Has Trump ever praised other authoritarian leaders?
Executive summary
Yes: over the years Donald Trump has repeatedly praised and expressed fondness for a range of leaders widely described by journalists and analysts as authoritarian — from Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un — often using flattering language, public endorsements, or personnel- and policy-level cooperation as evidence of that affinity [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Public praise and personal warmth — a pattern across administrations
Reporting documents a consistent pattern in which Trump has lavished praise or spoken warmly about leaders characterized by strongman rule: he publicly applauded Orbán’s hardline immigration stance and urged other European leaders to “show more respect” to Hungary’s president [1], he has repeatedly described foreign leaders such as Putin, Xi and Kim as people he “got along with” or admired [4] [3], and outside outlets tracking authoritarian influence explicitly note his habit of calling autocrats “tough” and “strong” [2].
2. Policy moves and transactional praise — beyond words
Praise has sometimes accompanied concrete policy or transactional moves that reinforced the relationship: the administration struck a deal with El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele to transfer more than 200 detained migrants to a high-security Salvadoran prison — an operational link that critics cite as evidence that admiration for certain strongmen translated into cooperation with their practices [1]. Observers have therefore read both rhetoric and policy as mutually reinforcing signals of alignment with leaders whose governance styles are described as authoritarian [5].
3. How commentators, scholars and watchdogs interpret the praise
Analysts and civil-society monitors place Trump’s compliments in a broader narrative about democratic erosion: organizations and commentators have tied his public flattery of autocrats to an “authoritarian playbook,” warned of a “rapid authoritarian shift” in the U.S., and traced parallels between Trump’s behavior and internationally observed tactics of leader-centric regimes [2] [6] [7]. Foreign Affairs and other outlets frame these relationships not merely as personality quirks but as part of a larger pattern of institutional pressure and normalization of autocratic norms [7] [5].
4. Alternative readings and limits of the record
Defenders argue that friendly language can be a diplomatic tactic or personal rapport useful for negotiation; some reporting notes Trump’s claims of being able to “get along” with adversary-leaders as proof he could accomplish deals others could not [4]. At the same time, the public record compiled in major outlets shows repeated episodes of flattering rhetoric and policy alignment with leaders widely labeled authoritarian, while also documenting dissenting expert takes that see such affinity as dangerous to democratic norms [2] [7]. This synopsis relies on the cited reportage; it does not attempt to adjudicate every motive behind individual remarks where primary transcripts or fuller context are not provided in the available sources [3] [1].
5. What this pattern means in practice
Taken together, the documented praise, transactional cooperation and repeated public affirmations constitute more than occasional compliments: they form a recurrent inclination by Trump to valorize or cultivate ties with leaders characterized as authoritarian, a tendency that commentators and watchdogs cite when warning about domestic institutional consequences and international normative shifts [2] [6] [5]. Opponents treat these ties as symptomatic of a broader project; supporters frame them as pragmatic relationship-building — the coverage shows both claims exist and that the empirical record contains numerous examples of praise and collaboration [1] [4].