Populism as defined by Merriam Webster is “a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the establishment.” This very approach has been gaining momentum in America as of late, and for evidence, one need look no further than President Trump and New York City’s 2025 Democratic mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani. Their success seems to suggest the American public is becoming increasingly comfortable with populist movements. Is this cause for worry, or par for the course in a nation where both parties are seen as failing ordinary citizens?
To answer this, I will examine the similarities between Zohran Mamdani and Donald Trump. Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign was defined by the idea of a personal “comeback.” The erstwhile 45th president was out for blood in 2024, ready to right perceived wrongs inflicted by both the Democratic and Republican establishments in the wake of his 2020 election loss. Trump’s central theme of uniting Americans by remaking establishment institutions has yet to come to fruition.
Facially, Trump and Mamdani are both unabashed populists—the real fascination lies in examining how similar these supposedly opposed campaigns are.
Mamdani’s 2025 campaign has similarly been defined by uniting citizens against both the Republican and Democratic establishments, who robbed “ordinary New Yorkers” of affordability in what some would call “the least affordable city in America.” While Mamdani’s actual record is yet unknown, he describes himself as an anti-establishment progressive, a description reinforced by his stance on social issues. Facially, Trump and Mamdani are both unabashed populists—the real fascination lies in examining how similar these supposedly opposed campaigns are.
“Build the wall” and “Freeze the rent” have similar rhythms, right? These triplicate chants tersely encapsulate core parts of each of these candidates’ platforms. For Trump, his anti-southern border immigration is easily summed up in this slogan—while importantly not a part of his 2024 campaign, the immigration sentiment lives on in the American collective consciousness. For Mamdani, his anti-capitalist, pro-affordability message is perfectly summed up by “Freeze the rent.” Across both candidates, defining spectacular policies through easily digestible slogans has proven successful.
Similarities in policy reinforce the prevailing trend—affordability is a key tentpole for both Mamdani and Trump. Solutions come by way of tariffs, US equity ownership of firms, and deregulation, for Trump, and via a rent freeze, free buses, and government-owned grocery stores for Mamdani. Easy to understand and believe in, they both promise sweeping changes that are premised on making life more affordable for everyday Americans, but effectiveness is another question entirely. “I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” Trump declared at a rally in January 2025. In theory tariffs on specific industries, like automobiles, raise prices, allowing domestic manufacturers to increase profits. For industries struggling against unfair trade practices, tariffs help balance the competition by reducing the impact of cheaper imports. Ideally, profits then lead to more investment and job creation with higher wages. The problem with this theory is that it’s just conjecture—employers have no obligation to share increased profits with workers. While it’s understandable that working-class voters support policies promising long-term investment and higher wages, Trump’s tariffs risk boosting profits for bosses while leaving workers behind.
In New York City, housing needs to be built, not frozen. While Mamdani’s “freeze the rent” may sound glitzy, the truth is that the proposal’s economics don’t work for the according to the Independent Institute. Rent control hurts rental supply and quality, and New York City does not need to look far into the past to see that such policies disincentivize landlords from renting, portending empty units and crowded streets. They cite that in 1994, San Francisco instituted rent control for buildings built before 1979 causing filings for eviction to go up by 83 percent. The reality is, as flashy as their economic policies may seem, there is little evidence to suggests that both they will be successful in their aims.
Similarly, both candidates need scapegoats to blame—an important component of both populist campaigns is the idea of scarcity, and both wield rhetoric that scapegoats different forces for consuming economic resources. While the roots of this blame might be based in truth, the rhetoric is blown out of proportion, slowly becoming an alternate reality for supporters. For Trump, the scapegoat is illegal immigrants—while illegal immigration was inarguably a problem during the Biden administration, Trump turned a marginal population disproportionately harming low-income Black and Latino communities into a sensationalized menace. For instance: “Gavin Newsom makes California taxpayers pay for illegal Venezuelan migrants to have gender affirming care,” an obviously untrue claim became widely accepted idea among MAGA voters. Immigration, blown out of proportion, reinforced an idea of scarcity that pits “ordinary Americans” against each other.
The reality is, as flashy as their economic policies may seem, there is little evidence to suggests that both they will be successful in their aims.
