the Election Commission at least 14 times over the previous 10 months. 

The Indian Express report tended to reinforce questions that had been raised over the conduct of the Election Commission. The Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, had in several widely reported press conferences claimed that he had documentary evidence to back the damning claims he was making about electoral malpractices. The Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took great umbrage at these attacks.

The Emergence of Youth and Student Leaders

In both the July and October rounds of protests, some prominent youth leaders have emerged. From the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) have emerged its founder Abhijit Dipke, Sourav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. In the more recent round, the President of the left-wing All India Students Association (AISA) Neha Bora, a PhD candidate at New Delhi’s prominent Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), played a very significant role. While many of these protesters were detained and arrested, there were worrying reports of some violent counter protesters to whom the Delhi Police appeared to be turning a blind eye. 

With the threat of violence looming, a successful march call was given by Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition and head of India’s main opposition party, the Indian National Congress. The march saw large numbers of people participating on October 12 with no violence. It culminated in the filing of a petition at the Supreme Court of India.

Visible decline and dysfunction have taken hold in constitutional institutions in India like the Election Commission and even the judiciary, especially as the over 12 years of the Modi regime have progressed. India’s youth protests pointed towards this in a tangential sort of way. What they have achieved more centrally, through their irreverence, is to completely puncture the carefully curated image of Prime Minister Modi as a brand name spelling a strong, decisive leadership. This brand image was built up by preventing people from speaking out against him, enforced by a silencing of dissent, which youngsters have nonchalantly shrugged off.

The Future of Youngsters Shortchanged by Past Decades of Neoliberalism

What the cockroach protests have not been able to do, so far, is connect concretely to how the future of youngsters in India, and for that matter across the world, has been shortchanged by past decades of economic neoliberalism. India began resolutely on the path of economic neoliberalism in July 1991 when the finance minister Manmohan Singh, who subsequently became Prime Minister in 2004, announced these policies. These neoliberal economic policies are often referred to as LPG which is an acronym for Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization. These policies have been underway for the past 35 years and there has been a kind of consensus that has developed on them between the Congress and the currently ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Between them, these two parties have ruled for the lion’s share of the past three and a half decades. The Congress was in power for 15 of these 35 years, from 1991 to 1996 and then from 2004 to 2014. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been in power for 18 of these 35 years and this covers the years 1998-1999, followed by 1999-2004 and 2014 to the present. The remaining two years form an interlude between 1996 and 1998 when a series of fractious coalitions tried unsuccessfully to stake out a politics that differed from the Congress and the BJP.

That two-year interlude ended in 1998 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the BJP came to power. The subsequent six years of BJP-led rule revealed how the party accepted the orthodoxy of economic neoliberalism, despite the commitment to a broad Gandhian socialism that found its way into the party’s constitution when it was founded in 1980. The BJP government under Vajpayee combined this new commitment to economic neoliberalism and its traditional Hindu nationalism. For the purposes of running and maintaining the coalition that he led, Vajpayee, reputed for wearing an emollient ‘liberal’ mask, was willing to put the central elements of the Hindu nationalist agenda on the back burner.

Keeping in mind the BJP’s adoption of economic neoliberalism, combined with a vague background commitment to Gandhian socialism, one notes something similar in the Congress. Fifteen years prior to its announcement of the 1991 neoliberal economic policies, the Congress back in 1976 under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, during the Emergency that clamped down on constitutional fundamental rights, had inserted, through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, the word socialism into the Preamble of the Constitution alongside secularism. Both the Congress and the BJP have embraced economic neoliberalism while retaining an uneasy historical commitment to socialism—a contradictory and problematic legacy. This contradiction is more troubling in the case of the Congress. At the same time the BJP’s commitment to economic neoliberalism is far more aggressive. This article concludes by suggesting that the Congress under Rahul Gandhi will have to rescue and redeem that troubled legacy of socialism, if it wants to envision the contours of a post-Modi India.

Before arriving at that conclusion, it is important to do a quick assessment of how the past decades of neoliberalism have shortchanged the future of India’s youth who are potentially at the forefront of political change today. These past three decades of economic neoliberalism have yielded, for at least two decades, a considerable degree of economic growth. Throughout the decade of the 2000s with the BJP coalition under Vajpayee, succeeded by the Congress-led coalition, the Indian economy did grow at significant rates. Such growth over the 2000s also led to an uptick in employment and this was a significant reason for the Congress Party coming back to power in 2009 with an even more comfortable majority. 

This is where the story of India’s economic growth under neoliberalism becomes complicated. The world economy was being roiled by the headwinds of the 2008 global financial crisis, just as the Congress was returned to power in 2009. From 2010 onwards, a series of exaggerated corruption allegations were made against the Congress government that were understandably amplified by the opposition BJP that was eager to come back to power. The BJP did come to power in 2014 with a hefty majority under Narendra Modi that ended almost two and a half decades of coalition era politics in India. 

India’s Jobless Growth and Gen Z’s Revolt Against Neoliberalism

India’s growth story continued in the first years of the Modi government, but sceptics started pointing to the jobless nature of this growth. The most infamous aspect of the ending of India’s growth story was the controversial decision to demonetize high value currency notes that PM Modi surprisingly and shockingly announced on November 8, 2016, almost exactly ten years ago. The compliant electronic media, that has become notorious for never asking questions of the Modi government, sycophantically hailed it as a master stroke. The economist Jean Drèze offered a more sobering assessment that this was like shooting at and deflating the tires of a racing car. The outcome of this would be an economy that would careen out of control and, in doing so, jeopardize the careers of India’s Gen Z who were growing up and about to enter a job market that would prove to be non-existent for them.  

India’s Gen Z protesters were born between the years 1997 and 2012. In other words, they were born between those years when India’s liberalization polices were being consolidated and then yielding whatever returns they had to, in terms of growth clocked throughout the decade of the 2000s. As Gen Z has grown up and increasingly entered the job market, the very same economic neoliberalism that was unfolding against the backdrop of their childhoods has condemned them to a bleak future of little or no prospects. India’s economic neoliberalism that was toasted and celebrated in India and across the world during their childhoods has mortgaged, foreclosed and shortchanged their future. 

