Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
Anger in America led to the election of President Donald Trump. Now, the response of EU leaders to him is causing anger in Europe. Instead of viewing it negatively, they should see it as an opportunity.
The general sentiment regarding Ursula von der Leyen’s trade “deal” with Trump is negative. In a recent poll conducted in the EU’s five most populous countries for the French journal Le Grand Continent, over half of the respondents described it as a “humiliation”.
Three-quarters of the participants felt that the deal mainly favored the US, with the same percentage believing that von der Leyen had failed to protect European interests effectively. Almost half of the respondents considered Trump as an “enemy of Europe”, while only 10 percent viewed him as a friend. A majority expressed dissatisfaction with the EU’s stance towards Trump.
Not only the public but also experts have criticized the deal, urging resistance against the US’s “extractive” behavior and advocating for tougher measures in digital policy. Even Mario Draghi, a prominent figure in Brussels, criticized the EU’s complacent response to increased geoeconomic rivalry in a speech this week. There is discontent even among the EU’s technocrats, with trade chief Sabine Weyand openly admitting that there was no negotiation, just submission to Trump’s demands.
Has von der Leyen lost the support of Europeans? Some argue that the EU never had strong backing to begin with. However, those same individuals had predicted a wave of similar movements across Europe following Brexit, yet even the UK now shows consistent pro-European majorities.
It is evident that Europeans are frustrated with the current EU leadership, with a large percentage favoring von der Leyen’s resignation and expressing a lack of confidence in her. Despite this, there is still support for remaining in the EU, unless it fails to protect citizens from geopolitical threats. Von der Leyen’s State of the Union address on September 10, where she appeared more assertive, was likely a response to these criticisms.
A valid argument against these criticisms is: “What was the alternative?” There were indeed other options, such as retaliating against the US’s actions or simply doing nothing and bearing the costs of US protectionism without endorsing it. Even if one considers the deal as the lesser evil, the political challenge was to ensure that it does not happen again.
The mistake was pretending that the situation was better than it actually was. Initially, EU leaders defended the deal as acceptable, citing the importance of stability. However, some later hinted that the Europeans had accepted a bad deal to prevent Trump from cutting off support for Ukraine. Draghi highlighted the weakness of this excuse, questioning why the EU is not working to reduce its dependence on the US or China if it is forced to make detrimental decisions due to this reliance.
What is not being explicitly stated is that Europe is acting under pressure. When America demands European compliance, it ceases to be a friend to Europe.
This poses a significant – perhaps existential – crisis for Europe. Yet EU and national leaders are not acknowledging this reality, which is surprising for a political project that was meant to be shaped by crises, as one of its founders envisioned.
By clinging to a normalizing “pragmatism” in response to Trump’s abnormal dominance attempts, Europe’s ability to resist is being weakened. Failure to protest now will make it increasingly difficult to protest in the future.
So, what could be done differently? Firstly, admitting that Europe was compelled to accept unfavorable terms but emphasizing the need to build the strength to resist. Secondly, acknowledging that a former ally may inflict economic costs that Europeans must bear, requiring solidarity and sacrifices, including seeking European alternatives to US products and services. Lastly, understanding that old taboos against collective actions must be discarded, as the choice is between standing together or facing division.
These are messages rather than policies. However, indications suggest that Europeans would welcome bolder policies if they heard such messages, even if it meant greater confrontation with the US. In the poll, 39 percent favored “opposition” as the EU’s response to Trump, while only 11 percent supported “alignment”. Public officials need to be brutally honest and transparent with the public to convey the urgency of the situation and the need for decisive action. This honesty is currently lacking among many leaders, which may explain the lack of bold measures being taken.
martin.sandbu@ft.com