European Leaders Cautious After US Midterms

The recent midterm elections in the United States concluded with a Democratic victory that has led European observers to view the transatlantic relationship with slightly less alarm. During the campaign period, neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties made Europe a central theme. Key issues such as the handling of the Ukraine war, the contentious status of Greenland, and the aggressive posture toward the European Union remained largely absent from the political discourse.

Despite the shift in congressional control, experts advise that European nations should not overestimate the impact of this election on US foreign policy. Erik Jones, director of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, noted that while Europeans are looking at the US with less horror than in the past two years, the fundamental trend line has remained consistent across administrations. He argued that this midterm result does not alter that broader trajectory.

The traditional consensus that Washington required a free and secure Europe, while relying on American security guarantees, has gradually eroded. This shift did not originate with President Donald Trump. Instead, it began under the Obama administration, which initiated a strategic reorientation toward Asia due to perceived regional security threats. Today, both Republican and Democratic politicians generally support the idea that European countries should take greater responsibility for their own defense.

President Trump has accelerated this shift through his America First approach. His actions have included criticizing NATO, threatening to seize Greenland, and showing a preference for Russia over Ukraine, which has complicated European efforts to isolate Moscow. However, the tone of US engagement may change with a Democratic-controlled Congress. Fredrik Erixon, an economist at the European Centre for International Political Economy, explained that while Democrats favor more predictable ties, they lack a veto-proof majority. This means the president retains significant authority over foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine, Iran, and tariffs.

The ongoing conflict with Iran has raised global energy prices and left European allies facing a cost of living crisis that is sparking protests across the continent. Trump faces a difficult choice between negotiating a deal that might leave Iran with leverage over the Strait of Hormuz or resuming military action, a move that is unpopular with US voters. Some Democratic lawmakers have proposed using the next government funding bill to block war spending, a tactic favored by antiwar factions.

In Ukraine, the new Congress may favor stronger support for Kyiv, but this may not prove decisive for the war. Ukrainian officials are concerned about the two-month gap before the new Congress convenes in January. They fear President Trump may use this window to pursue further negotiations with Vladimir Putin. Trump recently indicated that a big, beautiful agreement on Ukraine is coming soon, potentially involving all of Europe. These comments preceded trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi that have yet to produce a breakthrough.

Michele Valensise, president of the Institute for International Affairs, warned that Trump’s moves are difficult to predict. He emphasized the importance of European involvement in contacts aimed at ending the war. Valensise expressed concern that the US might choose to negotiate exclusively with Russia, which would unfairly weaken the position of European allies. This uncertainty extends to other areas, such as the Pentagon’s expected review of US military forces in Europe next month.

The political landscape on trade has also evolved. Democrats have moved toward more protectionist positions, blurring the traditional distinction with Republicans who were historically associated with free trade. Even if US courts strike down some of Trump’s tariffs, Europe may see little immediate relief. The trade agreement between Washington and Brussels involves mutual commitments, and Erixon noted that the US administration is unlikely to initiate a renegotiation process in the next two years. Jones concluded that the key question is how Europe will use the time bought by this election to prepare for a future where US engagement may be even less predictable.