This is where the creative potential of Gen Z protests needs to be harnessed. These protests, if they are to have a meaningful impact, on the future of Indian politics and its redemption from the vagaries of the neoliberal market, must connect the dots of the orthodoxy of economic neoliberalism to the precarity of their future. 

There is no reason why these obvious dots cannot be connected. A few weeks after the October cockroach protests, election results in Serbia showed how two years of student protests could topple the twelve-year-old government of Aleksandar Vucic. Very shortly after that, the US midterm elections revealed a rout of Trump’s Republicans. The Democrats’ blue tsunami was facilitated by a clear movement of the democrats to the left and the success of numerous Democratic Socialist and progressive candidates like Abdul el Sayed who ran for the senate seat from Michigan. El-Sayed has called for universal health care and health as a public good rather than the commoditized private good that it has been for so many years with the pervasive private health insurance market in the US. 

In India health care and the role of the private sector is a ticking time bomb. It has not impacted the Gen Z youngsters, who may, however, be perceptive enough to see its impact on their parents and certainly grandparents. Indian youngsters between age 15-29 constitute a whopping 371 million and were once lauded by PM Modi as a ‘demographic dividend.’ They now look almost certainly poised to turn against him.

Conclusion: Redeeming Socialism, Secularism and Democracy

In US politics it seems that the word socialism has suddenly stopped being the unspeakable blasphemy it once was. Future politics in India, the US and many countries across the world may have to be built upon a viable socialism that combines itself with a meaningful democracy. The only way democracy can prevent itself from being hollowed out is to move away from the congruence that has been maliciously created between democracy and the free market. 

The global backsliding of democracy is connected to the extension of neoliberal markets for goods like healthcare, education and housing. Gen Z protests will have to foster the overlap between democracy and socialist policies that will create public goods in healthcare, housing and education and most importantly, create employment. The redistributive presence of public goods can reduce widening inequality and sustain flourishing democracies in the 21st century, the opposite of democratic backsliding witnessed over the last decade. The election results in Brazil, where Lula defeated Flávio Bolsonaro, as well as those in Serbia and the US midterms are promising as they halt far-right populism. However, democratic waves can be notoriously fickle. 

As far as India is concerned, one way of consolidating democracy is to go back to the year 1976, much before the current Gen Z was born and when some of their parents may have been toddlers and indeed may not even have been born. That year the Indira Gandhi regime during the Emergency wrote into the constitution’s Preamble the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular,’ as mentioned earlier, a sordid legacy. India’s socialism has never been secular enough, as its socialist leaders, notably Jay Prakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia and George Fernandes ushered in right-wing Hindutva nationalism in the name of claiming some notion of authentic Indian indigeneity

India’s secularists, many of them urbane liberals enthusiastically welcomed the role of neoliberal ‘free’ markets. The future of India’s young population may depend on whether its political institutions can reclaim and reinvigorate the principles of socialism and secularism. That would have to begin by realizing that India’s socialism was never secular enough and that her secularism was never socialist enough.    

The Capitol and Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC.

The 2026 Midterms: Making Sense of a Blue Tidal Wave

In this commentary for the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor Andrew Karch of the University of Minnesota analyzes the sweeping Democratic victories in the November 3, 2026, US midterm elections and their implications for American democracy. Examining the party’s gains in Congress, governorships, and state legislatures, Professor Karch identifies economic dissatisfaction, immigration controversies, and concerns about corruption as central drivers of the electoral shift. He emphasizes the significance of state-level Democratic trifectas as institutional counterweights to the Trump administration and potential laboratories for policy innovation. Yet he cautions that electoral rejection of Republicans does not necessarily constitute endorsement of a coherent Democratic agenda. Governing effectively will require overcoming intraparty divisions, institutional constraints, and presidential opposition ahead of 2028.

By Andrew Karch*

Midterm elections in the United States are often described as referendums on the president and their party, and sometimes American voters deliver messages that the chief executive would rather not entertain. The Republican Party received what President George W. Bush famously called a “thumping” in 2006; four years later, President Barack Obama lamented the “shellacking” his party suffered at the polls. Those midterm setbacks for the incumbent president’s party are only two of the many precedents for the blue tidal wave that swept through American politics in 2026. The midterm results empowered Democratic officeholders at both the national and the state level, placing American democracy on a new and uncertain path for at least the next two years.

The scope of the Democratic victory is most obvious at the national level, where the party won control of both houses of Congress by impressive margins. Results are still being tabulated, but the Democrats will control between 253 and 260 (out of 435) seats in the US House. Overcoming mid-decade redistricting in several states that was intended to act as a drag on their performance, the party notched victories over Republican incumbents in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere on its way to winning its largest House majority since 2009. Democrats are on track to win a 13-point margin in the total popular vote for the House, a remarkable margin that hasn’t been seen in a midterm election since 1974.

A similar story prevailed in the US Senate, where Democrats overcame what was thought to be an unfavorable map by flipping at least seven seats. Democratic victories in Iowa, Kansas (which elected its first Democratic senator in nearly a century), Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas will give the party at least 54 seats, including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Undecided elections in Alaska and Mississippi might give the party 56 seats (out of 100) in the chamber.

The new Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate will be geographically and ideologically diverse, reflecting the national scope of the wave that swept Republicans out of power. Nationally, nearly every demographic group shifted in a Democratic direction from 2024 to 2026, with especially dramatic shifts among Hispanic, non-college-educated, and young voters. In addition, Black voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate in the Deep South as they mobilized in response to the Supreme Court decision in Callais v. Louisiana which struck down what remained of the Voting Rights Act and facilitated state-level efforts to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts.

