"Make Europe Great Again”: How the Trump Administration’s Plan to Reshape Europe has the Kremlin Celebrating

Lily Jacobs

https://ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/521383556-scaled-1280x720-c-center.jpgApril 24, 2025, Washington, Dc, United States: U.S President Donald Trump, left, listens to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, during a bilateral lunch meeting at the White HouseImage bypicture alliance / ZUMAPRESS.com | Daniel Torok/White House ©

In an introductory note, Trump called his comprehensive National Security Strategy (NSS) a “roadmap to ensure that America remains the greatest and most successful nation in human history, and the home of freedom on earth.” Published last December, the strategy focuses on a wide range of issues from trade to immigration, and focuses exclusively on the Western Hemisphere. In fact, it seems as if the administration no longer feels like prioritizing relations with Europe. The strategy serves as a warning to our European partners: if they do not follow what we tell them to do, they will face severe consequences. This admission is the most revealing and dramatic in the Trump administration’s strategy, and breaks from decades of U.S. stated policy.

The NSS takes an unusual trajectory away from the values of the post-World War II international order. The strategy argues that the order caused the US to “do too much, for too long, in too many places, and that serving US interests means pivoting to America.” The current administration doesn’t seem to want to follow the rules that led US foreign policy consistently and instead chooses to attack our allies. The strategy’s rhetoric also nods to so-called traditional values that are linked to the Christian right, advocating for the “restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health” and an “America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes.”

The strategy also departs from the focus on major power competition and frames this competition of “larger, richer, and stronger nations” as a timeless truth of international relations. This framing place Washington, Moscow, and Beijing within an exclusive tier of dominant power and signals to others that their place on the world stage is not as significant. The strategy, unsurprisingly, also adopts a more conciliatory tone toward Russia. It refuses to mention any reference to arms control and only argues that Europe has “significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every pressure.” Russia’s responsibility for the aggression against Ukraine is omitted, and the Europeans are criticized instead.

This strategy only casts Europe in a negative light, like a parent disciplining their child. The administration goes on the offensive, calling out Europe for “allegedly losing its identity.” The strategy clearly points out that the biggest threat in Europe is the European Union, and its policies that would make the continent unrecognizable. It also insinuates that the administration intends to back far-right, populist parties that best suit their platform (and the fact that they rarely, if at all, stand up with Russian aggression). This amounts to a policy of regime change, even though strategy advocates against this.Circling back to the far-right rhetoric mentioned in Trump’s introductory note, the strategy argues that Europe has broken faith with the two continents shared cultural and spiritual heritage. It alleges that certain NATO members will become majority non-European and indirectly calls for the US to intervene, arguing that Europe is slowly losing its European character because of immigration. This theory is very similar to the “Great Replacement Theory,” which has circulated among far-right circles since the mid-2010s and revolves around the theme of a future demise of European civilization. What they fail to realize is that Europe would face steep population decline without immigration, and they ignore the fact that the European publics have affirmed these preferences by the ballot box.

The era of promoting democracy is clearly over. This strategy marks a divergence between Europe and the US and will lead to a lonelier and more fractured future. While the strategy mainly serves as an insight into the administration’s game plan, it backs an approach that merely produces overextension, resentment, and failure. Focusing on culture-war slogans only hurts the transatlantic relationship even further. This outlook is clearly short-sighted.

The U.S. is in a love/hate relationship with Europe.  It attempts to convey the tone of a concerned friend or parent, but it comes across as condescending, and in fact, threatening. If Europe doesn’t listen to the US, then the US could engage in regime change by helping far-right parties come to power. Its rhetoric toward Russia doesn’t make European politicians feel any easier either –- Russia has launched the largest war that Europe has seen since World War II, conducted hybrid cyber-attacks against Europe, and continues to develop new strategic nuclear weapons, yet the administration seems eager to restore relations with Russia. The fact that Moscow has already welcomed the strategy proves this point.

How would a post-Trump NSS look ? We don’t know. This NSS may become US policy for decades to come. What we can say is that when the US overplays its hand, other states will adapt. As shown with this statement: “Europeans are going through the 5^th stage of grief... We now understand the U.S. administration is going to be difficult for the foreseeable future.” The world is already moving on without us – if Europe goes first, who will follow?