RESHAPING THE TRANSATLANTIC ORDER: THE IMPACT OF A SECOND TRUMP PRESIDENCY

Perspectives

The prospect of a second Donald Trump presidency has sparked considerable debate across Europe regarding the political, economic, and security challenges it may pose to the region. European leaders and experts have voiced concerns about the potential destabilization of transatlantic relations and the broader implications for Europe’s autonomy and global standing.

Given the destabilizing impact of Trump’s policies during his previous term, a second Trump presidency is particularly concerning to European leaders. Trump frequently criticized NATO, suggesting that U.S. support for the alliance could become conditional upon member states' defense spending levels. This stance caused significant unease across Europe, especially among nations that rely heavily on U.S. military backing for their security.

Experts and policymakers in Europe are concerned that Trump's unpredictable policies could undermine established security arrangements and disrupt the transatlantic order. Of particular concern is Trump’s critical view of NATO, which they believe could embolden "revisionist powers" such as Russia, thereby increasing instability within the European region. These fears are heightened by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where European nations already face significant security risks.

In September and October 2024, the International Centre for Security and Europe (ICSE) interviewed several prominent European and U.S. experts, analysts, and journalists to explore the potential consequences of Trump’s re-election for Europe. Among those interviewed were David Hannay, former UK ambassador and permanent representative to the European Economic Community (1985-1990) and the United Nations; Michael Einik, an American diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Macedonia, now a professor at the American Graduate School in Paris; Michael Sellars, author and former CIA officer who served in Europe, Russia, and the Philippines; and Régis Gente, a French journalist and expert on the Former Soviet Union (FSU), who recently authored Our Man in Washington: Trump in the Hands of the Russians (October 2024).*

We also interviewed several European civil servants who preferred to remain anonymous. Their views are summarized at the end of each section under "Other Views."

Drawing on these experts' insights, this essay synthesizes their perspectives on how Europe might respond to a second Trump presidency, addressing the critical political, economic, and security implications.

1. How do you assess Trump's arrival from a European political perspective?

A second Trump presidency is widely viewed as politically destabilizing for Europe. David Hannay highlights Trump’s disdain for the European Union (EU) and his desire to weaken the bloc by fostering internal divisions. Trump’s open support for nationalist leaders like Viktor Orban reflects his preference for undermining liberal democracies in favor of authoritarian-style governance. Hannay warns that this approach could exacerbate tensions within the EU, leading to a loss of political cohesion across Europe. He evokes “the run-up to 1914 when chaotic unpredictability became the order of the day—and that was without nuclear weapons.”

Similarly, Michael Einik emphasizes Trump’s short-term, transactional mindset, which contrasts sharply with the long-term strategic thinking that has historically defined the transatlantic alliance. Einik suggests that Trump’s lack of understanding of the global order the U.S. helped establish after World War II would leave Europe politically vulnerable. Without strong U.S. leadership, Europe risks being left to navigate an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment without the support it has relied on for decades.

For Michael Sellars, Trump’s rejection of multilateralism could weaken Europe’s ability to maintain a unified foreign policy. Trump’s tendency to prioritize bilateral deals over collective agreements could lead to a fragmentation of Europe’s diplomatic efforts, as individual countries may pursue their interests rather than working together. Sellars warns that this could create a sense of uncertainty among European leaders, making it harder to maintain stability.

Adding to these concerns, Régis Gente delves into Trump’s socio-political orientation, asserting that Trump harbors a fundamental dislike for the Europe that exists today—a Europe that embodies liberalism, human rights, and multilateralism. Gente explains that Trump’s preference for authoritarian figures like Orban and Putin aligns with his rejection of Europe’s liberal values. Gente argues that Trump’s second term would lead to increasingly tense relations between the U.S. and Europe, especially if Trump continues to distance the U.S. from NATO and other multilateral institutions. This political divergence could further strain the transatlantic relationship, leaving Europe isolated on the global stage.

