This article compares exclusionary and inclusionary populism in Europe and Latin America, highlighting the need for cross-regional research on populism. It argues that a minimal definition of populism allows for analysis of current expressions in both regions. Based on four case studies—Jean-Marie Le Pen and the French National Front (FN), Jörg Haider and the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), Hugo Chávez and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and Evo Morales and the Movement for Socialism (MAS)—the article identifies two regional subtypes of populism: exclusionary in Europe and inclusionary in Latin America. Populism is defined as a thin-centred ideology that divides society into two groups: "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite," and argues that politics should reflect the general will of the people. The article distinguishes between exclusionary and inclusionary populism based on how populist actors define "the people" and "the elite," as well as the ideological features of their movements. European populism is predominantly exclusionary, focusing on excluding "aliens" and emphasizing cultural and national identity. Latin American populism is predominantly inclusionary, focusing on improving the lives of the poor and marginalized, and promoting social equity. The article also discusses the challenges of defining populism, noting that existing definitions are often broad or vague, leading to conceptual confusion. It proposes a minimal definition of populism that is applicable across regions and allows for empirical analysis. The article concludes that while both types of populism share a problematic relationship with liberal democracy, they differ in their focus and goals. European populism is primarily sociocultural, emphasizing the exclusion of non-natives, while Latin American populism is primarily socio-economic, emphasizing the inclusion of the poor. The article highlights the importance of cross-regional comparisons and the need for further research to understand the nuances of populism in different contexts.This article compares exclusionary and inclusionary populism in Europe and Latin America, highlighting the need for cross-regional research on populism. It argues that a minimal definition of populism allows for analysis of current expressions in both regions. Based on four case studies—Jean-Marie Le Pen and the French National Front (FN), Jörg Haider and the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), Hugo Chávez and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and Evo Morales and the Movement for Socialism (MAS)—the article identifies two regional subtypes of populism: exclusionary in Europe and inclusionary in Latin America. Populism is defined as a thin-centred ideology that divides society into two groups: "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite," and argues that politics should reflect the general will of the people. The article distinguishes between exclusionary and inclusionary populism based on how populist actors define "the people" and "the elite," as well as the ideological features of their movements. European populism is predominantly exclusionary, focusing on excluding "aliens" and emphasizing cultural and national identity. Latin American populism is predominantly inclusionary, focusing on improving the lives of the poor and marginalized, and promoting social equity. The article also discusses the challenges of defining populism, noting that existing definitions are often broad or vague, leading to conceptual confusion. It proposes a minimal definition of populism that is applicable across regions and allows for empirical analysis. The article concludes that while both types of populism share a problematic relationship with liberal democracy, they differ in their focus and goals. European populism is primarily sociocultural, emphasizing the exclusion of non-natives, while Latin American populism is primarily socio-economic, emphasizing the inclusion of the poor. The article highlights the importance of cross-regional comparisons and the need for further research to understand the nuances of populism in different contexts.