The Twilight of Transatlantic Relations: The U.S. 2025 Version of the ‘National Security Strategy’ Report and the Disintegration Facing the U.S.–Europe Alliance

Wang Wanying and Ma Xiaolin

The 2025 version of the “National Security Strategy” report released by the Trump administration of the United States on December 4 was like a huge stone thrown into a pool of water, stirring up stormy waves. This document, which proclaims America’s future new security policy, not only removes China and Russia from the position of primary threats, but also tolls the imminent centennial death knell for the transatlantic alliance that has lasted for a hundred years. Not only that, Trump also harshly castigated and humiliated America’s European allies, fearing that Europe might misread this report announcing the end of the U.S.–Europe marriage.

On December 9, Trump said in an interview with the U.S. outlet Politico that “most European countries are becoming rotten.” He accused Europe’s immigration policies of being a “disaster,” saying that “they want political correctness, and that makes them weak” … and that some European leaders are “utter fools.”

The Daily Telegraph, published on the 10th, even revealed that a leaked version of the 2025 “National Security Strategy” report shows that the Trump administration intends to have Hungary and Italy leave the European Union. German Chancellor Merz, however, was not surprised. When commenting on this official U.S. document on the 9th, he said that America’s national security strategy confirmed his judgment: “Europe, and Germany as well, must be more independent from the United States in terms of security policy.” He emphasized that Europeans must be prepared for the United States no longer being an alliance partner …

Looking at the “National Security Strategy” (NSS) reports released by three U.S. administrations from 2017 to 2025, the U.S.–Europe transatlantic relationship has undergone a dramatic shock from “transactional partners” to a “values alliance,” ultimately moving toward “strategic divergence” and a “civilizational rupture.” The 2025 version of the “National Security Strategy” report marks that the transatlantic alliance system after World War II is facing substantive disintegration, and U.S.–Europe relations have officially entered a “post-ally era.”

This trajectory of evolution is not a simple policy swing, but rather a structural reckoning by the United States of its global strategy against the backdrop of soaring costs of maintaining hegemony and intensifying domestic political polarization. From the initial appearance of cracks in 2017 to the civilizational rupture in 2025, every step points to the “irreversibility of divergence,” with its roots deeply embedded in the profound misalignment of power, interests, and values between the U.S. and Europe.

The Overall Picture of the Evolution of Transatlantic Relations

The U.S. “National Security Strategy” is not only a declaration of foreign policy, but also a reflection of its domestic political ecology and global strategic anxiety. From 2017 to 2025, transatlantic relations experienced a shift from a “boiling frog in warm water” style of transactionalization, to a brief “last gasp” during the Biden period, and finally to a “shock therapy”–style rupture in 2025.

This evolution reveals a cruel strategic reality: the traditional Western alliance system can no longer adapt to a multipolar world order and the internal political ecology of the United States. The U.S.–Europe rupture in 2025 is not an accidental “black swan” event, but the inevitable result of three intertwined logics—U.S. hegemonic contraction, U.S.–Europe cognitive misalignment, and the deconstruction of values. A rupture in capabilities forces the United States into strategic retrenchment; a rupture in threat perception leads the U.S. and Europe to move in opposite directions regarding their geopolitical focal points; and a rupture in values pushes former allies to the edge of a “clash of civilizations.” This process demonstrates that the estrangement of transatlantic relations is not a temporary tactical adjustment, but the inevitable end of a historical cycle.

• The Prelude to Divergence: Accumulation of Contradictions and Failure of Repair (2017–2024)

Before the final rupture in 2025, U.S.–Europe relations went through policy attempts by two administrations that were starkly different yet causally linked. Various signs in this stage indicate that the foundation of the alliance had long been eroded by “transactionalism,” and subsequent repair efforts failed to address the root cause.

1.  The Initiation of Transactionalism: The First Appearance of Cracks (2017–2020)

The “National Security Strategy” report released in December 2017 was the starting point of divergence. It broke the post–Cold War U.S. consensus on the “liberal international order” and introduced naked realism into the sacred realm of alliance relations.

First, it established the “debt-based” positioning of allies. The Trump 1.0 administration regarded allies as projects to be evaluated on a balance sheet. This so-called “principled realism” was in fact “transactionalism without moral distinction.” The report harshly criticized NATO allies for failing to meet the target of 2% of GDP in defense spending. At the time, this was interpreted in Europe as a negotiating tactic, but later proved to be a signal that the U.S. strategic community’s tolerance for NATO “free-riding” had dropped to zero.

Second, it pioneered economic nationalism. The 2017 version of the “National Security Strategy” defined economic prosperity as a core pillar of national security and, for the first time, explicitly regarded trade deficits as a national security threat. This logic of “trade as war” made it difficult for the U.S. and Europe to form a united front in policy toward China. During this period, Europe was forced to adopt a “hedging” strategy, attempting to maintain a balance between China and the United States.

2. The Fragile “Last Gasp”: Failure of Repair (2021–2024)

After the Biden administration took office, it attempted to reverse its predecessor’s course through the 2022 version of the “National Security Strategy,” once again establishing Europe as a core partner in defending the “rules-based order.” However, the limitations exposed during the implementation of this report highlighted the structural irreversibility of the U.S. strategic retrenchment trend.

