In late May 2025, the U.S. State Department took a divisive stance towards Europe by publishing an essay titled “The Need for Civilizational Allies in Europe” on its official Substack channel.
Rather than opening a constructive dialogue, Senior Advisor Samuel Samson delivered a convoluted and pseudo-intellectual charge sheet that reinterprets Europe’s political and philosophical roots using references from figures like Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, and Kant.
This unexpected rhetoric reflects a startling approach from the Trump administration.
Samson’s framing suggests a need to question the contemporary foundations of European civilization, implicating many Europeans and their governments as heretics to their own traditions.
At the core of his essay lies the assertion that most EU countries face infiltration by forces only Americans purportedly possess the wisdom to identify.
Moreover, he argues for the political interpretations favored by the Vance/Rubio faction in the U.S. to supplant how most European societies wish to govern themselves.
This framing echoes the devolution of the American model from a system of liberal governance to one resembling a Soviet-style client state governance.
Europeans largely perceive this narrative as a desperate attempt by the Trump administration to impose submission rather than fostering genuine partnership.
Currently, many European leaders agree with the belief that they have lost a sense of shared civilizational heritage with the U.S.
This sentiment resonates with at least half of the American population, especially among those residing on the coasts, who are taken aback by Trump’s radical departures from traditional American values and practices.
When Vice President JD Vance claims that Europe’s most significant threat is internal rather than external, he unwittingly highlights the political turmoil that currently grips the United States—more aptly describing the Trump administration’s attempts to undermine American democracy than European governance.
The notion that Europe lacks democracy conveniently ignores the reality that the hard right accounts for only about 20% of the electorate on average across the continent.
European political systems typically employ proportional representation, ensuring that while hard-right parties are present in parliaments, they rarely secure majority government roles.
This contrasts with the U.S., where the Trump administration operates with narrow majorities often relying on executive power rather than legislative consensus.
Comparatively, Hungary’s Viktor Orban may face criticism for his governance style; yet, he at least obtains the required two-thirds majority for enacting sweeping reforms—a feat rarely accomplished in today’s U.S. political landscape.
In fact, the state of American democracy appears precariously weakened, teetering on the edge of illiberalism, as the foundations of the rule of law and checks and balances erode.
Those in the Trump administration seem to accuse European governments of suppressing their citizens and betraying their heritage while inadvertently projecting their own failures onto Allied nations.
This dynamic reflects a profound case of subject/object disorder, where the administration deflects criticism from its actions by blaming Europe for issues at home.
The essay veers towards an “opposite day mindset,” evident in the administration’s rhetoric and strategy.
The charges levelled against European democracies—including claims of censorship, mass migration issues, and infringements on religious freedoms—reflect a mischaracterization of the nuances inherent in European governance.
Countries like Germany, led by the new Merz government, are actively addressing asylum abuse and challenging overly liberal rulings from the European Court of Human Rights.
This proactive stance illustrates that many centrist governments in Europe are committed to reform rather than degeneration.
In a baffling twist, the Trump administration has chosen to engage in a conflict with Europe—a critical ally necessary for addressing the global rise of China.
A disconnection emerges as the administration simultaneously champions autocracy while alienating democratic partners.
Much of the administration’s rhetoric demands not only conformity with its interpretation of political ideologies but submission to its will.
Samson’s portrayal of Europe as a force undermining democracy and Western heritage not only distorts the present situation but also neglects the contributions of historical figures like John F. Kennedy to Western ideals.
Furthermore, the notion of “globalist conformity” advanced by the Trump camp mischaracterizes the genuine pursuit of international collaboration as mere compliance.
Rather than fostering conformity, globalism seeks to address shared challenges through cooperation among nations.
The insistence that Europe submits to a singular power’s political will not only undermines the democratic values that the West espouses but also enters the territory of authoritarianism.
As the U.S. State Department navigates its own fractures, it risks extending domestic divisions into its foreign relations, particularly with crucial European allies.
The July 2025 essay, laced with contradictions and rhetorical accusations, signals a significant pivot in the approach towards longstanding transatlantic partnership.
As Western civilization grapples with mounting challenges, the path forward should emphasize mutual respect and dialogue, rather than the demands for allegiance based on one power’s agenda.
image source from：theglobalist
