Targeting key issues like immigration, global security and trade, Donald Trump’s second win as U.S. president already has affected Europe.
Leaders across Europe continue to gawk at the list of actions taken by Trump when it comes to the region. His controversial reign began with a series of decisions disrupting the fragile political landscape.
Within a span of six weeks, he issued orders to deport undocumented immigrants. To curb foreign spending, he halted USAID funding. Added to the European Union’s (EU) dismay is the POTUS’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Then acting as a go-between, he suggested direct talks with Vladimir Putin to address the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Eventually, he withdrew support for Ukraine after a White house confrontation with the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Donato Marcello, an Italian author and specialist in politics and international cooperation, told Ark Republic that both regions have a commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, which over time, created a strong cultural and political bond. Furthering the relationship were economic partnerships made through trade agreements and shared markets.
Solidifying the U.S.-Europe strategic partnership is a continued collaboration in NATO and joint efforts in addressing global security challenges, such as counterterrorism and peacekeeping missions. Despite occasional tensions, these common interests and values kept a strong alliance.
But as of late, there is a growing divide.
On global security, Trump’s populist “America First” approach and questioning U.S. commitments to NATO raise concerns about Europe’s security framework. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, remarked that the U.S. would “no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship” with its allies regarding Ukraine. Meaning, the NATO allies, particularly the EU, should contribute more financially and militarily to the alliance.
While the U.S. took a more isolationist approach on NATO and the Paris Agreement, European countries remained committed to addressing climate change. As a result, these policies prompted Europe to adapt and strengthen its own international standing and alliances.
Even though many EU leaders reject a number of Trump’s positions, he still has an established network of firm believers and supporters worldwide. Namely, far right activists and politicians in the European Union who support the MEGA (Make Europe Great Again) movement launched by Elon Musk, who mirror Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) mantra.
According to Steven Forti, a researcher at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, EU patriots want “to take advantage of the wave triggered by Trump’s victory” in order to reshape the balance in Europe. This is after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and France’s Marine Le Pen headlined a rally in Madrid by Europe’s biggest far-right bloc, buoyed[1] by Donald Trump’s return to power, calling for “a 180-degree pivot.”
Race and Migration
Trump’s stance on immigration, including removing unlawful migrants out of the U.S. and the promise of “mass deportations” on border security, led to tensions with European nations advocating for more open asylum policies.
On February 19, he signed an executive order to redirect U.S. taxpayer monies from incentivizing or supporting unlawful immigration. According to him, the surge in undocumented individuals, enabled by the previous administration, in siphoning dollars and essential services from American citizens while state and local budgets grow increasingly strained.
On the other side of the pond, his reelection generated a wave of uncertainty, birthing protests in the US in support of the undocumented, whilst driving EU leaders to a sit down.
While no European leader or bureaucrat threatened to deport 20 million people or ban Muslims—except, perhaps, former President Donald Trump’s favorite European, Hungarian strongman, PM Orbán—the EU and Trump are closer on the issue of migration than words may suggest. At a meeting in Brussels, EU leaders spent hours discussing migrant processing centers, speedier deportations and “hybrid warfare” by hostile powers using migrants to destabilize EU countries.
In terms of relations with the EU, Marlon Weems, an opinion journalist specializing in the intersection of U.S. politics and the economy, told Ark Republic that Trump’s stances are guided by racism and rather than informed by economic factors. “Most white immigrants in the North have been settling in over a period of years and no one seems to say a thing,” he outlined.
Further, he noted that the US always had a way to set the pace when it comes to shared global issues. Hence, following Trump’s migration policies, European countries will feel comfortable pushing their own extreme policies as well.
Also a former Wall Street trader, Weems highlighted Trump’s previous statements regarding immigrants stealing “Black jobs” or claiming that they, particularly undocumented ones, depend on welfare lacks entirety and truth.
On the other hand, Marcello mentioned the contradictory aspect of the fact that the US was built by immigrants. In terms of EU-US relations, as he views them, the fast-growing and trendy far-right movements in Europe are heavily influenced by uncontrolled immigration, which in many ways is similar to the US.
For Marcello, the EU does not have a common immigration policy as the U.S. Each country has its own policies. For example, a country like Italy that served as the gateway for illegal immigration is secluded by other EU countries in recent years. Subsequent to Trump’s latest moves, this might somehow unite the fast rising far-right movement to imitate Trump’s actions, hence creating a strong alliance leaning towards the same goal.
In agreement to Weem’s words, he said that “I feel that it’s simple, the EU will decide that if Trump’s government can comfortably kick out immigrants in such ways, so can we.”
Trade policies and possible wars
Trade policies, such as tariffs and renegotiated trade agreements, have strained relations with the European Union, creating economic uncertainty.
In his second term, Trump tasked his economic team with devising plans to tax every country that imposes tariffs on U.S. imports or subjects American companies to value-added or digital services taxes. Trump’s targets include China, Canada, Japan, South Korea and the EU.
