TRUMPISM AND THE SUBSTANTIAL END OF THE US–EU ALLIANCE

By Francesco Capriglione

Abstract: This article examines the geopolitical, constitutional, and strategic implications of Trumpism for the transatlantic relationship, suggesting that recent shifts in United States foreign and domestic policy may contribute to a significant reconfiguration of longstanding patterns of cooperation between America and Europe. Building upon an earlier monographic analysis of the ideological and institutional trajectories of liberal democracies, the study situates the phenomenon within a broader framework that includes renewed currents of political and economic nationalism and a more selective approach to international engagement. Developments affecting constitutional checks and balances, together with an increasingly decision-centred conception of sovereignty, are considered as potentially indicative of meaningful changes in the functioning of American liberal democracy.

Against this background, the article analyses the turn towards economic protectionism, the expanded use of tariffs as a policy instrument, and a more openly critical posture towards the European Union. Particular attention is devoted to the new National Security Strategy, including its references to the Monroe Doctrine and related interpretive extensions, which may signal a recalibration of unilateral and multilateral commitments and a reshaping of alliance priorities.

The paper maintains that these dynamics should be understood not only as episodic diplomatic tensions, but as elements of a broader evolution in the transatlantic bond. The interaction between American strategic recalibration, a more pragmatic posture towards Russia, and more cautious positions regarding Ukraine and supranational governance may place pressure on some of the normative assumptions that have underpinned post-war Atlanticism. In this context, Europe faces a strategic choice between reinforcing established frameworks of cooperation and pursuing deeper political and military coordination aimed at strengthening its capacity for autonomous action.

Summary: 1. The US Presidency: Donald Trump… – 2. Continued: …the critical approach towards the EU… – 3. The new National Security Strategy. – 4. The end of the historic friendship between America and Europe.

1. The US Presidency: Donald Trump…

 Analysing the current geopolitical reality observable following Donald Trump’s ascent to the presidency of the United States, in a recent book I examined the causes of “Trumpism”, the isolationist logic within which it is situated, and its reducibility to a techno-plutocratic autocracy.[1] The outcomes of this analysis highlight a scenario in which American democracy appears to be moving towards a metamorphosis characterised by the loss of the liberal nature that has always defined its essence.

The United States of America is, in fact, now governed by an executive that is progressively eliminating any reference to the constitutional mechanism of ‘checks’ and ‘balances’ (Checks and Balances) which characterises democratic systems and which, in the United States, takes concrete form in the division of ‘powers’ into three branches—legislative, executive and judicial—each endowed with the faculty of supervising the others in order to prevent abuses and to guarantee equilibrium within the federal order.

 In this context, the leadership of Donald Trump stands out, together with the personal traits (unpredictability, exhibitionism, narcissism, arrogance, etc.) that the entire world has sadly come to know, and his policy inspired by a business-oriented logic. The primary objective of his action is the rebalancing of US public finances which – as has been authoritatively demonstrated – are currently slowing down insofar as “the price competitiveness of US goods has markedly declined” and “the trade balance has been continuously in deficit since 1971”.[2] Trump presents himself as the bearer of measures intended to make America great again; the slogan he has adopted in support of his theses, “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), rises to the status of a founding principle of an agere that promotes a nationalist policy of economic protectionism. This leads him to adopt an attitude traceable to a mixture of populism and sovereigntism, which sees in the mandate

conferred by electoral victory the title legitimising the exercise of absolute power. Thus begins the assertion of a totalitarian logic which, in the name of defending American identity, becomes – at the level of internal government – the premise for the adoption of a policy of opposition to potential enemies, opening ever wider spaces to authoritarianism and assuming a vindictive character towards opponents (from members of the FBI to representatives of the Department of Justice, to inconvenient officials who are promptly removed).

 The extraordinary measures taken against his opponents (whom he considers responsible for conspiracies aimed at preventing him from governing) reflect a simultaneous weakening of Congress and of the federal agencies. A scenario thus takes shape in which the excesses of the executive – which often acts in aggressive ways that fail to respect human rights – cannot be attributed solely to the personal traits of Donald Trump, but must be traced back to a clear strategic design founded upon an expansive interpretation of his powers.

