America Is Retreating. Will Europe Lead?
Why Europe Must Step In as America Steps Back
Donald Trump is proving to be the undoing of the Pax Americana. While it’s hard to assess a presidential administration so early in its term, the systemic unraveling of the U.S.’ democratic institutions and global influence merits critique and analysis. He increasingly resembles the autocratic style of leaders like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or Nicolas Maduro in his consolidation of power and disregard for established norms. The second Trump administration has undermined democratic institutions, threatened seizure of sovereign territories, sabotaged relations with close allies, and accelerated the consolidation of power among America’s wealthiest elites. Under Trump, the United States is becoming increasingly autocratic, erratic, and confrontational.
The consequence of this is that America’s allies can no longer rely on it for their security and prosperity. The damage that Trump has inflicted on the U.S.’ credibility will outlast his presidency. Many thought 2016 was a fluke. 2024 proved it wasn't. Even if Americans elect an Obama-like figure in 2028, allies and partners won’t have the same level of trust in the U.S. as in years past. Europe and Canada are already seeking to diversify their economic, political, and military relationships beyond the United States. All the while, Trump’s penchant for chaos is fueling China’s rise as the world’s dominant player.
For some, Trump’s isolationist foreign policy is a welcome shift. The era of American dominance has resulted in instability in many parts of the world. There are the obvious examples of Vietnam, Iraq, and the countless coups in Latin America and the Middle East. The United States military has committed horrific atrocities such as those in the Abu Ghraib prison or the My Lai and No Gun Ri massacres. These are all examples of hegemonic overreach that merit strong, forceful condemnation. With that being said, the consequences of an isolationist America are substantial and could result in a more uncertain world.
Washington's role as the “world’s policeman” should be evaluated in light of what the world would look like without it. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United States led a multinational coalition to drive out Iraqi forces and liberated Kuwait. The United States rallied the democratic world to impose heavy sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. The possibility of American intervention is the main reason why China hasn’t taken military action on Taiwan.
Leaders intent on using force to achieve political objectives have had to consider how the United States would respond. While frustrating for those in power, this restraint has helped produce one of the most peaceful times in history. The post-WWII era of stability, or the “Long Peace” as some call it, has helped stimulate global economic development and interconnectedness.
How, then, would the world look if the United States was no longer there to constrain would-be aggressors? Likely more unstable, violent, and not as prosperous. There is historical precedent for the tragic consequences of American inaction or perceived weakness. For instance, many have criticized the U.S. for not intervening in the Rwandan genocide, a decision that allowed mass killings to continue unchecked. Obama’s decision not to launch military strikes in Syria after President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people signaled to other autocrats that systemic violence could go unpunished. The U.S.’ fumbled withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 has been credited with emboldening Putin to move on Ukraine one year later.
As Washington grows more isolationist, there are seemingly few contenders capable of filling the void left by the United States as the “world’s policeman.” China and Russia are both expansionist powers and the most probable instigators of a major conflict. India has potential, but it continues to face domestic challenges that hamper its ability to replace the United States. Japan’s pacifist constitution hinders it from taking a more global security role. Indonesia and Brazil are both regional powers, with neither having the military power to effectively deter conflict in areas outside of Southeast Asia and Latin America. The only viable (if imperfect) option is Europe—encompassing the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Norway.
Why Europe needs to step up as the world’s security guarantor
Europe has been reluctant to take a more leading role in international affairs, having delegated that responsibility to the United States since the end of the Second World War. Most European countries have relied on the U.S. for their security and overlooked their own national defense. The end of the Cold War and the consequent “peace dividend” led many states, including the United States, to cut defense spending and prioritize domestic social programs. This made sense at the time. The rivalry between the world’s two superpowers had just ended and it appeared that a new era of global cooperation had begun. Few, especially in Europe, considered the geopolitical tensions that would emerge decades later with the rise of China and a resurgent Russia.
The optimism of the post-Cold War period is gone. What has replaced it is uncertainty, pessimism, and a fear that things could get worse. The COVID pandemic upended the global system and accelerated trends like disinformation. Russia fought a war against Georgia in 2008, annexed Crimea in 2014, and later invaded Ukraine in 2022. The People’s Republic of China has grown increasingly assertive in the South China Sea and its rhetoric on Taiwan has hardened, with China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs arguing that the “day will certainly come when China is reunified.” The PRC’s implementation of the 2020 National Security Law in Hong Kong effectively eliminated the freedoms and civil liberties that the territory enjoyed after its handover to mainland China in 1997.
Europe’s hope that the “end of history” had come is dead. Instead, it should adapt to this new era by taking the mantle of the world’s security guarantor.
Why Europe has the potential to lead
Europe has all the attributes needed to serve as a potential third pole alongside the U.S. and China. It boasts one of the world’s largest economies, holds significant cultural influence, is home to renowned universities and a well-educated population, maintains stable and functional political systems, and possesses an industrial base capable of supporting war operations if mobilized. It continues to respect the rule of law, the use of diplomacy over force, and liberal democratic norms. It is a better representative of the values that the United States claims it champions. Europe has almost everything needed to be a global power except the ambition to do so.
What’s holding Europe back?
Taking the role of the world’s security guarantor will not be easy.
Europe, in its current state, lacks the requisite political unity for global leadership. It doesn’t yet have the military strength to challenge the world’s major powers. European nations face a number of domestic issues—such as immigration, increased polarization, and an aging population—that limit the continent’s ability to take a more prominent security role globally. There is also the question of NATO and how to manage Europe’s strategic relationship with the United States.
Internationally, a more interventionist Europe will get plenty of pushback, particularly from those with revisionist goals and the Global South. A failure to lead would have immense repercussions though, likely ushering in a return to a “might makes right” international system.
The consequences of inaction
Russia has hinted at potential future actions against Moldova and undermined Kazakhstan’s legitimacy by calling it an “artificial state.” China continues to have territorial disputes with Japan, Bhutan, India, and a number of countries in Southeast Asia. Venezuela has passed legislation allowing for the annexation of the Essequibo region in Guyana. Washington has joined the club by stating that it should control Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. While talking about Greenland in his 2025 State of the Union address, Trump proclaimed that “One way or the other, we’re going to get it.” In that same speech, the president declared “To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal.”
Comments made by Trump or Russian and Chinese officials shouldn’t be taken lightly. Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs shouldn’t have come as a surprise, he has been talking about tariffs since the 1980s. China has introduced the death penalty for supporters of Taiwan’s de jure independence. Putin has repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Ukrainian statehood. When authoritarians speak, the world should listen. And they have spoken. In the case of Russia, they have acted. In the case of China, they could potentially act. The world needs a stabilizing power to ensure that political figures like Xi, Putin, and Trump cannot achieve their neocolonial goals and disrupt the global order.
The reelection of Donald Trump has fundamentally changed international affairs by demonstrating that the United States is no longer the beacon of democracy, pluralism, and liberalism that it once was.
As the U.S. retreats from the world stage—or worse, moves toward the contradictory form of “isolationist expansionism,” wherein it disengages from alliances while pursuing territorial acquisition—there may soon no longer be a global security guarantor to restrain expansionist powers. Europe needs to step up and fill the void left by the United States, otherwise we could be looking at a much more precarious world.
The world doesn’t need another hegemon. But it desperately needs a stabilizer, and Europe may be its last, best hope.