For decades, the transatlantic alliance has been the cornerstone of Western security and prosperity. Rooted in the post–World War II international order, this partnership was designed not only to promote collective defense through NATO but also to foster shared democratic values and economic interdependence. Yet today, actions and statements from the Trump administration suggest a departure from these long-standing norms.
This analysis examines whether the growing tensions are simply another temporary disruption or whether they represent a deeper, structural shift — one that could prompt Europe to reassess its reliance on the United States and consider adopting “de-risking” strategies within the transatlantic relationship.
The Trump Effect: Unsettling European Allies
President Donald Trump’s “America First” rhetoric has long signaled a strategy that prioritizes U.S. interests, even at the expense of longstanding alliances. Once confined to domestic policy, this approach now shapes foreign relations. The third anniversary of the Ukraine war coincided with growing transatlantic tensions, as divisions over the conflict exposed deeper rifts. Nowhere are these tensions more pronounced than in U.S.-European policies toward Ukraine.
Trump’s dismissive remarks regarding the Ukraine conflict — claiming “the war in Ukraine doesn’t have much of an effect on us because we have a big, beautiful ocean in between” — not only flout the post-World War II consensus that U.S. security is intricately linked to European stability but also undermine the moral imperatives that have historically guided American foreign policy. This rhetoric signals a tectonic shift in U.S. foreign policy that European leaders find increasingly difficult to ignore.
Further rattling Europe, Trump blamed Ukraine for igniting the conflict, labeled President Zelensky a “dictator,” and warned that failure to secure peace would cost Ukraine dearly. His diplomatic approach included sending a team to Saudi Arabia to hold talks with Russian officials — without Ukrainian or European involvement — while offering concessions to Moscow. It also included several versions of a proposed deal demanding a share of Kyiv’s rare earths and other minerals in exchange for aid, deal These measures have severely undermined European confidence in America’s commitment to the post–World War II security order.
Trump’s insistence on not calling out Russia as the aggressor, opting for neutral phrasing like “Russia-Ukraine conflict,” represents another departure from established diplomatic norms. At the United Nations, the pressure on Ukraine and the European Union to withdraw references to Russian aggression was widely seen as an attempt to normalize Russian expansionist narratives.
In a particularly alarming episode, Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February added fuel to the fire. In a speech that alarmed European allies, Vance scolded European democracies for straying from “shared values,” challenged their understanding of free speech, decried their failure to control “out-of-control migration,” and attacked German liberal parties for not collaborating with the far right. This rhetoric underscored a stark pivot in American policy, signaling a willingness to undermine the transatlantic order for short-term political and ideological gains.
Even more concerning, Trump’s unsubstantiated claim during his first Cabinet meeting that the EU was formed to subvert U.S. interests, coupled with threats levy 25% tariffs, reflected a willingness to abandon long-standing diplomatic frameworks for protectionist, nationalistic policies.
Yet the most breathtaking development was the February 28 White House meeting — an unprecedented public showdown in which Trump and Vance berated Zelensky for insufficient gratitude and tried to strong-arm him into accepting a U.S.-dictated peace deal. The sight of a leader of a nation fighting for survival abruptly leaving — or being expelled from — the White House after a heated Oval Office confrontation was a stunning moment bound to send shockwaves through Europe.
To be sure, the history of the transatlantic partnership is rich with crises. The Suez Crisis of 1956, the nuclear strategy disputes of the 1960s, the Euromissiles confrontation in the 1980s, the controversies during the Kosovo war in 1999, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 all highlight that transatlantic tensions are not new. Yet, what differentiates the current situation is its structural nature. Earlier disputes, though serious, were rooted in policy differences that could eventually be reconciled. In contrast, the Trump administration’s approach threatens the very ideological foundations of the alliance — undermining collective defense, democratic governance, and economic interdependence. This signals a deeper shift toward a more fragmented global order, where power might eclipse shared values.
