How "Signalgate" scandal reveals structural breakdown in US-EU relations

The Guardian has published an article by columnist Nathalie Tocci, addressing the deepening rift between Europe and the United States, which has become increasingly evident following the revelations of the "Signalgate" scandal.

Tocci argues that the Trump administration's disdain for Europe has become both more open and more consequential, further cementing the structural fracture in transatlantic relations.

While European leaders publicly downplay these tensions, privately, few are convinced that the partnership can be repaired.

Hopes remain that Europe can avoid the worst consequences of this deteriorating relationship, whether it be an aggressive push for Greenland, the withdrawal of US troops from NATO states, or a full-blown trade war. However, the most immediate concern is ensuring that, should Washington abandon Kyiv, European nations will be able to safeguard Ukraine’s independence without relying on the US. Yet, there should be no illusion that such an effort will occur in harmony with Washington, or even with its tacit approval.

"Signalgate" has been both predictable and alarming. The private discussions of US national security officials revealed in the scandal mirror the administration’s public statements. JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, US special envoy Steve Witkoff in an interview with Tucker Carlson, and Donald Trump’s frequent declarations all convey the same message: Washington views Europe as “obsolete, arrogant and parasitic.”

More concerning still is the apparent desire among Trump’s officials to actively undermine Europe. This hostility extends even to security policy. As Vance and Pete Hegseth indicated in their leaked messages, the US questions its own military strategy against the Houthis in the Red Sea simply because it might also benefit Europe. “Helping Europeans,” they suggest, is reason enough to reconsider any action, even when it aligns with American interests. Such thinking exposes a visceral hostility towards Europe that goes beyond mere diplomatic friction.

This antagonism carries significant policy consequences for Europe, particularly in three key areas: trade, Greenland, and Ukraine.

Firstly, on trade, Trump is preparing to escalate his economic confrontation with Europe, seeing it as “screwing” the US economy. While transatlantic trade disputes are not new, this time, no amount of historic alliance or diplomatic goodwill will soften Washington’s approach. However, the European Union’s collective economic weight ensures that any US trade war will come with reciprocal consequences. If Europe maintains unity, as it has in regulating technology, it can counter US economic aggression. Even if driven by animosity, Washington will eventually have to negotiate on pragmatic terms.

Secondly, Greenland remains a focal point of Trump’s ambitions. He has repeatedly expressed a desire to acquire the Arctic territory, and JD Vance’s recent visit—where he criticised Denmark’s handling of Greenland’s security—suggests that pressure will only intensify. Yet, European resistance has already yielded results. Following widespread condemnation, Vance altered his visit to exclude Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, focusing instead on a US military base. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, initially reserved, has become more vocal, recently calling US actions “unacceptable pressure.” Now, European leaders must follow suit, demonstrating firm opposition to US encroachment.

Most critically, the question of Ukraine looms large. With the US’s willingness to support Kyiv in doubt, European leaders, led by Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, are advancing independent plans to bolster Ukraine’s defence. A European “reassurance force” is in the works to train and assist Ukrainian forces. However, they must now contend with the possibility of direct US opposition. While diplomatic engagement with Washington should continue, European leaders must prepare to sustain Ukraine militarily and economically without US backing.

Moreover, US policy on Russia may soon diverge sharply from Europe’s stance. Vladimir Putin has positioned a proposed ceasefire as contingent on ending Western military aid to Ukraine and lifting sanctions on Russia. There is a real risk that Washington will align with Moscow’s strategy, placing pressure on Europe to follow suit. So far, Europe has resisted, with the EU rejecting Russian demands to lift sanctions on the agri-food sector as a precondition for a Black Sea ceasefire. Maintaining this resolve will be crucial in the face of potential US influence.

Defying US pressure is not just a necessity—it is politically advantageous. Leaders who have stood up to Trump, including Zelenskyy, Canada’s Mark Carney, Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, Macron, and Starmer, have seen their approval ratings rise. The US administration’s hostility towards Europe is unlikely to subside, but by maintaining firmness, courage, and diplomacy, Europe can navigate its path forward, independent of Washington’s erratic policies.