A worrying flashback? The sustainability and success of the European project will be defined by a careful, but no less firm, balance between its fundamental values, pragmatism, the promotion of global competitiveness and a unified and proactive international voice. This is the driving message which resonates both in the corridors of the institutions of the European Union and in the cabinets of the Member States. If the theory is well studied, its practical implementation remains far from being realized.
Un inquiétant retour en arrière ?
The sustainability and success of the European project will be defined by a careful, but no less firm, balance between its fundamental values, pragmatism, the promotion of global competitiveness and a unified and proactive international voice. This is the driving message which resonates both in the corridors of the institutions of the European Union and in the cabinets of the Member States. If the theory is well studied, its practical implementation remains far from being realized. In an international agenda which, more than ever, interconnects areas of action traditionally treated more or less independently of each other, trade has suddenly resurfaced as a policy instrument foreign, revitalized by the return of Donald Trump to the White House.
After decades of the dominance of a rules-based international order anchored in free trade, the widespread use of trade restrictions for security purposes points to dark times for the entire international community. In the first half of the 20th century, following the Great Depression of 1929, countries turned toward protectionism, a shift that allowed underlying tensions to resurface amid the consolidation of fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany.
The rapid spiral that can result from such circumstances is written in all the history books, which should ensure that the prospect of widespread confrontation involving multiple actors is not high on the agenda of world leaders.
Strategic autonomy: contested, but necessary
On the one hand, the volatility of the Trump administration’s foreign and security policy has produced an increasingly unpredictable pattern. European leaders quickly found themselves confronting lopsided trade discrimination, as the US-EU framework agreement concluded in August 2025 removes European customs duties on US goods while maintaining a base US tariff of 15% on most European products. International trade, and in particular energy imports, then suffered a major shock following the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Caught in a balancing act between strategic autonomy and geopolitical prudence, European institutions and member state leaders have launched a dynamic in favor of the EU’s strategic autonomy. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that “the seismic change we are going through today is an opportunity, in reality a necessity, to build a new form of European independence.” This need is multifaceted and involves working towards the construction of a self-sufficient political-economic role. If building autonomy may seem a more difficult challenge in the context of an international energy crisis, choosing the easy solution by simply relying on new dependencies constitutes a dead end. applies to European defense dependence on the United States, as well as its energy dependence on fossil fuel imports.
The risk of this trend is difficult to ignore: increased dependence on the United States gives the American administration negotiating leverage to put pressure on the EU. For example, the United States could threaten to restrict its LNG exports to Europe if the EU refused to give in on a given issue. As the United States takes an increasingly transactional approach to the war in Ukraine, this strategic vulnerability must be urgently addressed, both for the EU’s economic consolidation and its credibility as an external actor.
While a broader consensus has formed around the crucial importance of European autonomy, the path to achieving it remains unclear. President Macron has been among the most active promoters of a reduction in dependence on Washington, while in February 2026, Viktor Orbán, then Prime Minister of Hungary, hailed relations between the United States and Hungary as having reached a level of alignment record.
Across the Atlantic, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s speech at the 2026 Munich Security Conference echoed a similar message of defending the US-Europe bond, invoking their “civilizational” connection, while criticizing European domestic policies and proposing cooperation on American terms. This is the current vision of international relations held by the United States: based on force and convenience, alternating between unilateral and bilateral approaches, free from international constraints and guided by self-interest. In short, the White House has put forward a model of diplomacy in which “deals”, rather than legally binding international agreements, constitute the main tool.
How to mobilize regulatory power in a realistic world?
It goes without saying that, for a political project dependent on dialogue and engagement, and reinforced by supranational institutions and international law, this question is of vital importance. How can the EU best preserve stable relations with its historic partner, despite the internal upheavals of leadership in the United States, while remaining faithful to its essential foundations?
What appears to be particularly crucial is the reaffirmation of the regulatory power of the EU and its status as an international trading power. If properly mobilized, European legislation can maximize what Anu Bradford called in 2019 the “Brussels effect”. As the world’s largest trading bloc, the EU’s internal market accounted for around 17% of global exports of goods and services in 2024. At the same time, the size of the EU’s GDP (around €18 trillion in 2026, according to the European Commission) and its population of 450 million consumers make the adaptation to European requirements in terms of products and services necessary for international companies wishing to access the single market.
The potential for such leverage has been illustrated by tensions between the EU and US technology companies over sanctions imposed under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). These texts have caused significant international and economic tensions, but also testify to their considerable impact.
Reviving principled pragmatism, with a focus on economic security Mobilizing trade and regulation should, for these reasons, be the starting point for developing a central role for the EU. This role must necessarily be supplemented by a pragmatic understanding of global developments, without this being done to the detriment of European values. This is why the notion of “principled pragmatism”, formulated by the European Council in June 2016, remains a reference concept to guide the balance between normative commitments and geopolitical realism. Such an approach must be associated with an intelligent economic strategy, particularly in terms of energy dependencies: the growing importance of Norwegian gas transported by pipeline could represent a viable, although transitory, solution preferable to becoming vulnerable to coercion from international actors.
In a context marked by criticism relating to the deterioration of the international image of the EU, it has fared best in areas of action where the treaties provide for a collective decision-making mechanism capable of supporting the political process. If the renunciation of national sovereignty remains a sensitive subject on the domestic level, an expanded system based on the majority makes it possible to avoid the blockages caused by individual reservations. A compromise in this sense can be supported by differentiated integration, even if inclusiveness and equality between MS must remain the long-term objectives.
A unified commitment to pursuing a trajectory of intense reform of European decision-making is in the interest of the EU’s economic competitiveness. Such a development would ensure that the Union’s much-criticized bureaucratic and regulatory complexity serves its sustainability in a rapidly changing world.