For Mamdani, the scapegoat was the top 1% of New York City, and more generally, the wealthy. According to Mamdani, the top 1% and big corporations have been given tax breaks for years, a policy he claims is emblematic of larger corruption in both parties, perfectly exemplified by Cuomo’s Super PAC money. While his criticism is based in truth, Mamdani holds a naive view of wealthy people—he is reliant on an upper-class tax base, but most sources like the Financial Times point to the top 1% of New York City leaving if Mamdani becomes mayor, and domiciling in cities like Austin. In doing so, their revenue disappears from Mamdani’s tax reform, making him reliant on a diminished tax base. Disproportionate blame thus creates an unsolvable idea of scarcity—or at least one unresolvable by his supposed tax base.
The parallels continue—while Trump’s oration is characterized by his off-the-cuff style, and Zohran’s by his more classically academic speech, they both have a knack for establishing charismatic facades. For many, Trump spoke what was on everyone’s mind but was too controversial to say out loud, being lauded as courageous for doing so.
For Zohran, it was another story. He leveraged his immigrant background to argue that he embodies the “American dream”, but his story was different than most— he is more of a so-called “champagne socialist.” His mother, award-winning director Mira Nair, sold her Chelsea loft for $1.45 million in 2019—a posher lifestyle than that of most immigrants. This didn’t matter to his fellow liberal arts-educated champagne socialists in Williamsburg; Mamdani polled better with high-income white voters during the primary, not low-income black communities, that was Cuomo. Thus, Mamdani and Trump’s illusory personas are crucial to their respective successes.
While these personas are important, they mean nothing if undisplayed. Both candidates’ campaigns are defined by spectacular moments, each giving them the platform to showcase themselves. “In Springfield, they are eating the dogs,” Trump proclaimed during the second debate, a characteristically nonsensical claim. It checked two boxes; it was unscripted and communicated Trump’s anti-immigrant sentiment.
An even bigger spectacle was the assassination attempt—on July 13, 2024, Trump was shot at a Pennsylvania rally. Before being rushed into the car, he pumped his fist in the air, and the resulting photo has since become emblatmic of his campaign and the larger idea of an “American comeback.” A political martyr with his fist in the air, bloodied but unbowed, this photo exemplified the American resurgence he promised his supporters. In a matter of seconds, Trump turned a painful moment into a resonant one.
For Mamdani, perhaps his most iconic moment was this 30-second excerpt of the final Democratic mayoral debate: in response to Cuomo hounding Mamdani for his inexperience, the 33-year-old responded, “To Mr. Cuomo, I have never had to resign in disgrace. I have never cut Medicaid … I have never done those things because I am not you, Mr. Cuomo.” Whether these claims were true, Mamdani said what was on all the Cuomo skeptics’ minds—the Democratic ruling class is corrupt and does not actually care about the working class. The moment quickly gained traction and garnered millions of views across social media platforms, raising Mamdani’s national profile. For both of these candidates, these short but viral moments that define their campaigns.
This brings us to our final similarity, perhaps the most pertinent: their use of new-age media. While both Mamdani and Trump explored the podcast space, it was the use of vertical video by both campaigns which brought the most attention. When the camera was on them, both figures knew how to induce virality in the addled brains of social media consumers. Their 30-second TikTok rhetoric brought such consumers to the polls.
The rise of 30-second videos makes populist messaging easier to spread for those touting extreme messages.
One must ask: Are we losing the ability to think holistically about our candidate choices if all we know about them is reduced to these brief snippets? We become ignorant of Trump’s undermining of democracy on January 6, 2021, if all we remember is that illegal immigrants are “eating the dogs” and Trump wants to put an end to that. We become ignorant of Zohran’s hypocritical rhetoric or his policies’ dependency on the wealthy if all we know about him is that he “hates the rich.”
Mamdani and Trump, seeming opposites—one calling himself “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare” and Trump calling Mamdani “my little communist”—both need to reflect their similarities. More importantly, I think we need to reflect on what it means to be informed voters. Does it mean getting all our information through social media? Some? A little? I say none. The rise of 30-second videos makes populist messaging easier to spread for those touting extreme messages. It is ultimately up to us to “log off” and reject radical platforms that are not here to help us or have any hope of being effective in the future.
Levi Cutler studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at clevi@wustl.edu.