Europe, from partner to burden

And on the eve of his return to power, his positions seemed to confirm his intention to ignore a Old Continent that he perceives as submissive and lacking in geopolitical relevance to face up to, compete with or even collaborate with powers such as Russia or China. 

Although Trump's policies will turn the world order upside down, Europe will be particularly affected. 

Trump's hostility towards Europe has been constant and explicit. He has made no secret of his unease at Europe's Pyrrhic contributions to common defence, emphasising that the United States is the biggest contributor and the main guarantor of military deterrence. And he is willing to charge for playing Uncle Sam. 

Fed up with what he considers to be the passivity of a dependent and abusive partner, Trump has responded with threats to withdraw from NATO and impose tariffs on European products to balance a trade balance he considers unfavourable. 

However, his attitude goes beyond mere bilateral negotiation. His rapprochement with Russia and even China, seen as both competitors and potential partners, is reshaping global geopolitics and altering the traditional transatlantic axis. By sidelining Europe, Trump is not only pursuing economic advantages, but is also freeing himself from a burden in order to favour US interests beyond what is politically correct. 

His contempt for European leadership is reflected in his treatment of Ukraine and its president, Zelenski, whom he has disparagingly labelled. This stance leaves Europe in a position of uncertainty regarding the war in Ukraine, with direct implications for continental security. The scenario includes territorial concessions to Russia, shared exploitation of Ukraine's rare resources. 

The biggest cause for concern for Europe is security. The threat of a US withdrawal from NATO poses an unprecedented challenge, pushing the European Union to consider defensive autonomy which, although necessary, is difficult in the context of internal political divisions. The emergency summit convened by Macron in Paris on 18 February 2025 was unsuccessful: agreement on deploying European forces in Ukraine was not reached, highlighting the lack of cohesion. 

While some Eastern European countries — such as Serbia, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia — show sympathy or open support for Moscow, many others remain completely silent. This fragmentation undermines Europe's ability to respond in a unified manner to Russian pressure, which would take advantage of a possible US withdrawal to expand its influence. 

Trump's empire also extends to European domestic politics. The rise of populism in Italy, Germany, Hungary and France, among others, inspired by his style and discourse, is fuelling nationalism, anti-immigration rhetoric, policies of closing borders, questioning of multinational institutions, etc. All of this threatens the European Union and revives fears of fragmentation. History reminds us that the two world wars were born in a divided Europe, with uncontrolled nationalist rivalries. The risk of a repeat of that scenario cannot be underestimated. 

The risk of repeating that scenario cannot be underestimated. Europe's follow-my-leader attitude and its unconditional submission to the United States no longer yield results in the face of the American leader's ambition; what is more, the bureaucratic tangle of 27 administrations, within an EU that limits itself to being an economic entity, without real political power, confronts it with a historic dilemma. 

Added to this are his constant contradictions. European expansion towards Eastern countries without integrating Russia into its economic sphere due to differences over the conception of democracy and respect for human rights contrasts with his silence in the face of the Zionist genocide in Gaza. 

Outside the European arena, Trump's foreign policy maintains its firmness in strategic alliances with the United Kingdom, Asia and the Middle East. 

In Asia, the annexation of Taiwan to China is not at all far-fetched after a complex reorganisation of the supply chains of microprocessors from the island to the United States. 

The ‘Trump-Putin’ coalition is likely to put an end to the Iranian and Yemeni regimes, which are staunch opponents of the Israeli Zionist regime, consolidating alliances with Saudi Arabia under the Abraham Accords. However, the proposal to turn Gaza into a tourist destination will not prosper among Arab countries, traditional allies of the United States. 

In North Africa, Egypt's position on the Gaza crisis is a dilemma for Trump and his partner Netanyahu. At the other extreme, Morocco will benefit from strengthened cooperation, especially in relation to the Sahara, resuming pending projects, such as the opening of a consulate in Dakhla. In addition, a decisive step will be taken in the resolution of the conflict before the UN Security Council, backed by the majority support of the international community for the autonomy plan under Moroccan sovereignty. 

Europe faces ‘friendly fire’ with the loss, in addition to its defence, of geopolitical relevance. The transatlantic loyalty that has sustained it over the last eighty years as a ‘boutique power’, as Macron defined it, now forces it to greater autonomy that will test its ability to redefine its security and its role on the global stage without tutelage. Otherwise, it would be just another pawn on the board of Washington, Moscow and Beijing. 

Someone once said that it is madness to maintain the same status quo indefinitely and expect different results. The President of the United States is a businessman in search of success, and a fruitful bottom line to justify his slogan ‘Make America First Again’. His decisions thus seek immediate results and tangible benefits for the country; and his actions are mere economic transactions that baffle experts in international relations. 

Donald Trump does not improvise. He probably will not achieve everything he sets out to do. However, his position does respond to a business logic aimed at maximising profits. Analysing his moves from the institutionalist theory of transaction costs (R. Coase) allows us to understand that, for Trump, politics is a large-scale business.