The Awakening of Europe?

On March 4th, I participated in an Ideas Lab organized by the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels. During the event, we learned that President Trump had officially imposed tariffs on U.S. allies and adversaries—tariffs being his preferred economic policy tool. That same day, we also discovered that the U.S. had halted aid to Ukraine and significantly reduced its intelligence monitoring of Russia. These developments dramatically shifted the tone and content of the conference, sparking reactions that I hope will shape EU policies and contribute to redefining the geopolitical landscape.

A Sense of Betrayal

The first reaction I observed was anger and a deep sense of betrayal. European participants have long viewed the U.S. as a steadfast partner in upholding democratic values and freedom. The Western alliance has been a pillar of prosperity and peace since World War II. However, the resurgence of an imperialistic Russia under Putin has raised alarm. Many had considered the U.S. a key ally in containing this threat. Now, suddenly, Putin appears to be one of Trump’s closest associates—Trump has often expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders—while Ukraine seems at risk of being sacrificed in this shifting geopolitical reality.

While Trump’s push for increased European defense spending may be reasonable, his desire to dismantle NATO and align with autocratic regimes is perceived as a direct threat. The EU has endured a difficult, sometimes even abusive, alliance with the U.S., but now it feels completely abandoned.

A Realization: The EU Must Defend Itself

This sense of betrayal led to a stark realization: Europe is in a war-like situation. It can no longer rely on the U.S. and must develop its solutions and economic strength. To support Ukraine and protect itself from Russian aggression, the EU needs to establish a serious, independent military capability. Leading environmental advocates at the conference even suggested that, given the situation’s urgency, economic and energy security must take precedence over climate policies—at least in the short term.

Economic Vulnerabilities

Another dominant sentiment was vulnerability. The U.S. and China dominate the global economy: the U.S. leads in information technology, while China dominates manufacturing. Meanwhile, Europe lacks trillion-dollar companies, faces sluggish economic growth, grapples with high national debt, and has an aging population. In some cases, infrastructure is deteriorating. The EU has experienced a lost decade in economic growth, leaving it exposed to external pressures.

From Self-Pity to Self-Respect

Fortunately, the conversation soon shifted from self-pity to self-respect. Eighteen of the twenty countries with the highest quality of life are European. The EU remains a global leader in research and innovation. When European countries collaborate, they can build industry-leading enterprises—Airbus, for example, has become dominant in one of the most complex manufacturing sectors: aviation. The EU is also at the forefront of the fight against climate change, human rights, and sustainable development.

The Need for Reform

This sense of pride led to another realization: Europe must change. It must build a more dynamic economy while upholding its core values. This prompted discussions on EU businesses’ high regulatory burden and the urgent need for regulatory reform. There was broad agreement that startups and other enterprises cannot afford the high compliance costs associated with excessive regulations, which force them to relocate or abandon promising initiatives.

In my talk on developing a robust bioeconomy—leveraging natural resources and modern technologies for food, fuel, chemicals, and carbon sequestration—I emphasized that by practically banning many forms of agricultural biotechnology, the EU is stifling its bioeconomic potential and pushing some of its brightest minds to seek opportunities elsewhere. The EU’s lengthy, uncertain, stringent regulatory environment significantly undermines its competitiveness. Instead of enacting overly precautionary policies to eliminate all risk, regulations should balance risk and reward. The risk of not taking risks—and forfeiting their benefits—may be greater than the risk of embracing them.

Overcoming Structural Challenges

Another key vulnerability discussed was Europe’s failure to leverage the economies of scale inherent in its large, diverse market of over 400 million consumers. Countries still think in national rather than European terms. No pan-European banks are providing seamless services across the continent, leaving Europeans reliant on Visa and Mastercard instead of a European payment system.

The language and cultural differences between countries make it difficult to establish joint ventures throughout the continent. I found it ironic (but reasonable) that EU meetings are conducted in English, but the challenge is to recognize this difference, find a way to overcome it, and build European integrated energy markets, financial markets, etc. 

A Sense of Freedom and New Opportunities 

Despite the broken relationship with the U.S., some participants saw an opportunity for Europe to explore new partnerships. The EU can forge a “coalition of the willing” to tackle global challenges such as climate change while continuing to support Ukraine. Many recognized that certain U.S. states—such as California, New York, and Massachusetts—align more closely with European values than the broader MAGA movement. There was interest in forming economic and technological joint ventures with these localities. Additionally, the EU will reevaluate its relations with India, Latin America, and China, considering closer economic collaboration to enhance global influence. Some speculated that an increasingly isolated U.S. could ultimately lose its economic dominance.

Curbing the Enthusiasm

After further reflection, more cautious viewpoints emerged. Trump is the president, but he is not America. He won by a narrow margin, and his actions—many outlined in Project 2025—have shocked numerous Americans. This may provoke resistance and course corrections. In the long run, assuming American democracy endures, a future president may seek to repair relations with Europe. However, much of the damage inflicted by Trump’s policies could prove irreversible.

Internal Threats: The EU’s Own MAGA Problem

Many conference participants, particularly EU employees and consultants, acknowledged that Europe itself is witnessing the rise of MAGA-like nationalist parties. In both the EU and the U.S., rural and less-developed regions form the backbone of nationalist movements. While cosmopolitan cities thrive and champion global integration, many peripheral regions feel alienated, disregarded by urban elites, and left behind by globalization.

These regions are experiencing economic stagnation, with their most capable and entrepreneurial citizens migrating to metropolitan centers. Additionally, fears over migration fuel nationalist sentiments. In democracies, these disaffected populations have the votes to support nationalist and even semi-authoritarian parties. Thus, the EU must address the grievances of its periphery to prevent the rise of internal nationalist threats. One approach is fostering a strong bioeconomy to generate wealth, create employment opportunities in rural areas, and contribute to global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

The Trump Challenge: A Catalyst for European Revival?

The Trump regime poses a significant challenge to the EU, but it also presents an opportunity for renewal. Europe can emerge stronger by removing regulatory barriers, fostering entrepreneurial activity, building pan-European projects, leveraging economies of scale, and pursuing growth strategies that empower rural and peripheral regions. A stronger EU can contribute to global stability, resilience, and sustainable prosperity.