Other Views

Europe must be prepared for any eventuality. One civil servant emphasized the need for Europe to strengthen its political autonomy by reinforcing the EU’s internal cohesion in preparation for the political shifts that Trump’s presidency would bring. Trump’s political influence extends beyond direct interactions with European leaders. His rhetoric has emboldened far-right populist movements across Europe, which thrive on anti-EU sentiment and opposition to liberal democratic norms. European populist leaders have embraced Trump’s style of rhetoric, drawing on his anti-establishment and nationalist messaging to galvanize their support bases.

In a second Trump presidency, these populist movements could gain further traction, potentially weakening European political unity. The rise of populism has already created challenges in EU governance, as demonstrated by countries like Hungary. Trump’s return would likely encourage these countries to defy Brussels, creating further fractures within the Union.

defy

2. How do you assess Trump's arrival from a European economic perspective?

Michael Einik expresses concern about Trump’s protectionist tendencies, particularly his use of tariffs and trade barriers. During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs on European goods, creating friction in the transatlantic trade relationship. Einik predicts that a second Trump presidency would likely see an increase in tariffs and less cooperation on trade agreements, further damaging economic ties between Europe and the U.S.

David Hannay expands on this by comparing Trump’s economic agenda to the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s, which triggered a global trade war. Hannay warns that Trump’s protectionism could provoke retaliatory measures from Europe, leading to a breakdown in trade relations and significant disruptions in investment flows between the two regions. This economic instability would have far-reaching consequences for industries that depend on transatlantic trade, such as automotive manufacturing and technology.

Michael Sellars holds a similar view. According to Sellars, if Trump resumes his policies of aggressive trade measures, Europe could face economic disruptions, especially in industries like automotive and technology. Conversely, some European countries might seek closer ties with China or other economic powers as a counterbalance, further fragmenting Western alliances.

Régis Gente introduces another important dimension: Trump’s potential impact on global energy markets. To appease his domestic electorate, Trump could flood the global market with American gas, driving down prices and creating economic challenges for Europe. While this policy could weaken Russia’s energy dominance, it might also destabilize European energy markets, particularly for countries heavily reliant on imported gas. Gente notes that Trump’s actions would likely be driven by short-term political considerations rather than a strategic long-term vision, complicating Europe’s efforts to manage its energy transition and meet its climate goals.

Other Views

To better understand the potential economic impact of Trump’s policies, it is useful to explore the broader history of U.S.-European economic relations. Over the decades, the transatlantic partnership has been shaped by both cooperation and conflict, with trade agreements like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) representing efforts to harmonize economic policies. However, Trump’s first term saw a sharp departure from this cooperative approach, as he prioritized unilateral actions that undermined the global trade system. Trump's presidency could push Europe to enhance its economic autonomy. Europe has to deepen its internal economic strength and become less dependent on the U.S., a step crucial for weathering the potential economic shifts under Trump’s presidency.

3. What threats does Trump's arrival pose for Europe?

The security implications of a second Trump presidency are particularly concerning for Europe. David Hannay underscores the risk that Trump’s hostility toward NATO could undermine the alliance’s collective security framework. Since the end of World War II, NATO has been the cornerstone of Europe’s defense, providing a deterrent against external threats, particularly from Russia. Hannay warns that Trump’s disregard for NATO’s importance could embolden adversaries like Russia, increasing the risk of military conflict along Europe’s eastern borders.

Michael Sellars echoes Hannay’s concerns, noting that Trump’s transactional approach to alliances could weaken Europe’s ability to respond to security challenges. During his first term, Trump repeatedly questioned the value of NATO, suggesting that the U.S. should reduce its contributions unless European countries increased their defense spending. Sellars argues that this rhetoric not only destabilized NATO but also created uncertainty about the U.S. commitment to defending Europe in the event of a crisis.

