As President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration set its sights on fundamentally rebalancing the transatlantic relationship between the United States and Europe.
This ambition is grounded in a recognition that the current state of affairs disproportionately burdens the United States within NATO, while European regulations have created a skewed trade environment that often hampers American business interests.
Currently, the United States contributes 16 percent of NATO’s annual budget and bears the majority of operational and logistical responsibilities, which raises questions about the sustainability and rationale behind such an arrangement.
Conversely, the European Union has imposed various tariff and non-tariff barriers, limiting market access for U.S. agricultural and industrial exports, and has often stymied the operations of both American small businesses and large tech firms through stringent regulations.
Upon taking office, President Trump swiftly initiated a series of actions aimed at recalibrating U.S.-European relations.
These efforts included sending Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to European leaders to communicate the new U.S. approach, emphasizing reduced tolerance for the existing terms of the relationship.
In events across Paris, Munich, and Brussels, the administration explicitly called upon European nations to lower their regulatory burdens on sectors like artificial intelligence and energy, while also expressing skepticism regarding Europe’s commitment to shared values.
Trump’s administration signaled a strategic pivot, suggesting a shift of focus away from European security to more pressing priorities elsewhere in the world.
The administration’s aggressive approach also featured the imposition of punitive tariffs aimed at compelling Europe to lower trade barriers affecting U.S. firms.
These multifaceted efforts at pressure began to yield some results, with European NATO allies pledging to increase their defense spending to five percent of GDP by 2035 during a summit in June.
Additionally, a trade pact was announced between President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, wherein the EU committed to purchasing $750 billion worth of American energy products and investing $600 billion in the U.S. market by 2028.
However, these outcomes have been described as only partial successes.
The five percent defense spending commitment remains largely aspirational, with future enforcement contingent upon the willingness of subsequent leaders to adhere to these pledges.
Meanwhile, the United States maintains a stronghold on leadership roles within NATO, ensuring that Europe’s military dependence on the U.S. is likely to continue.
The touted trade deal, while framed as a significant adjustment in relations, remains somewhat ambiguous at present.
Brussels continues to resist significant revisions to the regulations that hamper American tech companies, and the trade agreement lacks robust institutional support, making it difficult for the U.S. to evolve its economic relationship with Europe.
To genuinely recalibrate the transatlantic relationship and embed a more equitable stance within U.S. foreign policy, President Trump must look beyond superficial agreements and confront the foundational tenets of transatlanticism.
This entails reassessing the three critical decisions made during NATO’s inception: prioritizing European interests at the expense of American ones, institutionalizing military over economic ties, and curating a regional alliance embedded within a universalist ideology.
Each of these decisions, while seemingly prudent at the time, has led to ongoing challenges and complexities that need thoughtful reconsideration.
Fortunately, President Trump has the opportunity to rectify previous missteps and establish a new path for the transatlantic relationship.
His first step should involve a focused refocusing of U.S. foreign policy away from Europe, avoiding previous administrations’ tendencies for a hard pivot towards Asia.
This approach should include a directive for NATO to confine its missions strictly to Euro-Atlantic issues, ensuring that the alliance’s scope does not extend regionally beyond European interests.
Moreover, Trump should advocate for a fundamental shift in the relationship from a military alliance to one focused on economic engagement and technological collaboration between the U.S. and Europe.
The transatlantic partnership would remain significant but would be redefined to eliminate its perception as an ongoing drain on American resources.
Historically, the United States has operated under a hemispheric foreign policy for the majority of its existence.
In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington famously cautioned against entanglements with Europe, echoing a prevailing sentiment in early American diplomacy.
By the time NATO was established in 1949, the world had witnessed the traumatic effects of war across Europe, leading to U.S. involvement framed as both a strategic necessity and an opportunity for economic integration.
However, this postwar pivot to Europe came with significant costs, much to the detriment of U.S. priorities in the Americas.
As Washington focused on Europe, it largely neglected its relationships in Latin America, characterized by reactive and often misguided policies during the Cold War.
Key initiatives aimed at fostering positive relations, such as President John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress, fell short of delivering effective results, yielding further support for repressive regimes claiming to battle Communism.