In Marcello’s opinion, the EU and the US always had economic agreements to balance taxes between them. He highlights that the U.S. is afraid of the EU, because it is one of the biggest global economies, plus the Euro is stronger. He points out that they want to introduce a method of training that’s more lucrative for the Americans and it will only leave them isolated rather than “great again.”
Circling back to Weems, the average U.S. resident will feel the effects of such changes. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on products by EU companies, they would become more expensive and be sold less as a result. In addition, the EU will more than likely retaliate, thus spurring a trade war. For Weems, this move is both counterproductive and disastrous for either economy.
Already, the European Commission responded firmly, denouncing the U.S. proposed tariffs as unjustified and signaling a willingness to counteract them, potentially escalating the trade tensions into a trade war.
Marcello urges the European Union to assert its position and make it clear to the U.S. that it cannot monopolize economic partnerships, suggesting that engaging with China might prompt the U.S. to reconsider its approach.
Global security during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
European governments will have to find new strategies to navigate the unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy decisions. During his first campaign, Trump asserted, “we must as a nation be more unpredictable.” At a dinner in 2018, when discussing negotiations with North Korea, he called himself a “madman”—only partially tongue in cheek.
On February 19, Putin said that he would gladly meet Donald to negotiate a deal. Recently, Trump announced he intends to talk about “peace in Ukraine” with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin at a possible meeting in Saudi Arabia. On top of that, he confirmed that he wants to quickly end the war.
This sparked concern among European leaders and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy, who warned that Kyiv would not recognise any deal made without its involvement.
Read| The Trump Effect: What the removal of USAID means for Africa
According to Eloisa Ivanova, a Russian native and political science major, the proposed talk could lead to a ceasefire that would benefit both Ukrainian and Russian civilians. Ivanova, who asked to withhold her real name, also pointed out that such an agreement could ease economic hardships for both nations. As Russia faces heavy sanctions and Ukraine has endured significant disruptions due to the conflict, this deal, noted Ivanova, could help stabilize both economies.
Ivanova described that a potential settlement between Putin and Trump might facilitate the exchange of prisoners of war, as well as the return of displaced persons, refugees, and asylum seekers. However, she also pointed out that the “negotiations could also lead to pressure on Russia for a ceasefire, if Trump continues sanctions and military aid to Ukraine while offering diplomatic negotiations.” Ivanova cautioned that it could result in another long-term ceasefire without addressing the core disputes.
“The Ukrainian president might also refuse any kind of settlement that would include conceding the Ukrainian land to Russia, such as Crimea and some parts of Donbas,” Ivanova said. According to her, there could be blowback if Trump tries to negotiate without Ukraine or NATO members, by escalating a strained situation between the US and Europe.
Though Weems disapproved of Trump’s tactics, he highlighted that the superpower could supply a “long-term security shield” for Ukraine–provided it obtained access to the country’s valuable minerals. Kyiv estimates that about 5 percent of the world’s “critical raw materials” are in Ukraine. Eying Ukraine’s resources, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the minerals deal was part of a “larger peace deal that Trump has in mind,” adding that his first visit to Ukraine showed that the war was a top priority for the Trump Administration. As of now, the U.S. exchange of its support to Ukraine for its minerals is on indefinite ice.
Climate Change
Marcello notes that Trump’s environmental policies step away from global climate action by increasing domestic oil and gas production. A follow up to his 2017 withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, aimed to limit global warming–a point of contention between the two Western allies.
Generally, regardless of the immeasurable efforts by the European Union to combat climate change, Trump completely ignored the topic, previously having referred to it as, “a concept created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
In response to Trump’s decision, French President Emmanuel Macron famously declared, “Make our planet great again.”
“Global warming is a real situation, if they keep on with this, the snow in New York will melt off,” Marcello concluded. The writer underscored Trump’s arrogance on such sensitive global issues catalyses enemies for the U.S. and causes a substantial amount of unnecessary problems for them.
NATO and the precarity of U.S. funds
At the center of Trump’s position on NATO is that the U.S. is the top contributor to the multi-state organization. Ivanova told Ark Republic that the U.S. has long been vocal about the need for NATO to increase their military spending. Yet, this could lead to increased financial burdens in Europe.
Many of the European countries have social welfare priorities that Ivanova indicates would be gravely impacted. In short, increasing the NATO budget means extracting money from other government sectors. Besides, not all the EU countries agree on how much to spend on defence, which could create divisions especially in Eastern European countries that rely heavily on NATO.
Usually, the EU’s traditional approach to security is diplomacy. By dramatically implementing more money towards defense spending, from the viewpoint of Ivanova, presents the risk of shifting political dynamics. She opines that the pivot could strengthen militarists and encourage nationalist tendencies.
Trump’s maneuvering dazed leaders in capitals like Berlin, London and Paris, causing them to confront a series of hard choices, which will be painful trade-offs and costly new burdens.
