People across Europe are losing confidence that the United States would come to their defense in the event of a military attack. Increasingly viewing Washington as, at best, a necessary partner rather than an ally, Europeans are placing greater trust in their continental neighbors during security crises.

A public opinion survey conducted in May by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) across 15 countries found that in none of the participating states did a majority believe the United States would come to their aid in the event of an attack.

By contrast, confidence in support from other European countries remains high.

Trust in US declines even in staunch ally Poland

Even in Poland, one of Washington’s strongest supporters in Europe, only 37% of respondents said they had complete or sufficient confidence that the United States would provide military assistance.

In Spain, which has taken one of the strongest positions against President Donald Trump’s military actions toward Iran, that figure fell to just 12%. Across all 15 countries surveyed, only 23.8% of respondents said they believed the United States would protect them in the event of an attack.

Meanwhile, in every country except Bulgaria, a majority of respondents said they were confident that at least one European partner would come to their assistance during a crisis.

Average confidence in support from fellow European countries stood at 65.1%.

Yana Kobzova, ECFR senior policy fellow and co-author of the report, said the findings demonstrated clear support for reducing dependence on Washington.

“Across the continent, there is clear support for the idea of reducing dependence on Washington. Europeans are becoming increasingly willing to increase defense spending and, more importantly, are displaying striking confidence that neighboring countries would come to their aid in a crisis,” Kobzova said.

Pavel Zerka, the report’s other co-author, argued that public demand for greater independence and a hedge against the possibility of US disengagement presents European leaders with an opportunity to move “further and faster” on security policy.

Despite this trend, however, Europeans continue to express confidence in NATO and are not enthusiastic about replacing the alliance entirely with a purely European military bloc. While 29% of respondents said such a change would be a good idea, 28% opposed it.

Actions during the Trump era seen as a turning point

The ECFR analysis also identified several factors behind the shift in European public opinion.

According to the report, these include Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland, his military actions toward Iran without what the report described as a clear plan and his subsequent expectation that Europeans help address the resulting problems.

The report also cited Trump’s pressure on Kyiv rather than Moscow in pursuit of a peace agreement to end the war in Ukraine, his failure to secure results from that approach, his questioning of US commitments to NATO and his decision to withdraw part of the American military presence from Europe.

The survey, conducted in Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, found that the share of respondents who view the United States as “an ally that shares our interests and values” has fallen to an average of 11%.

That figure stood at 16% six months ago and 22% in November 2024.

Current data show growing support for the view that the United States is a “necessary partner,” while 13% of respondents described Washington as a “rival” and 12% viewed it directly as an “enemy.”

Five European governments have called on EU countries to align their pharmaceutical pricing policies and avoid fragmented measures in response to growing pressure over medicine costs.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria and Ireland — members of the “Beneluxa” initiative — said in a joint statement on Wednesday that they support cooperation in addressing “shared structural challenges” and warned against “uncoordinated individual national measures.”

The statement comes as the United States and pharmaceutical companies intensify pressure on EU countries over drug prices, which in Germany are roughly three times lower than in the United States.

The Trump administration is demanding that Europe pay higher prices for medicines while pursuing lower prices domestically.

US embassies across Europe have been tasked with negotiating national pharmaceutical pricing agreements similar to the deal reached with the United Kingdom.

The UK is now paying more for medicines in exchange for a temporary exemption from US tariffs.

Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla, together with the chief executives of 30 other pharmaceutical companies, has requested an urgent meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Germany’s pharmaceutical industry lobby has acknowledged being “somewhat jealous” of the UK-US agreement.

According to reports, Bourla told Merz that his government’s plans to reduce drug prices had prompted Pfizer to reconsider its investments in Germany.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim have already paused investments in Germany.

US government officials are holding meetings with their counterparts in Berlin to discuss pharmaceutical pricing.

The Beneluxa group, however, warned against a fragmented European response even on pricing, an area that remains a national competence.

The countries said:

“In a geopolitically turbulent period, we believe that current developments in the pharmaceutical system require unity and coordination. Simplifying pricing and reimbursement procedures on the basis of mutual agreement and cooperation must ultimately lead to a more unified European approach to the pricing and reimbursement of new treatments.”

Health policy falls under the authority of individual member states rather than EU institutions, making collective action on pharmaceuticals more difficult.

Nevertheless, the five countries said EU governments share “a common objective to safeguard Europe’s solidarity-based systems” and should consider “deeper cooperation.”

“We must ensure that our pharmaceutical expenditure remains sustainable in order to preserve patients’ access to medicines, both now and in the future,” they added.

EU ministers are set to discuss pressures on pharmaceutical pricing at a meeting in Luxembourg on June 16, though member states appear divided into competing camps.

A government spokesperson told POLITICO that Sweden has invited “around 10” ministers to a breakfast meeting aimed at coordinating a response to geopolitical challenges facing the pharmaceutical sector.

