For nearly 80 years, the bond between the United States and Europe rested on shared defence and shared values: protecting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
That era began in March 1947, when President Harry Truman delivered an 18-minute speech pledging US support to defend Europe against the spread of Soviet communism.
The US went on to lead the creation of Nato, the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations. It tied itself to what became known as the “rules-based international order” — a system where countries accepted shared responsibilities to protect the democratic world from authoritarian threats.
But according to the new US National Security Strategy (NSS), published in December, that shared mission is now over.
The document refers to the “so-called ‘rules-based international order’”, using quotation marks that signal open scepticism. For many, it reads like a quiet declaration that America’s traditional role in the world has ended.
A warning Europe was told to expect
US Vice-President JD Vance had already signalled this shift in a blunt speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025.
He told European allies that the real threat they faced did not come from Russia, but from within — from censorship, the suppression of political opposition and what he described as a “leftist liberal network” undermining democracy.
France’s Le Monde called the speech an “ideological declaration of war” against Europe.
The NSS now turns those remarks into official doctrine.
“America is no longer the country that promoted the global values established after the Second World War,” says Karin von Hippel, a former senior US State Department official and ex-director of the Royal United Services Institute. “It is shifting to a very different place.”
That raises a pressing question: if the old order is ending, what is replacing it — and what does it mean for Europe?
‘We have a different world today’
Supporters of the new strategy argue change is overdue.
“International institutions, notably the United Nations, have been marked by dramatically anti-American sentiment,” says Victoria Coates of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing Washington think tank. “They haven’t served our or anyone else’s interests.”
Coates, who served in Trump’s first administration, says the post-war system no longer fits today’s reality.
“When that order was created, China wasn’t a major concern,” she says. “We have a different world today.”
The NSS directly criticises what it calls “American foreign policy elites” for tying the US to international institutions that, it claims, undermine national sovereignty.
It argues for rolling back the power of supranational bodies and puts the nation-state back at the centre of global politics.
“The world’s fundamental political unit is and will remain the nation-state,” the strategy says, warning against “sovereignty-sapping” organisations.
It also bluntly states that the influence of powerful nations is a “timeless truth” of international relations — a line welcomed by the Kremlin, which said much of the document aligns with Russia’s own thinking.
A return to great-power politics?
Former UK armed forces chief Lord Richards believes the strategy signals a return to old-style great-power politics.
“Trump, Xi and Putin are seeking to take us back to an era where power, not rules, decides outcomes,” he says.
But Sir Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of war studies at King’s College London, urges caution.
“The idea of a rules-based order is relatively new,” he notes. “There were plenty of rule-breaking moments in the past — Vietnam being one example. We shouldn’t romanticise history.”
A tougher, more unilateral America
The NSS is already being reflected in US actions.
Washington’s recent military operation in Caracas, which led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife, showed a more forceful assertion of US power in its own hemisphere.
Some international lawyers have questioned the legality of the move, but the US insists it was justified.
Under the new strategy, Washington claims the right to remain the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere — a revival of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.
China’s growing influence in Latin America, particularly around the Panama Canal, is a key concern.
“Control of the canal is critical to the United States,” says Coates, arguing that past assumptions about China being a “reasonable actor” were mistaken.
Still, critics warn US power has limits.
“The strategy may say ‘this is our hemisphere’, but reality is more complicated,” says Sir Lawrence Freedman. “They may have removed Maduro, but they’re not running the country.”
Values shift — except for Europe
Under the new approach, the US says it will no longer pressure authoritarian regimes over human rights.
In the Middle East, the strategy explicitly abandons efforts to push Gulf monarchies toward political reform, saying the key is to work with countries “as they are”.
Yet that same tolerance is not extended to Europe.
The document criticises Europe’s “current trajectory”, warning of economic decline and even “civilizational erasure”. It questions whether some Nato members can remain reliable allies in the long term.
Karin von Hippel describes the strategy as deeply ideological.
“It’s very nativist,” she says. “There’s an implied fear about the decline of white Christian dominance — though it’s never said explicitly.”
Supporters disagree.
“Sovereignty is the real issue,” says Coates, pointing to the European Union as an example of national power being handed to Brussels. “Many countries are questioning whether that’s still a winning strategy.”
‘Cultivating resistance’ inside Europe
The NSS openly supports the rise of nationalist parties in Europe, calling their growth “cause for optimism”.
It says the US should help Europe “correct its trajectory” — including by “cultivating resistance” within European nations.
What that means in practice remains unclear, but it has already alarmed European leaders.
After JD Vance’s Munich speech, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Europe must work toward “independence” from the US — even within Nato.
But that won’t be easy.
“Europe can’t rely on America like before,” says Sir Lawrence Freedman. “But it can’t function without the US either. Untangling that dependence will take years and cost a fortune.”
Europe caught in the middle
Lord Richards warns Europe risks being squeezed between global powers.
“The EU can’t be a great power on its own,” he says. “So it has to decide whose influence it shelters under — most likely America’s, but within a reshaped Nato.”
Defence spending is another pressure point.
Trump has pushed Nato allies to raise defence budgets for years, recently securing a commitment to reach 5% of GDP.
Ironically, that pressure may ultimately strengthen Europe by forcing greater military independence.
“Spending is rising,” says Sir Lawrence Freedman. “Germany has made big moves. Progress is slow, but it’s happening.”
A deeper divide — within societies
Ultimately, the NSS reveals not just a split between Europe and America, but divisions within both.
“There’s a cultural revolt underway,” says journalist Victor Mallet. “Concerns about immigration, inequality and identity cut across borders.”
Despite vast wealth, many Americans and Europeans feel left behind — a frustration now shaping foreign policy as much as domestic politics.
The strategy also reflects America’s internal culture wars, rejecting ideas like diversity and inclusion while barely mentioning Russia as a hostile power — despite its invasion of Ukraine.
For some in Trump’s base, Vladimir Putin is not an enemy but a defender of traditional, nationalist values.
That shift may be the most unsettling signal of all.
Because if shared values once held the West together, Europe now faces a stark reality: the world’s most powerful ally no longer sees the world — or Europe — the same way it once did.
