In a surprising twist that challenges conventional wisdom about populist movements, new research reveals that the United States stands apart from the rest of the world in how citizens support populist leaders. While countries from Italy to Brazil show predictable patterns of populist support, America’s relationship with its populist figures is far more complex—and perhaps even more unsettling.
The Contradiction of American Populism
A groundbreaking 2025 study published in Frontiers in Political Science has uncovered a puzzling phenomenon: neither anti-establishment nor authoritarian populist attitudes predict support for a populist strongman leader like Donald Trump in the United States. This finding starkly contrasts with patterns observed in other nations, making America a unique exception in the global landscape of populism.
The study, titled “Anti-establishment versus authoritarian populists and support for the strong(wo)man,” distinguishes between two distinct forms of populist attitudes:
- Anti-establishment populism: A general distrust of political elites and institutions
- Authoritarian populism: The belief that a strong leader should govern with minimal constraints to represent “the true people”
In most countries examined, authoritarian populist attitudes strongly predict support for populist leaders. However, the United States bucks this trend entirely—a finding researchers describe as “counterintuitive.”
How Other Countries Show Different Patterns
Europe and Latin America: A More Predictable Populist Landscape
While we couldn’t access the full study details due to technical issues, extensive research on populism in other countries paints a clearer picture of why the U.S. stands out:
- Italy: The Five Star Movement and League Party both drew significant support from voters who expressed strong authoritarian populist attitudes, desiring decisive leadership to combat corruption and immigration.
- Hungary: Viktor Orbán’s enduring popularity correlates directly with citizens’ preference for strongman leadership and exclusionary definitions of national identity.
- Brazil: Jair Bolsonaro’s rise followed a similar pattern, with supporters valuing his authoritarian approach to crime and social issues over traditional democratic constraints.
As explained in research on democratic vs. authoritarian populism, these movements typically define “the people” in exclusionary terms and seek strong leaders to narrow that definition—often with concerning implications for democratic institutions.
What Actually Drives Trump Support
A Complex Web of Grievances
If typical populist attitudes don’t explain Trump’s support, what does? The study attributes his backing to what researchers call “a complex interplay of factors,” specifically:
- Racial resentment
- Economic grievances
- Anti-immigration sentiment
This finding aligns with years of academic research. Studies have consistently shown that:
- Racial resentment was a strong predictor of Trump support, as noted in research cited by Sheila Kennedy, who observed that Trump’s victory owes much to what scholars delicately term “racial resentment.”
- Economic concerns and anti-immigration sentiment were central factors in both Brexit and Trump’s victories, according to analysis by NBC News Think and other research outlets.
- Far-right populist appeal often stems from anger over immigration and racial tensions, as documented by Vox and other academic sources.
Why This Is Counterintuitive
The study’s findings challenge what most political scientists expected. Typically, support for populist leaders correlates with citizens’ desire for strong, unconstrained leadership. That Trump—a figure who embodies many characteristics of a populist strongman—doesn’t benefit from these same predictors highlights a distinctive aspect of American political culture.
This finding suggests that American support for Trump was more about identity politics and specific grievances than about a general desire for anti-establishment or authoritarian leadership. In essence, Trump supporters weren’t necessarily looking for a strongman per se—they were looking for someone who would address their specific concerns about race, economics, and immigration.
Implications for Understanding American Populism
A Distinctive American Exception
The study’s findings contribute to a growing body of evidence that American populism operates differently than its international counterparts. The Pew Research Center and other authoritative institutions have documented how American political polarization is increasingly driven by identity concerns rather than purely economic or ideological factors.
This distinction matters significantly for understanding:
- Why traditional polling methods sometimes fail to predict support for populist candidates
- How American populism might evolve differently than in European contexts
- The potential durability of populist movements in the U.S.
The Broader Research Context
The 2025 study adds weight to ongoing academic debates about populist movements globally. While populism is a contested concept that emphasizes the idea of “the common people” against perceived elites, researchers increasingly recognize that it manifests differently across cultural and political contexts.
As noted by scholars examining the phenomenon, American populism often lacks the coherent ideological framework seen in European movements. Instead, it appears to be driven more by negative sentiments about specific groups and issues rather than by a clear positive vision of governance.
Looking Ahead: What This Means for American Politics
Understanding these unique patterns is crucial for predicting future political developments. If American populist support isn’t driven by desires for strongman leadership but rather by specific grievances, then political strategies need to address those root concerns directly rather than simply appealing to anti-establishment sentiments.
Furthermore, this research suggests that combating divisive populist rhetoric in the U.S. requires addressing underlying issues of racial tension, economic dissatisfaction, and immigration concerns—not just critiquing authoritarian tendencies. The complexity of Trump’s support base indicates that simple solutions or blanket characterizations won’t suffice.
As America continues to grapple with these divisions, studies like this offer valuable insights into how political movements develop and sustain themselves. The findings underscore that effective political engagement in the United States must go beyond traditional frameworks and consider the unique social and cultural factors that drive voter behavior.
In the end, this research reminds us that while populism may share certain characteristics globally, its expression is deeply rooted in each nation’s specific history, culture, and politics. The United States, it seems, remains exceptional—even in its populism.
Leave a Reply