Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
On election night, outside Howard University in Washington, DC, where Vice President Kamala Harris was expected to speak, a long line of foreign correspondents waited. And when Donald Trump staged a sweeping victory, the world’s press responded.
In Russia, Komsomolskaya Pravda, a widely read, pro-Kremlin tabloid, focused on “strengthening the dollar and rapprochement with China.” It skipped the political implications for a vision of Trump bolstering the US dollar and getting closer with Beijing, which would lessen Moscow’s isolation.
On the other side of the war front, in Ukraine, the coverage of Trump’s victory was cautious but not notably negative. “Let’s hope for the best and try to make it happen,” wrote the Kyiv Post, asking Ukrainians to approach Trump’s administration with pragmatism and to think about “the best ways to influence Trump” in order to defend Ukraine’s interests and sovereignty. But it also issued a warning that Russian aggression could threaten the larger region, including Poland and other partners in Eastern Europe, if Ukraine were to lose ground.
The left-leaning French daily Le Monde announced “The end of an American world.” The editorial contemplated Trump’s ceasing military aid to Ukraine “as he threatened during the campaign” and argued that “there is a real risk that Europe will be divided or even fractured by such a prospect. This threat is existential for the European Union, and its leaders need to be aware of it and prepared to confront it, without waiting for Trump to take office.” Similarly, Trump’s reelection “signals the triumph of an American isolationism,” according to the right-leaning Le Figaro.
Across the channel, The Guardian wrote that it had “just witnessed an extraordinary, devastating moment in the history of the United States.” Trump’s return could have “dramatic implications for wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the health of American democracy, reproductive rights, inequality, and, perhaps most importantly, our collective environmental future,” the paper warned. The Economist, pragmatically, warned that “a second Trump term comes with unacceptable risks.”
In Spain, El País predicted: “This time the Donald Trump experiment is not going to work out.” El Diario took an even stronger tone, asking, “What if they finally voted for Hitler?” In Italy, La Repubblica called Trump’s victory “the triumph of patriarchy” and posited that his win could deepen social and cultural divisions globally.
In Argentina, El Clarín outlined twelve keys to understanding Trump’s return to power. It emphasized his surprising appeal among young male voters, the shifting Latino vote, and the “strongman” image that resonated with many Americans amid global uncertainty.
In Brazil, according to O Globo, Trump’s win puts pressure on President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, to prioritize Brazil’s own financial stability to prepare for any changes in US policy. “The election of Trump is an American problem, but Brazil eats in reais,” a Brazilian official said. The paper added that Trump’s probable support for right-wing president Javier Milei of Argentina could have an impact on Brazil.
In India, the Indian Express made the case that Trump’s return to the White House “sets the scene for greater American exceptionalism.” From an Indian perspective, the piece argued, it was “a reasonable assumption that Trump’s earlier enthusiasm for ‘Howdy, Modi’ chants at mass rallies augurs well” for the relationship between the countries. A convergence of strategic civil and military interests should come hand in hand with more delicate negotiations over immigration and trade, argued Rishabh Bhandari.
To India’s east, a piece in the Dhaka Tribune, in Bangladesh, posited that “under a Trump administration, India will try to re-assert itself more robustly as a regional hard power.” It added, “This shift will serve as a boost for the supporters of Sheikh Hasina, whose Awami League party has long benefited from close ties with New Delhi.”
In Israel, Haaretz wrote that Trump’s win reveals inconvenient truths about America. There are, it said, “two Americas now, and very little connects them.” The Jerusalem Post wrote that, “from the Jewish community’s perspective, the true test for Trump’s administration will be its stance on antisemitism. American Jews find themselves caught between traditional right-wing antisemitism and a new left-wing variant.”
In Al Jazeera, a piece headlined “It was anger that won Trump this election” pointed to multiple factors that prompted disaffection among Democratic voters, including “complicity in Israel’s genocide in Palestine.”
An article in the Japan Times suggested that Trump’s win returns the United States to an “era of uncertainty.” The piece noted that “the economy appeared to have driven many voters to Trump.”
In South Africa, IOL editor in chief Lance Witten wrote that Trump’s victory “could cause [President] Cyril Ramaphosa’s unraveling.” He suggests that if Ramaphosa “chooses to side with the West in the face of Trump’s strong-arm tactics” on trade and diplomacy, he could pay a political price.
Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor Peter Hartcher wrote: “If Washington was the father of America’s democracy, Trump is its undertaker.” When Joe Biden took power, Hartcher added, “he said he would try to save American democracy. He and Kamala Harris have failed.”
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