The results represent a repudiation of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. They signal voter unhappiness about the current direction of the country, driven by at least three issues. The first issue is inflation and the rising cost of living. Affordability was top of mind for many voters. For instance, the cost of gas and diesel fuel affects Americans in rural, suburban, and urban areas alike. Although inflation helped President Trump win election in 2024, his support was undercut by the perception that his policies—including an unpopular war in Iran and tariffs—exacerbated it. Following their resounding defeat, many Republicans pointed to the war and its economic impact as major culprits.

The second issue is immigration. Many voters recoiled at the confrontational tactics that the Trump administration used to pursue its deportation objectives. Its operations in cities, suburban neighborhoods, and rural job sites across the country made immigration a divisive and emotionally charged issue. High-profile violence, including the deaths of two protesting US citizens in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge, sparked widespread opposition. The politics of immigration took a very sharp U-turn, most notably as heavily Hispanic counties along the southern border and across the country shifted dramatically back toward the Democrats.

The third issue is corruption and a broader sense that the American economy is “rigged” to the benefit of the rich and powerful. As Americans struggled with high prices and worried about their financial futures, the president’s family and many well-connected individuals were doing extraordinarily well. Many Democratic candidates linked corruption to the rising cost of living, making this argument at a time when a sense of financial unease reaches across party lines. Two manifestations of this unease are resentment toward “Big Tech” and strong, bipartisan disapproval of data centers. American voters in ten states considered 41 data-center-related ballot measures in 2026, and they backed restrictions or rejected pro-development proposals in 40 of them.

With strong Democratic majorities in the US House and Senate, Congress will no doubt embrace its constitutional obligation to serve as a check on the executive branch. Oversight hearings and investigations will be a large part of the congressional agenda after Republican majorities neglected these duties for the past two years. Less certain, however, is the mix of policies that the new majorities will pursue. While American voters thoroughly rejected the president and the Republican Party, the midterms should not be interpreted as an endorsement of a specific Democratic platform. While emphasizing affordability during the campaign, Democrats advanced an economically populist vision that includes pushing back on the Iran War, tariffs, and cuts to Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid. Turning this broad vision into concrete policy accomplishments will require intraparty agreement among different factions in the Democratic coalition, and even then, Democrats will need to overcome the Senate filibuster and President Trump’s veto pen.

It is therefore especially important not to overlook the seismic political shifts that occurred at the state level. While most media coverage and public attention focused on the battle for control of Congress, the 2026 midterms also featured over 6,100 state legislative contests, 39 gubernatorial races, and a slew of additional elections to state executive and judicial posts. The blue tidal wave that swept through Congress also led to massive changes in statehouses across the country. After flipping governors’ offices in Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas, Democrats will hold more governorships than Republicans for the first time since 2010. If Democratic candidates in Alaska and Kansas maintain their leads in the two gubernatorial races that have not yet been called, there will be 30 Democratic governors in all. State legislative elections also produced dramatic changes. Twelve chambers flipped from Republican to Democratic control. Shifts in party control occurred in Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and elsewhere.

Thus, the 2026 midterms produced a new political landscape in the states. One way to understand this new landscape is through the lens of “trifectas” in which a single party holds the governorship and both legislative chambers. New Democratic trifectas will be in place in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Arizona trifecta represents a seismic shift because Democrats had not controlled a single legislative chamber in the state since the 1990s. With the next presidential contest less than two years away and given the states’ central constitutional role in administering national elections, it is worth noting that the list of Democratic trifectas includes several states that have been closely contested in recent presidential campaigns. Democrats also broke former Republican trifectas in Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas in the 2026 midterms. The Democratic sweep of statewide races in Texas, where they had not won a statewide election in decades, was a tectonic upset.

Like the congressional results, the blue tidal wave at the state level is significant for multiple reasons. First, like Congress, the states will serve as an institutional counterweight against the Trump administration. In recent years, the states have been a site of resistance against national policies and priorities. Republican state officials have pushed back against Democratic presidents, and Democratic state officials have done the same thing whenever a Republican has been in the White House. For example, the second Trump administration has faced approximately 100 multistate lawsuits thus far, and that number is likely to grow. Second, the states, especially those governed by trifectas, will serve as policy laboratories. Even if divided government leads to gridlock in Washington, DC, many state governments will address emerging issues like affordability, data centers, and the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). Policy developments at the state level may play an important role in the 2028 campaign as the two parties seek to build a case that they can be trusted to address the issues that have left so many Americans frustrated with the status quo.


 

(*) Andrew Karch is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, where he has taught since 2010. His research centers on the political determinants of public policy choices in the contemporary United States, with a special focus on federalism and state politics. His most recent book, Responsive States: Federalism and American Public Policy, is co-authored with Shanna Rose of Claremont McKenna College and was published by Cambridge University Press in 2019. His previous book, Early Start: Preschool Politics in the United States (University of Michigan Press), was named a Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2013. He is also the author of Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion among the American States (University of Michigan Press, 2007). He is currently serving on the editorial boards of State Politics & Policy Quarterly, Policy Studies Journal, and Publius: The Journal of Federalism. He is also a fellow of the Center for the Study of Federalism, and he previously served two terms as Chair of the Executive Council of the Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations Section of the APSA.

I vote today stickers roll, in US elections on American flag.

The 2026 US Midterms: A Democratic Victory, but Not the End of the Threats

In this commentary, Professor Lane Kenworthy examines the implications of the November 3, 2026, US midterm elections for American democracy. Despite concerns about electoral interference, the elections proceeded relatively smoothly, with high voter turnout and Democrats securing majorities in both chambers of Congress. Professor Kenworthy highlights the resilience of electoral institutions, the judiciary’s role in safeguarding voting procedures, and the significance of strengthened congressional oversight. Yet he cautions that democratic vulnerabilities persist, particularly regarding the influence of wealthy donors, partisan redistricting, and unequal political representation. While economic dissatisfaction, corruption, and foreign policy concerns largely shaped voting behavior, the results could reinforce institutional checks and electoral accountability. The ultimate test, he argues, lies in sustaining democratic safeguards beyond 2026.

