There is no shortage of geopolitical challenges and opportunities facing US President Donald Trump in 2026. His to-do list, ranging from his Gaza peace proposal to finalizing an end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and managing his evolving policy toward Venezuela, will ensure that global affairs, whether he wants it or not, remain a top agenda item. One area of US foreign policy that should be routine and stable, however, but has instead become difficult and fraught, is relations with Europe.
At the beginning of Trump’s second term, relations in the transatlantic community were going well. Many did not expect the problems now seen between the US and Europe. European leaders, having learned lessons from Trump’s first term, knew exactly how to engage with the president. Successful bilateral visits by several European leaders were widely viewed as successes. Trump did not abandon Ukraine, as many feared, and instead pursued pragmatic solutions to contentious issues in the US, such as arming Ukraine, while at the same time seeking a peaceful outcome to the conflict.
Toward the end of 2025, however, tensions in the relationship began to mount. These tensions culminated in the US imposing travel bans on five European officials over alleged crackdowns on American social media companies and how they operate in Europe.
Europe, nevertheless, still needs the US and the US still needs Europe. The two regions share historical roots that go back centuries, to America’s founding. Many of the ideas valued in the US today were brought from Europe as Americans built a new nation. The US also sacrificed greatly through two world wars to keep Europe free and it would be a mistake to turn its back on the region after investing so much.
Europe still needs the US and the US still needs Europe. Most importantly, each side needs the other for economic reasons. Luke Coffey
Most importantly, each side needs the other for economic reasons. Taken together, North America and Europe account for nearly half of the world’s gross domestic product. Europe and North America are each other’s largest trading partners. Forty-six of the 50 US states trade more with Europe than with China, for example. Europe accounts for nearly two-thirds of all foreign investment into the US, totaling more than $4 trillion, and each side is responsible for creating millions of jobs on the other side of the Atlantic. This is why, despite growing frustration in the White House with dealing with European countries, it remains in the interest of both sides to find a way to get the relationship back on track.
There are three main points of contention in the transatlantic relationship that need to be resolved if the relationship is to get back on track. The first concerns Ukraine. While Europeans have been pleasantly surprised that Trump has not abandoned Ukraine, as he hinted during the presidential campaign, there is growing frustration over how the diplomatic process is unfolding. This frustration also reflects deep divisions within Europe over the best way forward.
Some European countries remain dangerously dependent on Russian energy and want peace at almost any cost, even if that means Ukraine losing territory. Others, predominantly in Central and Eastern Europe, view Russia as an existential threat and see Ukraine as the primary barrier preventing the Russian military from threatening their own countries. These countries want to see a strong, stable and sovereign Ukraine emerge from the war.
There is a growing perception that Washington is placing more pressure on the victim of the war — Ukraine — while showing unnecessary deference toward Russia. Ukraine has become one of the most serious issues in the transatlantic relationship and resolving it in a satisfactory way would benefit both sides of the Atlantic.
Many around the White House view EU bureaucrats as unelected officials pursuing policies that undermine US interests . Luke Coffey
Another sticking point is Trump’s preference for engaging European partners on a bilateral basis rather than through intergovernmental or supranational organizations such as NATO or the EU. Much of Trump’s global engagement is driven by personalities, with the strength of his relationships often shaped by how he perceives individual leaders and their political authority. Europe has, at times, used this dynamic to good effect, as many leaders have deliberately cultivated personal relationships with Trump during his second term.
Here again, Europe is divided — this time institutionally — between the EU and individual member states. EU officials are frequently among the most vocal critics of Trump. Within Trump’s nationalist, America First worldview, many around the White House view EU bureaucrats as unelected officials pursuing policies that undermine US interests.
A third area of concern is the growing perception in Europe that the Trump administration does not value Europe’s role in the transatlantic community or on the global stage. This was made particularly clear in the national security strategy published late last year. The section on Europe drew significant media attention across the continent and many interpreted its tone as a political attack on Europe and the transatlantic alliance.
Europe was treated more as an adversary than a friend, while Russia was barely acknowledged as a challenge or competitor to the US. This marked a sharp departure from Trump’s national security strategy during his first term and has only deepened European anxieties about Washington’s intentions.
As Trump enters the second year of his second term, he needs to think carefully about how he manages relations with his European counterparts. Put simply, Europe is too important to America’s economic well-being and overall security to be treated as just another region the US happens to engage with.
At the same time, with US midterm elections taking place later this year, Trump’s political energy will almost certainly be focused more on domestic priorities than on the global stage. Europe needs to understand this reality. For the sake of both continents, the two sides will need to find pragmatic ways to manage differences and ensure that the transatlantic relationship remains durable during what will be a politically demanding year in Washington.
BY: Writer Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
