US Defense Secretary Called Europe “Pathetic.” Two BU Experts on Whether the Alliance Is Damaged
Former ambassadors, both European, assess the deteriorating friendship between the longtime allies
European anger greeted the news that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (left) and Vice President J. D. Vance insulted the continent as “freeloading” and in need of “bailing out” during a security app chat. Photo by AP/Rod Lamkey, Jr.
US Defense Secretary Called Europe “Pathetic.” Two BU Experts on Whether the Alliance Is Damaged
Former ambassadors, both European, assess the deteriorating friendship between the longtime allies
The antagonism toward traditional US allies in Europe that some Trump administration officials have expressed publicly in the past emerged again, inadvertently, from the now highly publicized March 23 app group chat about ongoing US attacks on Houthi militia in Yemen.
“I just hate bailing out Europe again,” Vice President J. D. Vance wrote on the messaging app Signal during the chat. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth then chimed in, “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”
The discussion on Signal, though encrypted, leaked after the administration mistakenly added Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who then wrote about his accidental inclusion, prompting days of intense congressional debate.
The bashing of Europe was not the first time Trump’s administration has groused on the subject. Last month Vance condemned the continent’s free speech and immigration policies at a German security conference.
BU Today asked two Boston University experts—both Europeans and former diplomats—about the undiplomatic language and whether it could do any long-term damage to US-European relations, once thought rock-solid. Paul Webster Hare, a master lecturer in international relations at the Pardee School of Global Studies, is a former British ambassador to Cuba and is now interim director of Pardee’s Latin America Studies Center. He teaches classes on diplomatic practice and public diplomacy, among other topics. Vesko Garčević, a Pardee professor of the practice of international relations, has served as Montenegrin ambassador to NATO, multiple European capitals, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He directs Pardee’s Center for the Study of Europe and is an expert on multilateral diplomacy, European security, and NATO open door policy.
Q&A
with Paul Webster Hare and Vesko Garčević
BU Today: As Europeans and former diplomats, what is your reaction to the substance and tone of these comments by American leaders?
Hare: I think the UK government has been well aware of President Trump’s team’s attitude to Europe even before the election. Trump himself keeps saying there is an “ocean between us,” so America does not need to worry about Russia’s ambitions. Vance has been saying disparaging things about the UK Labour government for months, calling them “an Islamist nuclear power.” He showed astonishing ignorance of the role of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 20 years, supporting the US operations. For Trump, his attitude is difficult to explain, as his mother emigrated to the United States from Scotland, two of his wives were European immigrants, and Melania Trump is also a Slovenian citizen. But it has become [accepted]—as shown by the Signal chat—that the Europeans are “pathetic,” even though it was the Europeans that rallied around the United States after 9/11.
Garčević: “The America First” approach is based on three premises: American nationalism and unilateralism, protectionist economic policy, and transactional mindset. All of them were fully displayed in the comments of senior American intelligence and defense officials’ discussion of a military operation in Yemen. This approach implies disregard for international institutions and traditional American allies. While Europeans are well aware of it, every display of deep anti-European feelings and scornful tone about Europe cements the deterioration of trans-Atlantic ties and drifts partners away.
Anti-American sentiment in Europe is on the rise, and it reflects on everyday situations. These statements deepen distrust among Europeans and Americans and reinforce a sense in Europe of a broken relationship. At the same time, they empower those in Europe who want to put this relationship behind and turn a new page in Euro-Atlantic relations. As the German newspaper Bild admits, “The unfriendly words toward Europe from the Americans are further proof that the US no longer considers us a vital ally,” it is a matter of time before Europe will feel the same towards the United States.
The Trump administration is transactional and sees all issues in what can benefit the US economy and what can be done to stop countries ‘ripping off’ the USA.
BU Today: For many years, US leaders of both parties have advocated for NATO allies increasing their defense spending, and some began doing so. Aside from the insulting language, did Vance and Hegseth have a legitimate policy point?
Hare: The need for Europe to increase defense spending is now fully recognized. The American call for this happened well before Trump, under the Obama administration. The UK cooperates closely with the United States on its nuclear program, it hosts US forces in bases, and these provide the United States with intelligence and early warning capabilities. And the UK manufactures components for important US military programs, such as the F-35 [stealth strike aircraft] fighter.
Garčević: It is true that for decades following World War II, Europe has counted on the United States to be the ultimate guarantor of its security. US leaders have long advocated for more defense spending on the European side of the NATO equation, and frankly, it is a valid point. Former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 14 years ago, called on European allies to increase defense spending above 2 percent of their GDP. Under the pressure of the Obama administration, that was instituted as an official NATO target at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales, when only three NATO members had defense spending above 2 percent. The European allies have significantly increased defense spending in the last two years, and currently only 6 members out of 32 spend less than 2 percent.
Yet the argument about military spending is often the subject of political manipulations and popular misconceptions. We have to separate spending on military capability, where European NATO members are expected to increase “the risks and the costs sharing,” from direct and indirect contribution to NATO running costs. While the United States spends more than any country in the world on defense, very little of that sum goes to NATO. The NATO running costs are mainly paid by European partners and Canada, while the United States participates with just over 16 percent.
BU Today: What does the Trump team’s reluctance to aid Europe militarily, and the tone with which they expressed it, suggest about the future of US-European relations? Will the Trump administration be a hiccup or the start of a permanent rupture, and with what consequences?
Hare: I think the US military, as opposed to the political Fox News pundits now in government, recognize the value of having allies to cooperate in strategic planning and burden-sharing. The Trump administration is transactional and sees all issues in what can benefit the US economy and what can be done to stop countries “ripping off” the USA. That is not confined to Europe and is worrying key allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Saudi Arabia is now seen as perhaps the closest country to Trump’s view of the world and has already offered numerous deals to Trump’s businesses.
Perhaps of most concern to the Europeans about Trump’s new team—including [National Security Advisor Mike] Waltz, Hegseth, and Vance—is the sheer lack of experience in implementing complex government policies in security and foreign affairs. None has ever negotiated with Russia before. Serving in the military or the House of Representatives is no substitute for government decision-making processes. Steve Witkoff, key negotiator on issues vital to Europe, is a real estate executive whose family is a partner in Trump’s cryptocurrency business
By contrast, the current UK national security advisor, Jonathan Powell, has a decade of experience in being at the center of major international negotiations.
The alliance will never be the same.
Garčević: Winston Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” A broken Euro-Atlantic bond and the current US approach have confronted the European allies more than any crisis before, including the invasion of Ukraine, with its relative military irrelevance and security dependence on the United States.
The current trajectory has caused new dynamics in Europe and among Euro-Atlantic partners: it precipitated the European Union (EU)/UK rapprochement and has driven Canada closer to the NATO European allies. At the same time, the major European powers are forced to rethink the current security autonomy. Only a few weeks ago, the European Commission outlined a new proposal for EU defense financing, the so-called ReArm Europe Plan. This plan envisages up to 800 billion euros in increased defense spending.
Germany’s incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has repeated that Germany no longer believes US security commitments to Europe can be taken for granted. The German parliament has recently endorsed a landmark bill that plans to unlock hundreds of billions of euros for defense and infrastructure projects.
In parallel, many European leaders are considering alternatives for nuclear deterrence in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron has affirmed that the French nuclear deterrent has a “European dimension.” While it is still unclear how realistic it is to expect the deepening of nuclear cooperation between the UK and France, or how quickly Europeans can overcome their differences, the current trajectory may permanently redesign the US/EU relations and redefine the US leading role in NATO. The alliance will never be the same.
Comments & Discussion
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.