Seismic Shocks and Europe’s Reality Check
Amid a torrent of remarks and actions from the Trump administration that many interpret as active hostility, European leaders are scrambling to adapt. Some have called for greater strategic autonomy to counteract the uncertainty introduced by the Trump administration’s unpredictability. For example, Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has explicitly stated that the Trump administration “does not care much about the fate of Europe” and stressed the need for the continent to “strengthen Europe as quickly as possible” to reduce its dependency on the United States. This sentiment reflects a broader realization in Europe: the transatlantic relationship, while still vital, can no longer be taken for granted.
French President Emmanuel Macron, in turn, has sought to assert leadership, rallying European allies to craft a unified response to what he referred to as the “existential threat” from Russia, convening two emergency meetings. European Council President Antonio Costa has announced the convening of an emergency summit on March 6 about next steps for Ukraine and Europe’s security. His calls for European solidarity culminated in emergency meetings to address the situation, signaling a shift towards more self-reliant European defense policies.
As European leaders wrestle with the implications of continued support for Ukraine, they also seek to reaffirm their commitment to Kyiv’s sovereignty. President Costa has underscored the war’s broader geopolitical stakes, emphasizing that “We are living a defining moment for Ukraine and European security.”
This geopolitical instability has come at a time when Europe is already struggling to strengthen its defense capabilities. The U.S. maintains a substantial military presence in Europe, with around 100,000 troops stationed across the continent, most notably in Germany. A recent report estimates that Europe would need an additional 300,000 troops, costing $262 billion, to fully replace the U.S. in providing defense. For the foreseeable future, Europe remains heavily reliant on the U.S. security umbrella.
Yet, even as Europe seeks to bolster its defense posture, it faces significant economic hurdles. Retaliatory tariffs, in response to U.S. protectionist policies, might not yield the expected benefits, as many European states depend heavily on the U.S. both as an export market and a source of critical imports. The potential for inflation and a destabilizing trade war loom, further complicating Europe’s economic landscape. Achieving EU-wide consensus on such economic measures is also fraught with difficulty, and unilateral actions risk deepening intra-European divisions.
Amid the Trump administration’s pursuit of negotiations with Russia to end the war in Ukraine, the European Council adopted a 16th package of economic and individual restrictive measures designed to target key sectors of the Russian economy. In the immediate term, should a truce be secured, Britain and France are weighing the deployment of troops as part of a potential European “reassurance force” in Ukraine. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain without U.S. backing, and it is unclear whether Washington would agree to support such an initiative. This type of diplomatic maneuvering, coupled with Trump’s controversial foreign policy approach, underscores the dissonance in U.S.-European relations and heightens concerns within Europe about the reliability of American commitment.
In parallel, Europe has intensified efforts to strengthen its defense capabilities. Discussions on joint defense spending have gained traction, with a focus on financing models like issuing joint debt. Ursula von der Leyen has floated the idea of an “escape clause for defense investments,” enabling member states to fund defense projects without breaching EU fiscal constraints. Despite these efforts, the feasibility of such measures remains uncertain, given Europe’s fragmented defense industry and the practical challenges of harmonizing national military capabilities.
On the economic front, EU officials have traveled to Washington trying to head off a trade war — but to no apparent effect. A meeting scheduled for February 26 between EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and Secretary of State Marco Rubio was abruptly canceled, with officials citing “scheduling issues.” The growing realization that Europe may no longer be able to rely on the U.S. for support has led to a sense of urgency about forging independent paths in both defense and economic policy.
The Challenge of “De-Risking” from the United States
The idea of “de-risking” from the United States, initially discussed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in the context of China, could find relevance as Europe reassesses its relationship with Washington. However, de-risking does not equate to a wholesale abandonment of the transatlantic alliance; rather, it suggests a strategic shift toward diversifying defense capabilities and economic partnerships. In practical terms, de-risking could see Europe reduce its reliance on U.S. markets, seek closer partnerships with Asia-Pacific democracies like Japan and India, and invest in indigenous defense technologies.
