The rise of nationalism

Nationalism is on the rise, and with it come outcomes that, for many, would have been inconceivable just a decade ago. In France, the Rassemblement National, long kept from power through shifting coalition strategies, is polling at historically high levels ahead of the next presidential election in 2027. In the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage’s Reform party is drawing support from disaffected Conservative voters, while polling at around 35% in several recent national opinion polls. Even in Germany, supposedly cleansed from the evil of the far-right after the Second World War, a resurgence can be seen, with millions of Germans, particularly in East Germany, flocking toward the AfD and its promises of change.

This rise is not confined to Europe. Today, fewer than half of Latin American countries are governed by right-wing administrations, but the number of right-wing governments openly embracing nationalist rhetoric, such as that of Nayib Bukele, has more than doubled over the past decade. A similar trend is visible in Asia, where nationalism has hardened in key states including China, India, and Japan, each in distinct institutional and ideological forms. This is before even considering the United States under Donald Trump. It is clear to all that nationalism is back on the menu.The question remains: how did we get here?

First, it is important to define what nationalism is, as the form gaining prominence today differs in important respects from its historical predecessors. Contemporary nationalist movements are typically defined not by expansionist ambition, but by an emphasis on national sovereignty, border control, and cultural continuity. They prioritize national decision-making over supranational governance and present themselves as vehicles for restoring democratic authority to the nation-state. These movements are neither uniform nor inherently democratic, and their expression varies widely across countries.

The resurgence of nationalism cannot be understood without examining the political architecture that preceded it. In the decades following the Cold War, the liberal world order prioritized economic integration, multilateral cooperation, and rule-based governance. Decision-making increasingly shifted toward international institutions, regulatory frameworks, and expert-driven bodies such as those provided by the United Nations, designed to reduce volatility and constrain political risk. The system delivered stability and growth, but it also altered the role of national politics.

Across many democracies, key policy areas became progressively insulated from electoral contestation. The fears of many voters regarding immigration and integration, as well as the economic shock felt after decades of global trade, were at best ignored by the governing elite. At worst, these anxieties were framed as illegitimate expressions of attitudes deemed incompatible with a modern, open society. This led to the creation of a group of voters who felt disenfranchised by the current establishment.

It was within this environment that nationalism found renewed traction. By reasserting the primacy of the nation-state, borders, and popular sovereignty, nationalist politics offered a language through which political agency could be reclaimed. Through it, national borders could be safeguarded, undesirables could be kicked out, and, more importantly than all, national sovereignty could be achieved.

Disenfranchised voters begged for a party that promised to reopen all the questions removed from the democratic debate by the Liberal World Order, a party that was willing to reclaim control over their country’s political destiny. What remained was a political landscape primed for actors capable of translating this latent demand into electoral force.

It is this exact demand that Donald Trump so cunningly used to become one of the first true American nationalist since Nixon to reach the Presidency. And with his victory came a turning point for nationalist movements.

By openly rejecting long-standing political conventions and the language of liberal internationalism, he demonstrated that nationalist themes could form the basis of a winning national campaign. More than that, Trump delivered results that many analysts and politicians claimed were impossible. Obama famously mocked Trump’s plans for reducing unemployment, among others, asking him what type of magic wand he had. Yet under the first Trump presidency, unemployment in the USA reached a 50-year low of 3.5% in 2019, fostering the illusion among many that nationalism is the magic wand capable of solving most issues.

Crucially, this shift did not originate on the global periphery, but in the United States, the central pillar of the international order. The same United States that had been preaching globalism and integration since Bill Clinton, is now dictating its terms under a nationalist slogan. The titanic forces that spent decades suppressing nationalism are now propelling it to the center of the global stage, giving a massive boost to all nationalist movements around the world.

Even if Donald Trump were to exit the political stage, and even if today’s wars were to subside, the conditions that have propelled nationalist politics would remain largely intact. What has changed is not merely electoral arithmetic, but the underlying relationship between citizens, states, and governing institutions. Nationalism has reasserted itself as a durable political language through which demands for sovereignty, security, and democratic control are expressed. Liberal democracy faces a choice: adapt in ways that reintegrate national agency and political contestation, or risk further fragmentation as nationalist movements continue to fill the space left by distant and technocratic governance.