Brussels – European governments and corporations are accelerating efforts to reduce reliance on the United States across a range of critical sectors, from technology and defense to energy, as transatlantic relations continue to fray under the renewed presidency of Donald Trump. The shift, described by EU officials as “de-risking” rather than outright “decoupling,” reflects a growing sense of unease about the reliability of the U.S. As a partner, spurred by Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy and increasingly assertive rhetoric.
The impetus for this strategic realignment dates back to Trump’s first term, marked by threats to impose tariffs, questioning the value of NATO, and even, controversially, floating the idea of purchasing Greenland. These actions, and their recurrence in his second term, have prompted European leaders to acknowledge the need for greater strategic autonomy. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated last week, If we want to be taken seriously again, we will have to learn the language of power politics.
The current drive extends beyond mere rhetoric. European governments are implementing concrete measures to lessen their dependence on U.S. Systems. These include directives banning the use of U.S.-based videoconferencing tools by civil servants, forging new trade agreements with countries like India to diversify supply chains, and actively seeking alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on American energy resources. While a complete severing of ties is not envisioned – officials emphasize the goal is de-risking, not decoupling – the scale of the effort signals a fundamental shift in the transatlantic relationship.
The move comes as a new White House policy document formalizes President Trump’s long-held skepticism towards European leadership, according to reports. This document, revealed in December 2025, underscores a perception within the administration that Europe has long benefited from U.S. Protection without adequately contributing to its own security or aligning with American interests. The policy effectively places Europe at a strategic crossroads, forcing a reassessment of its security and economic priorities.
The impact of Trump’s policies is already being felt across the continent. Businesses are grappling with the consequences of U.S. Tariffs, climate advocates are lamenting the withdrawal of the U.S. From international agreements like the Paris Agreement, and national budgets are being strained by Trump’s repeated demands for increased defense spending from European nations. Militaries are responding by rebuilding their ranks and re-evaluating their strategic doctrines.
The shift is not without internal divisions within Europe. As Attila Demkó, a security policy analyst, observed, Trump has shattered the illusion that what many believe to be “common values” in Europe are, common.
He points to a growing rift between those who embrace multiculturalism and progressive social policies and those who align more closely with the populist and nationalist sentiments championed by Trump’s “MAGA” movement. This internal divergence complicates the effort to forge a unified European response to the changing geopolitical landscape.
Despite the challenges, the momentum towards greater independence appears to be building. EU leaders acknowledge that a return to the pre-Trump status quo is unlikely. Jean-Luc Demarty, a former official with the European Commission, cautioned that while the U.S. Remains Europe’s largest trading partner, it will take years for the bloc to significantly reduce its reliance on American technology and military support. The decoupling drive, he suggests, is still in its early stages.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the de-risking strategy was initially focused on reducing dependence on China. Now, the same approach is being applied to the United States, a development that underscores the depth of the concerns within European capitals. The implications extend beyond economics and security, potentially reshaping the political landscape of Europe and influencing the continent’s role in global affairs.
The emergence of Andy Baker, a relatively unknown aide, as a key architect of Trump’s Europe policy, is also drawing attention. Baker, described as a leading intellectual within the National Security Council, is seen as a central figure in shaping the administration’s approach to the continent. His influence suggests a more deliberate and ideologically driven strategy than previously anticipated.
The long-term consequences of this evolving dynamic remain to be seen. However, the “strategic holiday” for Europe, as Demkó puts it, is over. The continent is now compelled to confront a new reality, one in which it must take greater responsibility for its own security and prosperity, and navigate a more uncertain relationship with its traditional ally.