Régis Gente adds that Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin complicates Europe’s security. Gente points out that Trump’s admiration for authoritarian leaders, coupled with his reluctance to confront Russia over its aggressive actions in Ukraine, could undermine European security interests. If Trump continues to prioritize his relationship with Putin over the defense of Europe, it could leave countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states vulnerable to Russian expansionism.

Other Views

NATO’s importance to European security cannot be overstated. Since its founding in 1949, the alliance has provided a framework for collective defense, ensuring that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. This principle of collective defense has been instrumental in deterring Russian aggression, particularly during the Cold War.

However, Trump’s first term saw a weakening of NATO’s cohesion, as his administration questioned the utility of the alliance and suggested that the U.S. might withdraw if European countries did not meet their defense spending commitments. The EU should examine alternative security arrangements that Europe could pursue if the U.S. reduces its involvement in NATO, such as the European Defense Fund and increased military cooperation within the EU.

4. What opportunities does Trump's arrival bring for Europe?

Despite the significant risks, a second Trump presidency also presents opportunities for Europe to assert greater independence. According to David Hannay, Europe—or at least parts of it—could seize the moment to strengthen security cooperation and make NATO more effective, particularly with Keir Starmer’s new security pact. Hannay argues that Europe could avoid protectionist policies and instead work with other major global players like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Brazil to uphold global trade and investment. Europe could also refuse to engage in the sort of transactional dealings that Trump favors, opting instead for more principled and long-term agreements.

Michael Sellars believes that Trump’s isolationist policies could push Europe to bolster its defense mechanisms and reduce its reliance on U.S. military support. Sellars contends that this shift could ultimately benefit Europe by fostering greater cooperation within the EU on security matters, leading to a more autonomous and capable Europe.

Michael Einik echoes this view, suggesting that Trump’s retreat from global leadership could provide Europe with an opportunity to play a larger role in shaping the future of the international order. Einik notes that Europe has long been shielded under the U.S.-led system established after World War II, but Trump’s withdrawal from multilateralism could force Europe to take on a more active role in global governance. This could include taking leadership on issues such as climate change, international trade, and human rights, areas where the U.S. has traditionally been a dominant player.

Régis Gente adds that Trump’s potential disinvestment from NATO could push European countries to take greater control of their defense. This could lead to more robust military cooperation within the EU and greater investment in defense capabilities, allowing Europe to act more independently in securing its borders. Gente argues that this shift toward greater autonomy could also strengthen Europe’s ability to resist both Russian pressure and U.S. influence, positioning Europe as a more self-reliant actor on the global stage.

Other Views

For Europe, the path to greater autonomy is not without its challenges. Achieving a more independent security and defense policy will require significant investment in military capabilities and a willingness to deepen cooperation between EU member states. Europe should explore concrete steps, such as expanding the European Defense Fund, establishing a more integrated military command structure, and potentially increasing the EU’s defense budget. Europe must also be prepared for an eventual confrontation with Russia, without relying on U.S. military backing. Greater autonomy will mean that Europe must be ready to manage its defense independently, while still cooperating with its key allies where necessary.

5. What should Europeans do in case of Trump's arrival?

In light of the challenges posed by a potential second Trump presidency, experts emphasize that Europe must adopt a proactive and strategic approach. David Hannay advises Europe to focus on strengthening its internal security cooperation, particularly within NATO. He warns that Trump’s attempts to undermine European unity should be met with calm, measured responses. Hannay stresses that Europe should avoid public confrontations or aggressive rhetoric with Trump, as this would likely escalate tensions. Instead, Europe should protect its interests through quiet, firm diplomacy, ensuring that it does not capitulate to Trump’s demands.

Michael Einik builds on this advice, urging Europe to look beyond the immediate challenges posed by Trump’s presidency. Einik argues that Europe should seize this period as an opportunity to redefine itself on the global stage. Rather than reacting to Trump’s policies daily, European policymakers should focus on long-term strategic planning. This entails investing in think tanks, fostering expert dialogue, and formulating policies that will help Europe navigate a rapidly shifting world order.

