The chaos that U.S. President Donald Trump has unleashed on the world in just a few weeks is hardly surprising. Some in Estonia's foreign policy circles speculated that Trump's presidency might not be so bad for us and there was even a degree of cautious optimism. These opinions were largely based on a lack of expertise. When it comes to current national leaders, their reluctance to speak openly about Trump stems more from pragmatic self-preservation — after all, the narcissistic president remembers criticism and has a habit of exacting revenge later.

More surprising, however, has been the silence of European leaders. Their geopolitical situation is calmer and there is a long historical tradition of skepticism toward the United States in many countries. Of all Trump's disruptive actions in Europe, the most serious has been his territorial demand concerning Denmark, a European Union member state and NATO ally. He even threatened tariffs and "other measures" if Denmark refused to voluntarily cede its territory to the U.S.

What was Europe's response? Silence. Imagine another country threatening the sovereign territory of an ally and everyone remains quiet.

I suspect that this silence stems from a European hope that Trump will make a few clumsy moves in our proverbial china shop — perhaps knocking over a few vases — before impulsively shifting his focus to Asia or Africa, leaving us to quietly glue the broken pieces back together. That things will continue more or less as before.

Unfortunately, this hope is unrealistic. It fundamentally misjudges both the causes of Trumpism and its far-reaching consequences for our continent.

Broken America

Eight years ago, when Trump was first elected U.S. president, we saw it as a hiccup in the democratic process — after all, the people can sometimes be misled. I, too, assumed that after witnessing four years of chaotic governance, lies and abuses of power, the American people would send Trump into political exile in shame. Instead, he managed to maintain support while in office and, by constructing an alternate reality of "alternative facts," rallied his base even more strongly behind him.

In 2020, Trump narrowly lost, but given the weak presence of Joe Biden, the likelihood of his return was high from the outset. It is crucial to understand that this is not just about Trump as an individual. In many ways, he is merely a symptom of a deeper trend in American society that has created fertile ground for his style of politics.

At its core, this is due to the deep polarization of American society. A more detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this text, but think of the logic behind the success of EKRE in Estonia, AfD in Germany and other European nationalist populists — resentment among globalization's losers, immigration concerns, culture wars, alternative media — and then apply steroids. The real economic, educational and healthcare divides in the United States are far greater than in Europe where robust public services help mitigate such disparities.

In this environment, the appeal of so-called centrist pragmatism has waned and the two-party system reinforces a stark "us versus them" dynamic. This has led to moderate Republicans, who previously occupied the political center on fundamental issues, losing their footing or stepping off the Trumpist carousel altogether. As a result, those in Trump's inner circle during his second term will no longer include the level-headed figures who might have restrained him in critical moments.

In other words, American society is so fractured and polarized that not only was Trump re-elected four years later, but his erratic agenda now enjoys broader support, signaling further chaos ahead.

Trump can only pull this off because of the unique characteristics of the American political system. We saw it during his first term and see it even more clearly now — the elegant 18th-century principles of checks and balances designed by James Madison do not function in practice.

The U.S. president has vast constitutional powers — greater than in any European presidential system. Congress does have oversight, primarily through budget control and appointments. Yet, as we are witnessing, congressional members largely adhere to party lines, as they feel supporting Trump aligns with their electoral interests — and unfortunately, they are right.

The third branch of government, the Supreme Court, though stacked with conservative judges during Trump's first term, remains independent. However, the judiciary was never designed to provide operational oversight of executive power and is incapable of fulfilling that role. While courts can offer recourse to citizens and organizations facing government overreach, they do not meaningfully constrain presidential actions. A determined American president is extraordinarily difficult to stop when dismantling the existing world order.

Europe without America

What conclusions should we, both in Estonia and Europe more broadly, draw from all this? We cannot rely on the United States when it comes to our vital interests. Whether in trade, technology, global crises or our own security, the U.S. may stand with us. But it may just as well not.

Trump's handling of the Ukraine issue clearly demonstrates that the U.S. views its relationship with Europe in purely transactional terms: if cooperation is beneficial, it will happen. But if a better deal can be struck with Russia, Ukraine will be tossed into the meat grinder and Europe will be left to clean up the bloodstains on its own. After all, it's your house.