Later that day, the entire bloc will gather for a working lunch on “strengthening Europe’s pharmaceutical resilience and autonomy” at the invitation of the Cypriot presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Meanwhile, the generic medicines industry argues that its products could help the EU withstand pressure from the United States and the pharmaceutical sector to pay higher prices for medicines.

A Medicines for Europe briefing obtained by POLITICO and shared with the European Commission and EU governments urges the bloc to accelerate the adoption of off-patent medicines that offer alternatives to expensive biological treatments. According to the document, the strategy could free up €10 billion in pharmaceutical spending.

The Beneluxa statement also said incentives for the sector would only “partially address our innovation challenges.”

While referring to “several potential” incentives under discussion, the statement did not endorse any specific proposal, arguing that such measures require “productive, collaborative and critical scrutiny” before being advanced as EU policy.

The European Commission has proposed extending patent protections for certain biotechnology medicines on the condition that they are manufactured in Europe.

Public insurers, patient groups and the generic medicines industry have warned that the plan would increase medicine costs.

Members of the European Parliament have also objected to the Commission presenting the proposal without conducting the formal impact assessment that normally accompanies new legislation.

Last month, the EU executive published an analysis estimating that the measure would cost public insurers €70 million per medicine annually.

The European Parliament, however, is conducting its own study into how heavily the proposal could burden national healthcare budgets.

Toyota and Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) have warned that proposed “Made in Europe” production requirements could jeopardize investment and employment while making European-built vehicles more expensive than Chinese-made competitors.

Under current European Union proposals, corporate fleet vehicles and small electric vehicles would need to be assembled within the bloc to qualify for public procurement contracts and subsidies.

The proposals have triggered a strong backlash from global automakers that export vehicles to Europe from countries including the United Kingdom, Türkiye and Morocco.

As part of the Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA), the EU is also proposing a 70% local-content threshold for vehicle components, excluding batteries, as a condition for eligibility for subsidies or public procurement contracts.

JLR, which is owned by India’s Tata Motors, said the proposals would increase costs for manufacturers that would be required to provide evidence of where their components are sourced.

Executives from other automakers have also said that compiling customs documentation to verify the origin of components supplied by smaller suppliers would be difficult.

“The IAA imposes additional costs on manufacturers and makes European vehicles more expensive. It does nothing to address the fundamental structural differences that make European manufacturing less competitive than China,” JLR said.

Speaking at an Automotive News event in Brussels on Wednesday, Yoshihiro Nakata, head of Toyota’s European operations, warned that excluding key international partners from the “Made in Europe” rules could “undermine future investment, jobs and technology transfer.”

The world’s largest automaker, which operates eight factories across Europe and the United Kingdom and employs 25,000 people in the region, called for vehicles manufactured in Japan, the United Kingdom and Türkiye to remain eligible for IAA subsidies.

“Europe’s resilience depends not only on local production but also on working with partners to create regional scale and shared success. By working together, we are all stronger,” Nakata said.

JLR also urged the EU to assess manufacturers’ overall contribution to European economies — including through exports from the bloc — rather than focusing solely on where vehicles are assembled.

The company warned that excluding the United Kingdom from the framework would have serious consequences across the industry.

“Replacing UK content with EU content could destabilize both the UK automotive supply chain and the EU supply chain because of their interdependence.”

Nissan, one of the United Kingdom’s largest automotive employers, has previously warned that it would close its flagship Sunderland plant if the policy were implemented.

Such job losses would run counter to the objectives of the IAA, which was proposed in March by French Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné as part of Brussels’ effort to reverse the bloc’s industrial decline.

The legislation aims to increase manufacturing’s share of the EU economy from 14.3% in 2024 to 20% by 2035.

The proposal already allows manufacturers in other clean-technology sectors located in countries that have free trade agreements with the EU to benefit from “Made in Europe” status.

There are indications that member states and lawmakers will seek to amend the legislation to include UK-based automotive production.

French Trade Minister Nicolas Forissier told the Financial Times two weeks ago that Brussels needed to resolve the “problem” of the United Kingdom’s exclusion from the programme, while a European Commission official acknowledged that member states, including Germany, also support UK participation.

A senior member of the European Parliament familiar with the negotiations said the Parliament could also review the proposal’s geographic scope in order to fully include the United Kingdom.

However, the current proposal is supported by other automakers, including Volkswagen and Stellantis, as well as many automotive parts manufacturers.

Benjamin Krieger, secretary-general of auto supplier association Clepa, said the group supports extending the programme to the United Kingdom and other free-trade partners but would oppose any dilution of the requirement that 70% of vehicle content be produced in Europe.

“We need to stop the bleeding. If you import everything, vehicles will of course become cheaper, but we would sacrifice manufacturing in Europe,” Krieger said.

The European Commission said its proposals on corporate fleets and small electric vehicles are “key initiatives supporting our green transition” and that these objectives should also translate into “growth and manufacturing activity” within the EU supply chain.