By Lane Kenworthy*

American voters delivered a rebuke to the Trump administration and the Republican Party in the 2026 midterm election. The Democratic Party won comfortable majorities in both the House of Representatives (about 57% of the seats) and the Senate (55%). What does the election and its outcome imply for current and future democracy in the United States?

Despite efforts by President Trump and his administration, the election went relatively smoothly. While the Trump administration in the months leading up to the election made a host of attempts to prevent early voting, to block certain people from voting, to criminally prosecute election workers, and to have some election results (such as the Senate election in Alaska) thrown out, courts consistently—in 30 out of 30 cases—ruled against the administration. Many of the justices ruling in these cases, including on the nation’s Supreme Court, had been appointed by Republicans. Nor was there any significant interference with election-day in-person voting. Elections are run by state governments, and a number of those governments signaled they were prepared to counteract any efforts to intimidate voters on election day. Another fear, that the administration would seize ballot boxes or voting machines, also didn’t come to pass.

In the end, voter turnout is estimated to have been 49%. That’s the highest in any midterm election since the 1940s. From 1950 to 1970, turnout in US midterms averaged 45%. From 1974 through 2018, the average fell to just 37%. In 2018 and 2022 it jumped to 47%, and 2026 looks to have furthered this recent upward trend. One reason for the recent rise in voter participation is increased opportunity to vote early. About half of Americans who voted did so before the November 3 election day, either in person or by mail.

In the year leading up to the election, President Trump encouraged state governments in conservative states to redraw the boundaries of House of Representative districts in a way that would maximize the number of Republicans elected. Several, such as Texas, did so. However, some left-leaning states, such as California, responded by redrawing their districts to maximize the number of Democrats elected. The vote margin in favor of Democrats turned out to be so large—nationwide, about 13 percentage points—that red-state redistricting was of little or no help to Republican candidates.

On the night of the election, after it had become clear that the Republican’s had lost their majority in both houses of Congress, President Trump, in an interview with the New York Times, said he would accept the election results. That’s encouraging, though it wouldn’t be surprising if he changes his mind. Following his defeat in the presidential election in 2020, his administration filed 76 lawsuits attempting to have the results overturned in various states. When those suits failed, a violent mob attempted to prevent the sitting Congress and the vice president from certifying the election results on January 6, 2021.

Will the winning candidates in the House and Senate actually be seated in January 2027? The Trump administration and its Justice Department might attempt to collude with state officials to refuse to certify the election results. In this election, the margin of defeat for Republicans in both the House and the Senate was so large that this type of effort would be unlikely to make a difference even if were to succeed. But if it’s tried, it will once again be up to courts to compel the certification.

The Democratic majorities in both congressional bodies will provide a significant check on the Trump administration over the next two years. The House of Representatives can investigate wrongdoing by the administration and its officials, and the Senate can block appointment of judges, including Supreme Court justices, who may share Trump’s limited commitment to democracy.

The midterm election results in the states might turn out to be equally significant for democracy’s future in America. Recent presidential elections have tended to hinge on the results in six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In 2028, when the Republican Party may nominate another Trump-like candidate for the presidency, each of these five states will have a Democratic governor. And most of them will have a Democratic Party majority in one or both of the state legislative bodies. This should help to safeguard against election interference by the outgoing Trump administration.

Was democracy “on the ballot” in the 2026 midterms? Did Americans reject Republicans because they see the Trump administration, or the Republican Party as a whole, as a threat to democracy? This may have mattered, but probably not very much. Public opinion surveys suggest cost-of-living concerns, the war in Iran, and corruption were the top issues. By “corruption” most Americans likely had in mind Trump’s efforts to use the presidency to enrich himself and his family, his pardoning of assorted criminals, and his appointment of unqualified billionaires to his cabinet, rather than his attempts to interfere in elections or call their fairness into question.

This interpretation is consistent with what we saw in the United States in 2022, when, as Larry Bartels points out, “scores of Republican members of Congress who had supported or condoned Trump’s ‘stop the steal’ effort following the 2020 election stood for reelection. In contested general elections, they did not fare significantly worse or better than their counterparts who had bucked Trump—the electoral cost of ‘disregarding democratic principles’ was essentially zero.”

Another threat to democracy in the United States—at least to democracy understood as equality of opportunity to influence policy—is money in politics. There are few effective limits on the use of private money in American elections (especially since the Supreme Court’s Citizens Unitedruling in 2010), so the country’s massive inequality of income and wealth makes it possible for the rich to have a sizeable advantage in influencing who gets elected.

Because its tax and regulatory policy preferences tend to be closer to those of rich individuals and large companies, the Republican Party is more likely to benefit from this. Prior to 2026, Democrats had been able to offset that disadvantage: total campaign expenditures by and for Democrats and Republicans tended to be roughly equal. In 2026, however, money from rich individuals, especially but not only Elon Musk, tended to heavily favor Republicans.

We don’t yet have the money totals for the 2026 midterms, and early figures indicate that Democratic candidates may have offset the big-donor money by far outraising Republicans in contributions from smaller donors. So, it’s possible that overall campaign expenditures were once again pretty similar between the two parties. Moreover, if Republicans did have a large money advantage in this election, it doesn’t seem to have helped them much, if at all. Still, this development may be a worrisome signal for what the future holds.

Even so, for supporters of democracy there is much to cheer about the 2026 US midterms—the fact that they occurred, the fact that they went smoothly, the fact that voters punished the political party that has failed to stand firmly in favor of liberal democracy, the fact that (so far) the election results haven’t been contested, and the fact that both the national and state-level results are likely to help protect democracy in 2028 and perhaps beyond.


 

(*) Lane Kenworthy is a Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Yankelovich Chair in Social Thought at the University of California, San Diego. He studies the causes and consequences of living standards, capabilities, poverty, inequality, mobility, employment, economic growth, social policy, taxation, public opinion, and politics in the United States and other wealthy, long-standing democracies. His books include The Good Society (thegoodsociety.net), Is Inequality the Problem? (2025), Would Democratic Socialism Be Better? (2022), Social Democratic Capitalism(2020), How Big Should Our Government Be? (2016), Social Democratic America (2014), Progress for the Poor (2011), Jobs with Equality(2008), Egalitarian Capitalism (2004), and In Search of National Economic Success (1995). More information on his research and teaching is available at lanekenworthy.net. 

