Trump’s New Doctrine: Labels Europe ‘Weak,’ Blames Multiculturalism — What It Means for Atlanticism

Donald Trump’s recent comments, amplified by a new US National Security Strategy and a steady stream of allied statements, mark a notable shift in how a future or returning Republican White House might view Europe. What began as complaints about defence spending has broadened into a critique of Europe’s multicultural societies and political elites — a perspective with real implications for transatlantic security.

Racial Rhetoric and a New Lens on Europe

In a wide-ranging interview with Politico and through remarks by senior US figures and surrogates, Trump has repeatedly described Europe as "weak," linking that weakness to immigration and demographic change. That framing — which many critics diagnose as racially charged — treats migration as a civilisational threat and suggests a preference for empowering far‑right parties and politicians across the continent.

From Transactional Politics To Ideological Reassessment

Trump’s foreign-policy posture has long been transactional: alliances and aid measured against immediate returns. But the current rhetoric adds an ideological dimension: multiculturalism itself is portrayed as a disqualifier for solidarity. This reframing shifts the debate from "burden sharing" to a moral judgment about who deserves US support.

How This Plays Into Moscow’s Hands

Observers warn that portraying Europe as fated to decline aligns with Russian strategy. By publicly questioning Europe’s cohesion and resilience, US statements that echo Kremlin talking points risk deepening transatlantic rifts at a perilous moment — amid the war in Ukraine and increasing Russian provocations elsewhere on the continent.

European Responses: Pushback And Caution

European reactions have varied. Some politicians and commentators have issued forceful rebuttals, while other leaders have opted for cautious diplomacy. For example, figures such as CDU leader Friedrich Merz have been outspoken in condemning the remarks, whereas Downing Street in London sought to downplay a confrontation: a spokesperson said the prime minister "has a strong relationship with the US president and a strong relationship with the Mayor of London, and on both is committed to working together to deliver stronger outcomes for the British people."

Why It Matters

This debate is not merely rhetorical. It occurs as Europe faces one of its most consequential security tests since the Second World War. If Washington’s posture shifts from conditional support to a posture that views European societies as inherently undeserving of help, NATO’s deterrent value and the broader security architecture that has sustained European stability could be weakened.

What European Leaders Should Do

Analysts argue Europe must respond with clarity and unity: reaffirm the strategic value of transatlantic ties, shore up defence capabilities, and make a persuasive case that multicultural democracies are strengths, not vulnerabilities. At stake is not only immediate security policy but the values that underpin the Western alliance.

Bottom line: The rhetoric in Washington matters. Words that dismiss whole societies are not harmless; they shape policies, alliances and the political landscape across Europe. A clear, united European response is now essential.