Michael Sellars concurs, emphasizing the importance of contingency planning. Sellars advises Europe to strengthen its defense mechanisms and diversify its diplomatic and economic relationships to ensure stability throughout Trump’s presidency. Europe should also prepare for potential trade conflicts by creating robust contingency plans and forging stronger alliances with other global powers such as China, India, and Japan, to counterbalance the effects of U.S. protectionism.

Régis Gente, while avoiding speculation on specific strategies, echoes the sentiment that Europe must be prepared for the worst. Gente underscores the need for European countries to take control of their future, especially if the U.S. decides to reduce its commitments to NATO or other multilateral agreements. Gente’s emphasis on self-reliance highlights the broader need for Europe to act decisively in the face of uncertainty.

Other Views

Europe’s response to Trump’s potential re-election must be both immediate and forward-thinking. In the short term, Europe will need to strengthen its diplomatic channels with the U.S. while continuing to work closely with NATO allies to ensure the alliance remains intact. In the long term, Europe must work towards achieving greater political and economic autonomy. This could involve investing in cybersecurity capabilities, developing renewable energy to reduce reliance on external powers, and expanding its influence in multilateral organizations like the United Nations. Europe’s future hinges on its ability to prepare for the challenges Trump’s presidency could present both in the short and long term.

6. How should relations with Trump be built?

Managing relations with Trump will require a careful and pragmatic approach. David Hannay cautions that engaging with Trump may prove difficult, particularly given his preference for transactional diplomacy and public confrontation. Hannay advises that Europe should avoid engaging Trump in aggressive rhetoric, as doing so could play into his hands. Instead, European leaders should focus on maintaining firm, quiet diplomacy that protects their interests without provoking unnecessary conflict.

Michael Einik reinforces this point, noting that European leaders must not overreact to Trump’s often inflammatory rhetoric. Einik suggests that while Trump’s statements are designed to appeal to his political base, they do not always reflect his actual policy intentions. Therefore, European leaders should pay closer attention to the decisions being made by Trump’s administration. Einik emphasizes the importance of building relationships with key figures in Trump’s administration who have a more conservative, internationally oriented outlook, as these individuals may help to stabilize U.S. foreign policy.

Michael Sellars adds that Europe must maintain its commitment to core values like democracy, human rights, and multilateralism, even as it engages with Trump’s administration. While diplomatic channels should remain open, Europe should be prepared to stand firm on key global issues such as climate change, trade, and security. Sellars warns that Trump’s disregard for international norms could destabilize global systems. Europe must be ready to defend its long-term interests, even if doing so puts it at odds with the U.S.

Régis Gente stresses that Europe must remain vigilant and avoid complacency. Gente highlights Trump’s unpredictability and his preference for authoritarian leaders as key factors that could complicate diplomatic relations. Gente argues that Europe should focus on maintaining its diplomatic autonomy, ensuring that it does not become overly dependent on U.S. leadership. By doing so, Europe can better navigate the complexities of Trump’s presidency without compromising its core values.

Other Views

Effective diplomacy with Trump will require Europe to balance its need for cooperation with the United States, especially in areas like NATO defense commitments, trade agreements, and managing international crises, while also safeguarding its commitment to maintaining an independent foreign policy. For example, Europe will need to engage the U.S. on NATO funding and military coordination, particularly given the increasing security threats from Russia and ongoing challenges in Eastern Europe. However, Europe must also be prepared to distance itself on key policy differences, such as climate change—where Trump previously withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord—and global trade, where Trump’s protectionist policies may clash with Europe’s goals for free trade and multilateralism. Navigating these challenges will require Europe to find common ground where possible, but also to establish firm red lines on issues that affect its sovereignty and long-term interests.

