EDITORIAL: Europe tested or what to do when the world’s most powerful country goes rogue…

By Catherine Woollard

Before the inauguration of Trump, there was a lot of discussion both inside and outside the US of strategies for managing his pending arrival. It already looks very naïve after the blitz of measures unleashed, many of them truly alarming in terms of their content but also in their disregard for the rule of law, for the separation of powers, for the US constitution and for the provisions of international law and the international system.

A few weeks ago, the cliché branded about was the need “to separate the signal from the noise” when it comes to Trump. The expression is used in the intelligence sector and means distinguishing between what is meaningful in that it will have a significant impact, i.e. the signals that need to be integrated into planning and responses, and what is just hot air – the noise. The subtext was that with Trump one could expect a lot of the latter – the noise of rhetoric, polemic, ideas that don’t go anywhere. After a week and half, the situation is confoundingly, shockingly the opposite. These are signals, alarm bells for the international system and for us all. They are measures with immediate, dramatic impact. The shock is compounded because it remains to be seen whether Europe and the EU specifically is capable of an adequate response, proportionate to what has been launched.

In effect, there is little that has been announced that won’t have a significant impact on Europe – and the rapid lurch towards authoritarianism of Europe’s closest ally presents multiple unconceived challenges. Filtering through the executive orders, at first sight, the most relevant to Europe include the proposals severely curtailing access to international protection in the US. Many of the people arriving at the border will not be able to apply for asylum and the government has also cancelled temporary protection programmes, including the programmes for Ukrainians and for Venezuelans (currently 800,000 people from Venezuela benefit). There is also the cruel denial of entry to some 15,000 Afghan refugees already cleared for admission. The wider immigration measures include the apparently unconstitutional removal of birthright citizenship and the plans for wide-scale deportations.

Then, the 90-day suspension of all foreign aid has plunged the humanitarian and development system into crisis, with international organisations, NGOs and partner governments losing a major income source from one day to the next. This affects many of the crises at Europe’s borders and in the wider regions south of the continent. The situation in Jordan – benefiting from significant US budget support and not exempted like Egypt – and in Sudan, where horrific violence rages, are just two that could be highlighted. But cancellation of humanitarian assistance programmes in Turkey, Lebanon, Afghanistan etc etc are all also relevant.

Then… the proposals to annex or buy Greenland shows total disregard for the basic precepts of international law; trade warfare with the imposition of tariffs is threatened; withdrawal from the Paris agreement and reversal of all environmental protection leaves Europe pretty lonely in the battle against climate change; and so on.

Beyond the individual policies, there is an equally alarming background of authoritarianism: the adoption of flagrantly unconstitutional measures; the cancelling of acts passed by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court; the hate speech, scapegoating, and risk of persecution even of certain “enemies within” (immigrants). The chilling effect of pardoning violent insurrectionists combined with removing security protection from critics, means that very suddenly opposing the government (or should we already say regime?) has become very dangerous. It is all accompanied by the corruption that authoritarians wallow in – meme coins to facilitate anonymous donations and personal enrichment of the leader and his wife; removal of all statutory watchdog roles in institutions; and the oligarchs closing ranks around the big man. Putinism is the model.

The EU institutions and Member State governments are no doubt in shock along with everybody else. While some national leaders have spoken out on some measures, there has been little official response from the Commission. It is to be hoped that assessment of the impact and development of response strategies is underway. Even at this early stage, various factors appear important.

First, more EU appears to be an advantage. On trade, there are lessons from the last Trump administration and the potential measures have been extensively discussed already. But, in addition, that this is an EU competence and the Commission is in the lead, is reassuring. In other areas, EU response will depend on decisions of the Member States and in some cases unanimity is required. The risks attached to the presence of Member States which are Trump allies (as well as being Putin allies) comes into play. The disruptive power of disloyal anti-EU Member States will hamper responses in all foreign and security policy matters, for example.

Second, the level of dependence on the US is also key. The debate on strategic autonomy over the last five years is the latest French attempt to build up a purely European defence architecture. While support for Ukraine has led to a rapid acceleration in the militarisation of Europe, for good and for ill, it has also shown that individually or collectively Europe has practically no defence capability that can be operated autonomously of the US. NATO, the outsized role of the US globally, the insistence on interoperability all creates dependence that starts to look like a huge risk. It was already very clear that Europe would not be able to support Ukraine without the US and a change in US policy is likely to lead to an imposed peace agreement later this year. But the dependency is far wider than this conflict.

Third, Europe’s response will be significantly shaped by direct US interference in European politics and whether serious resistance is mounted. The actions of Elon Musk, a member of the new government and currently key ally of the President, in promoting the AfD and strengthening its hand in the forthcoming election in Germany are extraordinary and outrageous. There is more to come. The far right across Europe will be supported and inspired by Trump and his acolytes, with funding and social media backing. It is not clear how to respond collectively and sensibly to the new order when Europe is undermined from within in this way.

One strand of discussion is whether Europe will be forced to choose between the US and China, given what appeared to be an escalating conflict between the two. The suggestion from the Commission President is still that the old alliance will hold and that Europe will side with the US, not least because disentangling Europe from the US in so many areas hardly seems possible. US isolationism is central to the MAGA approach – while fewer military adventures would be welcome, pulling out of international institutions and collapsing the humanitarian system less so. The sheer power of the US – in terms of military, economic and technological might suggests that most countries will have to concede, in the way that Colombia rapidly did on the deportation issue. Surveying the global landscape, Europe looks very alone in defending the rules-based international order (insofar as it remains committed to it). Re-alignment across the international system looks likely, exacerbating the trend of chaotic competition between middle powers which is already wreaking havoc in many regions.

It’s not clear who Europe’s allies will be in this new world order – and whether through choice, coercion, dependence or internal interference, the US will remain among them. If it is, after the last ten days, with friends like these…