The Changes in the US Policy Towards Europe and the Future of Europe

Summary: Since Trump's second term, he has completely overturned the traditional US policy towards Europe on a series of issues related to the core and major interests of Europe, resulting in significant changes that seriously harm European interests. The United States no longer regards Europe as an ally in terms of security, has shifted from overall cooperation to suppression and weakening in the economic field, and has begun to view Europe as an opponent rather than a like-minded partner in terms of ideology. The United States has significantly adjusted its policy towards Europe, which will shake the pillars of European diplomacy and security, impact European economic development, increase internal divisions and contradictions in Europe, and deteriorate the European geopolitical and security environment. The changes in the US policy towards Europe have brought unprecedented impacts to Europe. Europe is facing extremely urgent pressure to adjust its domestic and foreign policies, and the direction and extent of policy adjustments will largely determine Europe's future.

Since Trump's second term, the US policy towards Europe has completely changed from the cooperative and inclusive strategy adopted during Biden's administration. The US has become more hostile towards Europe, "basically showing no concern for the fate of Europe", leading to a dramatic change in the relationship between the US and Europe. In the face of the unprecedented shocks in the past 80 years, what will Europe do? Will it re-advance the construction of strategic autonomy and completely break away from its dependence on the US, or will it continue or even become more dependent on the US? This is an important issue that all parties are paying close attention to. This article attempts to make a preliminary analysis on this.

I. Changes in the United States' Policy towards Europe

Since the end of World War II, Europe and the United States have formed a powerful transatlantic alliance. Notably, the NATO military organization has tied together the diplomatic and security policies of both sides, becoming a strong bond and adhesive between Europe and the United States. Over the past 80 years, the relationship between Europe and the United States has been full of ups and downs, and even experienced serious differences and conflicts, such as trade disputes and trade wars, and conflicts regarding the second Iraq War. However, the differences and conflicts between Europe and the United States were mainly on specific issues and did not lead to fundamental changes in their relationship. Although the United States holds a dominant position in the transatlantic alliance, overall it has not harmed Europe's core interests, nor has it ever abandoned its security commitment to Europe. There are also similar views and policies on values such as democracy and human rights between Europe and the United States. Therefore, the overall relationship between Europe and the United States is stable and has considerable predictability. Since the beginning of Trump's second term, in a series of issues involving the core and major interests of Europe, he completely overturned the traditional US policy towards Europe, and there were significant changes that seriously harmed European interests.

Firstly, the United States no longer regards Europe as an ally but merely as an ordinary trading partner. This is a fundamental change for Europe. President Trump's approach is well-known. The Trump administration did not truly consider traditional allies, including Europe, as allies but merely regarded them as trading partners like other countries in the world. Specific policy changes include: First, territorial claims. President Trump repeatedly stated that Greenland is of great importance to US national security and will eventually belong to the United States. This move has brought unprecedented impacts not only to Denmark but also to other European countries. Second, changing the policy towards Ukraine. Over the past three years, the United States has adopted a position similar to that of the EU on the Ukraine issue, that is, providing military and financial assistance to Ukraine to help it fight against Russia. Since the start of his second term, Trump has focused mainly on ceasefire and peace in the Ukraine issue. The changed US policy towards Ukraine is completely opposite to the current EU policy towards Ukraine. Third, changing the policy towards Russia. The Trump administration does not view Russia as a threat like the Biden administration does. Instead, it has taken measures to ease relations with Russia and gradually normalize US-Russia relations. President Trump has had multiple phone calls with Putin, and the content of the calls is not limited to the Ukraine issue but also covers many issues such as US-Russia bilateral relations and cooperation in international affairs. This policy change has greatly shocked Europe. Europe regards Russia as the greatest security threat and believes that confrontation and containment should be the main policy towards Russia. Fourth, unwilling to commit to protecting European security. President Trump often attacks Europe for hitchhiking on the US and benefiting from it. During the election campaign, he claimed that he would not protect countries that do not invest enough in defense and would encourage Russia to attack these countries. The Trump administration has been actively promoting the end of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but it is unwilling to provide security guarantees to Ukraine and believes that this is a matter for Europe itself. Although President Trump himself did not claim to withdraw from NATO, the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO in the next few years is also low, but for Europe, the US's security guarantee has never been so weak. Fifth, attacking the EU. After World War II, the European integration process played an important role in the United States. The United States believed that a united Europe would be more conducive to the West's joint response to the Soviet Union. Successive US governments have more or less taken a supportive stance towards the EU and European integration, and no US president has ever attacked the EU and European integration. During his first term, President Trump was excited about Brexit and called the EU "the enemy"; since the start of his second term, President Trump's hostility towards the EU has increased, and he has so far refused to contact the leaders of EU institutions and has repeatedly called for the disintegration and collapse of the EU as a goal for relations with Europe. This is also an unprecedented major shock for Europe.