7. What might be the trajectory of military cooperation between Europe and the United States under Trump's leadership?

Military cooperation between Europe and the U.S. under a second Trump presidency is likely to face significant challenges. David Hannay warns that Trump’s hostility toward NATO could weaken the alliance’s collective security framework, which has been crucial for Europe’s defense since World War II. Hannay emphasizes that Europe must enhance its security mechanisms and defense cooperation—particularly with the inclusion of the UK—to compensate for the uncertainty surrounding U.S. military commitments.

Michael Sellars agrees, suggesting that Europe should no longer rely on U.S. military support to the same degree. While institutional ties between European and U.S. militaries would likely persist, Sellars stresses that Europe must increase its defense spending and pursue greater military integration within the EU. This would allow Europe to act more independently if U.S. support becomes unreliable under Trump’s leadership.

Michael Einik adds that Trump’s strained relationship with the U.S. military could also impact the trajectory of military cooperation. During his first term, Trump expressed frustration with key military figures and often approached military alliances from a transactional standpoint, favoring arms deals over long-term partnerships. Einik suggests that Europe must be prepared for a shift in U.S. defense policy, with a greater focus on arms sales and military deals than on strategic cooperation. Europe will need to reinforce its military capabilities and seek alternative alliances to ensure its security.

Régis Gente provides additional insight into Trump’s views on NATO and European defense. Gente notes that Trump’s stance on NATO, while outwardly focused on defense spending, is likely driven by deeper political instincts. Trump’s criticisms of NATO reflect his broader disdain for multilateralism and preference for transactional diplomacy. Gente argues that Europe should focus on taking greater control of its defense, reducing its reliance on U.S. military support, and investing in its capabilities to ensure long-term security.

Other Views

Europe’s defense autonomy is a critical issue in the context of a second Trump presidency. If the U.S. begins to scale back its commitments to NATO or adopts a more isolationist approach, Europe will face increasing pressure to take responsibility for its security. This will require significant enhancement of European military capabilities and the development of a more cohesive and strategic defense plan. Achieving greater defense autonomy will involve several concrete steps. First, European nations must commit to increasing their defense budgets, particularly in countries that have historically relied heavily on U.S. military support. This includes reaching or surpassing NATO’s target of 2% GDP spending on defense, a benchmark that several European countries have struggled to meet.

Second, expanding the European Defense Fund (EDF) will be essential. The EDF, established to foster cooperation in defense technologies and innovation, will need additional resources to support joint research, development, and procurement initiatives across EU member states. By pooling resources, Europe can strengthen its industrial base for defense technology and reduce dependency on foreign suppliers, particularly from the U.S.

Third, Europe must promote deeper military integration within the EU itself. Initiatives such as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) should be expanded to include more collaborative projects, from joint military training to the development of shared military infrastructure. Greater integration will not only improve Europe’s readiness to respond to security threats but will also enable EU nations to deploy rapid reaction forces more efficiently. In parallel, the EU should work towards establishing an independent command structure that coordinates its military operations and enhances intelligence sharing across borders.

Ultimately, achieving defense autonomy will require Europe to strike a balance between maintaining strong transatlantic ties and preparing for a future in which it can defend itself independently. As the U.S. potentially retreats from NATO commitments under Trump’s leadership, Europe must be ready to stand on its own militarily while still fostering collaborative relationships with key allies both within and outside of NATO.

Conclusion

A second Trump presidency presents significant political, economic, and security challenges for Europe. However, these challenges also offer Europe an opportunity to assert its autonomy and redefine its role in the global order. By strengthening its internal cohesion, enhancing its defense capabilities, and maintaining its commitment to multilateralism, Europe can navigate the uncertainties of a second Trump presidency while positioning itself as a more self-reliant global leader.

The insights provided by our respondents underscore the need for Europe to adopt a proactive and strategic approach in response to Trump’s leadership. By focusing on long-term goals and investing in its political, economic, and security infrastructure, Europe can mitigate the risks posed by Trump’s policies and emerge as a stronger, more independent actor on the world stage.

* Régis Genté - Notre homme à Washington, Grasset, Paris, 2024