Published on 6/20/2026
“Admiring Trump from afar is one thing, but sovereignty is sovereignty, and borders are borders… and this is what the American president was aware of,” said Alexander Burns, chief executive editor for North American affairs at the Politico news site, in which he focused on what he sees as the biggest mistake in Trump’s foreign policy calculations: underestimating the strength of patriotic feelings and sovereignty among other peoples.
The writer believes that Trump, who built his political rise primarily on the idea of nationalism and defending American sovereignty, has begun to deal with other countries as if they would easily respond to American pressure, ignoring that the national feeling that he invested within the United States also exists among Canadians, Ukrainians, Iranians, and others.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
He added that Trump, as a nationalist leader who defends national sovereignty and strong borders, such as his support for “Brexit,” turned in his second term to exerting imperialist pressures towards other countries and other leaders, including those who belong to the right-wing conservative movement and its historical supporters.
Burns warned that this behavior led to adverse results that harmed Trump’s trade and military policies, and weakened his relations with the global right.
The writer pointed out that the policies of threats and intimidation by imposing customs duties that the president practiced against Canada, which he described as the “51st state,” did not push the United States’ northern neighbor to surrender, but rather created an adverse national reaction represented by the rise of the new Prime Minister Mark Carney, who is leading the resistance to American economic hegemony.
Even conservative leaders in Canada have rejected this approach. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who is known for her good relations with American conservatism, said when asked about Trump’s possible interference in Canadian politics: “I don’t want any foreign influence in our politics here.”
In the same context, former conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed his country’s readiness to bear any losses to protect its independence, saying:
“If I were still prime minister, I would be prepared to impoverish the country, if the other option was to annex it to America.”
The writer pointed out that Trump’s failures resulting from his misjudgment of national feelings extended to several international files.
His attempt to impose a fragile peace agreement on Ukraine, his insults to President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House, and his blackmailing of Ukraine regarding its mineral wealth made Ukrainians rally more around their president, which strengthened his position instead of weakening it.
The article expanded on presenting other examples of what it considers failures resulting from a misjudgment of the strength of national sentiment, including:
Interfering in the decisions of the Brazilian judiciary, trying to influence the policies of European countries, and sending Vice President J.D. Vance to support Trump’s Hungarian ally, Viktor Orban, without this preventing his electoral loss.
But the writer considered that the Iranian case was the most costly, as Trump assumed that the military strikes and weakening of the Iranian leadership would lead to a quick surrender of the Iranians, but the result was a long conflict that negatively affected the global economy and energy prices.
The writer commented on this by saying: “No nationalist leader should be surprised that Iranian leaders preferred months of American bombing to quick surrender.”
On the other hand, the article highlighted that Trump’s ideological allies in Europe began to worry about his transformation from a nationalist leader to an “imperial” president.
Burns: Trump’s ideological allies in Europe are beginning to worry about his transformation from a nationalist leader into an “imperial” president.
In this regard, Jordan Bardella, the potential presidential candidate of the far-right in France (the National Rally Party), criticized Trump’s actions in his second term, saying that the actions of the United States are similar to the actions of an “empire,” describing Trump himself as “very unstable and constantly volatile.”
Bardella also rejected any interference by Trump in French affairs, using a phrase similar to Smith: “We do not need to accept or open the door to any form of interference.”
Despite these failures, the writer pointed out Trump’s success in imposing his influence in countries that suffer from political and economic instability and rely heavily on American aid, such as Argentina, Honduras, and Venezuela. He also continues to ignore the United Nations and NATO at no significant internal political cost.
The author concludes by noting that Trump has lost his previous “superpower,” which lay in his understanding and appreciation of the spirit of nationalism and national pride.
As a result of this “imperial confusion,” it left a political vacuum that will push American voters in the future to search for potential alternatives and successors in both parties to present a new, more balanced version of “American nationalism.”
