The “Signalgate” scandal has affirmed what many Europeans have long suspected: the Trump administration harbors a profound disdain for Europe, indicating a structural rift across the Atlantic. While our leaders publicly downplay the unraveling relationship, privately, few are genuinely reassured.
There are lingering hopes that Europe can mitigate the most severe consequences of this relationship collapse—be it the invasion of Greenland, the withdrawal of US troops from NATO member states, or an all-out trade war. Of immediate concern for European leaders is ensuring that if (or perhaps when) the US abandons Kyiv, it is Europe that must strive to secure a sovereign, independent, and democratic Ukraine. However, it’s crucial to recognize that this will not happen through collaboration with Washington or even with its implicit consent.
The Signalgate incident was both expected and jarring. It was expected because the blatant hostility towards European nations revealed in the supposedly private communication among US national security officials mirrors public statements from administration representatives. Examples include JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, US special envoy Steve Witkoff during his interview with Tucker Carlson, or Donald Trump’s persistent declarations on social media. There is a striking consistency between the private sentiments and public remarks: Washington perceives Europe as obsolete, arrogant, and parasitic.
What is shocking, however, is that the US doesn’t merely see Europe as struggling; it seems eager to hasten its decline. Regardless of perceptions surrounding the Houthi threat in the Red Sea, US policy maintains that targeting the pro-Iranian militia serves its national interests. Yet, as articulated by Vance and Pete Hegseth in the group chat, the US also believes that addressing the Houthi issue would inadvertently assist Europeans, and this is reason enough to reconsider any military action. Thus, helping Europe is perceived as a disincentive that could overshadow the intended benefits of neutralizing a perceived threat. This deep-seated animosity towards Europeans is what truly shocks.
This overt disdain yields three significant policy implications for Europe. First, trade. This week, Trump plans to initiate a trade war against nations he claims are “screwing” the US economy. No amount of historical goodwill or sympathy will lessen the US-EU dynamics within this conflict; rather, it could intensify them. Nevertheless, managing trade policy for the 27 EU states is a legal obligation, and the bloc’s combined economic clout is hard for the US to disregard. There will indeed be repercussions, but in a tit-for-tat scenario, these will be mutual. If Europeans maintain unity on trade issues, as they do with technology regulations, the US will find it difficult to adopt predatory strategies despite its irrational resentment. Washington will be compelled to engage with Brussels on a transactional basis, ultimately leading to a potential agreement.
Second, regarding Greenland, the US’s ambitions will not wane. Trump has reiterated time and again his intent to claim Greenland. Vance’s provocative visit to the Arctic island—along with his rebuke of Denmark for its supposedly inadequate stewardship of Greenland’s security—signals that Washington’s pressure will only escalate.
However, the backlash indicates that European resistance, starting from Greenland, can be effective. Following a wave of criticism, Vance’s itinerary was swiftly altered to exclude a visit to the capital, Nuuk, and focus instead on a “troop visit” to a remote US military base in the territory. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who initially reacted timidly to the Trump administration’s encroachments, is now vocalizing her discontent more assertively, accusing the US of “unacceptable pressure.”
In light of the Trump administration’s contempt for Europe, it falls upon other European leaders to rally in support of Denmark. The more Europeans appear as weak pushovers, the more intense the US pressure will become.
Lastly, and most critically, Ukraine. Countries led by Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer, alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, are making progress on plans to bolster support for Ukraine. However, it is becoming increasingly evident that this support will have to occur not just independently of the US, but potentially in opposition to it. The reliability of US military support is uncertain. As Europe’s leading powers contemplate heightened economic and military aid for Ukraine, along with the establishment of a “reassurance force” to aid in the protection of urban areas and military infrastructure, they must come to terms with the fact that there will be no US safety net.
European leaders should, of course, remain engaged with Washington on matters such as intelligence sharing and logistical support. However, if Washington continues to stall, Europe and Ukraine must learn to operate without its backing.
When it comes to sanctions against Russia, Europe may find it necessary to counter US actions. Putin’s strategy is clear: to evade implementing a proposed ceasefire, he has made it contingent on the cessation of Western support for Ukraine and the lifting of sanctions on Russia. It is highly probable that the US administration will not only comply with the Kremlin but will also pressure Europeans to do the same. In this scenario, Europeans will be framed as obstacles to peace.
So far, European nations have stood their ground. The EU has firmly rejected Russian demands to suspend financial sanctions on the agri-food sector as a prerequisite for a ceasefire in the Black Sea. Europe must be prepared to resist US pressure on this front.
Resisting US bullying on matters related to Ukraine, Greenland, or trade is not merely sound policy; it also yields political dividends. Approval ratings for global leaders who are perceived as standing up to Trump, including Zelenskyy, Canada’s Mark Carney, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, as well as Macron and Starmer in Europe, are on the rise. The US administration will remain consumed by its animosity towards Europe. With firmness, courage, and politeness, Europe should chart its own course.
