Trump vs. The Western World

Last week, the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, and inside is a direct break from the transatlantic security framework that has guided American policy since 1945. Trump calls it a correction to decades of American overreach; however, in reality, it discards the shared institutional order that kept the United States and Europe prosperous, secure, and politically stable for generations. In it, Trump shares a worldview defined by suspicion of established allies, hostility towards institutions, and the belief that the United States can unilaterally dictate the world order. If this policy endures, Washington is openly signaling that Europe is no longer viewed as a strategic partner.

If we review modern US-European relations, we’ll find their genesis in the fires of World War II, when the United States, the UK, France, and the USSR allied to defeat an existential threat to European liberal democracies: Nazi Germany. From that victory emerged a security order built on institutions rather than coercion, a framework that later allowed Europe to rebuild and integrate. Afterwards, the bipolar world order emerged, built around a liberal West, headed by the United States, and an illiberal communist bloc centered around the Soviets. This held even after the fall of the USSR in 1991, as more and more formerly Soviet aligned states joined NATO, choosing Western alignment because it offered stability and political autonomy in a way Moscow never could, much to Putin’s ire.

This alliance was not completely altruistic. European states got a defense sector subsidized by the United States. In turn, the US created a prosperous, sympathetic market for its goods. It used soft power to keep Western nations aligned, while the Warsaw Pact relied on hard power to control its satellites. This system worked because both sides saw mutual benefit rather than dominance as the purpose of the alliance.

For Trump, this previous consensus is insufficient; he views international relations as purely transactional, insisting on total compliance for continued engagement. The National Security Strategy characterizes EU institutions as barriers to sovereignty, while disregarding that EU members retain the freedom to leave or opt out of select programs. The document’s language closely echoes Trump’s domestic rhetoric by portraying institutions and migration as threats to liberty—paralleling arguments advanced by Europe’s far right. By framing European institutions and "other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty" in these terms, the policy positions itself on the extreme right of European politics and aligns with anti-migration stances. This approach also reflects the Muskian wing of MAGA, which interprets any limitations on business as attacks on freedom of speech and sees anti-immigrant policies as central tenets.

The strategy also ignores that many European policies were shaped by close US-European cooperation. Recent advances in defense spending, energy diversification, and intelligence sharing came only after deep transatlantic coordination. For example, NATO’s push for increased defense spending after Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea was driven by joint US-European planning, not unilateral pressure.

The update’s most revealing contradiction lies in the rhetoric on “burden sharing.” It demands that Europe do more, but, at the same time, undermines NATO, the EU, and the OSCE, which enable Europe to act collectively. These institutions exist precisely because no single European state can match the scale of the United States, Russia, or China. The very reason these institutions exist is to allow several relatively small European states to band together and compete in the modern international world alongside the United States, Russia, and now China. Some may argue, however, that the call for greater burden sharing is intended not to undermine but to strengthen these alliances by encouraging members to contribute more equitably, thereby fostering a sense of shared responsibility. Yet, if the approach primarily weakens institutions instead of empowering them, it risks diminishing Europe’s capacity for coordinated action. Maybe that is the root cause of these updates. Trump sees a competitor in a coordinated Europe, a fractured and sometimes dysfunctional competitor, but a competitor nonetheless. But if you were to dissolve the EU, that competitor would be gone, and its former members relegated to secondary status on the world stage.

Just ask the United Kingdom.

There is also an unnerving ethnonationalist undertone in the document. It speaks of European "civilizational erasure." Like MAGA, it recalls an era that never existed. Pre-integration Europe was defined by warfare, rivalry, and colonial competition, not cultural harmony. Before the EU and other institutions, this policy attack, European “civilization” was marked by constant warfare. Kingdoms and later modern states fought over land, resources, and prestige. That era evolved into colonialism, as Europeans fought over the same thing in places like North America or Asia. Europe has no universal civilization. It is a mix of dozens of languages, religions, and traditions. Republics and monarchies, however, share the goal of closer cooperation. They put aside centuries of nationalism to build a better world.

It’s almost as if Farage, LePen, Orban, and Alice Weidel of Germany’s AfD were given free rein to write American policy. It ignores the simple fact that membership in all the organizations Trump seeks to undermine is voluntary. Putin would have you believe that Poland was forced to join NATO or risk invasion (again). They, and all member states of NATO, the EU, and other transnational institutions, weighed their options and opted in. Only one has ever left, and you can ask the United Kingdom how well that is going after all the benefits of independence have never materialized. Britain’s post-Brexit struggles remain the clearest demonstration that “sovereignty” without scale is a strategic downgrade.

Europe has chosen, freely, to bind itself together. They share a common political, economic, and security mindset, not because they were forced to at the end of a rifle, but because they realized that they are stronger together. In varietate concordia. United in diversity. It flies in the face of everything the current American administration believes. The EU represents compromise, which is opposed to Trump’s strategy of unilateralism. He sees cooperation as a sign of weakness, and institutions matter only when they echo his personal whims.

If Trump were genuinely committed to addressing the threats that Europe faces, he would prioritize strengthening not just intra-European bonds but also the partnership between Europe and the United States. The transatlantic alliance stands as a historically unparalleled model of economic and security cooperation. The prosperity enjoyed by both regions over the past eight decades can largely be attributed to well-established institutions, common values, and a persistent willingness to find compromise across national and ideological divides. By turning away from this tradition, Trump’s strategy undermines the foundations that have supported stability and shared progress. As a result, the next administration will inherit not only the immediate task of restoring trust between the United States and its European allies but also the broader challenge of reaffirming the importance of sustained transatlantic collaboration in ensuring collective security and continued prosperity.

But that’s only if Europe is willing to talk.