The agreement between the EU and the US in the trade dispute has been heavily criticized by business associations and politicians. Those who have looked at the White House’s communication will have their critical stance reinforced. The justification for the negotiation outcome is that Europe cannot defend itself against Russia without the US, so more was not achievable. But what will the consequences be? Can the EU chart a course toward defense-political independence and economic strength? And what does the deal mean for Europe’s relationship with the US? Sympathy, friendship, solidarity, etc., are probably off the table for now. And this applies across the entire political spectrum.

Trade and security policy are intertwined; Europe is caught in the Trump dilemma. In a sharp commentary for Carnegie Europe, Rym Momtaz criticizes Europe’s negotiation tactics towards Trump. She argues that the approach aims to avoid short-term pain, but in the long run, the damage to Europe will be even greater. This is certainly a valid perspective.

In a recent commentary published by Carnegie Europe, Rosa Balfour argues that former U.S. President Donald Trump’s confrontational and undiplomatic style may have inadvertently pushed Europe toward long-overdue reforms.

According to Balfour, Trump’s political pressure has forced the EU to take greater responsibility for its own security, invest in a more resilient internal market, and pursue new trade agreements. However, she cautions that this shift is not without risks. Populist parties across EU member states could exploit the inevitable tensions and frictions that come with structural change.

Her conclusion: While Trump may not have intended it, his presidency may have compelled Europe to confront its vulnerabilities — and potentially emerge stronger. (MB)

“Public Affairs in Times of Accelerated Politics / Higher Demands, Faster Action”: Vanessa Haumberger and Boris Binkowska from Gauly Advisors discuss in Kommunikationsmanager (page 42) how corporate lobbying has become increasingly crucial amid turbulent political environments. Political decisions now have significant impacts across various industries, making public affairs departments and their teams more important than ever. A second critical element is the role of social media: companies must maintain their own communication channels and reliable pathways to stakeholders to keep up with abrupt political changes. While the analysis is insightful, it reflects the expected perspective of a consultancy agency. You can read the full article in the Kommunikationsmanager issue here: Kommunikationsmanager 01/2025 (PDF).

In her latest piece for Carnegie Europe, Rym Momtaz explores the growing tensions in the transatlantic relationship — especially between Germany and the United States. With Washington’s increasing tilt toward right-wing populist actors in Europe, questions arise about the long-term strategic intentions of U.S. foreign policy. Is this soft support for parties like France’s Rassemblement National or Germany’s AfD a deliberate effort to weaken EU unity? Momtaz argues that such actions, even if uncoordinated, risk undermining democratic cohesion on the continent just as geopolitical threats from Russia and China intensify. The article doesn’t just identify the problem — it issues a call to action. If Europe wants to maintain its influence and protect liberal democracy, it must respond with strength and unity. That means investing in its own security, reducing dependencies, and showing resilience in the face of external pressure. As the U.S. gears up for a potentially transformative election, European leaders have a narrowing window to shape the future of the alliance rather than simply react to it.

At the recent European People’s Party (EPP) meeting last weekend in Berlin, a resolution was issued. The paper reads less radically than some of the statements made to the press by individual participants, which is not surprising. Alongside nearly ten EPP government leaders, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was also present. Suspending certain regulations for two years would be a step forward, but overall, the document has not sparked much enthusiasm among the business community. For that, there would have needed to be an agreement on abolishing regulations entirely. From a power-politics perspective, the meeting was notable. The EPP holds strong positions both in the European Parliament and the Council, giving them room to push back against the Commission when needed. You can read the full-resolution paper here.

I recently came across an interesting interview with historian Timothy Ryback in Pragmaticus. He’s just published a book about how Hitler came to power, and the conversation digs into some striking similarities between Hitler and Trump, as well as the recent rise of populist parties across Europe.

One thing that really caught my attention was how Hitler often used humor in his speeches, especially when speaking in rural areas. It wasn’t just about politics — he knew people appreciated being entertained. That’s something we see today too: politicians who mix serious messages with a bit of showmanship.

Another parallel is the way established media pushed back against Hitler and the Nazis, much like how mainstream outlets often challenge populist groups like the AfD nowadays. In response, Hitler’s team got creative, using alternative ways to reach people. For example, he sometimes gave up to five speeches in a single day, which was only possible because the Nazi party chartered a plane to get him from place to place quickly.

It’s fascinating, yet unsettling, to see how history echoes current events. If you want to dig deeper, you can read the full interview here.