Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has previously expressed significant concerns regarding newly re-elected U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance on NATO and U.S.-EU relations.
Her criticisms have largely focused on Trump’s approach to defence commitments and multilateralism, which she and other EU leaders feel could undermine European security.
One of her chief concerns was Trump’s attitude toward NATO, which he criticized repeatedly during his presidency. He pushed for increased military spending by European nations, particularly Germany, accusing them of not meeting their fair share of NATO’s defence budget.
Trump’s claims that Germany “owes vast sums” to NATO, however, were met with pushback from von der Leyen, who emphasised that Germany contributes meaningfully to European security through both military and non-military initiatives, such as UN peacekeeping missions.
Von der Leyen argued that security investments shouldn’t be evaluated solely by spending percentages, highlighting that Germany plays a substantial role in NATO missions and security infrastructure across Europe.
Additionally, von der Leyen, whose time in office as German Defence Minister is not remembered for the right reasons, expressed alarm over Trump’s statements suggesting that NATO was “obsolete.” In private conversations with European officials, he reportedly implied that the U.S. might not defend Europe if it were attacked, leading to heightened fears within the EU about Trump’s potential return to power.
However, never one to spot an opportunity to grandstand, she wrote to Trump “We are bound by a true partnership between our people, uniting 800 million citizens.
“This bond runs deep, rooted in our shared history, commitment to freedom and democracy, and common goals of security and opportunity for all.
“Let us work together on a transatlantic partnership that continues to deliver for our citizens. Millions of jobs and billions in trade and investment on each side of the Atlantic depend on the dynamism and stability of our economic relationship,”
Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the new secretary-general of NATO wrote:
“I just congratulated him on his election as President of the United States. His leadership will again be key to keeping our Alliance strong. I look forward to working with him again to advance peace through strength through NATO.”
Trump’s description of NATO as “obsolete” appears conveniently forgotten,
On the campaign trail this year Trump has repeated his threat that if he should return to the White House, he would not defend NATO members that fail to meet defence spending targets, although he appears to have dropped, at least in public, his suggestion that he would tell Russia to attack NATO allies he considered to have failed in meeting their defence spending targets.
Keir Starmer hedges his bets….
Keir Starmer’s criticisms of Donald Trump, though often tempered by diplomacy, have in recent weeks revealed a divergence between the British Labour Party and Trump’s values and methods.
However, this did not prevent him penning a congratulatory letter to Trump as soon as the result became obvious.
Starmer, a former human rights lawyer and now UK Prime Minister, has distanced Labour’s stance from Trump’s rhetoric and policies on issues like populism, rule of law, and social unity.
One of the most significant points of contention recently arose with allegations of Labour’s interference in U.S. elections.
The Trump campaign filed a complaint to the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC), accusing Labour members of trying to support Democratic candidate Kamala Harris through volunteer campaigning in battleground states, which they framed as foreign interference. Starmer downplayed the accusations, emphasising that the Labour Party’s actions were lawful and a longstanding tradition.
He explained that Labour activists occasionally volunteer for U.S. Democratic campaigns, funding their own travel and accommodations in compliance with U.S. rules, which permit unpaid foreign volunteers to assist campaigns as long as they cover their own expenses.
The Trump campaign’s accusations go further, suggesting that Labour’s support influenced Harris’s policies and that it was part of a coordinated effort by foreign nationals to impact U.S. politics. They cited a now-deleted LinkedIn post by a Labour official, which allegedly offered support for Harris’s campaign, sparking intense debates on social media and within political circles.
Republicans raised concerns about potential legal violations, while Labour denied any wrongdoing. For Starmer, the accusations underscore the stark difference in approaches: he argues that cooperation with allies across the Atlantic is essential, especially on progressive policies, while Trump views this as unwarranted foreign intervention.
Starmer’s broader critique of Trump also focuses on ideological contrasts. His commitment to multilateralism and his criticisms of Trump’s “America First” approach highlight his belief in cooperative global leadership, an approach he considers critical for addressing global issues like climate change and inequality.
Starmer has suggested that Trump’s divisive rhetoric undermines international cooperation and weakens alliances. Despite these criticisms, Starmer has remained diplomatic, maintaining that his relationship with Trump remains “constructive,” underscoring his pragmatism in international relations.
However, Starmer’s positions reflect Labour’s commitment to progressive values and international cooperation, contrasting sharply with Trump’s more nationalist and often unilateral policies. The two are unlikely to see eye to eye on any issue of importance.
Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian prime minister and a prominent Member of the European Parliament has also been an outspoken critic of Trump.
Verhofstadt, known for his strong pro-European stance, frequently highlighted Trump’s actions as undermining democratic values, international cooperation, and transatlantic relations.
One of Verhofstadt’s recurring critiques of Trump focused on the impact of his administration on democracy and governance.
After Trump’s initial campaign promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, Verhofstadt pointedly remarked that Trump had instead become the “head alligator” of a swamp of his own making.
Verhofstadt cited the criminal convictions of Trump’s close associates as examples of corruption and noted that Trump’s disregard for values and integrity eroded public trust in democracy, creating a damaging environment where ethical standards seemed to hold little weight.
According to Verhofstadt, Trump’s administration embodied a presidency “in which values and integrity do not seem to count,” which Verhofstadt argued was highly detrimental to democratic principles worldwide.
Trump’s endorsement of divisive political figures like Nigel Farage, whom Trump once suggested as a possible British ambassador to the U.S., added to Verhofstadt’s frustrations.
Verhofstadt called the idea “barking mad” and described Farage and Trump as “clowns,” arguing that the suggestion was emblematic of Trump’s disregard for diplomatic protocol and his willingness to blur the lines between politics and governance.
Verhofstadt worried that such moves undermined the credibility of transatlantic diplomacy and indicated a preference for sensationalism over serious policymaking.
Verhofstadt’s criticisms of Trump extend beyond policy disagreements; they underscore deeper concerns about what he views as the erosion of democratic norms. His emphasis on integrity, international cooperation, and democratic values represents a broader European view that sees Trump’s political style and rhetoric as a threat to shared Western principles.
Verhofstadt’s consistent vocal stance reflects his belief in the necessity of strong, united European responses to safeguard democracy and counteract populist influences that he felt Trump symbolised.
It is considered highly unlikely that Verhofstadt wrote a letter of congratulations to Trump.
Main Image: By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America – Donald Trump, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52646574