First, the hollowing out of alliance mechanisms. Although the Biden administration established the “U.S.–EU Trade and Technology Council” (TTC) in an attempt to coordinate technology policy toward China, as think tanks such as the Atlantic Council have pointed out, the U.S. side was never willing to establish a “democratic technology alliance” with treaty-binding force. The TTC ultimately remained only at the level of loose policy dialogue.

Second, the covert continuation of “America First.” The massive subsidies and local content requirements in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) triggered strong warnings from Macron about a “split within the Western camp,” and Europe’s industrial circles even described it as “the murder of European industry.” This meant that even during the “ally” period, the United States was unwilling to make concessions to Europe on core economic interests. This kind of “false healing” failed to withstand the pressure of the resurgence of isolationism within the United States, laying the groundwork for the complete rupture in 2025.

• The Outbreak and Inevitability of the 2025 Divergence

The 2025 version of the “National Security Strategy” report released by the Trump 2.0 administration is not only a sudden policy shift, but also a “final reckoning” of the contradictions accumulated in the earlier period. It marks the elevation of U.S.–Europe relations from tactical divergences entangled in interests to a structural rupture at the level of geopolitics and civilizational cognition.

1. The Explicit Outbreak of Divergence: Deep Ruptures Across Four Dimensions

Strategic “Neglect and Retrenchment”:
Many media outlets have keenly noted that in this report of more than 30 pages, only two and a half pages are devoted to Europe. Leonardo Hutter, a researcher at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in the United States, stated bluntly that this means the United States no longer regards Europe as part of its core interests: “Europe has become increasingly irrelevant to the United States.” The report clearly proposes prioritizing the Western Hemisphere, aiming to eliminate the influence of external forces in Latin America, marking a substantive retreat by the United States from “globalism” to “hemispherism.” The United States announced a substantial reduction in its permanent military presence in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The report states that “indiscriminate global intervention has hollowed out U.S. power,” and that the United States must refuse to continue acting as the “world’s police.”

Security “Undermining at the Root”:
On the NATO issue, the 2025 report adopts a strategy of “undermining at the root,” completely changing the nature of the alliance. The report not only requires Europe to share costs, but also demands that Europe take over defense responsibilities. It reiterates the startling consensus reached at the June 2025 Hague Summit: NATO member states committed to raising defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Even though this target adopts a dual-track structure of “3.5% core defense + 1.5% civil defense infrastructure,” easing short-term fiscal pressure, it still maintains a high-pressure posture requiring allies to fully pay for their own security. The strategic intent behind setting such a high threshold is not truly to expect Europe to meet it, but to create a state in which allies are in “permanent default.” This provides the United States with a “legitimate” pretext, based on the principle of “transactional realism,” to adjust, scale back, or even refuse to implement Article Five at any time, effectively making NATO’s collective defense commitment conditional and hollow.

In addition, the report announces the suspension of all military assistance to Ukraine and unilaterally proposes a peace plan aimed at “rebuilding strategic stability with Russia.” This plan includes limiting Ukraine’s military capabilities and prohibiting its accession to NATO, and is widely regarded as sacrificing Ukraine’s sovereignty, effectively relegating Europe’s security agenda to a secondary position. From Vice President Vance’s blunt criticism of Europe at the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of the year, to the United States’ “over-the-head diplomacy” toward Europe on the Ukraine issue, all indicate that the United States no longer regards Europe as an equal partner requiring consultation, but rather as a strategic chess piece to be disposed of at will.

Economic “Designation as an Adversary”:
In the economic and trade domain, the 2025 report regards the European Union as a major competitor, and in some formulations even implies that it is more “exploitative” than geopolitical rivals. The report places “economic security” in an absolute priority position and plans to impose punitive “reciprocal tariffs” on EU goods in response to the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and digital services tax. The report even uses the highly confrontational term “Liberation Day tariffs,” implying that the United States needs to be “liberated” from Europe’s trade exploitation. In the high-tech field, the United States leverages its dominance in AI and quantum computing, using extraterritorial jurisdiction and standards monopolization to force European companies to become dependent on the United States within technological ecosystems. This logic of “you must rely on me, but I will exploit you” renders the TTC mechanism nominal in existence only, transforming it into a tool for U.S. pressure.

Ideological “Civilizational Defense”:
The most shocking and subversive part of the 2025 report is its abandonment of America’s customary “export of democracy,” turning instead to an isolationist “civilizational defense,” and directly launching attacks on Europe’s mainstream political values. The report puts forward the theory of “civilizational erosion,” claiming that due to open immigration policies, multiculturalism, and the “suppression” of freedom of speech (referring to EU regulation of social media), Europe faces the risks of “civilizational extinction” and “replacement.” This marks a rupture between official U.S. ideology and Europe’s liberal mainstream.

