Countdown to Decision: Global Stakes in the Upcoming US Presidential Election
In just three months, the presidential election that the whole world is eagerly anticipating will be held in the US. The November presidential election is the centre of world attention, as the fates of many states and nations around the globe depend on who will next sit in the Oval Office. Currently, the Republican candidate Donald Trump appears to have a strong chance of winning, following the exit of the Democratic candidate and current president Joe Biden from the presidential race.
Trump’s first term was marked by many controversial moments and unexpected policies that drastically deviated from traditional US approaches. Most of his unpopular decisions created concerns in many countries and power centres worldwide. With his “America First” agenda, Trump demanded that European states increase their defence spending to 2 per cent of their GDP, imposed higher tariffs on all EU exports, withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, and allegedly tried to build close ties with autocrats he sympathized with, like Putin, in light of Russian interference in US elections. These erratic moves caused trouble in international relations, straining ties with many countries and even with US allies.
As Trump’s chances of a second term increase, many are questioning what to expect if he returns to the White House. Though predicting an unpredictable person like Trump is difficult, his legacy from the first term and his remarks over the last two years offer some insight. Against this backdrop, it is worth exploring the potential implications of a second Trump term for the EU, its economy and security, the Russia-Ukraine war, and Israel’s conflicts in the Middle East.
Potential Changes in U.S. Security Commitments to Europe
Trump’s antagonism toward the EU was evident during his first term, as reflected in his remarks about Europe. He was dissatisfied with the US bearing most of NATO’s costs and demanded that European countries increase their military spending and shoulder more of the continent’s security burden. The 2 per cent defence spending threshold, agreed upon in 2006 by NATO defence ministers and confirmed by heads of state in 2014, was not solely Trump’s initiative. In this regard, he is now voicing growing discontent among many Americans about Europe’s reliance on US taxpayers for their security expenditures.
Trump reiterated his demands and even said he would encourage Russia to attack countries that failed to meet their spending commitments. Labelling NATO as “dead,” he repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the organization. The risk of the US quitting the alliance seemed more serious when the US Congress approved a bill in December 2023 that prevents any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO.
While the prospect of Trump actually leaving NATO is considered unlikely, experts believe he might reduce US security commitments to Europe to pressure EU countries into taking on more responsibility. Indeed, Trump’s demands during his first term had some effect, as 23 out of 32 NATO countries have increased their spending to 2 per cent or more. However, this still falls short of matching the US share, and therefore, the demand for further spending increases is expected to continue.
The situation presents challenges for EU countries, as sustained increases in defence expenditure may necessitate cuts in other social and welfare programs, which many countries find difficult to implement. It particularly poses difficulties for relatively poorer countries in the southern part of the continent. Additionally, after decades of relative peace, increased militarization is not what Europeans aspire to and could lead to public discontent. Thus, the push for higher defence spending may face significant obstacles within the EU and could pose both security and economic risks to the continent.
Impact of Trump’s Trade Policies on Transatlantic Relations
One of the biggest controversies of Trump’s first term was his decision to increase tariffs on all US imports by 10 per cent. This decision sparked a trade war with key partners, including the EU, which is the US’s largest trade and investment partner. Trump imposed a 25-percent tariff on steel and a 10-percent tariff on aluminum from the EU, amounting to $6.4 billion in total. In response, the EU retaliated with a 2.8-billion EUR tariff on US products such as tobacco, motorcycles, and butter. In 2019, the US announced further tariffs on products from the EU. The tensions de-escalated following a meeting between EU Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker and Trump, aimed at addressing the trade imbalance. As a result of the negotiations, the EU agreed to increase exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US and buy more soybeans from American farmers. Overall, the tariff disputes led to economic losses for farmers and manufacturers in the US and for companies in the EU, resulting in higher prices, supply chain disruptions, trade deficits, reduced investment, and economic instability on both sides.
Trump, who refers to himself as “Tariff Man,” has again threatened to impose tariffs on all US imports if he wins the election. Should he be re-elected, the tariffs that were paused during Biden’s tenure could resume, potentially on a larger scale and with greater impact. The EU, which exported 502 billion euros worth of products to the US last year, stands to face substantial economic losses from such tariffs. According to the Financial Times, the EU is already preparing for the possibility of renewed trade tariffs and has developed a policy to address the issue. European policymakers plan to first negotiate with the Trump administration about increasing the purchase of US products. If this initiative fails, they are prepared to respond with tariffs on 50 per cent of US products, a move that could escalate tensions and result in greater economic destabilization in the EU. Thus, in addition to the security risk, the EU would also face significant economic trouble should Trump win the election.
