One year after a controversial speech by US Vice-President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, transatlantic relations remain under severe strain. In February last year, Vance stunned his audience by accusing Europe of undermining itself through its migration and free speech policies, arguing that the continent’s greatest threat came from within. Since then, the Trump administration has profoundly reshaped global politics.
Over the past year, Washington has imposed punitive tariffs on both allies and rivals, carried out an audacious operation in Venezuela, pushed uneven peace efforts in Ukraine widely seen as favourable to Moscow, and even suggested that Canada should become the “51st state” of the United States. These moves have unsettled partners and rivals alike.
As the Munich Security Conference opens again later this week, expectations are high. The US delegation will be led by Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, alongside more than 50 world leaders. The timing is sensitive, as Europe’s security environment appears increasingly fragile.
Concerns have deepened since the publication of the latest US National Security Strategy (NSS) late last year. The document urges Europe to “stand on its own feet” and assume “primary responsibility for its own defence”, reinforcing fears that the United States is gradually stepping back from its traditional role as the backbone of European security.
More troubling still has been the recent crisis over Greenland. President Donald Trump repeatedly stated that the US “needs to own” the territory for global security reasons and, at one point, did not rule out the use of force. Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Danish leaders warned that a hostile takeover would effectively end the Nato alliance that has guaranteed Europe’s security for more than seven decades.
Although the immediate crisis has eased, largely because Washington’s attention shifted elsewhere, it has left a lingering question: are Europe–US security ties permanently damaged?
According to Sir Alex Younger, former head of the UK’s MI6, the alliance has undoubtedly changed but is not broken. He argues that Europe still benefits greatly from security, military and intelligence cooperation with the US, while acknowledging that Washington is right to push Europeans to take more responsibility for their own defence. In his view, the long-standing imbalance – where US taxpayers effectively subsidised Europe’s security – is no longer sustainable.
Beyond defence spending, divisions now extend to trade, migration and free speech. European governments are also uneasy about Donald Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his tendency to blame Ukraine for Russia’s invasion.
A report released ahead of the Munich conference by its organisers suggests a deeper shift. Tobias Bunde, the conference’s director of research and policy, argues that the Trump administration has weakened the three pillars of post-World War II US strategy: support for multilateral institutions, economic integration, and the promotion of democracy and human rights as strategic assets.
Think tanks in Washington have described the new US National Security Strategy as a “shock” for Europe, highlighting a widening gap between how Europe sees itself and how the Trump administration views the continent. The strategy even advocates supporting political movements opposed to current European governments and criticises European migration policies in stark terms, while still acknowledging Europe’s strategic and cultural importance to the US.
At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: does Nato’s Article 5 still hold? This clause, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all, has long been the cornerstone of European security. Today, Trump’s unpredictability and his administration’s open scepticism towards Europe have cast doubt on how firmly the US would respond in a crisis.
Analysts often point to a hypothetical scenario in the Estonian border town of Narva, which has a large Russian-speaking population. If Russia were to intervene there under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians, would this US administration unequivocally come to Estonia’s defence? The answer to that question may ultimately define the future of the transatlantic alliance.