[Trump II] - Trump and Musk Challenge Europe to Rise or Submit

Trump’s first presidential term was marked by the contrast between an unpredictable President and those often referred to as "adults in the room," a presidential team focused on strategy-albeit with internal disagreements Trump played like a keyboard.

The second term promises to be different. It was possible-this author did so-to take some solace in the credibility of the initial names floated for key international roles (National Security Council, State Department, Treasury, etc.), and in noting that, with a few exceptions (Defense), the more deviant or outrageous appointees were confined to domestic policy roles. With six major companies to manage and a metaphorical chainsaw to wield against federal bureaucracy, Elon Musk seemed to have his hands full.

However, the "adults in the room" are not yet in place and remain mostly tight-lipped before their Congressional confirmation. Trump has appointed loyal radicals to his inner circle: Richard Grenell, whose ambassadorship in Germany left bad memories, will serve as his special envoy to Venezuela and North Korea, among others. Peter Navarro, convicted for defying the Congressional investigation into the Capitol assault and epitome of the "tariff man," is set to be his trade and industry advisor. And others follow.

"Über Alles" (Above All), But Without a Superego

Threats against Mexico, Panama, Canada, or Denmark are exhibitionist manifestations of this ethos. These acts are partly about showmanship. For the Gulf of Mexico to finally be acknowledged as American, it must be renamed. This recalls supporters of China justifying sovereignty over the China Seas on the base of the name they bear. Panama has lacked a military since 1989 and its invasion by Ronald Reagan. Greenland is so essential to U.S. security (and the North Atlantic) that it already hosts a major U.S. base, missile defense systems, and NORAD’s advanced detection systems-all with Denmark’s agreement. As for Canada, what worse message could be sent to America’s most steadfast ally?

To stop there, however, would disregard two key facts. Both Trump and Musk, along with the broader MAGA movement, based their election campaigns on allegations of fraud in 2020, the need for revenge against ungrateful allies "stealing" from America, and widespread social resentment morphing into xenophobia. Since his second election, Trump has portrayed an America in unprecedented decline-a rhetoric eerily reminiscent of Germany’s rage post-Treaty of Versailles. Ironically, this narrative resonates with anti-American European sovereigntists and leftists, whether they celebrate or condemn it.

In truth-something both Trump and Musk are well aware of-America is triumphant, thanks to a combination of innovation, risk-taking, a government adept at industrial strategy, and safety nets (albeit not universal welfare). America also boasts unparalleled natural resources and the world’s monetary standard. Justifications for annexing Greenland include economic benefits alongside strategic concerns about China’s Arctic push. Michael Walz, the future National Security Advisor, highlights these economic arguments: "It’s about critical minerals. It’s about natural resources… It’s about oil and gas. It’s about our national security". Similarly, Trump cites exorbitant transit prices to justify grievances over the Panama Canal.

Points of Convergence

In this, Trump is joined by Elon Musk. A genuine revolutionary in engineering, Musk has overcome numerous obstacles to accelerate the deployment of technologies. While he hasn’t fundamentally invented anything, he develops everything he touches faster and more extensively than anyone else, much to the surprise of his competitors-when they even exist. America and the world were awestruck watching the first Starship land on Earth, nestling into an articulated arm-a symbol as powerful as the moon landing. How could Musk not look down with disdain on those who underestimated him and whom he has defeated?

The trajectories of Elon Musk and Donald Trump converge in other ways: their public vendettas against opponents-digital foes for Musk, the political establishment for Trump. They share a disdain for rules and conventions: Musk’s public ad hominem insults directed at leaders of major democracies surpass even the rhetoric of dictators. Another commonality, as previously noted, is their prioritization of economic interests.

This background is not a digression but a prelude to the main argument. The budding businessman Trump, aptly captured in The Apprentice-with his keen sense of shifting power dynamics-and the techno-futurist revolutionary Musk now embody an American Ride of the Valkyries: part social media reality show, part hyperrealist international strategy. This strategy views America’s partners as either movable obstacles or weaklings, while framing authoritarian adversaries as prospects for business negotiations.

At this stage, it’s impossible to distinguish posturing from reality. Yes, during his first term, Trump deployed military force only in limited scenarios he couldn’t lose-instances in Iran and against Russian mercenaries in Syria proved this. However, he also bolstered the U.S. military presence in Eastern Europe, extended the war in Afghanistan, and initiated the containment of China.

A Wake-Up Call for Europe?

Europe (and Japan) face a mutual dilemma with America. For Europeans, all the assumptions of the post-Cold War era since 1989 are collapsing. This is evident in the realm of international law, where the UN, undermined initially by the Russians and Chinese and multilateralism are mere shadows of their former selves. A generation of diplomats and trade negotiators sought to remedy this with what experts call "plurilateralism"-alliances that are less universal, rooted instead in shared values and interests: a club mentality. Only a nostalgic European would consider this today, as others cobble together coalitions of interest or resort to bilateral deals.
 
Other structures are also crumbling. With U.S. dominance over energy sources and China’s lead in energy transition technologies, Europe is caught in a pincer. The costs of a social protection system resembling collective insurance rather than financial investment are becoming harder to bear. Those who’ve long seen "neoliberalism" lurking behind even the slightest reform may soon encounter what could be termed "chainsaw capitalism"-a behavior Musk exemplifies.

