With Donald Trump return to the White House, Europeans are deeply worried about how he might reshape global politics. His first term brought radical changes to US foreign policy, marked by isolationist tendencies, withdrawal from multilateral agreements, and an aggressive prioritization of national interests. Should Trump 2.0 follow a similar trajectory, it would undoubtedly pose a serious threat to the global order and Europe, which is already grappling with the Ukraine war. His policies would significantly harm Europe, a region deeply dependent on multilateral cooperation to ensure stability and progress.
Trump’s lenient stance toward Russia could severely undermine European security and the rules-based international order. While debates continue within Trump’s inner circle, several indicators suggest what his approach might entail. His long-standing admiration for Vladimir Putin, his claims of being able to end the Ukraine war within days, and the perspectives of key advisors all point toward the possibility of the United States reducing or even halting military support for Ukraine. Such a shift would risk solidifying Russia’s territorial gains, and a hasty peace agreement could lend legitimacy to Moscow’s aggression. Beyond threatening European security, these actions would set a dangerous precedent by eroding fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter, including the prohibition of military aggression and the respect for national sovereignty.
Trump’s second presidency could also have devastating consequences for Europe’s climate agenda. During his first term, Trump denied the reality of climate change and obstructed international efforts to combat global warming. The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” a policy agenda for a potential second term, explicitly seeks to end the “war on oil and gas” and dismantle climate-related funding. Such actions would deliver a heavy blow to the European Union’s ambitions to lead global climate action through its Green Deal initiative. Without the support of Washington, achieving global climate goals and creating a new framework for climate financing would become much more difficult. This divergence in priorities could further strain transatlantic relations. While it would still be possible to address global challenges such as climate change, poverty, and governance reform, the absence of a reliable US partner would make such efforts far more challenging.