*Updated March 20, 2025 at 5:15 p.m.*
-Analysis-
ROME — What to do with Donald Trump? What to do with someone who, as he told Bob Woodward back in 2016, believes that “real power is fear”? And he clearly hasn’t changed his thinking.
America, for now, is throwing up its hands. The rest of the world doesn’t have that luxury. The Houthis in Sana’a and the Greenlanders in Nuuk are both asking themselves the question of how to react. The former because of the persuasive means used by the American president, the latter because of an existential choice. These are extreme cases, but today, there is no foreign policy or trade relationship that isn’t influenced by the same fundamental issue: what to do about Trump?
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
This is especially true for allies and friends, who have been targeted far more than adversaries, perhaps because, in the logic of fear, it is imposed on friends, while enemies already have it. So, the first step is threats, then tariffs, only afterward comes dialogue — but under the pressure of what feels like a pointed gun.
Flattery is not enough. Making concessions only invites more demands. So, what about simply saying, “No, thank you”? More and more countries are starting to do just that, politely but firmly (just ask Canada). The emerging international front against Donald Trump isn’t about being against the American president. It still believes in an alliance and partnership with the United States. But it refuses to blindly follow every erratic demand issued by the White House or Mar-a-Lago.
The strategy? Not to passively submit to the often improvised dictates of Washington. When there is no alternative (see tariffs) responding in kind, not to escalate, but to force a mutually acceptable solution. Showing strength to earn respect, as in the famous handshakes of French President Emmanuel Macron.
Overturning the lines
In just eight weeks, Trump has overturned the traditional lines of American foreign policy. So far, his actions have reshaped three key areas, with a fourth (universal tariffs) set to be fully unveiled on April 2. The first is his push for territorial expansion in the Western Hemisphere. The second is his downgrading of Ukraine’s position in favor of Russia, effectively giving Putin the upper hand in ending the war.
The third is his Middle East maneuvering, which includes proposing to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”, while giving Netanyahu free rein in the West Bank, sending mixed signals to Iran, and ultimately issuing a military ultimatum to both the Houthis and Tehran.
The Middle East is waiting. Trump’s air strikes and ultimatum to the Houthis might finally put an end to the threat to Red Sea shipping. If Trump corners Iran, already weakened by Israel and struggling economically: few Arab states would mourn. But Saudi Arabia continues to tie full diplomatic normalization with Israel to the prospect of a Palestinian state, effectively offering only a half-hearted ‘Yes.’ Meanwhile, Egypt and Jordan, even after King Abdullah II’s visit to the Oval Office, have unequivocally rejected Trump’s Gaza Riviera idea. Their refusal was reinforced by the Arab League’s alternative plan, which Italy supports.
Zelensky sticks his neck out
Ukraine was the first to say ‘No’ to Trump: President Volodymyr Zelensky did so courageously, even at the cost of being publicly humiliated at the White House. He rejected a peace deal without international security guarantees. That refusal may come at a high price, but it forced Washington into bilateral negotiations in Jeddah, leading to the pending proposal for a 30-day truce.
Though it undoubtedly required painful concessions from Kyiv, the truce proposal originated from a French-British idea and is acceptable to the Ukrainians. As a result, the second No to Trump has now come from Putin. Cloaked as a “yes, but”, it’s the classic diplomatic formula for disagreement. In UN or NATO diplomacy, they teach you to brace yourself when a speech begins with “I fully agree, but…”, it usually means the opposite.
The most significant no to Trump has come from Europe.
Trump, however, has a habit of ignoring rejection. He calls it “constructive dialogue.” He is speaking with Putin on Tuesday about the ceasefire. Will he pressure the Russian president to accept it unconditionally? Or will he push Zelensky to accept Putin’s demands? Or will he simply announce a bilateral U.S.-Russia summit?
Canadian stop
Trump seems determined to leave his mark on history with territorial expansion. The last U.S. annexation was in 1900, with American Samoa, and the U.S.-Canada border was finalized in a 1908 treaty, one Trump casually referenced in a phone call to Justin Trudeau.
But there was nothing casual about the wave of No’s he received: from Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney; from patriotic Canadians rallying against the idea; from Denmark’s Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen; and from Greenlanders, who overwhelmingly voted for the party favoring the status quo. With those doors slammed shut, Trump has turned his attention to the weakest link, Panama, which quickly made concessions. For now.
But the most significant No to Trump: aside from the unspoken resistance of market forces and geopolitical realities, has come from Europe. Over the weekend, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer laboriously assembled a “coalition of the willing”—an unlikely alliance of European nations, Turkey, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, NATO, and the EU.
What will come of it remains uncertain. Will it succeed in securing an independent, European future for Ukraine? That is yet to be seen. But one thing is clear: the world is experiencing a vacuum in security and international order that urgently needs to be filled. And the cause of that vacuum? Donald Trump’s America, which, in its pursuit of “America First”, seems ready to go against everyone.
Coming to terms
Here in Italy, Trump may still have Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s trust when it comes to foreign policy, but that trust is becoming an increasingly rare commodity across Europe and the world. The reality is that American bases in Europe are no longer just security guarantees; they are also potential obstacles to European strategic independence. Not yet in the sense of direct military coercion, but certainly in their ability to limit Europe’s autonomy in defense policy. That is why Europe must act strategically.
As historian Nicole Gnesotto, vice president of the Jacques Delors Institute, put it: “Let Trump know that if he refuses to help secure a fair peace deal in Ukraine, we will stop buying American weapons. That would bankrupt part of his defense industry, given that Europe is its biggest customer.”
A second key move would be to ensure that the use of American-made military equipment is no longer subject to Washington’s approval, as it currently is under U.S. regulations. Finally, Europe must begin preparing now for a future without American bases on its soil.
Europe today may not have eight years, but it must come to terms with one reality
When General Charles de Gaulle announced France’s withdrawal from NATO’s military command in 1966 and ordered the closure of U.S. bases, he had already spent eight years laying the groundwork. He had ensured French nuclear deterrence by conducting the first atomic test in 1960.
Europe today may not have eight years. But it must come to terms with one reality: Trump’s America is no longer an ally: at least not in the sense envisioned in NATO’s founding treaty, which commits its members to defending “their common heritage and civilization, based on democracy, individual freedoms, and the rule of law.”
*Originally published March 17, 2025, this piece was updated March 20, 2025 with more information on Mark Carney and enriched media.
