We knew that Trump 2.0 would shake up international relations, with a particular impact on the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, and that he would apply a transactional vision to the transatlantic link. In his first term he already displayed commercial nationalism in relation to China – but also to Europe; actually with anyone who has a trade surplus with the United States—, of his anti-immigration xenophobia visualized with the wall with Mexico and now with the announced expulsion of millions of immigrants, of his questioning of NATO, of his disregard for traditional allies and of sympathy for Vladimir Putin, etc. Outside the Government, he blocked military aid to Ukraine in Congress for months. And his special envoy to the Middle East already proclaims that Palestinians simply do not exist.
It is said that Donald Trump arrived in 2016 without a clear government plan and that traditional Republicans hindered his most extravagant decisions. But now Trump 2.0 presents himself as a version on steroids, emboldened by the desire for revenge after having won this time the popular vote and the majority in both parliamentary chambers. In addition to maintaining the fixation with China and resuming the idea of trade protectionism, announcing phenomenal tariff increases and tax cuts, Trump now adds territorial expansionism and the alliance with digital oligarchs.
Thus, faced with the supposed isolationism of his first term, he now expresses desire to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark rich in energy and mineral resources, recover control of the Panama Canal, and incorporate Canada into the United States. Greenland’s few inhabitants may be tempted by being the Puerto Rico of the north. But, just in case, the use of force or proposing commercial pressure measures to achieve these objectives is not ruled out.
Opinions are divided on the seriousness of these threats, but concern is general. Maybe more in Europe than in the rest of the world. Only Hungary and Israel seem comfortable. We could move from the geopolitical competition between powers to a new scenario in which the United States, the main one – both economically, militarily and nuclear – is willing to unapologetically abuse its dominant position to achieve any type of power. of objective.
Trump has also forged a coalition with the digital oligarchy animated by an ultra-libertarian ideology, whose most prominent businessmen are going to finance his inauguration ceremony. Particularly, with Elon Musk, owner of the social network X (formerly Twitter). Strong supporter of Trump’s electoral campaign, he will become responsible for reducing the spending and personnel of federal departments as much as possible, as well as limiting their regulatory capacity. All of which constitutes, in itself, a conflict of interest of colossal dimensions.
Everyone wins with this alliance. Big American tech companies (and oligopolists) want fewer taxes and less regulation. They seek Trump’s support in their fight against EU regulations on digital services (which impose neutrality obligations on social networks, limits on hate messages, moderation mechanisms and fact-checking). In their conception, these rules limit freedom of expression (which for Trump and Musk includes the right to say anything, whether factual or not) and increase business costs. In exchange, the president-elect was reinstated in X by Musk after purchasing Twitter, thus being able to further amplify his messages with social networks at his service.
Regarding Europe, the Trump-Musk couple seems to act in concert on two parallel fronts. One threatens Denmark with taxing all exportable products on the Greenland issue, the other takes political positions in several European countries, systematically in favor of far-right parties. An admirer of Giorgia Meloni, he has vilified the British Prime Minister, Labor Party Keir Starmer; he has been on the verge of donating millions of dollars to Nigel Farage (until he found it too moderate); and asks for the vote for the ultra Alternative for Germany (AfD) formation through press articles and tweets. Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz have been quick to denounce interference in European democracy, and others are calling for a strong reaction from the EU.
There is nothing to object to Musk expressing his political preferences, even if he does so in a manner that is disrespectful to some European leaders. But, if it is expressed through a social network that is also its property, it is subject to European standards, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), which we approved in the previous legislature with the objective to protect our democracies from the massively multiplying effects of systemic platforms. And the European institutions have the obligation to verify that corporate control is not abused to make the algorithms they use guide and promote certain messages.
The Community Executive expressed itself strongly when, a month ago, it opened an investigation into the role of TikTok in the last elections in Romania. Regarding Musk’s through X, there are currently only generic statements about the protection of European democracy. Although we are not very united in this either. Some leaders declare themselves very close to the businessman, others expect investments from Tesla and others ask the Commission not to hesitate when applying the DSA.
The truth is that the preliminary investigations launched against the numerical giants Apple, Meta and That regulatory power in the style of soft power that characterized the EU is dying. And it will be difficult to enforce if Europeans look the other way when it comes to Musk-Trump. Faced with Darwinists like Trump or Putin—who only believe in the survival of the strongest—Europe only needs more firmness and, to that end, more unity. Both technologically and militarily.