More fundamentally, Europe faces two ruthless challenges: China’s industrial dominance through cost advantages and growing innovation, and America’s dominance via capital attraction and the expansion of digital technologies. Yes, Trump is already threatening Europe with tariffs to reduce trade surpluses, even as the U.S. is the primary destination for European investments. Over the past year, French holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds have risen from €222 billion to €330 billion. American digital platforms and services dominate the future of European society. Yes, Trump has already broached the necessity of NATO members spending 5% of GDP on defense-even though the U.S. itself doesn’t reach that threshold by far. And, of course, procurement will likely have to favor American products: public procurement asymmetry is set to become a major issue.

At this juncture, history arrives at a decisive crossroads. A long-time observer of Europe-China relations might draw a parallel with the current situation. During a decade of uncertainty in Europe’s China policy (2008-2019), the continent vacillated in its priorities and rhetoric, unsure of its strategic course and unable to forge a lasting consensus. Ultimately, China’s intransigence in 2019 provided a guiding line.
 
Today, on an even larger scale, Europe is juggling objectives that are increasingly incompatible due to financial and political constraints

Preserving economic competitiveness and social protections, the latter varying significantly between countries.

Mutualizing sovereign risks-but without a genuine capital market or banking union, and with budgetary oversight politically devoid of real enforcement mechanisms.
 
All these goals were pursued because politics demanded it and because a large market with (excessively) abundant savings could withstand shocks, as the eurozone crisis of 2010 demonstrated.

But today’s challenges are far more pressing. Europe’s two major economic partners-China and the United States-both have strategies of negotiation, pressure, and bilateral coercion within Europe itself. Beyond knee-jerk reactions-after all, European elites have so vehemently decried Trumpism that Musk and others may feel justified in returning the favor-there are areas where retaliation is warranted. Europe must respond to massive, overt interferences-for instance, the $100 million reportedly spent to influence British elections, a surprising culmination of the "special relationship" between the UK and the U.S. dating back to at least 1940.

The propaganda and misinformation efforts observable on X (formerly Twitter), with its manipulated algorithms, merit as much concern as fears about TikTok. The U.S., having observed China’s tactics with Europe, has taken cues-playing on national divisions and exploiting the vanity of individual European leaders. The European Commission, which has undertaken significant work in economic security while negotiating as much as possible with the Biden administration, now risks being bypassed or ignored by the U.S., much as China has done. In a sense, compared to Chinese leaders, Trump has the merit of being frank.

Reinforcing European Unity

Let’s not fall into the trap of scape-goating our European leadership. We should instead strengthen the capacities of the European Union’s executive branch, the Commission. It should focus on streamlined objectives, not proliferating regulatory ambitions. Choosing priorities is not always a matter of renunciation; it’s an exercise in economic and strategic realism.

The internal dangers to Europe must also be addressed. Faced with the difficulty—or impossibility—of reconciling diverse European interests into a common strategy, and with Europe’s inability to secure or even define an end to the conflict in Ukraine, it’s the EU and its institutions that will bear the blame. The political lesson of Trumpism has not been lost on its European imitators on both sides of the spectrum: lies do work. A significant portion of electorates and political classes may retreat into protective, neutralist postures: "This isn’t our problem", "Every man for himself", "France (or Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, etc.) first". Europe’s political history has known such retreats, often ending in disaster.

A Narrow Path Forward

With China, Europe lacks a strategic relationship but faces an immense commercial and industrial challenge. For China, Russia is a tool of its power, immobilizing European and American adversaries. There is no equivalence in Europe’s challenge with America, as our shared interests with China are minimal. While triangulating between the two might seem like a pragmatic way to counter U.S. tariffs and other measures, it runs into the constant reality that China negotiates with the strong, not the weak. China’s reverse alliance is with Russia, not Europe. Its primary external economic challenge is the United States and its leverage.

For now, these arguments will likely fall on deaf ears in Washington. Power dynamics prevail. Public opinion is often disregarded-where China relies on its digital wall and troll armies, Musk leans on algorithms. Trump’s astonishing electoral campaign proved that facts matter less than their presentation. Mystical, mythological, or even mythomaniacal, the approach of the "Prophet" has paid off.

Do they grasp that by bluffing about invasions and sanctions, they risk equating their behavior in public opinion with Russian aggression and China’s subversive activities?

For now, these arguments will likely fall on deaf ears in Washington. Power dynamics prevail. Public opinion is often disregarded-where China relies on its digital wall and troll armies, Musk leans on algorithms. Trump’s astonishing electoral campaign proved that facts matter less than their presentation. Mystical, mythological, or even mythomaniacal, the approach of the "Prophet" has paid off.

The Soviet Union could never "build socialism in one country". The Trumpians rely on ideological campaigns within democracies to avoid strategic isolation. They have serious assets for this, and Elon Musk with X is a most valuable resource. Channeling debates into a single polarized electric field- replacing information with emotional jolts-is the social media equivalent of Nikola Tesla’s invention of alternating current.

The exhaustion of European progressivism and social democracy benefits outlying provocateurs. European conservatives, like the Republican Party, are stifled by identity-driven competitors practicing visceral politics. These are dire warnings.

Thus, belief in the power of positive ideas is essential. Overcoming the "Coalition of Noes" (a specialty of French parliamentary politics) is critical. We should not chastise those who manage, even briefly or partially, to act as drivers of resurgence. Both American and Chinese policies are embodied by exceptionally strong personalities.

Copyright image: Brandon Bell / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP
On November 19, 2024, Donald Trump and Elon Musk attend a SpaceX launch in Brownsville, Texas.