Alexandros Ntaflos argues that Trump and Mamdani’s unexpectedly cordial meeting reflects shared populist appeals to 'the people', and pragmatic calculations of institutional power. But as concrete policies emerge, left-right ideological divisions will reassert themselves. Future conflicts between the two will echo the broader Western shift toward radical politics
On 21 November 2025, a meeting took place in Washington that sparked surprise and confusion among the public, and became the subject of intense discussion. New York’s newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, paid a visit to US President Donald Trump. Just another routine institutional meeting, right? In reality, it was anything but ordinary.
Prior to their meeting, Trump had denounced Mamdani as a communist on several occasions. Mamdani, meanwhile, had openly described the President as a fascist. And yet, their encounter had little in common with the hostile climate of the weeks that preceded it. Instead, both men emphasised their shared electoral audience: the 'ordinary people' struggling with rising prices, crime, and the housing crisis. Both men expressed concern over the same political issues. This unlikely accord signalled a willingness to cooperate at institutional level to improve everyday life for the people of New York. An example of that spirit was their shared commitment on the 'affordability agenda'.
In contrast with the hostile climate of the preceding weeks, Trump and Mamdani appealed to their shared electoral audience, expressing an unlikely accord
So how can we explain this – at least temporary – truce between two ideologically opposite politicians? Trump is the most prominent global figure to have mobilised and normalised elements of the alt-right within mainstream electoral politics; Mamdani openly identifies as a democratic socialist. Mamdani's socialist principles have alarmed the centrist wing of the Democratic Party – and inspired those who believe that only radical left-wing policies can save America.
One factor behind the unexpectedly cordial meeting is the strong anti-establishment turn a large section of the electorate has taken. This shift is expressed through the concept of populism Cas Mudde describes as the clash between 'the people' and 'the elite'. Many US citizens now interpret politics almost exclusively through this lens. Populism itself is a 'thin-centred' ideology. It becomes more concrete only when combined with ideological frameworks such as conservatism, nationalism or socialism.
Left-wing populism, for example, frames politics mainly in economic terms, setting workers and ordinary citizens against billionaires and their puppet politicians. Right-wing populism, by contrast, defines 'the people' in national terms. This distances them from migrants and refugees, who populists depict as threats to national identity. In this narrative, migrants and pro-multicultural politicians are part of the 'elite'. What unites both versions is their shared hostility toward establishment politicians of the centre-left and centre-right, whom they blame for the multiple crises affecting Western societies.
Seen through this prism, an overly aggressive Trump-Mamdani press conference confrontation on traditional ideological grounds could have alienated anti-establishment voters on either side. Both leaders, therefore, chose to focus on common ground rather than emphasising their core ideological divide. They prioritised their anti-establishment credentials and their focus on solving everyday life problems over their ideological roots.
Mamdani’s foremost responsibility is to serve as mayor of New York. A showdown with Trump before even assuming office could have detrimental consequences for the city
But there is also a more pragmatic dimension: the institutional power each represents. Mamdani’s foremost responsibility is to serve the city he governs. A dramatic showdown with Trump before even formally assuming office could have had direct consequences for New York. In the US, the president has the power to block critical federal funding for municipalities. He can also deploy the National Guard – as he did in Washington – effectively stripping local authorities of key security responsibilities. In this sense, the institutional balance of power between the two also shaped the tone of their encounter. Certain institutional positions occasionally impel politicians to transform their discourse.
Any attempt to predict how this uneasy coexistence will evolve leads back to ideology. Populist rhetoric thrives in election campaigns, but populism's 'thin' nature means it cannot produce coherent governance strategies in isolation. When it's time for real policy decisions, traditional ideologies reassert themselves, and a right-wing politician will approach crime very differently from a left-wing one. The same applies to housing policy and the cost-of-living crisis. If Trump and Mamdani cling to their principles, a clash is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. And in the US, such confrontations rarely unfold quietly.
If Trump and Mamdani cling to their principles, a clash is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'
More broadly, the multiple crises shaking Western societies have severely weakened traditional political parties. This has created space for radical and populist movements across Europe and America. Many have evolved from protest vehicles into fully governing mechanisms. But that, of course, means delivering solutions to economic and environmental inequality, geopolitical instability, and uncontrolled migration. These will be grounded in traditional ideological frameworks, even if populist politicians don't publicly admit it. An ideological confrontation between radical right and radical left thus appears inevitable.
As this new era dawns, the radical right enjoys an advantage because the foundations of post-Cold War capitalism align more closely with its worldview. It is easier to fight the inclusive migration policies than attacking the market-oriented financial system. For the radical left to compete, it must redefine concepts such as nation, progress, and justice. Any such redefinition runs against the neoliberal status quo and demands strong political organisation and social coordination. This is the battle Mamdani must now fight. And if he chooses to pursue it with strategy and determination, Donald Trump certainly won't be his ally.
Ultimately, the relationship between Trump and Mamdani may be a carefully staged prelude to the political relationships now emerging across Western democracies. It is precisely for this reason, as Trump noted, that this meeting attracted such extraordinary national and international attention.
