Donald Trump’s victory may signal the end of Europe’s over-reliance on the United States for its security and the introduction of higher tariffs on transatlantic trade, leading academics and observers of American politics have suggested.
Trump has consistently criticised NATO, arguing that the US contributes disproportionately to its budget while EU members invest too little in defence. During his campaign, Trump stated that the US would only defend NATO members against a future Russian attack if they fulfilled their defence spending obligations and increased their financial commitments.
George Vital Zammit, senior lecturer at the University of Malta’s Department of Policy, Politics and Governance, told Times of Malta that Europe’s primary concern should be about its security architecture.
“European leaders and the European Commission must have woken up somewhat worried because, with a Trump presidency in place, the EU will have to pay more attention to its defence and security.
“Any increase in defence spending is bound to be contentious with their respective electorates,” he adds.
Likewise, Times of Malta’s print editor, Anthony Manduca considers Trump’s victory “a wake-up call for Europe as it can no longer take the US security umbrella for granted”.
“Europe must do all it can to keep the transatlantic partnership in place but it needs to strengthen its defence and security capabilities to the point that it no longer needs to rely on the US. Trump’s victory has shown that a strong united Europe is the only way forward.”
But this may have implications for neutral states like Malta, says Brendan Zerafa, a lawyer specialising in international law.
“If America steps out of the equation, Europe will have to fend for itself and something will inevitably have to be done. But what could have taken years to achieve, the process will now have to be accelerated and all states, including Malta, would face pressure to participate in.”
On his part, Stephen Calleya, MEDAC’s director, does not believe that Trump will abandon Europe to its own devices.
“There is nothing to suggest that Trump will withdraw the US from NATO,” Calleya argues.
“Trump’s requirement of Europe to contribute more to its own defence is not entirely new. In the 1960s, JFK had urged Europe to assume greater responsibility. Trump may be more outspoken and blunter than the more diplomatic Kennedy,” he says.
And what about Trump’s pledge to bring to an end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours?
Calleya argues that, beyond his rhetoric, Trump has already signalled that he will be ready to commit diplomatic and political resources to find resolutions to conflicts.
“This does not mean that all parties will get what they want but de-escalation should be the standard by which to gauge any changes that will take place in US policy. Of course, the key players would have to be willing to participate in any process led by Trump. But this is crucial because Biden’s administration failed in this regard,” he continues.
Manduca believes the international community should be concerned with Trump’s effect on US foreign policy.
“Trump’s stance on the war in Ukraine, his apparent admiration for Vladimir Putin, his unconditional and exaggerated support for Israel in its military pursuits, his dangerous rhetoric about Iran and China and his lukewarm support for NATO are all a matter of concern,” he argues.
Furthermore, “Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on the EU does not bode well”, he insists.
Calleya is more cautious: “Europe and the US have substantial mutual investments and, despite Trump’s tough rhetoric on tariffs, this relationship is not a simple zero-sum game,” he says.
“Much will depend on whether Trump’s focus on economic growth materialises,” he insists.
For Zammit, any increase in tariffs on transatlantic trade may lead to trade wars and result in global increases in prices.
“It will be interesting to see what kind of relationship Trump will try to establish with the EU. If he follows through with his pledge to raise tariffs on China and the EU, then prices will rise globally.”
But what is the significance of Trump’s victory for American politics?
While describing the result as “disappointing”, Manduca says: “The American people have made their decision and this must be respected. Of course, US democracy will now be put to the test and a Trump presidency is bound to be a major challenge for the rule of law and the country’s independent institutions. Time will tell just how mature a democracy America is.”
Calleya says the result is not surprising because the key issues facing the American electorate included inflation which, since COVID, has been “astronomical”.
Zammit too explains Trump’s victory in terms of the old adage that it’s all about the economy but illegal immigration and border security may have been other issues which Trump used well in his message.
But he contends that, whatever led to his second electoral mandate, Trump must certainly take all the credit.
“As much as comebacks are rare, Trump had to contend with criminal indictments – which don’t seem to have affected him – and with the opposition of former officials who served in his previous administration.
“Pence, Bolton, Cheney and Scaramucci all turned against him. To make matters worse, his rival was endorsed by major figures, including Oprah Winfrey and all major TV networks. There were two attempts on his life. All the odds were stacked against him and, yet, he emerged triumphant.”
Zerafa also points to the effectiveness of Trump’s campaign when compared to that of his rival.
“Harris had a trendy, hip online campaign aimed at attracting young people while Trump was more dramatic to try to stir up more emotion. I think Trump stirred up the Rust Belt, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where, for a certain period, there was a sense of helplessness. There, he seemed to evoke a certain sense of masculinity. And men, even the Latinos and the Afro-Americans, skewed heavily in their vote towards Trump.”
Zammit also delves on the “cruel irony” of how Trump’s two electoral victories were against female candidates: Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024.
“This is certainly a setback for those who hoped America would make history,” he observes, “but, with hindsight, Kamala Harris was never positioned to win the presidency.”
Zammit says that in terms of policymaking, Harris is more articulate than Trump, especially on foreign policy. Yet, when it came to issues like the border, she failed to convince.
Besides, “she spent three-and-a-half years largely hidden from public view, rarely engaging in significant public events and only attending necessary engagements. Her vice-presidential ratings while in office were among the lowest and she was nearly a non-entity,” he observes.
Exit polls released by CNN a few hours before polls closed showed that three out of every four Americans were dissatisfied or angry with the Biden administration of which Harris formed part.
That, and her refusal to distance herself from her president, may finally have been the nail in her coffin.