Secondly, economically, it has shifted from overall cooperation to suppression and weakening. There is a very close economic and trade relationship between the United States and Europe, with both countries being each other's largest trading partners. During Trump's first term, additional tariffs were imposed on EU steel and aluminum products, and the EU took countermeasures. During Biden's term, reconciliation actions were taken with the EU, temporarily terminating the imposition of tariffs on EU steel and aluminum products, and freezing the dispute between Boeing and Airbus over subsidies. Although the Biden administration still implemented the policy of "America First", its approach was more moderate and it paid more attention to listening to the opinions of the EU. The Biden administration also established a new dialogue mechanism with the EU, namely the so-called Technology and Trade Committee, under which the two sides communicated on economic, technological, and trade issues, resolving bilateral trade disputes and seeking a unified stance externally, especially regarding China. After the start of Trump's second term, he completely reversed the policy of seeking cooperation with the EU in economic issues implemented by the Biden administration, and was even more aggressive than in the first term. Trump claimed that the EU did not buy American agricultural products or American cars, and did not buy anything, and considered the EU's trade policy as "atrocities", and constantly declared that he would impose tariffs on EU export products. Trump had his unique thinking on tariffs. He believed that tariffs could bring tax revenue to the US government, could bring manufacturing back to the US and create more manufacturing jobs, and could force other governments to make concessions on a series of issues that the US was concerned about, such as territorial claims and drug control. Therefore, the tariff policy of the Trump administration may not be entirely targeted at the EU, but the EU was subjected to more severe impact due to its close economic ties with the United States. Moreover, the Trump administration did not treat European countries as allies differently, which made Europe feel aggrieved. In addition to trade frictions, the US's digital regulatory measures against the EU were also extremely dissatisfied. In 2024, the EU formulated and passed legislation such as the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, aiming to punish American tech giants such as Apple and Google. The Trump administration repeatedly warned the EU not to target American big enterprises, otherwise it would impose tariffs on the EU.

Finally, in terms of ideology, Europe began to be regarded as an opponent rather than a like-minded partner. For a long time, the values of the United States and Europe were largely consistent. They shared common goals and demands in terms of democracy, human rights, and other so-called liberal values. However, the "Make America Great Again" movement represented by President Trump was in conflict with the Democratic value system domestically, and it also conflicted with the so-called mainstream value system of Europe externally. Especially in its attitude towards the far-right political groups. The mainstream political parties in Europe generally adopted an exclusionary and suppressive attitude towards far-right political parties and tried to build a "firewall" to exclude far-right political parties from the government, with Germany being the most obvious example. During the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President Pence's speech was widely regarded by Europe as a declaration of war on Europe in terms of values. He accused Europe of abandoning the long-term consistent values with the United States, "suppressing freedom of speech", "fearing its voters", "allowing illegal immigration", etc., believing that Europe's exclusion of the far-right was a regression of democracy, and called for the removal of the "firewall", stating that the greatest threat to Europe was not Russia, not China, but the "regression of basic values" from within. After Pence's speech, he met with the leader of the Alternative for Germany party, Wiedel, but refused to meet German Chancellor Scholz. When President Trump held his inauguration ceremony on January 20th, the only European leader invited was Italian Prime Minister Meloni, and Meloni led the most right-wing government since World War II in Italy. Meloni herself was the leader of the Italian Brothers' Party, which was classified as far-right. The United States openly supported European far-right political parties, openly supported European division, and even interfered in the elections of European countries. This was also a major challenge for Europe. The mainstream French media, Le Monde, in an editorial claimed that the United States "is not only an economic and geopolitical enemy, but also an enemy of Europe in terms of politics and ideology" and is "a threat to European democracy". In terms of so-called Western common values such as democracy and human rights, the policy adjustments of the United States also pose a challenge to Europe. President Trump had a hostile attitude towards Ukrainian President Zelensky, even calling him a "dictator", but showed a clearly appreciative attitude towards Russian President Putin. In the eyes of Europeans, Putin is a "dictator" and launched an invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian President Zelensky is a democratically elected legitimate president. The policies of the Trump administration, such as disregarding international rules, withdrawing from the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the UN Human Rights Council, sanctioning judges of the International Criminal Court, and arbitrarily introducing unilateralist tariff policies, are all incompatible with the multilateralist international order that the EU has always advocated and directly harm the interests of Europe.