Donald Trump and US flag.

Trump Lost, but the Conditions That Produced Populism Persist

In this commentary, Professor Ibrahim Ozturk examines whether recent electoral defeats of authoritarian populists in the United States, Hungary, Brazil, and Serbia signal an emerging democratic counterwave or merely temporary setbacks for populism. Arguing that Trumpism’s electoral defeat does not eliminate the structural conditions that produced it, Professor Ozturk explores how economic inequality, institutional capture, globalization, and technological concentration continue to undermine democratic legitimacy. Drawing on comparative political economy and Daron Acemoglu’s scholarship, he emphasizes the urgency of rebuilding political representation, shared prosperity, and democratic control over technological change. Moreover, he warns that electoral victories alone cannot secure democratic renewal: without credible economic alternatives, institutional reconstruction, and effective governance, authoritarian populism may return in more resilient forms.

By Ibrahim Ozturk

Can electoral defeats in the United States, Hungary, Brazil and Serbia become a genuine democratic counterwave—or will populism return unless its structural causes are addressed? Donald Trump’s resounding defeat in the November 2026 midterm elections, following electoral breakthroughs against authoritarian populists in Hungary, Brazil and Serbia, and partly in Israel, though with significant uncertainties, may mark the beginning of a democratic counterwave. Yet elections can remove or constrain leaders without eliminating the structural conditions that produced them. Unless democratic governments rebuild political representation, state capacity and shared prosperity, today’s victories may pave the way for tomorrow’s populist return.

The Democratic victory was much more than an ordinary shift in the congressional balance of power. By taking control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate—including victories in states and constituencies Trump had carried comfortably only two years earlier—Democrats delivered the most consequential institutional rebuke to Trump since his return to the White House.

According to Reuters’ detailed account of the results, Democrats secured at least 54 Senate seats and gained at least 30 seats in the House. The electoral shift extended well beyond established Democratic territory, reaching deeply Republican states such as Texas, Kansas and South Carolina. 

The table reveals the election’s two-sided character. On the one hand, the scale and geographical spread of the Democratic victory make it impossible to dismiss the result as a routine midterm correction. Trump-backed Republicans lost support almost everywhere, including in regions that had recently seemed beyond the Democrats’ reach. The outcome has restored Congress’s capacity to investigate abuses, resist presidential appointments and prevent the legislature from functioning as an extension of the executive branch.

This institutional dimension is especially important given the severity of America’s democratic deterioration. The V-Dem Democracy Report 2026 recorded a 24 percent decline in the United States’ Liberal Democracy Index during the first year of Trump’s second term, with the country falling from twentieth to fifty-first place globally. V-Dem identified legislative constraints as the most severely damaged component of American democracy and described the speed of executive aggrandizement as unprecedented in modern American history. 

Against this background, restoring an independently controlled Congress is not merely a partisan change. It reactivates one of the principal constitutional mechanisms capable of constraining executive power. It may block further democratic erosion and create institutional space for recovery. But this is still a lifeline, not a democratic restoration—and certainly not the end of Trumpism. Trump remains in the White House. The institutional damage inflicted on the civil service, judiciary, regulatory agencies, universities, media and wider public sphere has not been reversed. Nor have the economic and cultural grievances that returned him to power in 2024 disappeared. Congressional control may constrain Trump’s room to maneuver, but it cannot by itself rebuild public trust, reverse inequality, or restore the social foundations of liberal democracy.

The second half of the table is therefore as important as the first. The Democrats’ victory was broad, but support for the Democratic Party remains relatively shallow. The Associated Press Voter Poll found that many voters who supported Democratic congressional candidates remained dissatisfied with the party itself. Roughly one-fifth of Democratic voters held an unfavorable view of the party they had just voted for. Many were not endorsing a clear Democratic program; they were looking for an instrument to restrain Trump and punish the incumbent government.

The crucial fact, therefore, is that many of the citizens who punished Trump in 2026 were the same economically and culturally frustrated voters who had punished Joe Biden and the Democrats in 2024. Their movement between the parties reflects neither ideological conversion nor a stable embrace of liberal democracy. It reflects a volatile electorate that repeatedly votes against governments perceived to have failed on prices, employment, security, public services, and political integrity.

The election’s economic geography reinforces this interpretation. Voters who reported serious hardship from inflation and everyday costs moved decisively toward Democratic candidates—even in Republican strongholds. They blamed Trump’s tariffs, the Iran war and the failure to fulfill his promise to reduce prices. Corruption also mattered, particularly the perception that the presidency was being used to advance Trump’s personal, family and corporate interests. The outcome was consequently an accountability vote with two connected elements: a demand to restrain presidential power and a demand for economic delivery. Concentrating only on the first would be a serious mistake.

Congressional investigations into corruption, conflicts of interest and executive abuses are indispensable. But if Democrats define their victory primarily as an authorization to investigate Trump, they may constrain one president without weakening Trumpism. Investigations can expose abuses; they cannot make housing affordable, create career-building employment, rebuild declining regions or give working people greater influence over technological and economic change. The midterms should therefore be interpreted neither as a final defeat for American populism nor merely as a temporary anti-incumbent swing. They represent a narrow but historic window in which democratic forces can move from anti-Trump resistance to democratic reconstruction.

Whether this opening becomes a lasting realignment will depend on what Democrats do with their new institutional power. If they combine constitutional accountability with a credible programme addressing affordability, inequality, good jobs, regional decline and technological disruption, the election may become the starting point of a more durable democratic counterwave. If they return to technocratic incrementalism or assume that Trump’s personal unpopularity has solved the problem, the same electorate may swing back in 2028.

