EU-US Relations Under Trump’s Return: Tensions, Challenges, and Future Prospects
For the extended version of this article, please see the PDF linked below:
To read the Greek version of this article as published in “NB Daily,” please visit the link below:
Introduction
After a contentious presidential campaign, Donald Trump unexpectedly secured victory, defying widespread media predictions. European leaders expressed congratulations, but Brussels remains cautious about future EU–US relations. Tensions during Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021 over tariffs, NATO funding, and climate agreements raised concerns about the transatlantic alliance. With a changed global landscape since then, this analysis looks at Trump’s previous administration and recent policies to anticipate his new term’s impact on EU-US relations.
EU–US Trade Relations
In trade, Trump’s introduction of "steel and aluminum tariffs" – a 25% tax on steel and a 10% tax on aluminum – was based on national security concerns (Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act), although some questioned this reasoning. This action prompted the EU to retaliate with tariffs on American exports like bourbon, motorcycles, jeans, and boats.
In 2018, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker visited the White House to temporarily halt retaliatory measures. Trump’s use of tariffs to negotiate trade terms led to higher tensions, which he described as part of a "strategic approach." In a Bloomberg interview, he famously called tariffs his "favorite word" and cited a $300 billion trade deficit with the EU.
Trump's unorthodox trade approach caused friction. Today, as competitive pressures and protectionism rise, the EU examines how ongoing trade disputes impact its fragile economy. To avoid harmful competition, both the EU and US could benefit from collaboration.
Trump's Aversion to International Agreements
President Trump’s "America First" philosophy drove a unilateral approach to trade. During his first term, he blocked judge appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body, limiting its dispute resolution capabilities. He also began the process of withdrawing the US from the WHO, citing alleged bias and pandemic mismanagement. Similarly, the US left UNESCO over claims of anti-Israel bias and budget issues.
Trump’s focus on bilateral rather than multilateral trade deals was evident in his decision to withdraw from agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Additionally, he renegotiated NAFTA as the USMCA, aiming to enhance US trade positions.
In contrast, the EU has favored multilateralism, strengthening ties through agreements such as CETA with Canada and the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement. This difference in approach could further widen the EU-US gap in global diplomacy.
Climate Change and Energy Policy
Trump’s administration is likely to hinder global climate progress due to his opposition to green energy initiatives. Under Trump, the US left the Paris Climate Agreement, prioritizing conventional energy sectors like oil and gas. He criticized regulations on traditional energy, viewing them as barriers to job creation and growth.
In contrast, the EU has positioned itself as a leader in climate policy, championing renewable energy and sustainability. Trump’s "America First" approach favors energy independence, which may further widen the policy divide between the US and EU.
Defense and NATO
In 2018, Trump suggested the US could withdraw from NATO, raising concerns about the alliance’s unity and security. His frustration stemmed from European nations’ failure to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target. Although NATO members have since increased defense funding, the possibility of EU members seeking regional security autonomy has grown, raising the potential for new European defense frameworks.
The EU’s support for Ukraine and Trump’s uncertain stance on US aid to Ukraine could further test transatlantic relations. If Trump seeks closer ties with Putin, European countries may need to adapt their defense strategies accordingly.
EU’s Stringent Regulations
The EU’s regulatory policies—particularly in data privacy and digital markets—contrast with Trump’s preference for minimal regulation. The Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) set strict requirements for tech companies, focusing on user data protection and market fairness. Supporters argue these laws provide consumer safety and fair competition. Critics, including Trump, contend that excessive regulation could stifle tech sector growth.
This philosophical divide on regulation may impact negotiations on digital trade and corporate governance. The EU emphasizes public interest safeguards, while Trump’s administration prioritized business autonomy. This contrast highlights differing views on government roles in economic oversight.
Concluding Remarks
In summary, the EU and US may face challenging diplomatic terrain as Trump re-enters office, prioritizing American sovereignty and trade protectionism. Trump’s focus on deregulation and skepticism of multilateral agreements contrasts with the EU’s commitment to regulatory frameworks, climate goals, and multilateral partnerships.
Moving forward, successful EU-US collaboration may hinge on bridging these ideological divides. Both sides will need to balance competing national and collective interests amid a complex global landscape.