II. Impact on Europe

The relationship between the United States and Europe has been very close for a long time. Europe has long relied on the United States in areas such as security, technology, and economy. The United States' significant policy adjustments towards Europe will inevitably bring severe impacts and influences to Europe.

 Firstly, it will shake the pillar of European diplomacy and security. The transatlantic alliance, especially NATO, is the pillar of European diplomatic and security policies. Although the United States has reduced its military presence in Europe since the end of the Cold War, it still has over 80,000 troops stationed in 38 military bases across several European countries, and has also deployed nuclear warheads in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and other European countries. The security protection provided by the United States, especially the nuclear umbrella, is Europe's greatest reliance. In 2022, the European Union released its first defense white paper - "The Compass of Security and Defense Strategy", repeatedly emphasizing the fundamental position of NATO in the collective defense of Europe. That is to say, Europe's security strategy is built on the commitment of the United States to European security and defense. If the United States no longer wants to provide guarantees for European security, it means that the security strategy cornerstone on which Europe has relied for a long time has collapsed. At present, it seems that the Trump administration regards the EU as an enemy, regards NATO as a burden, is indifferent to the fate of Ukraine, and disregards Europe's security concerns. It has repeatedly hinted at reducing or withdrawing its troops from Europe. According to US media reports, the US Department of Defense is carrying out major reorganization of its military commands, and one of the schemes under consideration involves the US giving up the position of the highest commander of NATO's European allies. This position has been held by Americans since former US President Eisenhower. If this happens, it will be regarded as a major signal that the United States is preparing to leave Europe. US Defense Secretary Hagel has repeatedly claimed that Europe is no longer a priority concern for the United States, emphasizing that "the era of the United States as the sole protector of Europe's security has become a thing of the past." Therefore, even the most pro-American European countries have to admit that the past security strategy and security thinking are no longer applicable and require new strategies and thinking. Within Europe, Nordic countries such as Sweden, as well as Poland and the three Baltic states, are the most pro-American, have the greatest dependence on the United States in terms of security, and follow the United States most closely in diplomacy. But now, precisely these countries are the ones that have suffered the greatest impact and are the most difficult to accept and adapt to the changes in US policies.

