Why Did Trump Attack European Trade Policies? An Analysis Of His Actions

Omar Yusuf

5 min read

Post on May 26, 2025

4.3

Share

The "America First" Doctrine and its Impact on Transatlantic Trade

The core tenet of Trump's "America First" policy was a radical shift away from multilateralism and towards protectionism. This doctrine prioritized American interests above all else, fundamentally altering the approach to international trade relations, particularly with long-standing allies in Europe.

• Protectionism as a cornerstone: The administration viewed free trade agreements as detrimental to American industries, believing they led to job losses and economic disadvantage. This belief drove the implementation of numerous protectionist measures.

• Prioritizing domestic industries: The focus shifted from international cooperation to bolstering American industries, regardless of the implications for global trade. This often came at the expense of established trade relationships.

• Specific policy examples: The imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the initiation of trade disputes with the EU over Airbus subsidies, and the withdrawal from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations are prime examples of this protectionist approach.

• Specific trade actions against Europe:

  • 25% tariff on steel imports.
  • 10% tariff on aluminum imports.
  • Tariffs on various European goods in response to Airbus subsidies.
  • Withdrawal from the TTIP negotiations.

Trade Deficits and the Perception of Unfair Trade Practices

A significant driver of Trump's trade actions was the perception of unfair trade practices and persistent trade deficits with European nations.

• Trade deficits as a negative indicator: Trump viewed trade deficits as evidence of American weakness and exploitation, failing to fully account for the complexities of international trade and investment.

• Specific deficits with Europe: The administration frequently highlighted the significant trade imbalance between the US and the EU, citing this as justification for its actions.

• Justified perception of unfair trade practices?: While the existence of trade deficits was undeniable, the assertion that these were solely due to unfair European trade practices was a highly contested claim. The administration frequently pointed to subsidies provided to European companies, particularly in the aerospace sector, as evidence of unfair competition.

• Data on trade deficits and alleged unfair practices: While exact figures fluctuate yearly, substantial trade deficits consistently existed between the US and the EU across various sectors. Claims of unfair subsidies were often based on World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings or investigations, though interpretations and conclusions were frequently debated.

National Security Concerns and Strategic Trade Policy

The Trump administration frequently invoked national security concerns as a justification for imposing tariffs on European goods, particularly steel and aluminum.

• Critical industries and national security: Steel and aluminum were deemed critical to national security, arguing that reliance on foreign sources posed a vulnerability.

• National security as a tariff justification: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allowed the president to impose tariffs on goods deemed to threaten national security. This provision was used to justify the tariffs on European imports.

• Effectiveness of the national security argument: The legal basis for using national security as a justification for trade protectionism remains highly contentious and was challenged internationally. The argument's effectiveness lay more in its political utility than its strict legal or economic grounding.

• Examples linking European trade policies to national security: The administration argued that dependence on foreign steel and aluminum jeopardized the production of military equipment and other essential goods.

Political and Domestic Considerations: Electoral Politics and Public Opinion

Trump's trade policies were deeply intertwined with domestic political calculations and electoral strategies.

• Populist sentiment and public opinion: Appealing to populist sentiment and a protectionist electorate was a key component of Trump's political platform. This resonated with voters who felt left behind by globalization.

• Appealing to specific voter segments: Trade actions were frequently used to garner support from specific segments of the population, particularly those in industries affected by foreign competition.

• Impact on political base and approval ratings: While some segments of his base applauded his tough stance on trade, others were negatively impacted by the resulting trade wars and economic uncertainty. The overall impact on his approval ratings remains a subject of ongoing analysis.

• Examples of political motivations: The timing of tariff announcements often coincided with important political events or periods, suggesting a strategic use of trade policy to influence domestic political narratives.

Conclusion: Analyzing the Legacy of Trump's Trade Actions Towards Europe

Trump's assault on European trade policies stemmed from a confluence of factors: the "America First" doctrine's emphasis on protectionism, the perception (whether justified or not) of unfair trade practices and persistent trade deficits, the strategic use of national security concerns, and the pursuit of domestic political advantages. The long-term consequences of these actions are still unfolding. The transatlantic relationship suffered considerable strain, and the global trading system experienced significant disruption. The legacy of Trump's approach to European trade policies continues to shape international relations and trade negotiations. We urge further research into the continuing effects of Trump's trade actions on the transatlantic relationship and global trade dynamics, exploring the long-term economic and geopolitical ramifications of his policies. Understanding the full impact of Trump's trade policies toward Europe is crucial for navigating the complexities of global trade in the years to come.