This month's cover story profiles the Trump administration official reshaping U.S. policy towards Europe.
For much of the past 18 months, Europe has searched for signs that the transatlantic relationship would eventually return to normal.
Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, many European officials have viewed the turbulence in EU-U.S. relations through the lens of personality politics: an unpredictable president whose term will eventually end.
But what if the more consequential shift has little to do with Trump himself?
In our cover story this month, Peder Schaefer profiles Elbridge Colby, one of the architects of the Trump administration’s Europe policy. The portrait that emerges isn’t one of impulsive decision-making, but of a coherent strategic worldview.
Colby argues that the United States must focus on China, and Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own security. That argument is not new. The Obama administration launched its “pivot” to Asia more than a decade ago. What is new is how deeply Colby institutionalized this thinking. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, released late last year, not only calls for a pullback from Europe but also expressly seeks to weaken the EU as a governing entity.
“U.S. policy should be based on the actions that the European Union takes, whether it’s economically or otherwise vis-a-vis the U.S. and our chief interests, rather than being based on nostalgia or some kind of gauzy transatlantic spirit,” a former colleague of Colby’s said.
For years, many Europeans treated shifts in American policy as temporary disruptions to an otherwise stable relationship. That assumption no longer holds. But whether the EU can move beyond the rhetorical outrage and respond to this watershed moment remains an open question.
As Paula Soler’s reporting highlights, the conversation has evolved rapidly. The issue is no longer whether Europe should strengthen its defense capabilities, expand industrial capacity or reduce strategic dependencies. Events have largely settled those arguments. The question is whether Europe can translate ambition into capability
quickly enough.
Building a more resilient European defense posture will require more than spending commitments. It demands industrial scale, coordinated procurement, political will and less fragmentation.
Taken together, these stories point to a broader reality confronting policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic. The challenge facing Europe is no longer simply how to respond to Trump. It’s how to adapt to a United States whose strategic priorities have fundamentally changed — and are unlikely to revert to what they once were.
— Christopher Alessi, Editor-in-Chief