The next impact is on the economic development of Europe. Over the past few years, the economic performance of Europe has been poor. The eurozone, which is the economic center of Europe, has only achieved a weak annual growth rate of around 0.7%. Many countries, especially Germany, have even fallen into recession. The reasons for the sluggish European economy are multifaceted. There are some structural problems within Europe itself, such as an imperfect single market, an aging population, and a welfare system that drags down growth. There are also geopolitical factors, especially the impact of the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Europe, especially Germany, has lost Russia as a source of cheap energy and an export market for manufactured goods, facing a huge pressure from energy prices that are several times higher than before. Enterprises have reduced production and gone bankrupt as a common phenomenon. At the same time, the EU and some European countries, out of reasons such as catering to the United States and ideological biases, have promoted the so-called "de-risking" strategy in their economic relations with China, using the claim of reducing dependence on China as a pretext to hinder the development of China-EU economic relations. Therefore, in this situation, the importance of the US market to the European economy is more prominent than before. "In 2022, the year when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out, the trade volume between Europe and the United States rose significantly, and the total imports and exports to the United States reached historical highs." In 2023, the EU exported 502 billion euros to the United States, accounting for 19.7% of the EU's total exports, with a surplus of 158 billion euros. Currently, the European economy is facing numerous pressures, with insufficient competitiveness, rapid growth of deficits and public debt, and continuous decline in consumer willingness. A large amount of funds that should have been used for technological research and green transformation have been used to assist Ukraine (so far, the EU has provided 139.2 billion euros in aid, including 49.3 billion euros in military aid) and defense expenditures. In the long term, this will further weaken the potential for economic development in Europe. The close economic ties with the United States and the large amount of exports and surpluses to the United States are important supports for the European economy. If a trade war between the United States and Europe breaks out and leads to a vicious cycle of continuously increasing mutual tariffs, it may become the "last straw" that collapses the European economy.

Secondly, there is an increase in internal divisions and conflicts within Europe. Due to differences in geographical environment, economic development level, etc., there have always been internal disputes and conflicts among European countries. For example, there are differences in threat perception between the East and the West, and differences in fiscal, monetary and foreign trade policies between northern and southern countries; there are also internal disputes within individual countries, such as the eastern part of Germany being more inclined to sympathize with Russia and oppose assistance to Ukraine, and the diverse tendencies of the majority of the public on the issue of immigration. These internal differences may further deepen due to the changes and adjustments of the US policy towards Europe. Firstly, the disputes and conflicts over immigration continue to increase. The far-right groups opposing immigration have gained momentum due to the support from the Trump administration, and will be more determined to promote their own propositions, thereby intensifying social division and political fragmentation. Secondly, there will be an increase in internal disputes and conflicts regarding how to respond to the US tariff war. Some countries within the EU, such as Italy, are calling on the European Commission to be cautious and not get involved in the trade war. Thirdly, the disputes and conflicts in defense issues have increased. Some countries in Northern Europe and Central Europe have a greater sense of urgency due to their proximity to Russia. For example, Poland's defense expenditure has already accounted for 4.7% of its GDP, and it is not difficult for it to reach the 5% target demanded by Trump. But for southern European countries like Italy and Spain, they basically do not have the security anxiety of a possible future Russian invasion. Fourthly, the geopolitical and security environment in Europe has deteriorated. In the past few years, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the east of Europe has continued, and the confrontation with Russia is difficult to improve in the foreseeable future. In the south, illegal immigrants and refugees are still continuously pouring in, and in the future, with the continuous wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and the climate change-induced natural disasters and human disasters in Africa, this problem will only become more severe. From a global perspective, due to Europe's double standards in the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine, it has largely lost the trust of "global South" countries.

Under the hard and soft pressure from the United States, Europe has actually been undermining the relations with Central Europe over the past few years. For instance, it has been promoting the so-called "de-risking" strategy, conducting so-called "anti-subversion" operations, and creating incidents in issues such as the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and Xinjiang. Therefore, before the launch of Trump 2.0, Europe was already very isolated globally and had an unprecedented reliance on the United States in all aspects of security, politics, and economy. But now, the Trump administration has begun to adjust its policy towards Europe, and the relationship between Europe and the United States has shifted from cooperation to confrontation. In the eyes of the United States, Europe has become a challenge, an enemy, or even a threat in the economic and ideological fields. It can be said that Europe has fallen into an unprecedented isolation and loneliness since World War II. Moreover, as a collective of small and medium-sized countries, Europe needs a predictable multilateralist international order and framework. However, the current US government shows no concern for multilateralist international mechanisms, and international politics and economy have fallen into an unprecedented fragmentation and uncertainty state. This is also a new international reality that Europe is facing.