Trump is certainly an extreme example of unilateral decision-making, where even European "allies" are not informed in advance. But let's not forget Biden and Afghanistan. A third of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan were from Europe (including nine from Estonia), yet the U.S. simply decided to withdraw, nullifying their sacrifices and handing the country over to the Taliban on a silver platter.

We must honestly ask ourselves a deeply uncomfortable question: Are the U.S. troops stationed in Estonia truly a security guarantee? Would Trump, at a critical moment, issue the order for them to defend Estonia? The brutally honest answer is: we do not know. And if we cannot confidently say "yes," then, from a risk management perspective, we must assume the answer is "no" and adjust our defense plans accordingly, preparing for scenarios in which Estonia's security rests solely on us and our European allies.

Given the vast powers of the U.S. president and the polarization of American society, the issue is not just how to survive another four years of Trump. Can we be sure that in ten years the White House won't be occupied by someone who simply orders U.S. forces to withdraw from here unilaterally? I don't think anyone would dare bet on that.

And this is not just about Ukraine or regional security. The current U.S. administration has dismantled the entire post-1945 international order — an order built on the principle that the developed and democratic West stands united in promoting a global system based on international law, democracy and freedom. It is now evident that the leading partner of this alliance, the United States, is questioning the very foundation of our shared values.

Make Europe great again

Of course, it is difficult to accept the U.S. distancing itself from Europe, as reflected in the restrained messaging from European (and Estonian) leaders. After yet another round of "fruitful discussions," they express being "deeply concerned" but still hope for a "constructive dialogue" with the U.S. Meanwhile, Vice President J.D. Vance delivers a 20-minute lecture to European leaders about how Europe's supposed moral and societal decline makes it unworthy of American protection.

Europe needs to wake up — fast. The U.S. will remain an important trading partner, though Trump has also threatened to disrupt those ties with tariffs. On many international issues, our positions will still align, but when it comes to securing our existential interests, Europe must take full responsibility. At a critical moment, the U.S. might simply stand by — or worse, strike a deal with our adversary.

For Estonia, this first and foremost means strengthening regional security cooperation. If military aid from across the Atlantic cannot be counted on in a crisis, then our independent defense capabilities must be that much stronger. Second, our foreign policy must be recalibrated.

In fact, we already recognized this reality during Trump's first term. For instance, we have deliberately built a strategic defense partnership with France — participating in French-led missions in Africa to later persuade them to contribute to NATO's enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) in our region. Likewise, we deepened cooperation with the United Kingdom despite Brexit, resulting in the British taking the lead role in the eFP battle group stationed in Estonia.

This shift must go beyond defense policy alone. In this new reality, our primary alliances must be within Europe — above all with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland and the Nordic countries. Beyond our shared NATO membership, these nations are tied to us through the European Union's deeply interwoven interests and our shared security environment. The EU's effective functioning has now become a security issue — there is no stronger glue binding our continent's common interests together.

The EU must send a clear message to the U.S.: We will now pursue defense, foreign and economic policies based on our own interests, which may or may not align with those of Washington.

Of course, Europe's greatest weakness remains its insufficient defense capabilities. But this is no reason to cower or engage in humiliating appeasement of Trump. Instead, it must be addressed with real plans and concrete capabilities. The world's largest economic bloc is fully capable of handling this challenge — if it takes itself seriously. Yes, this will require significantly higher defense spending than the current 2 percent of GDP (which some European nations still fail to meet), but it is both possible and necessary.

Ignoring reality and clinging to false hopes will not help us. What will help is acknowledging the situation honestly and defining an ambitious vision for the future. Rather than seeing Trump's chaos as a crisis, Europe should treat it as a catalyst — a necessary push to take itself seriously.

On the eve of the Battle of Britain in June 1940, Winston Churchill famously said that the British people must defend their freedom so that future generations would look back and say: "This was their finest hour."

We should view America's disengagement as Europe's finest hour — a moment when Europe took responsibility for the present and future of its own continent. Nothing less will be acceptable to the generations that follow us.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!