The challenge lies in Europe’s diverse political, economic, and strategic realities. However, the action-forcing events since Trump re-entered the White House — themselves a seismic shock — could not come at a worse time for Europe. Russian influence operations, authoritarian politics growing in Central Europe, and ultra-nationalist and far-right ideas likewise strong in Austria, Germany, France and elsewhere only compounds the sense of vulnerability. This ideological shift, alongside more traditional security concerns, makes it more difficult for European countries to forge and maintain a unified stance on both defense and foreign policy issues.
Consider Germany, for instance, Europe’s largest economy, which faces the dual challenge of revitalizing a struggling industrial base while shouldering significant fiscal burdens. The task of substantially raising defense spending to assume greater responsibility for its own security is politically fraught, especially when balanced against the need to maintain robust social welfare commitments. The same fiscal constraints and internal political pressures are echoed across other European states grappling with populist insurgencies — movements that mirror the polarization which brought Trump to power in the United States.
Thus, Europe’s quest for strategic autonomy and defense independence is stymied not only by military and economic limitations but also by the ideological rifts between the U.S. and Europe and within the continent. Indeed, the growing fragmentation within the EU, fueled by rising nationalism and political polarization, poses an additional challenge to Europe’s ability to navigate these multiple crises effectively. Europe finds itself facing an urgent need for both greater defense capacity and economic unity while also combating the rise of ideologies that threaten to undermine its stability and cohesion.
The notion of rapidly integrating defense production, for instance, is beset by practical difficulties: it requires not only significant financial investments but also the harmonization of disparate national defense industries — a task that may well take decades rather than years. Furthermore, the time required to weave consensus among European nations cannot be underestimated. The political will needed to overhaul entrenched systems — whether in ramping up defense spending or deepening economic diversification — is often at odds with immediate domestic priorities. The strategic investments and reforms necessary to effect meaningful change are likely to encounter resistance from voters and political actors who remain skeptical of shifting away from traditional, albeit imperfect, transatlantic ties.
In this light, while the imperative of de-risking is clear from a strategic perspective, the path forward is riddled with obstacles. The internal divisions, fiscal constraints, and bureaucratic inertia within Europe raise serious questions about the feasibility of executing such a sweeping transformation in the short to medium term.
Implications for the Future of the Transatlantic Alliance
The structural nature of the current rift suggests that we are witnessing more than just another cyclical downturn in U.S.-European relations. The Trump administration’s actions — characterized by isolationist rhetoric, contradictory policies, and a willingness to engage in unilateral coercion — have opened a window for Europe to reassert its own strategic agency. While an outright decoupling between the United States and Europe remains unlikely due to deep economic, military, and historical ties, the alliance might evolve into one that is more balanced and less dependent on American direction.
The recalibration of this relationship also carries significant implications for global security. If the transatlantic alliance becomes more fragmented — especially in terms of approaches to China and Russia — the resulting vacuum could be exploited by rival powers. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent remarks have implicitly acknowledged, the era of unchallenged U.S. hegemony is drawing to a close. Yet, even as the United States concedes that we live in a multipolar world, it continues to act as though it retains unilateral control over global affairs. This duality in strategy may ultimately force European leaders to craft a more resilient, diversified foreign policy framework.
Moreover, the support of far-right nationalist movements in Europe by Trump officials —including overt gestures such as hosting Hungary’s Viktor Orban at Mar-a-Lago and engaging with figures like Alice Weidel of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party — represents an ideological attack on the liberal democratic order. This facet of the current rift challenges the very identity of Europe as a bastion of democratic governance, social welfare, and transnational cooperation. European responses to this ideological incursion are likely to reinforce a commitment to democratic values even as strategic considerations push toward greater autonomy.
The long-term outcome of these dynamics remains uncertain. Should future U.S. administrations shift course and reaffirm traditional alliances, reconciliation might be possible. However, if the current trend toward strategic retrenchment and unilateral coercion continues, the transatlantic relationship will likely be redefined along new, less interdependent lines. The future of the transatlantic relationship hinges on Europe’s ability to adapt to a changing geopolitical environment while safeguarding its core values.
