When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the concern in Europe was palpable. Project 2025:s extensive document had foreshadowed a radical upheaval of the transatlantic link. Now, seven months later, we can begin to discern the contours of what has actually become reality – and what still hangs in the balance ahead of the crucial meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska on August 15.
The Transactional Reality – More Nuanced Than Expected
Predictions about Trump’s reluctance to negotiate with EU institutions have been proven wrong. The most striking example is the negotiations between Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his golf resort Turnberry in Scotland on July 27, 2025. Here, Trump actually showed a willingness to negotiate directly with the EU as an institution, not just bilaterally with individual member states.
The agreement reached involved 15% tariffs on most European goods instead of the originally threatened 30%. As part of the agreement, the EU committed to investing $600 billion in the US and purchasing American energy for $750 billion over three years. Von der Leyen had to wait until Trump finished his golf round, but described the final result as “a big deal” after “tough negotiations”.
At the NATO summit in The Hague in June, Trump managed to push through the historic decision that member countries should spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 – 3.5% on military expenditures and 1.5% on infrastructure and security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte praised Trump for this “monumental win”, but behind the scenes, the concern was palpable.
SACEUR – An Unexpected Commitment
One of the most important signals of American engagement came when Trump nominated Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich to SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe). This decision was particularly significant because it had previously been reported that the Trump administration was considering giving up this traditionally American position.
As retired Admiral James Stavridis, former SACEUR, warned: “For the USA to give up the role of NATO’s supreme allied commander would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of moving away from the alliance.” Trump’s decision to retain the position therefore shows a willingness to continue leading NATO’s military structure.
Pandora’s Box: The Credibility of Article 5
However, Trump’s statements about Article 5 have opened what can only be described as a Pandora’s box. On the way to the Hague meeting, he said that the US commitment “depends on your definition” of Article 5. This ambiguity is almost impossible to assess in advance and creates an uncertainty that every future president will find very difficult to close.
The Alaska Meeting
The upcoming meeting with Putin is described by Trump himself as a “feel-out meeting” rather than a negotiation. Ukraine’s President Zelensky is not invited to the initial meeting, which has raised great concern in Europe. Trump has hinted that both sides must be prepared to “exchange land” to achieve peace.
The Kremlin has simultaneously signaled that it does not intend to compromise on its original war goals: Ukraine’s demilitarization, “denazification,” and alliance neutrality.
Nuclear Deterrence: Europe’s Existential Question
Perhaps the most crucial issue concerns the US nuclear umbrella over Europe. Here we see three possible scenarios developing according to researchers at the German foreign policy institute SWP:
Scenario 1: Crisis of Confidence – The US formally maintains its guarantees, but Europeans doubt their credibility. This leads to increased defense spending and closer cooperation between France and the UK.
Scenario 2: Lack of Confidence – Europeans assume that the US would only intervene in a large-scale conflict. This requires building up their own escalation capabilities to force the US to engage.
Scenario 3: Complete Withdrawal – Europe must rely entirely on its own nuclear weapons, which would lead to unpredictable consequences.
Europe’s Response: France’s Own Uncertainty
France and the UK signed the historic Northwood Declaration in July 2025 on coordinating their nuclear arsenals. For the first time, they acknowledge that “no extreme threat to Europe” can be handled without a joint response.
But even France’s nuclear policy depends on the will of future presidents. The French nuclear doctrine can change with new political leaders, just as the American one can. The question of whether Europe can build its own nuclear umbrella is therefore as complex as American credibility.
Sweden and the Nordic countries have responded with significantly increased defense spending. Sweden aims for 2.6% of GDP by 2028 and takes the lead for NATO forces in Finland.
Devil’s Advocate: Transactionalism as Success?
There are arguments that Trump’s approach actually strengthens NATO. The EU Commission has described the tariff agreement as a success that provides stability and predictability. The US defense budget continues to grow, and American companies earn enormous sums from European rearmament.
Moreover, it is a fact that Europe is indeed dramatically increasing its defense spending as a direct result of Trump’s pressure. The transactional approach can be seen as a way to get Europe to take greater responsibility – something that can strengthen the alliance in the long term.
The Great Unknown: A Nuclear War the World Cannot Afford
Finally, we must remember that the credibility of nuclear deterrence can never be tested without catastrophic consequences. A nuclear war is something the world cannot afford. This makes the entire discussion about the credibility of Article 5 a paradox – it can only be proven through a conflict that would be disastrous for all parties.
Conclusion: More Complex Than Expected
Trump’s second presidential term has not led to NATO’s collapse, but it has opened questions that cannot be easily closed. The negotiations with von der Leyen show that he is willing to work with EU institutions when it suits his interests. The nomination of Grynkewich to SACEUR signals continued American military leadership.
But Pandora’s box regarding the credibility of Article 5 remains open, and even France’s nuclear policy is subject to future political changes. Europe is therefore still faced with the choice between continued dependence on unreliable partners or a painful path towards strategic autonomy. The Alaska meeting may very well determine which path the continent is forced to take.
Lars-Erik Lundin