Skip to main content

The art of the deal? The EU’s strategic adaptation to Trump’s transatlantic trade policy

Abstract

In 2003, the EU’s European Security Strategy called for the development of “strategic partnerships” with established and emerging powers to support and reinforce the advancement of European goals and values globally. The extent to which relations with the identified partners are genuinely strategic has been widely debated in both the policy and academic communities. This paper assesses how the EU’s strategic partnership with the USA has been impacted by the Presidency of Donald Trump as a significant aberration from the “normal” condition of the transatlantic relationship. Even in the domain of trade politics—arguably where the EU enjoys the greatest scope to act strategically—the status quo ante has been disrupted. Drawing on Michael Smith’s frameworks for assessing different elements of strategic partnerships, I argue that during 2017–2021 the EU faced a stern test but also showed signs of strategic adaptation. Yet it fell short of an “ideal” strategic approach to relations with the USA, evincing tendencies towards concentrating on managing the relationship at a technical level and/or reacting to Trump’s behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. I would like to thank Alasdair Young for extensive feedback on earlier drafts, as well as the two anonymous referees for their incisive reviews. Vicki Birchfield, Jenna Jordan, Rachel Whitlark, Mariel Borotwiz, Anjali Bohlken, and Alberto Fuentes provided constructive criticism early in the project. This paper draws on research supported by European Union’s Erasmus + Programme (Jean Monnet Center of Excellence Award 2017–2401, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA). It reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

  2. European Council (2003).

  3. Ibid.

  4. Smith (2016, 2019).

  5. Smith (2019).

  6. Bendiek and Kramer (2010), Howorth (2016), Blanco (2016), Ferreira-Pereira and Vieira (2016), Smith (2011).

  7. Olivier (2006), Holslag (2011), Whitman and Rodt (2012), Casier (2013), Schmidt-Felzmann (2016).

  8. Renard (2016), Schade (2019), Grevi and de Vasconcelos (2008), Reiterer (2013), Sautenet (2012).

  9. Davis Cross (2018), Riddervold and Rosén (2018), Darsey and Stulberg (2019), Smith et al. (2020), Moss (2020), Schwammenthal (2018).

  10. Bièvre and Poletti (2017); Eliasson and Garcia-Duran Huet (2017, 2018), Jungmittag and Welfens (2020), Young (2017), Jančić (2017).

  11. Hamilton (2014).

  12. Peterson (2018).

  13. McKay (2019), Arvanitopoulos (2020), Aggestam and Hyde-Price (2019), Oztig (2020), Schreer (2019).

  14. Larres (2020).

  15. Blanco (2016).

  16. Brown (2018).

  17. Smith (2016).

  18. Hallahan et al. (2007).

  19. Serrano-Velarde (2015).

  20. Entman (1993).

  21. Daviter (2007).

  22. Nitoiu (2017), Kratochvíl et al. (2011).

  23. I disagree with Smith’s emphasis on consistency; there are situations where changing the framing is necessary and can be achieved without rendering the label of “strategic partnership” inapplicable.

  24. Smith (2016).

  25. O’Neill (2018).

  26. Smith (2016).

  27. Hoffmeister (2015).

  28. Elgström (2007).

  29. Smith (2016).

  30. Steffenson (2005).

  31. Council of the EU (2014).

  32. Lucarelli (2006).

  33. Framing: “How and to what extent has the EU been able to establish a consistent framing discourse that has shaped its policies towards its key partners?”.

    Negotiation: “How and to what extent has the EU been able to shape through negotiation a framework of institutions and norms that can govern its relationship with strategic partners?”.

  34. Smith (2016).

  35. Smith (2019).

  36. Ibid.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Ibid.

  39. Ibid.

  40. Ibid.

  41. Riddervold and Newsome (2018).

  42. Peterson (2018).

  43. Renard (2016).

  44. Council of the EU (2020).

  45. Young (2016).

  46. European Commission (2020a).

  47. Drisko and Maschi (2015).

  48. Entman (1993).

  49. Drisko and Maschi (2015).

  50. Consistent with QCA methodological options, per Drisko and Maschi (2015).

  51. Paterson (2012).

  52. https://sawbrown.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/appendix-primary-eu-sources-.xlsx.

  53. Kortweg (2015).

  54. US-EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (2013).

  55. Council of the EU (2014).

  56. Obama and Tusk (2015).

  57. Young (2016).

  58. Obama and Tusk (2015).

  59. The Economist (2016).

  60. Borger (2016).

  61. Garcia Bercero (2016).

  62. The Economist (2016).

  63. Cited by Faiola (2016).

  64. Inside US Trade (2016).

  65. Dean et al. (2017).

  66. Inside US Trade (2017).

  67. Malmström (2017).

  68. Galindo (2018).

  69. Cited by Beesley and Donnan (2017).

  70. Rose (2018).

  71. Cited by Burchard and Hanke Vela (2018).

  72. Amaro (2018); Kim (2019).

  73. US-EU (2018).

  74. Ibid.

  75. Cited by Kennedy (2018).

  76. Cited by Palmer and Moens (2020).

  77. Euractiv (2020).

  78. European Commission (2020b).

  79. Smith (2019).

  80. European Commission (2018b).

  81. Beesley and Donnan (2017).

  82. Cited by Leonard (2017).

  83. European Commission (2018a).

  84. Cited by Dawson and Zumbrun (2018).

  85. Sandford (2018).

  86. European Commission (2018b).

  87. Ibid.

  88. O’Hagan (2018).

  89. US-EU (2018).

  90. Serhan (2018).

  91. Alden (2020).

  92. Baschuk (2020).

  93. Hanke Vela (2020).

  94. Asimov (1953).

  95. Arguably, this can be said about Trump as President generally.

  96. Karnitschnig (2020).

  97. High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (2020).

  98. Cited by Simon (2020).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott A. W. Brown.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, S.A.W. The art of the deal? The EU’s strategic adaptation to Trump’s transatlantic trade policy. J Transatl Stud 20, 184–212 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-022-00097-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s42738-022-00097-2

Keywords

  • European Union
  • Framing
  • Negotiation
  • Strategic partner
  • Trade
  • Trump
  • USA