In this article, ‘Trumpism’ should be taken to mean a political ideology that has shaken off the shackles of governance, together with a direct mode of communication borrowing from the populist movement, promoting the typical values of the far right. The word obviously refers to Trump himself, but also to his proponents and those who take inspiration from him in their own relationships with politics.
The presidential election in the United States took place on 5 November. While opinion polls put Donald Trump and Kamala Harris neck and neck until the day before the election and commentators were predicting an extremely closely-run ballot, the counts very soon revealed a clear lead for the former president, who went on, as we know, to win the return match, taking his revenge four years after his defeat – which he never recognised or accepted.
We saw Trump at work during his first presidential term (2017-2020): we discussed his personality and his outcomes at length in this section (see EUROPE 12598/1). Many observers predict that his second term will mirror his first in the way he thinks and acts, but will be different in its increasing radicalisation, tasters of which were given in his election campaign.
US-American society is morally persecuted, deeply divided and the victim of repeated acts of violence, as we have seen from many reports and studies. If Trump had not been elected, he would have challenged the results and incited his supporters to call for vengeance; militant members of the Republican Party are without doubt more likely to bear arms than their Democrat counterparts; it is possible that the outbreak of civil war has been avoided. It is, moreover, in the nature of ‘Trumpism’ to polarise, to designate enemies. It is doubtful whether a ‘great again’ America will have much in the way of an appetite for the quiet life.
On the contrary, the choice made by the victor’s (predominantly male) election supporters indicates an appetite for an increased dose of authoritarianism in the regime, for white supremacy, xenophobia and less attention to be paid to human rights, particularly women’s. These voters could not care less about their hero’s criminal charges and convictions, but they are very interested in their own purchasing power, something that Kamala Harris should have taken into account.
Trump in the White House come next January is not good news for migrants from Central America any more than it is for women in situations of personal distress, committed Democrats or defenders of the planet and biodiversity. Not even federal workers will be spared: the first thing they can look forward to is a mass purge, so that they can be replaced with the faithful. The first year of this new administration will be conducted on the theme of revenge and the list of scores to settle is a very long one. It will be a fascinating exercise to observe how the President goes on with respecting his inaugural constitutional separation of powers.
Any change of administration in Washington always causes ripples around the rest of the world. After the Presidency of Joe Biden, who decided to take the United States back into the Paris climate agreements, we will see efforts to tackle global warming grind to a halt. Over in the Middle East, the Israelis are unwavering Trump fans, while the Palestinians, who are already going through hell, cannot expect any succour from the new White House resident. And what about Iran? The word is that the destruction of the regime is already on the to-do list. As for China, the great rival commanding unwilling respect, taxes on its products entering America will spiral (which will, in turn, have the effect of rerouting them to Europe) and as for everything else, we will have to wait and see. It is unlikely that Trump will lose any sleep over North Korean soldiers being sent into combat against Ukraine in the service of Russia: the man himself will sooner or later meet in person with Kim Jong-un, with whom he previously had a fairly bizarre love-hate relationship. The only thing we can be certain about is uncertainty itself.
And we are obviously on tenterhooks to see what Trump will do on Europe, principally in terms of economic policy, which is dictated by a ‘Nation First’ logic. The European Commission’s services have been at work for the last several months to prepare for an increase in customs duty on all imported goods (at least 10%, according to the election pledge) and possible retaliatory measures. As the likely incoming Trade Commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, said (see EUROPE 13511/22), there are a number of known bones of contention (IRA, steel, aluminium, Airbus/Boeing) requiring further management in the name of the transatlantic friendship – which is much healthier in Brussels than it is in Washington.
Next, and more importantly, Ukraine will be a major challenge. We have all read that Trump was preparing to end the war with Russia in the space of 24 hours. How will he do this? That is by no means clear. The first line of attack will be to put a stop to the military and financial assistance awarded to Kyiv by the Biden administration. In this scenario, the aid provided by the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada would need to be increased as a matter of urgency. At the same time, there are several member states (Germany, Poland, et al) who are disinclined to provoke their principal Atlantic partner, for their own safety. France will talk about our military sovereignty and Italy will be a weak link in the chain of resistance to Trump. As for the Hungarian leader, Trump’s bosom buddy, his confidence will soar as he delights in his artificial mediator role.
There is one point on which President Trump will not change: he likes his bilateral contact personalised and only truly respects strong men. He will have no compunction in further dividing the European leaders, one at a time. Unfortunately, they lack the inherent culture of solidarity to prompt them to stand together as a bloc in their dealings with him.
In the times we live in, furthermore, the solidarity of dictators simply functions much better than that of Democrats. Trump is a source of inspiration for anyone who sees ‘democtatorship’ is the future. Even in the EU itself, we have seen the emergence of mini-Trumps, clones of the master, who unquestionably feel empowered by his comfortable electoral victory of 5 November. This backdrop also eases the path for disinformation activities, or the ‘hybrid war’ being waged by Russia’s agents. Incidentally, Russia’s defence spending is now more than that of all the EU countries put together.
At the end of October, the G7 agreed to share out the bilateral loans to Ukraine as follows: 20 billion dollars funded by the EU, the same by the US and 10 by the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan combined, or a total of 50 billion in 2025. These loans will be guaranteed by the future performance of the assets of the Bank of Russia immobilised in the EU in the framework of international sanctions. They would be further eased by raising the duration of the sanctions from six to 36 months. And this is where the situation becomes paradoxical, if not shocking. The Biden administration, although a long way from Ukraine, rubber-stamped this extension and asked the EU to do the same, but the EU (although obviously very near Ukraine) did not. This is because the decision required the unanimous agreement of the Council the EU and Hungary alone vetoed it, arguing that it would prefer to await the results of the US presidential election (see EUROPE 13513/7 and 13518/18). And now the results are in. We can imagine what will happen next. In the forthcoming debates, Viktor Orbán will be listening to ‘his master’s voice’. And once his master has replaced Biden, the project will be dead in the water.
The European Union is based on democracy. Russia is a dictatorship that props up other dictatorships. Its victory over Ukraine would be a victory for dictatorship, on our doorstep and a threat to our collective security. Trumpism will have contributed to this, like a cancer spreading through a stricken body. All European citizens who cherish democracy and their enlightened political leaders need to have their eyes wide open to this.
With the ‘American dream’ looking for its second chance, the first and only chance of the ‘European dream’ is to stand firm together.
Renaud Denuit