III. The Future of Europe

The changes in the US policy towards Europe have brought an unprecedented impact to Europe. Europe is facing extremely urgent pressure to adjust its domestic and foreign policies, and the direction and extent of the policy adjustments in Europe will largely determine the future of Europe. Since the beginning of Trump's second term, with the changes in the US' domestic and foreign policies, especially the changes and adjustments in its policy towards Europe, discussions within Europe have also gradually intensified, and consensus has begun to form, namely that the era when Europe relied on the US might completely be in the past. In the future, Europe needs to defend its own interests by itself rather than relying on the US, especially in the fields of security and defense. French President Macron delivered a speech when Trump officially took office as president, stating that Europe needs a "strategic awakening" and should invest heavily in defense construction.

Firstly, there is the issue of funds. The 800 billion euros proposed by the EU will currently be financed through bond issuance. For countries with relatively lighter debt burdens like Germany, this might not be a problem, but for countries with heavy debt burdens, it will be extremely difficult. Secondly, there is the issue of integration. As a whole, the EU's military budget is actually not low; it is the second-largest military spending entity in the world after the United States. However, the larger problem in European defense is decentralization. Thirdly, there is the issue of social consensus. Regarding whether Russia is a real security threat, opinions vary among European countries, and there are also significant differences within each country. For example, the Alternative for Germany Party, the Left Party, and some other parties do not consider Russia a security threat and oppose increasing military spending for this reason. These parties represent at least more than one-third of the voters in Germany, so the "rearming" plan is also a highly controversial issue in Germany. Whether consensus can be reached on major issues will affect the progress of the EU's "rearming" plan. Finally, there is the issue of US intervention. From a security, technology, finance, or economic perspective, the United States does not want a strategically autonomous Europe. The United States hopes that Europe will increase military spending, but it prefers that the increased military spending be used to purchase American military equipment rather than promoting the development of the European military industry. Therefore, it is foreseeable that the United States will use its influence to undermine Europe's efforts at strategic autonomy and create divisions in Europe.

"Rearming" and strengthening Europe's hard power is crucial for ultimately forming a military capability independent of and not dependent on the United States. However, this is only one aspect of Europe's future development. Europe also needs to break away from its reliance on technology, finance, and economy from the United States; it needs to enhance social resilience and improve social cohesion; and it also needs to continuously strengthen integration in the fields of capital, finance, diplomacy, and defense. Looking to the future, there are numerous challenges. Europe needs to coordinate the relationship between economic development, social construction, and the "rearming" plan, strengthen constructive ties with other countries in the world, but the current situation is not optimistic.

Firstly, Europe lacks a leadership core. The traditional German-French axis has difficulty taking on the leadership role due to the decline of the respective powers of Germany and France and the development of populism within both countries. The supranational institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament have increasingly become bureaucratic and elitist, and thus have become more of a problem rather than a fair and impartial leader, and are also unable to play a role in uniting the member states of the European Union. Secondly, Europe lacks a pragmatic mindset. The openness and inclusiveness of the current Europe are decreasing, and the obsession with values is more stubborn. The contradictions among the countries within the EU and within each country will continue to consume the already dwindling cohesion, energy and vitality of the EU. Thirdly, Europe lacks strategic thinking, and is unable to view the world and the overall situation from outside the established thinking patterns of Europe and the West. This will greatly restrict the decision-making efficiency and future development of the EU.

Europe may eventually succeed in transforming itself and becoming an independent pole within a multipolar world under the stimulation of huge crises and pressures; however, it is more likely that, with the policy adjustments brought about by the regime change in the United States four years later, the urgency of Europe's transformation will decrease, the inertia of relying on the United States will rebound, and the internal contradictions within Europe will rise. As a result, the integration and transformation will face numerous difficulties. This round of strategic autonomy efforts will ultimately be like a fleeting flower, coming to nothing. If this happens, Europe will become even more marginalized in the world, completely becoming a player in the competition rather than a contender. This is the true tragedy of Europe. (Author: Zhang Jian, Vice President and Researcher, CICIR)

AI translation, with some omissions