The central lesson is therefore not that American populism has been defeated. It is that Trump has become electorally vulnerable because he failed to deliver on the grievances that originally brought him back to power. Those grievances remain politically available. The question is now whether democratic government can finally address them before another authoritarian populist does.

Daron Acemoglu is right to warn that the most difficult work begins after the electoral victory. As he argues in What Happened to Liberal Democracy?, liberal democracy prospered when it was associated with shared prosperity, political voice, social mobility and the broad distribution of opportunity. It entered crisis when liberalism detached from these social foundations and became increasingly associated with technocracy, globalization, and the priorities of highly educated metropolitan elites.

If Democrats cannot respond to extreme inequality, the affordability crisis and the disappearance of secure, career-building employment—especially for workers without university degrees—the political pendulum may swing back in 2028. Neither an exclusive reliance on taxes and transfers, nor centrist attachment to the pre-Trump status quo, nor the fashionable expectation that AI-driven “abundance” will automatically resolve distributive conflict offers an adequate response.

This is precisely why the American midterm result deserves greater attention than a conventional anti-incumbent election. It creates an institutional barrier against Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, but it also places Democrats under an obligation to demonstrate that pluralist democracy can govern and deliver. If they use their congressional majority mainly to investigate Trump while failing to articulate a credible economic and social program, they may constrain him temporarily while inadvertently preparing the next Trump—or a younger, more capable successor.

In my ECPS commentary “Trump and the New Capitalism: Old Wine in New Bottle,” I argued that Trumpism 2.0 represents more than nationalist rhetoric or protectionist trade policy. It combines economic nationalism, corporate oligarchy, technological concentration and elements of digital feudalism. State power is not withdrawn from the economy; it is reorganized to serve politically connected corporations, dominant technology platforms and favored economic interests. The 2026 vote has interrupted this project, but it has not dismantled the political economy that sustains it.

The American result forms part of a wider sequence of authoritarian-populist reversals. In Hungary, the Tisza Party ended Viktor Orbán’s sixteen-year rule and secured a constitutional supermajority. According to the detailed 2026 Hungarian election analysis published by the Institut für Europäische Politik, Tisza won 53.29 percent of party-list votes and 138 of the National Assembly’s 199 seats.

In Serbia, the student-backed opposition movement that emerged from protests following the Novi Sad railway-station disaster defeated Aleksandar Vučić’s ruling alliance. Reuters reported that the movement received 52.7 percent of the vote and secured 139 of the 250 parliamentary seats.

In Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated Flávio Bolsonaro, although the narrow margin confirmed that Bolsonarismo remains deeply embedded in Brazilian political and social life. As Professor James N. Green warned in an ECPS interview conducted after the election, the Brazilian far right has lost a battle, not the wider political struggle. It retains conservative congressional support, religious networks, digital mobilization capacity and a substantial electorate.

Israel provides a more qualified case. Benjamin Netanyahu’s nationalist-religious bloc won only 53 of the Knesset’s 120 seats, but the process of forming a government remains unresolved.  Netanyahu’s parliamentary position has been severely weakened, but it would be premature to describe this as a completed transfer of power.

Taken together, these developments justify speaking cautiously of a democratic counterwave. They show that elections, civic mobilization, coordinated opposition and institutional resistance can still constrain leaders who appeared politically invincible. But they do not demonstrate that authoritarian populism has been ideologically defeated.

Populist Reverse-convergence vis-à-vis Structural Failure

In “Populist Attacks on Institutions as a Reaction to Hyper-globalization,” I argued that populist attacks on independent institutions cannot be understood separately from the economic and social dislocations produced by unmanaged globalization. Financial crises, regional decline, inequality, declining social mobility, and the perception that national governments have lost control over economic outcomes generate both demand for populism and the political opportunities populist entrepreneurs exploit.

This argument is consistent with Dani Rodrik’s research on the relationship between globalization and right-wing populism, and with Sergei Guriev and Elias Papaioannou’s extensive study of the political economy of populism. Economic shocks do not translate mechanically into populist politics. They operate through perceptions of status, cultural displacement, political exclusion, and the failure of representative institutions. In “Capitalist Disruptions and the Democratic Retreat: A US–EU–China Comparison,” I developed this argument further by describing a process of authoritarian convergence. Liberal democracies and explicitly authoritarian systems remain different, but widening inequality, technological surveillance, corporate concentration, regulatory capture, and weakened public institutions are narrowing parts of the practical distance between them. The result is a political paradox. Governments remain formally democratic, but citizens increasingly experience economic decisions as matters over which they exercise little meaningful influence. Elections continue, but changing the government does not necessarily alter the underlying distribution of economic power.

The political damage was compounded by the way globalization was governed. Trade integration generated large aggregate gains, but governments too often treated the workers, firms and regions bearing the adjustment costs as if they would automatically move into new and better employment. Autor, Dorn and Hanson’s research on the China shock found that import-exposed local labor markets experienced persistent falls in employment, wages and labor-force participation, while their later work linked greater trade exposure to political polarization. The OECD Employment Outlook 2026 reaches a similar conclusion across advanced economies: the benefits of openness were real, but the losses were geographically concentrated and often endured for years. The resulting backlash was therefore not simply an irrational rejection of trade. It was also a reaction to governments that liberalized markets without constructing adequate mechanisms for regional renewal, worker adjustment, social insurance and political voice.

China’s current growth model has intensified this distributive problem. China is neither the sole cause of Western deindustrialization nor merely an economic threat; its growth has enlarged world trade and accelerated the diffusion of affordable green technologies. Yet weak domestic consumption, state-directed credit, large industrial subsidies, and manufacturing overinvestment now create asymmetric competitive pressure that open market economies cannot ignore. The IMF’s 2025 Article IV consultation warns that export-led adjustment and unwarranted industrial-policy support are producing excess supply and adverse spillovers for trading partners, while the European Commission has documented extensive state-induced distortions and unfair subsidization in strategic sectors. The democratic answer cannot be indiscriminate protectionism, which would raise prices and deepen fragmentation. But passivity would accelerate industrial erosion and feed populist claims that elected governments have surrendered control. A credible response requires rules-based trade defense, reciprocity in market access, coordinated industrial and competition policy, place-based investment and pressure for China to rebalance towards domestic consumption rather than exporting its internal imbalances.

