After the Greenland Debacle, Europe Is the U.S. Establishment’s Last Hope

Faced with US President Donald Trump’s Greenland spectacle, liberal-minded American politicians and foreign policy experts are now publicly pinning their hopes for the free world on the stiffness of the European backbone. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week in Davos, Switzerland, issued a warning to foreign governments against diplomacy with Trump: “He’s a T. rex. You either mate with him or he eats you.”

Supporting the other side in a conflict with the United States does not come naturally to former and potential American foreign policy makers. But Washington’s abdication of its global leadership role – and its unprecedented threats against its NATO allies as it seeks to control Greenland – are beginning to turn the tables. Although Trump may have backed away from his position on Greenland for now, there is a growing sense among this group that only Europe’s unwavering resolve can force the White House to take its commitment to international norms more seriously and keep the transatlantic partnership alive to fight another day.

Faced with US President Donald Trump’s Greenland spectacle, liberal-minded American politicians and foreign policy experts are now publicly pinning their hopes for the free world on the stiffness of the European backbone. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week in Davos, Switzerland, issued a warning to foreign governments against diplomacy with Trump: “He’s a T. rex. You either mate with him or he eats you.”

Supporting the other side in a conflict with the United States does not come naturally to former and potential American foreign policy makers. But Washington’s abdication of its global leadership role – and its unprecedented threats against its NATO allies as it seeks to control Greenland – are beginning to turn the tables. Although Trump may have backed away from his position on Greenland for now, there is a growing sense among this group that only Europe’s unwavering resolve can force the White House to take its commitment to international norms more seriously and keep the transatlantic partnership alive to fight another day.

Trump’s foreign policy adventure spells disaster for those who realize that the United States has flourished in a global order largely of its own making, that rules and institutions promote US prosperity, and that alliances help keep the country safe. If Trump continues on his current path, the global trading system will likely evolve in ways that circumvent the United States, old allies will move closer to China, self-imposed tariffs will cripple American businesses, foreign policy institutions will be hollowed out, and the US military will be weakened by overexpansion and eroding morale.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos declaring the death of the US-led world order suggests that it is already too late to save the only world order any policymaker alive today has ever known. Fast-moving global realignments hedge against a turbulent Washington, with Canada strengthening its ties with China, the European Union moving toward a comprehensive trade deal with Latin America, and Japan deepening its defense cooperation with Europe. Pension funds and investors are not far behind. While the stock market can sometimes spook Trump, he said earlier this month in an interview with The Guardian: New York Times And the only force that can stop him is his “morals” and “mind.”

While foreign policy thinkers and observers once hoped that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and international Republicans in congress would emerge as voices of reason with some influence over Trump, this increasingly looks like wishful thinking. The question now is what can restrain Trump?

Long gone are the seasoned military advisers and generals who once restrained Trump’s more aggressive instincts, such as former Defense Secretary James Mattis and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley. Now that the Republican-controlled Congress has joined Trump’s adventures in the Caribbean, Venezuela and Syria, there is little hope of curbing maneuvers such as the attempt to seize Greenland, despite what diplomats, markets and most Americans see as clear White House overreach. The midterm elections may change the calculus, but we still have more than nine months to go.

Through the process of elimination, if anything could stop Trump in time, it might be the unification of foreign nations to thwart him.

Trump may have now changed direction on Greenland, but Europe still faces serious questions about how best to engage him when it comes to Ukraine, the Middle East, and other global hotspots. Those who rejoiced at the idea of ​​a “taco” — “Trump always comes out with chicken” — had to admit that it was just that sometimes He backs down. Whether it’s blowing up bunkers in Iran or arresting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, it’s clear that Trump is often on the lookout (so to speak).

Trump often seems to back down in contests of wills when opponents refuse to give up. He threatened to impose tougher sanctions on Russia over its war in Ukraine, but abandoned a series of deadlines when Russian President Vladimir Putin did not back down. When Beijing upped its ante and retaliated against punishing US tariff measures in April, vowing to “fight to the end,” Trump quickly backed down and struck a deal.

While authoritarians competed with Trump, most would-be defenders of a values-based international order were far more conservative. As much as the US foreign policy establishment is eager to see Europe get tough on Trump, it understands why that might be risky: Europe’s deep dependence on Washington as a trading partner, arms supplier, and security guarantor will take years, if not decades, before it wanes.

Leaders like NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer tend to pay lip service, hoping to insinuate themselves into Trump’s confidence because they know they cannot count on him as a rational player. They approach him as a lion tamer would—with flattery, rewards, soothing words, and, above all, an instinct for self-preservation.

However, observers in the United States have watched Trump betray even some of his most loyal supporters in Congress and the business world – not to mention Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado. US foreign policy thinkers and practitioners want the Europeans to respond angrily because they believe Trump smells fear and responds primarily to force. They also recognized that, to survive in an increasingly hostile world, liberal institutions and values ​​would need a courageous defense and, even more so, an offensive that would counter the forces of authoritarian corrosion. They hope that if Trump truly believes that US allies have the courage to abandon Washington and go their own way, the risk of practical damage to his administration’s reputation may be painful.

It is difficult for the US foreign policy establishment to imagine a world in which US allies one day reluctantly conclude that they are better off outside the orbit of a threatening Washington. No matter the issue — stopping war, containing terrorism, fighting a pandemic, or managing the future of artificial intelligence — the United States’ first port of call has always been to rally friends around the world.

US policymakers who believe in this system are now begging for tough love, that is, assertive intervention to convince a misguided Washington that its rhetoric and tactics will leave the United States weak and alone. The Trump administration was not prepared to hear this message from the legions of former officials, military leaders, policy experts and analysts who joined the chorus of growing alarm at home.

Among the lingering hopes that some force will emerge to rein in a self-destructing United States is the possibility that Washington’s closest friends will draw a line in the sand and challenge Trump to cross it.