The new Trump administration could herald a remaking of the international order. How should the world respond?

If Trump’s activity is meant to bend existing alliances to US advantage, Europe should deal. If he genuinely intends to undermine national sovereignty, a tough line will be necessary.

Expert comment Updated 5 February 2025 4 minute READ

The boldness with which President Donald Trump is remaking the rules of US diplomacy has been dizzying. His threat to levy tariffs against America’s friends comes at a bad time. Growth has stalled across many G7 countries, states are struggling to cope with inflation, and tariffs will be harmful to trade-dependent sectors. 

Trump’s geopolitical gambits are categorically worse. Countries that depend on US security assistance, like Ukraine and Taiwan, already feared abandonment. Now, Greenland and Canada have been informed they are on the list for US territorial acquisition. National leaders, in Mexico, Canada and Europe are scrambling to find an adequate response.

Tariffs response

Courting the president is one option, and it is being tried. Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton has advised international leaders to ‘Call him. Meet with him. Talk to him about anything. And if all else fails, learn how to play golf.’

But this is not a sure bet for gaining advantage with Trump, and democratic leaders who are weak at home may pay a high price. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau flew to Mar-a-Lago in late November to appeal directly to Trump’s better angels over the tariff threat. 

He did so against the objection of his Deputy, Chrystia Freeland, who had advocated a tougher response and resigned in protest soon after. That was the final blow to Trudeau’s weak administration and led directly to the prime minister’s own resignation this month. 

A show of public strength and quiet compliance may prove to be the right strategy. No one yet knows. 

Mexico’s leader Claudia Sheinbaum has taken a tougher line, threatening retaliatory tariffs. Behind the scenes Sheinbaum is stepping up, and has announced several major seizures of fentanyl. A show of public strength and quiet compliance may prove to be the right strategy. No one yet knows. 

China appears more certain in its response. It has adopted a strategy of pre-emptive retaliation, extending tariffs on certain US imports and sanctions on US firms. Unlike his counterparts in Europe and Canada, President Xi Jinping has little fear of a backlash at home. Evan Medeiros, former national security official in the Obama administration, says that China’s strategy is one of retaliation, adaptation and diversification.

Europe meanwhile is divided. At a meeting of the Trilateral Forum in Madrid, former USEU Ambassador Anthony Gardner, who served in the Obama administration, encouraged Europeans to plan to hit US imports with retaliatory tariffs. 

Others advocate doing deals attractive to the new administration by promising to purchase US arms and liquefied natural gas. 

Trump’s threats may also have a dampening effect on regulation of US firms. Reports suggest that the EU may be walking back its investigations of American tech giants. Europe should take note of Mexico’s integrated approach as it plans its next step. And it should work hard to be united. 

For Europe’s US allies, though, a tough response may come at a high geopolitical price. Stephen Miran, Trump’s incoming chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has advocated that the US threaten to withdraw defence and security assistance if US allies retaliate with their own tariffs. At a time of major war on the continent, the stakes for Europe in correctly calibrating its response are greater than any other region in the world. 

Geopolitical gambits

Trump’s geopolitical gambits create concerns of a different magnitude. His promise to strike a deal over Ukraine raises at least three questions for Europe: 

What are Trump’s red lines (if any) with respect to Putin and Ukraine? If Trump abandons Ukraine does it end there, or will he also abandon the US security commitment to Europe? And if the US is willing to compromise or even abandon Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, does this mean that it would do the same with respect to other (small) states in other parts of the world?

Trump’s recent talk of acquiring Greenland and annexing Canada threatens to make encroachments on sovereignty an open proposition, escalating fears that his open disregard of sovereignty may bring about a fundamental reordering of international norms. 

This would carry serious risks for the US: if normative and legal restrictions on sovereignty are weakened, this puts more pressure on deterrence (and also on the credibility of deterrence) to block other major powers from using coercion or outright military force to alter borders a serious matter in any conflict with China, especially over Taiwan.

Article 2nd half

For Taiwan also there is existential uncertainty. Is President Trump seeking a grand bargain with Beijing that includes trading the island’s sovereignty for something closer to home? Or is he simply returning US policy to its previous position, one of (genuine) strategic ambiguity as to what the US would do in the event of a confrontation between China and Taiwan?

Trump’s intentions

The challenge for leaders is how to decipher Trump’s intentions. It could be that Trump is fundamentally planning to maintain America’s current position in international relations and is simply using unconventional tactics to get better access to markets, and stronger, more balanced alliances. In that case, conciliation, diplomacy, visits, gifts, and steps to comply with his requests may be a smart response.

But if Trump has genuine designs on Canada and Greenland and plans to abandon Taiwan and Ukraine as part of a grand design for a new international order, then US partners and allies should adopt a more strategic but also tougher and longer-term response. 

The question of US commitment…has been lurking in the shadows for more than a few decades

This means investing greater resources in defence. It also necessitates finding alternatives to US power and partnership. For Europe, this calculation is becoming increasingly important, especially on the question of China. Deepening ties with Beijing could be a pragmatic response to a US that is serious about abandonment and revisionism. It is risky if Trump just wants Europe to be aligned with US power. 

Trump’s presidency is bringing the question of US commitment new attention. But it has been lurking in the shadows for more than a few decades. 

In 1984, Josef Joffe, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment published a now famous article titled Europe’s American Pacifier drawing attention to European countries’ outsourcing of security to the US. Just over a decade later, John Mearsheimer wrote The Future of the American Pacifier, arguing that the power structures in Europe ‘are not sustainable’, and that the most likely scenario in Europe was ‘an eventual American exit’. 

If Trump’s administration heralds a new international order, then meeting the challenge will require more than rushed visits to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. It will need cool heads, preparation for the worst, and a clear understanding of what motivates the president. Leaders will also need to balance pressures at home.

But even in the best of times, understanding others’ intentions is beset with challenges. Before Trump has entered the White House, he has shown he remains unpredictable and willing to test the boundaries of US alliances in totally unexpected ways. That makes understanding his intentions both urgent for world leaders and incredibly hard.