Yet such pressure will be ineffective if exercised through a fragmented, transactional multipolar order in which major powers rely on unilateral tariffs and competing economic blocs. Bringing China closer to fair play requires rebuilding an open, inclusive and enforceable multilateral order, supported by reformed WTO rules on industrial subsidies, state-owned enterprises, excess capacity and reciprocal market access. Trump’s electoral defeat should therefore be understood not only as a setback for authoritarian populism, but also as a strategic opportunity to move beyond unilateral protectionism and toward renewed multilateral order and cooperation. If democratic governments use this opening to construct a fairer international system that reconciles openness with social protection, industrial resilience and democratic accountability, they may simultaneously address China’s distortive practices and the domestic grievances on which Trumpism and related populist movements thrive.

Under these conditions, authoritarian populism becomes a distorted form of democratic protest. Citizens support leaders who promise to recover sovereignty and political control, even when those leaders subsequently use that mandate to dismantle the institutions that make democratic correction possible.

Why Some Populists Lose—and Others Survive Failure

The emerging counterwave supports a first proposition: where electoral competition remains meaningful, authoritarian populists who govern badly may eventually be punished. Populists promise that concentrating authority will enable them to break institutional deadlock and deliver rapid results. Once in office, however, many generate corruption, patronage, inflation, declining services, administrative incompetence, and international isolation. When the discrepancy between rhetoric and performance becomes sufficiently visible, even formerly loyal voters may abandon them.

But this mechanism operates only where opposition forces can organize, voters can obtain independent information, and electoral authorities, courts, and security institutions have not been completely subordinated. My comparative study “Confronting Populist Authoritarians: The Dynamics of Lula’s Success in Brazil and Erdogan’s Survival in Turkey” demonstrated why similar economic and political failures can produce different outcomes. Lula’s broad democratic coalition defeated Bolsonaro, though it could not eliminate Bolsonarismo. In Turkey, Erdogan’s institutional capture, control over resources and capacity to fragment the opposition insulated him from the consequences of economic failure.

This leads to a second and more troubling proposition: where a populist leader has captured the state, failure may produce intensified authoritarianism rather than electoral defeat. In “A Lesson from Turkey: Economic Crises as Steppingstones, but Not Exit Routes for Authoritarian Populists,” I argued that economic crises may help populists enter power without subsequently providing an exit route from populist rule. Once leaders have captured the judiciary, media, bureaucracy, security apparatus, and mechanisms for distributing state resources, poor economic performance ceases to be sufficient to remove them.

Leaders who fear prosecution, loss of wealth or exposure of wrongdoing acquire powerful personal incentives to prevent alternation in power. The more offenses committed in consolidating the regime, the more dangerous surrendering office becomes. The regime’s failures therefore deepen its dependence on repression. Turkey illustrates this danger. Freedom House’s 2026 assessment documents the consolidation of power through constitutional engineering, institutional capture and the imprisonment of opponents, journalists and civil-society representatives.

My more recent analysis, “Stealing from the Future,” shows how such a regime may use fiscal transfers, public procurement, credit and inflation to purchase present political support by transferring the costs to future taxpayers. Economic policy becomes a technology of political survival rather than an instrument of long-term development. Consequently, no mechanical sequence in which the defeats of Trump, Orbán, Bolsonaro or Vučić necessarily predict the fall of Erdogan or Narendra Modi. Democratic openings can spread confidence, but national outcomes depend on the depth of institutional capture, the credibility of opposition forces and whether electoral punishment remains possible.

The Acemoglu Challenge: Redirecting Technological Change

The struggle over artificial intelligence will be critical to whether the American midterm victory develops into a durable democratic realignment. An ECPS long read, “The Economist versus Acemoglu: Who Will Govern the Next World Order?”, argues that the controversy surrounding Acemoglu is not simply a dispute over AI productivity. It concerns who directs technological change, who captures its gains, and whether democracy can discipline concentrations of corporate power that markets have themselves created. Acemoglu, David Autor and Simon Johnson’s proposal for “Building Pro-Worker AI” distinguishes technologies that complement workers and create new human tasks from technologies principally designed to replace labor. Acemoglu’s related intervention in Nature warns against organizing the entire technological agenda around artificial general intelligence and the automation of human capabilities.

If AI intensifies workplace surveillance, displaces labor and concentrates income among a few technology companies, it will aggravate precisely the inequalities and insecurities that nourish authoritarian populism. A democratic strategy must instead use public procurement, research funding, competition policy, worker participation and taxation to redirect innovation toward augmenting human capabilities and creating socially valuable employment. This is where the political meaning of Trump’s midterm defeat will ultimately be determined. 

Congressional investigations and institutional checks are necessary, but they cannot substitute for a new governing philosophy centered on productive employment, affordable housing and healthcare, regional regeneration, technological democracy and the reconstruction of worker power.

After Victory Comes Democratic Delivery

Democratic successors must restore legality without producing institutional paralysis. They must dismantle state capture without replacing it with partisan revenge. They must defend pluralism while demonstrating that pluralist democracy can govern, coordinate and deliver. The current electoral reversals are therefore openings rather than conclusions. The V-Dem Democracy Report 2026 finds that nearly three-quarters of the world’s population lives under autocratic rule and that democracy, for the average global citizen, has returned approximately to its 1978 level. Only eighteen countries are currently democratizing, while nearly a quarter of the world’s states are undergoing autocratization.

The American midterm victory is therefore historic, but its meaning remains unsettled. It may mark the beginning of democratic reconstruction. Equally, it may be another swing of the electoral pendulum, driven by an electorate that remains economically insecure, politically unrepresented, and willing to experiment repeatedly with anti-establishment alternatives.

