'Fatal flaw'? Trump faces fierce patriotism backlash Columnist Alexander Burns argues that Trump built his political identity around nationalism and national pride, yet now appears unable to recognise how strongly those same forces operate in other countries. That miscalculation is creating problems on multiple fronts. It is said to be straining relationships with international allies on the political right, complicating conflicts abroad, and creating political headaches for Republicans at home. The article points to a striking example involving Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. Smith has long been viewed as a populist figure with close links to parts of the American conservative movement and previously hosted Tucker Carlson in Western Canada. Yet when she was asked at a Toronto policy summit about the prospect of Trump influencing Alberta politics, her response was blunt. Smith said: “I don't want any foreign influence in our politics here.” That moment, the analysis argues, highlighted a key reality: nationalism does not stop at America's borders. Other countries are fiercely protective of their own sovereignty too. Trump rose to prominence championing American sovereignty, tougher borders and national independence. He enthusiastically backed Britain's Brexit vote in 2016 and even dubbed himself “Mr. Brexit”. But the analysis claims that understanding appears to have faded during his second term. Burns argues Trump has repeatedly underestimated patriotic reactions in other nations. The result, he writes, has been a series of setbacks that have weakened his broader political objectives. One example cited is Canada. According to the analysis, Trump's tariff threats and criticism of Canada failed to bend Ottawa to his will. Instead, they allegedly sparked a patriotic response that helped propel Mark Carney to power on a platform focused on resisting American economic pressure. Ukraine is another example highlighted in the piece. Burns argues that Trump's confrontation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office and attempts to secure access to Ukraine's mineral wealth were viewed as challenges to Ukrainian sovereignty. Rather than weakening Zelenskyy's standing, the analysis claims the Ukrainian leader suffered no political damage from rejecting Trump's approach. The article also points to other international episodes. It says efforts involving Hungary, Brazil, Britain, Spain and Israel failed to produce the outcomes Trump sought. At the centre of the criticism is Iran. The analysis argues Trump believed he could cripple Iran's leadership, force concessions through military action and secure a favourable outcome without deploying ground troops. Instead, Burns describes the result as a prolonged stalemate that drove up energy prices and placed additional pressure on the global economy. The criticism is not limited to Trump's opponents. The article notes that some figures on the international right who were once sympathetic to Trump have also expressed concerns. Jordan Bardella, viewed as the likely presidential candidate for France's National Rally, reportedly told Politico that Trump had become difficult to recognise compared with his earlier political image. Bardella described the United States as behaving more like an “empire” and said Trump had become “extremely unsteady and constantly shifting”. Like Smith, he also rejected the idea of foreign political interference. “We don't need to accept or open the door to any form of interference,” he said. The analysis argues that these reactions reveal a recurring pattern. Leaders and voters who embrace nationalism in their own countries may still reject outside influence, even when it comes from ideological allies. Trump blind spot threatens to be 'fatal flaw' that brings down presidency: columnist
Create an account or sign in to comment