Furthermore, the report openly proposes that the United States will support “patriotic” parties within Europe (namely right-wing populist forces) to “correct Europe’s current trajectory” and resist the erosion of the foundations of Western civilization by multiculturalism. This means that the United States has shifted from being a supporter of European integration to an instigator of European fragmentation. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt sharply pointed out that this effectively positions the United States as “the right wing of Europe’s far right.” Liana Fix, a researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations, believes that this way of viewing U.S.–Europe relations from a “civilizational” perspective marks “the end of transatlantic alliance relations based on liberal values.”

2. Proof of the Inevitability of Divergence: Three Structural Root Causes

From “transaction” in 2017, to “alliance” in 2022, and then to “divergence” in 2025, the evolution of the positioning of transatlantic relations in U.S. national security strategy reveals a cruel strategic reality: the traditional Western alliance system can no longer adapt to a multipolar world order and the internal political ecology of the United States. This evolution is not accidental, but the result of the combined effects of three major structural factors:

First is the rupture of power. The United States is no longer able to simultaneously maintain a global hegemonic system and the living standards of its domestic population, and must carry out strategic retrenchment. The idea of “denial strategy” has become mainstream—concentrating resources on the Indo-Pacific and abandoning Europe.

Second is the rupture of threat perception. The United States views China as an existential threat and Europe as a tool or even a burden; Europe views Russia as an existential threat and China as a systemic rival but also a necessary partner for cooperation. This misalignment of geopolitical interests is structural and cannot be bridged by diplomatic rhetoric.

Third is the rupture of values. With the institutionalization of right-wing populism in the United States, the U.S. and Europe have gradually drifted apart on core values such as democracy, human rights, climate change, and multilateralism. “Shared values” have become an empty shell, replaced by the projection of the theory of “civilizational conflict” within the Western world itself.

• Europe’s Passive Adaptation to the “Inevitable Divergence”

If German Chancellor Merkel’s speech in 2017 was a “warning” of the U.S.–Europe breakup, then the 2025 version of the U.S. “National Security Strategy” report is the “verdict.” Europe has no choice but to accept the reality that the United States has already “left.” Confronted with the “shock” brought by the 2025 report, Europe’s strategic community has gone through a process from shock and denial to forced action. The extremization of U.S. policy is pushing Europe to become a truly independent geopolitical pole.

1. Promoting the Hardening of Europe’s Political Stance

In a speech on December 8, European Council President Costa sent a clear signal. He stated that it is unacceptable for the United States to issue threats of interference in Europe’s internal politics, emphasizing that “allies do not threaten to interfere in the internal political lives of other allies.” Costa frankly admitted that differences in worldview between the United States and Europe are widening, that the United States no longer believes in multilateralism, and that Europe must “achieve sovereign autonomy” in response to the new U.S. strategy. Former President of the European Commission Prodi also called for the formulation of policies “to make its stance firmer,” even though the EU has not yet formed a systematic response. However, Europe’s voices are not unified. U.S. support for European right-wing forces has produced immediate effects, exacerbating fragmentation within Europe. Right-wing governments in countries such as Hungary and Italy have welcomed parts of the 2025 report, viewing them as endorsements of their own anti-immigration and anti–EU centralization policies. This has led to divisions within the EU on policies toward the United States and Russia, making it difficult to form a unified voice to counter U.S. pressure.

2. Accelerating the Process of “Strategic Autonomy” and Tactical Hedging

The introduction of the 2025 version of the “National Security Strategy” report and a series of moves by the Trump administration have made Europe’s desire to accelerate “strategic autonomy” even stronger. On the one hand, defense autonomy is speeding up. Faced with the threat of U.S. troop withdrawals, countries such as Germany and Poland have been forced to substantially increase defense budgets, trying to fill the conventional deterrence vacuum left by the United States; Germany plans to establish a new special defense fund, with the “turning point of the times” shifting from slogan to implementation, and is discussing with France the Europeanization of the nuclear umbrella; the United Kingdom has also clearly put forward “NATO first, but not NATO only,” and is seeking to establish a new strategic partnership with the European Union; as the only two nuclear powers in Europe, the United Kingdom and France have seen an unprecedented increase in urgency regarding defense cooperation, and the two countries are accelerating the advancement of an upgraded version of the “Lancaster House Treaties.” In short, Europe is enhancing its “autonomous capacity to act without the United States” by increasing defense capabilities and investing in strategic industries. On the other hand, the “red line” defense in technology and trade. Since the beginning of this year, the European Union has carried out a series of enforcement actions against U.S. technology companies based on the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. Analysts believe this is the EU’s direct response to U.S. tariff intervention, intended to “draw red lines” vis-à-vis the United States in the field of digital sovereignty. Europe is learning to play its hand with the United States more cleverly by gathering more bargaining chips.

*Wang Wanying – Assistant Research Fellow, Institute for Central and Eastern European Economic and Trade Cooperation Studies, Ningbo University; Lecturer, School of Foreign Languages, Ningbo University

*Ma Xiaolin – Specially Appointed Research Fellow, Institute for Central and Eastern European Economic and Trade Cooperation Studies, Ningbo University; Bao Yugang Chair Professor; Professor, Zhejiang International Studies University; Dean, Institute of Mediterranean Studies