Trump’s Strategy for Resolving the Ukraine-Russia Conflict
The biggest policy shift of Trump’s presidency that could impact European security and the global landscape is related to the Russia-Ukraine war. Throughout his campaign, Trump frequently spoke about his intention to end the conflict. However, the Republican Party’s stance on Ukraine is questionable, as the party blocked $60 billion in aid for Ukraine in April of this year. Concerns about the party’s position on Ukraine intensified when Trump selected J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential nominee, who has openly stated that he does not care about Ukraine. Given these factors, many speculate that Trump’s promise to end the war within 24 hours might involve pressuring Ukraine to accept Russian terms, such as conceding further territories. Nonetheless, during the presidential debate, Trump assured that Putin’s terms were unacceptable.
Instead, Trump proposes an alternative approach that could partially satisfy Putin while preventing a total defeat for Ukraine. Citing two Trump-aligned national security experts, Michael Hirsh reports that Trump’s potential strategy might involve a deal with NATO to halt further expansion into Ukraine and Georgia while negotiating the extent of territory Russia can retain. Such a deal could address one of the core disputes between the West and Russia—NATO’s eastern expansion—and lessen Russian hostility. This approach aligns with the Republican Party’s increasingly isolationist stance and the preferences of its factions: restrainers advocating for reduced global commitments and prioritising focusing on Asia. It remains to be seen whether such a deal would be accepted by both sides or how Trump would enforce it. However, given the exhaustion on both sides from the prolonged conflict, Trump’s proposed deal could, if not end the war entirely, at least halt its active phase and freeze it temporarily. This outcome could benefit the EU by easing the Russian threat and reducing tensions on the continent, contributing to a more peaceful and stable Europe.
Future Directions of Trump’s Middle East Policies
Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in U.S. policy in the Middle East, with strong pro-Israel stances and a confrontational approach toward Iran. Breaking from traditional U.S. policy, Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, officially recognizing it as Israel’s capital. He also cut U.S. aid to Palestinians and endorsed Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump’s support for Israel was further evident in his Middle East peace plan, which Palestinian leaders rejected for favouring Israeli demands and legitimizing settlements in the West Bank while ignoring their needs. On the Iran front, Trump pleased Israel by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Iran nuclear deal—and launched a “maximum pressure” campaign to isolate Iran through sanctions and diplomatic efforts. Additionally, in 2020, Trump brokered the Abraham Accords, which aimed at normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states while further curbing Iran’s influence in the region.
Trump has frequently expressed his views on Israel and the Gaza conflict, indicating that his stance remains unchanged. While he has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt the killing of people and end the war, he has shown little sympathy for the Palestinian position. In an interview with Time magazine, Trump made it clear that he no longer supports the traditional U.S. approach of a two-state solution. Recent comments from his ambassador to Israel, suggesting the annexation of the West Bank, and from his son-in-law and senior advisor on the Middle East, advocating for the relocation of people from Rafah, reflect the Trump administration’s stance on the current conflict.
Despite his support for Israeli policies regarding Palestinians, Trump, similar to his position on Ukraine, opposes ongoing wars, including the conflict in Gaza, and has stated his intention to end them. Should he return to the presidency, he would likely pressure Netanyahu to cease military operations. Ending the war aligns with Trump’s broader regional policy of normalizing relations between Israel and Arab countries, fostering economic cooperation, and stabilizing the region. This approach also fits into his strategy to limit Iran’s influence and interference in the Middle East. Thus, if Trump is reelected, U.S. support for Israel will likely continue against its adversaries, particularly Iran, which he aims to pressure and limit, but it is also probable that he will seek to end the war immediately.
Conclusion
As demonstrated during his first term, Trump’s presidency represents a significant departure from traditional US foreign policy. The differences in vision and policy within the Republican Party pose real challenges for European policymakers. These policies could present both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, Trump’s potential reduction in military guarantees for the EU could create a substantial security gap on the continent and lead to economic difficulties due to increased defence spending. On the other hand, it might encourage EU countries to take greater responsibility for their own security and enhance the union’s autonomy.
Trade tariffs, another focus of Trump’s policies, present a major economic challenge for the EU. His intention to impose a 10 per cent tariff on all US imports threatens to spark a second trade war, resulting in significant economic losses and destabilization across the EU. Conversely, Trump’s approach to ending the Russia-Ukraine war could relieve Europe by reducing the risk of military confrontation with Russia and alleviating the substantial financial burden of supporting Ukraine. While this might exempt the EU from immediate security concerns and support its defence capabilities through increased military spending and sovereignty, the planned tariffs could lead to considerable economic and political turmoil. This turmoil may further impede the EU’s ability to adopt a unified policy.
In the Middle East, Trump’s continued support for Israel and his confrontational stance toward Iran signal that U.S. policy will remain unyielding. His potential reelection could solidify Israel’s position in the region while exacerbating tensions with Iran, presenting both opportunities and challenges for U.S. allies in the Middle East.