The Trump administration has been pretty upfront about its hatred for Europe. This mindset reveals a deeply transactional worldview that is boxing in European countries to increase their own defense spending. Former President Donald Trump’s administration seemed to want that military strike as a deterrent act. Addressing both the need to protect European maritime trade and contain Iran’s aggression, they forced the debate onto Europe’s dependency on U.S. military might. This strategic move further highlights Trump’s larger strategy of pressuring European allies to do more for their own defense.
Ohio Senator JD Vance has emerged as a vocal critic of the transatlantic alliance, adopting a confrontational stance towards European leaders. In the section on America’s overcommitted commitments Vance contends that U.S. security assurances to Europe are excessive. He further claims that European nations are not aligned with American values. He has described key allies, such as the UK and France, as "some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years," questioning their contributions to global security.
At the core of Vance’s argument is a sharp rebuke of the U.S. for continually “bailing Europe out” of their security problems. He argues that this focus is a serious strategic miscalculation. He argues that Europe is a failure, dysfunctional and in decline – and that American money and attention would be better spent elsewhere. His comments have set off a firestorm. Estonian prime minister and current European foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has blamed him for creating unwarranted friction with European counterparts.
“I think we are making a mistake,” said JD Vance.
The Trump administration’s motivation behind the strike against the Houthis certainly wasn’t just to make Europe pay more for their own defense. Rather, its purpose was to project and bolster the most fundamental of American ideals – freedom of navigation and deterrence. And nobody was more vehement about this than former advisor Pete Hegseth. He claimed that only the U.S. is capable of such a strategic move.
"We are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this," stated Pete Hegseth.
This led to a strategic decision-making process that centered around calculating the costs of U.S. military engagements. It sought to use these expenses to push the European countries to pay more. Stephen Miller, another former advisor, emphasized the importance of clarifying expectations with partners such as Egypt and Europe following the military action.
"Green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return," commented Stephen Miller.
Building upon the idea of transactional diplomacy, the administration’s approach to international relations was transactional diplomacy in practice. It judged alliances by their costs relative to benefits. Trump's strategy sought to rectify what he perceived as an imbalance in defense responsibilities between the U.S. and its European allies.
Vance’s critique of European defense budgets must go further, to a more general diagnosis of Europe’s present malaise. To hear him tell it, Europe is a profoundly dysfunctional project on the verge of catastrophic decline. Many commentators agree with this assessment, interpreting these criticisms as manifestations of a more profound fracturing of transatlantic relations.
“It could be much bigger than Europe. Europe is dysfunctional today,” noted Steve Witkoff.
“It would be good for the world because Europe is dying,” remarked Tucker Carlson.
The administration's focus on sending a message through military action aligns with Trump's broader foreign policy objectives. By taking aim at the Houthis, the administration aimed to send a strong signal of deterrence and demonstrate American resolve to protect its interests.
“The strongest reason to do this is, as [Trump] said, to send a message,” expressed JD Vance.