Europe is heading toward what the Trump administration calls “civilizational erasure,” according to its striking new National Security Strategy. The document argues that European integration and EU activities that “undermine political liberty and sovereignty” are at the root of many of the continent’s most serious issues.
This shift should not come as a surprise. Earlier signs included Washington’s controversial 28-point plan for Ukraine and JD Vance’s alarming speech in Munich last February, where he questioned whether Europe’s democracies were worth defending. Still, the new strategy delivers a jolt. It signals a more ruthless, transactional approach from Washington and marks another step in Trump’s effort to reshape Europe ideologically while reducing U.S. military support. The document states that U.S. policy should enable Europe to “take primary responsibility for its own defense.”
Pulling U.S. troops out of Europe has been a persistent goal for the MAGA right. Figures like Steve Bannon openly advocate for “hemispheric defense”—prioritizing the Americas over Europe. On his War Room podcast, Bannon stated plainly, “We’re a Pacific nation … the strategic heartland of America is actually the Pacific.”
A key voice in Trump-era defense thinking, Elbridge Colby, has clearly outlined this strategic retreat. In a 2023 policy paper, Getting Strategic Deprioritization Right, Colby and his co-authors explained the reasoning behind scaling back U.S. commitments in Europe to focus resources elsewhere.
Their premise is straightforward: the United States cannot, and does not plan to, fight and win major wars in both Europe and Asia at the same time. They argue that China is the decisive theater, not Europe, and U.S. attention and assets must shift accordingly.
Washington has hinted at this pivot for over a decade, yet European governments have struggled to accept that the U.S. might genuinely deprioritize the continent’s security. The war in Ukraine has heightened these tensions. Europe fears that a U.S. withdrawal or an imposed, unequal peace would lead to chaos in Ukraine and instability across the continent.
For Colby, potential instability alone isn’t enough to argue against leaving Europe. What matters, in his view, is whether the U.S. can insulate itself from the fallout.
The new U.S. security strategy confirms that Washington is increasingly focused on its own “Western Hemisphere.” The administration aims to reduce its focus on overseas issues and missions—including, to some extent, China—to concentrate on domestic security and its immediate neighborhood. This shift is underscored by the largest U.S. naval buildup in the Caribbean in over 30 years.
There are reasons to believe the U.S. won’t abandon Europe entirely. Protecting roughly $4 trillion in U.S. investments on the continent remains a key interest. Still, the trend is clear: Washington is stepping back. The urgent question for Europe is whether it is ready for the consequences.
What is certain is that as the U.S. reduces its military presence, it will lean more heavily on other tools: financial power, diplomatic pressure, export controls, trade measures, and secondary sanctions. These instruments will increasingly be used to steer Europe in a political direction favorable to the U.S. The EU will face demands to relax or scrap digital and green regulations—as U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick insisted last month.
All of this is unfolding as Europe’s security umbrella grows thinner. The result could be a continent caught between diminished protection and heightened pressure, forced to navigate a new and more uncertain geopolitical landscape.Europe faces a dangerous imbalance: it is less protected yet under greater pressure. It risks becoming collateral damage in a prolonged U.S.-China confrontation, without the ironclad guarantees that once cushioned such shocks. This is a brutal, lose-lose position.
To move from a defensive stance to one of strategic independence, Europe must sustain its recent surge in defense investment and make it clear that any attempts at coercion from Washington or Beijing will be met with firm countermeasures. Only then can Europe avoid being squeezed between a retreating ally and a mistrustful rival.
Bowing to U.S. pressure does not work, as shown by Ursula von der Leyen’s lopsided trade deal last summer. That humiliation was meant to secure U.S. security commitments and continued support for Ukraine, yet the opposite is happening. America’s impulse to disengage from Europe is stronger than anything an uneven trade concession can offer.
Europe must not repeat that mistake. The next time Washington turns the screws, the EU should be ready to push back—starting by disowning the trade deal and activating its powerful “anti-coercion instrument” at the first sign of pressure. Only a firm response will register in Washington.
If the U.S. deprioritizes Europe’s security, it should come at a cost: its influence in the region must diminish. Stripped of its historic security guarantees, U.S. interference and coercion create an untenable situation for the continent.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs Trumps New Doctrine and European Strategic Autonomy
BeginnerLevel Questions
What is Trumps new doctrine regarding Europe
Its a policy stance articulated during his 2024 campaign that the United States will no longer automatically defend NATO allies who dont meet defense spending targets The core message is that Europe must take primary responsibility for its own security regardless of whether it feels fully prepared
What does Europe must stand on its own mean
It means that European nations should rely less on the United States for military protection and security guarantees They would need to build a stronger more integrated and selfsufficient European defense capability to deter threats independently
Why is this happening now
This reflects a longstanding criticism from some US political circles that European NATO members have underinvested in defense while relying on American security Trumps doctrine makes this a central and nonnegotiable condition of the US alliance
What is the 2 NATO spending target
Its a guideline agreed upon by NATO members in 2014 to spend at least 2 of their Gross Domestic Product on defense Trumps doctrine suggests that allies failing to meet this target should not expect US protection
Intermediate Advanced Questions
How prepared is Europe to stand on its own militarily
Most analysts including Riekeles and Folkman argue Europe is not fully prepared While there is significant economic and technological capacity European defense is fragmented lacks critical capabilities and is overly dependent on US assets for highend operations
What are the main obstacles to European strategic autonomy
Key obstacles include political fragmentation and differing threat perceptions among EU states reliance on US intelligence and command systems defense industry duplication budget constraints and a lack of a unified strategic culture
What would a truly autonomous European defense look like
It would involve a fully integrated EU defense pillar with a credible joint military command shared intelligence interoperable forces a consolidated defense industrial base and the political will to deploy force independently when necessary
Could this doctrine actually strengthen European security in the long run
Potentially yes While risky in the short term it could be the catalyst that finally forces European governments to make the serious collective investments in defense integration and capability development that have been discussed
