Trump and Legitimation of Europe’s Far Right

* This article was published in Catalan on 13 December in the daily ARA.

The new US National Security Strategy and Washington’s interfering activities have been differently received by the countries of Europe. The continent’s far-right groups find support in Trump’s discourse but are wary of certain actions of the US government, while various mainstream leaders still trust in appeasement, although this shows few signs of having been effective.

The US National Security Strategy (NSS) adopted by the Trump administration has been a bombshell for the EU. Washington fully embraces the European far right’s story about a continent in decline, beset by mass immigration, and on the brink of civilisational collapse. The NSS points to the EU as the cause of these ills because it weakens the sovereignty of its nations and promotes migration policies that are “transforming” the continent and eroding national identities. In its efforts to end this situation, the US is committed to helping “patriotic” forces to correct the course Europe has taken, and to cultivate resistance to the present policy in European countries.

Some of Europe’s political forces are trying not to read the NSS either as an act of aggression or a plan to interfere in the affairs of the EU and its member states. Others have interpreted it as confirmation of their own theses and legitimation of their project of ongoing disruption in the EU.

Two realities stand out in this dual interpretation of what the NSS might mean. First, is the incredulity with which some EU member states and leaders view the United States. US interference did not begin with Trump, and neither has Europe always been treated as an ally. The United States spied on former German Chancellor Merkel from 2002 until 2013, the Inflation Reduction Act was adopted without consideration of European interests, and AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States was agreed upon behind Europe’s back. Interference has only increased with Trump’s second term, with Vance at the Munich Security Conference, Elon Musk and the German elections, and Trump in the Polish and Romanian elections. The NSS clearly states, in black and white, that there are no allies now, but only interests. And the appeasement of some members states, whether on the golf course or at the NATO summit in The Hague has been ineffective.

Second, the response of far-right parties in Europe to Trump’s statements are notable because they do not express out-and-out support. They share his analysis but there is also a note of objection to US tutelage. Orbán has understood it as legitimation of his ongoing dispute with Brussels over both the state of democracy in Hungary and relations with Russia. Without addressing the question of Russia, Meloni sees it as expecting the EU to be autonomous in questions of security, although she denies that this is interference. Indeed, she agrees with some of the comments about Europe. French National Rally president Jordan Bardella has declared that he shares a good number of the NSS warnings about Europe but he does not need big brother US to give him lessons about his country, while Poland’s Law and Justice party buys the story about the decline of Europe. AfD has responded by saying that it supports the struggle for a conservative renaissance. Yet, the far-right parties, just as they did with the EU-US trade deal signed last summer by Von der Leyen, also complain about the EU’s subservience to Trump.

The European far-right parties’ beneficial relationship with Trump can be explained by two factors. First, they acquire an international presence of shared ideology and, second, it enables them to criticise the EU as a useless organisation that fails to defend the sovereignty of European nations. The fact that Trump legitimises this discourse benefits Europe’s far right politically, although they recognise that while Trump could be good for the United States, he may not necessarily be so for Europe.

The position that is not explained is that of the European leaders who opt for appeasement. The Trump administration NSS puts into writing what had already been announced by US foreign policy, namely that the United States is not the benevolent hegemonic power that the EU thought it was. Now that Washington is prepared to intervene whenever it deems it necessary to support the “patriotic” forces of Europe, and when America First is going to prevail, Europe no longer needs wake up calls. It is time to get up and stand up.

Key words: far right, Trump, EU, National Security Strategy, transatlantic relations, interference, appeasement

E-ISSN 2014-0843

_{All the publications express the opinions of their individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIDOB or its donors}

_{Image: © Ricardo Rubio / Europa Press (Diari Ara)}