If democratic governments cannot address these structural grievances, authoritarian populism will return—perhaps under younger, more disciplined and more competent leaders who have learned from the failures of Trump, Orbán and Bolsonaro. Winning an election can remove or constrain an authoritarian government. Only democratic delivery can weaken the economic, institutional and cultural conditions that continually reproduce authoritarian populism.

US President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing after a Black Hawk helicopter collided with American Airlines Flight 5342 near DCA Airport in Washington on January 30, 2025. Photo: Joshua Sukoff.

The US Midterm Verdict: What’s at Stake?

In this analysis, Dr. Prerna Chahar, Research Consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation in New Delhi, examines the political and institutional implications of the November 3, 2026, US midterm elections. With Democrats capturing both chambers of Congress, the results represent a significant setback for President Donald Trump, reshaping legislative priorities, congressional oversight, and executive-legislative relations. Dr. Chahar explores how economic discontent, inflation, tariff policies, and the US-Iran war contributed to Republican losses while raising questions about Trumpism’s future and the Republican Party’s political identity. She argues that the elections constitute a critical test of democratic accountability, institutional checks and balances, and political polarization, with consequences extending beyond Washington to global security, international partnerships, and America’s geopolitical leadership.

By Dr. Prerna Chahar*

The American midterm elections are often seen as a referendum on the incumbent president. But the Nov. 3, 2026, elections have proven that they are far more than just a regular election. It’s not just about who occupies the seats in Congress. It’s about who sets the legislative agenda, who provides oversight of the White House, and how much room President Donald Trump has to pursue his domestic and international ambitions in the last two years of his second term.

The results represent a major political blow to the Republicans. The Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, flipping the Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The question, therefore, is no longer simply who won the elections. It is what this outcome means for American democracy, Trump’s political authority, the Republican Party’s future.

A Referendum on Trump: The Politics of Public Discontent

Midterm elections have historically been tough for the party in the White House, with losses in Congress. With two exceptions, the president’s party has lost ground in every midterm election since World War II. But the size of the 2026 Democratic gains suggests more than the typical electoral penalty applied to an incumbent administration.

The economy became a defining issue. Inflation, rising living costs, fuel prices and fears of economic uncertainty have shaped voters’ opinions. The Republican campaign was also complicated by Trump’s tariff policies and the economic fall-out from the US-Iran war. A central focus of public anger was the administration’s decision to strike Iran in February 2026 and the subsequent rise in fuel prices. Voters also expressed concern about corruption, executive power and the way the administration governed.

The election also exposed the limits of presidential popularity as a substitute for good governance. Trump’s political influence has remained central to the Republican Party, but the results indicate that presidential endorsements and campaign rallies cannot necessarily insulate congressional candidates from dissatisfaction with the administration.

The scale of participation is equally significant. Preliminary estimates suggest that approximately 122.7 million ballots had been counted, representing around 48.8 percent of the eligible population. It was the second-highest midterm turnout in more than a century, behind only the record of 2018. That turnout suggests voters saw the election as meaningful for the country’s political future.

The Congressional Arithmetic: A New Political Reality

The most immediate consequence of the Democratic victory is institutional. Control of Congress determines much more than the passage of legislation. It determines committee leadership, congressional investigations, budgetary negotiations, confirmation processes and the ability to scrutinize executive decisions.

By January 2027, Democrats will have control of Congress, and the legislative landscape will be very different for the administration. The House can investigate, can subpoena officials to testify, and can look over federal spending. The Senate has constitutional authority over presidential nominations and appointments.

The new Democratic majority also keeps House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in the race to become the first Black Speaker of the House. His leadership will be tested by the challenge of balancing progressive demands with the priorities of moderate Democrats, particularly on taxation, immigration, healthcare and economic policy. 

However, a Democratic-controlled Congress does not mean that Trump has lost executive authority. The president retains the power to veto legislation, direct executive agencies and exercise considerable discretion in foreign affairs. Democrats would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a presidential veto, which they do not possess.

The result, therefore, is not a transfer of presidential power but a redistribution of institutional leverage. The next two years could bring legislative gridlock, vigorous oversight by Congress and new debates over the constitutional boundaries of executive power.

Beyond the Ballot: What’s at Stake?

The election offers Republicans a chance to answer fundamental questions about political identity and leadership. The party has to ask whether its electoral strategy has become too closely tied to the personality and political agenda of Trump.

The results could feed internal tensions between traditional conservatives, populist supporters and Republican lawmakers worried about the party’s future electoral prospects. Vice President JD Vance and other possible Republican leaders also will be asked about the party’s direction leading into the 2028 presidential election.

But it would be premature to read the results as the death of Trumpism. His political base is still an important constituency, and the Republican Party still has considerable clout in state governments and conservative political networks. The question is whether the midterm loss is because people are unhappy with specific policies, the president’s style of governing, or a general change in what voters want.

A Test of American Democracy 

The 2026 midterm elections are ultimately about how American democratic institutions function. The US constitutional system includes important elements of separation of powers, congressional oversight, and electoral accountability. Split politics can result in legislative paralysis, but it can also strengthen institutional checks and balances.

The results created a difficult political landscape for Trump in his remaining two years in office. For Democrats they provide congressional power but also the obligation to show that electoral victories can be translated into effective governance.

For the international community, the result is one more piece in an uncertain geopolitical landscape. India’s strategic partnership with the United States, European security, the Indo-Pacific balance of power and Washington’s approach towards global conflicts will all be influenced, to varying degrees, by the new congressional dynamics.

The larger lesson is that American elections are never exclusively domestic events. Decisions taken in Washington affect global markets, diplomatic relationships, security partnerships and international institutions.

But beyond the ballot, a more consequential question looms: Can America’s political institutions reconcile competing visions of national power, democratic accountability, and global responsibility? The 2026 midterms shifted the balance of power in Congress. What Washington does next will determine if they too change the course of American politics and its relationship to the world.


 

(*) Dr. Prerna Chahar is a Research Consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation, New Delhi, India. Her research interests focus on US foreign policy, inter-American relations, and regional cooperation in East Asia and the Indo-Pacific.