In the decades that followed, the U.S. increasingly extended its commitments globally, often at the cost of regional interests back home.
The post-Cold War era saw a further diminishing focus on the Western Hemisphere, leading to security challenges at the southern border, while rising cartels and rogue states like Cuba and Venezuela drew U.S. ire and resources.
Originally, U.S. engagement through NATO was grounded in economic cooperation—aimed at building markets for American exports and curbing the spread of Soviet communism in Europe.
The Marshall Plan exemplified this effort, furnishing billions to stimulate economic recovery across Europe and establishing American industrial standards, though this initiative was short-lived.
Eventually, control and responsibility for European economic integration transitioned to European nations themselves, inadvertently allowing for the establishment of institutions like the European Union that later became exclusionary to American interests.
While Europe pursued its own path in recovery and integration, mutual security became increasingly recognized as an American obligation, particularly after the formation of NATO.
The initial rationale for this alliance—rooted in collective defense against the encroaching Soviet threat—was not universally accepted within American policymaking circles, with figures like George Kennan questioning its necessity and urging American leaders to focus on economic and political dynamics.
As the Cold War progressed, however, NATO solidified its role alongside a series of U.S. commitments that expanded beyond Europe.
Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and subsequent NATO enlargements, the military alliance persisted, shielding Europe from newfound vulnerabilities.
However, these expansions raised concerns that they provoked Russian antagonism, undermining the original objectives of expanding transatlantic cooperation.
The European Union’s emergence further complicated transatlantic ties, leaving the U.S. largely disengaged from European institutional growth while it shouldered the burden of European security.
This inadequately defined relationship struggled to maintain not only military cooperation but also simultaneous economic collaboration.
Entering the 21st century, the U.S. commitment to NATO became increasingly intertwined with global security systems, diluting regional focus and drawing American interests further afield.
The Biden administration’s framing of the global divide between democracies and autocracies continues this tradition of vast and often overextended military commitments.
While some policymakers support expanding military collaborations through NATO to include partners in Asia, a more balanced alternative must be considered to avoid overextension and focus efforts on more immediate regional challenges.
Moving forward, President Trump has an opportunity to reshape U.S.-European relations, breaking the longstanding patterns that have characterized the transatlantic dynamic.
Transitioning towards a regional focus, the U.S. must engage Europe on issues relevant to their shared values without being responsible for ensuring the defense of every member state.
To ensure sustainable engagement, securing the commitments of European allies to take greater responsibility for their security must be a priority.
This should be accomplished even if that means a reduction of U.S. military presence in Europe, thereby signaling that Europe must become the architect of its own defense.
Furthermore, adjustments must be made to NATO’s operational scope to redirect its objectives and maintain regional focus on European security.
Such changes might include limitations on operations beyond geographical boundaries, specifically regarding U.S. involvement in conflicts not directly related to NATO’s interests.
In addition, President Trump should prioritize economic partnerships over military obligations, repositioning transatlantic relations around technology and innovation.
Establishing formalized frameworks of engagement centered on technology transfer, regulatory harmonization, and collaborative investments can yield lucrative avenues for U.S. and European companies alike.
The recently announced EU trade deal signifying $750 billion in American energy products serves as a foundation to expand this economic partnership.
Finally, it is crucial for President Trump not to revert to the historical mistakes of the past by swinging too far towards Asia but rather redirect focus toward bolstering security and economic partnerships within the Western Hemisphere.
Investments should be directed into addressing regional challenges, strengthening collaborative efforts against illicit activities and enhancing shared prosperity.
Strategically utilizing the resources freed from lessened military commitments in Europe will enable the U.S. to invest domestically, addressing critical infrastructure and educational needs on home soil.
While this reshifting of priorities will not be a quick process, President Trump holds the potential to reshape the foundational principles underlying U.S.-European relations, setting a new course for future engagements.
By realigning the transatlantic relationship, emphasizing mutual economic interests, and reevaluating military commitments, America can leverage its position to meet the contemporary challenges of both the region and the world.
image source from：foreignaffairs