 I refer, in particular, to the tycoon’s intention to apply the theory of the “unitary executive”, which has long found acceptance in the United States on the basis of references to the Constitution and has been confirmed by certain rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States. This theory, expressed by the conservative current, maintains that the President of the United States holds full control over the entire executive branch (including independent officials and administrative judges). Within it, two interpretative strands may be identified: one which emphasises the figure of the President as an absolute authority, and another which allows Congress and the Courts to limit his power. These strands refer to two articles of the Constitution: the Vesting Clause, which attributes to the President the entirety of the “executive Power”, and the Take Care Clause, which imposes upon him the obligation to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed; this second strand has strengthened an expansive reading of the Vesting Clause, allowing the President substantial control over the executive bureaucracy.³

 From Trump’s conduct there also emerges, in every situation, an openness to compromise and to business-style transactions, a behavioural mode underpinned by the Vesting Clause, allowing the President substantial control over the executive bureaucracy.[3]

 From Trump’s conduct there also emerges, in every situation, an openness to compromise and to business-style transactions, a behavioural mode underpinned by the  From Trump’s conduct there also emerges, in every situation, an openness to compromise and to business-style transactions, a behavioural mode underpinned by the intention of deriving, in any event, a personal economic advantage from the activities undertaken (significant, in this regard, is the interest that Donald Trump shows in digital finance and, in particular, in cryptocurrencies).[4]

 At a deeper level one discerns a reality – described in the Italian broadcast Report of 14 December 2025 – in which the theses of Curtis Yarvin, proponent of the theory of the “Dark Enlightenment” and of anti-democracy, appear destined to gain ground: a project of authoritarian restructuring of society, described as the “dark utopia of the new radical right, a ‘radical libertarian utopia with maximum freedom in all things except politics’”.[5] Hence the inclination to replace democracy with techno-monocratic systems, certainly appreciated by Trump’s ‘inner circle’: from the political strategist Steve Bannon to J. D.[6] Vance who, in line with Yarvin’s indications, stated: “I think what Trump should do … is fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the state administration, and replace them with our people.”[7]

2. Continued: …the critical approach towards the EU.

 In keeping with this systemic framework, foreign policy reveals the «mixture of consumerism and hyper-capitalism, transhumanism and techno-anarchism» which identifies the new socio-economic ‘frontier’, supported by the US President[8]. He is convinced that the strength deriving from his electoral victory

enables him to overcome everything and everyone; this, with the consequence of subjecting the liberal democracies of the so-called West to a severe test, to a stress test liable to affect adversely their original configuration.

 We are faced with a reality in which law does not relate to force by incorporating it and rendering it an aspect of itself; force is no longer regulated by law and limited thereby.[9] It separates itself from law, channelling into a vision that frames it as a primary element, detached from reference to social relations connected to juridical logic; thus it proceeds autonomously, undermining the balances and certainties required for a path of civilisation and progress.

Indeed, Trump’s conduct expresses a logic of imperium and, therefore, the force of a power which, when assessed with regard to foreign policy determinations, imposes its Italian broadcast upon the principal political and economic powers of the planet. Significant in this respect is the raising of tariffs, first threatened and then implemented, hence the justified reactions on the part of the countries subjected to his excesses[10]. This without taking account of the damage that would thereby have ensued for the entire planet.

From another perspective, Trump refuses a long-standing alliance with Europe and adopts a strongly critical approach towards it on numerous issues (challenges to migration policies, condemnation of EU trade barriers, of VAT taxes, of corporate sanctions and of excessive support for Ukraine, etc.). To this must be added the interference of the American Vice-President J. D. Vance in the domestic political affairs of Germany (when, during the latter’s electoral campaign, he met the leader of Alternative für Deutschland, Alice Weidel, sharing her positions), as well as the undue ‘lesson in democracy’ which he believed he could deliver to representatives of the EU countries at the Security Conference held in Munich in February 2025, declaring himself concerned about the departure of European countries from the principles underlying the democratic order; for that purpose recalling that everything Americans finance and support is in the name of values shared with other peoples.[11]

 It is clearly understood that the new strategy of the White House is aimed at overturning the traditional collaboration between the United States and the European Union; indeed, apart from anything else, it unequivocally conveys the disavowal, on the part of the Trump administration, of the bond which, since the end of the Second World War, has linked the United States and the EU; a bond that provided shared security on the military army, ensured transparent and fair economic and trade relations, and excluded forms of external interference by America in European decision-making processes. To this must be added the continuous series of abuses whereby Trump seeks to impose his will upon the countries of the Union: from the request for an inordinate increase in military expenditure to be allocated to defence in view of a US disengagement from NATO (underlying which is also the intention to sell arms for hundreds of billions) to the unjustified interference in the definition of the political regimes of the EU States, to which reference has already been made, whose transition towards contexts of extreme conservatism is encouraged.

 The intention to weaken the role of the Union is evident, activating within it forms of divisiveness destined to bring about the substantial end of the federalist perspective which, since the distant ‘Manifesto di Ventotene’, has animated the expectations of many citizens of the ‘old continent’. It is therefore understood that the latter, should they follow the American lead, will inevitably find themselves within a sphere of subordination, which calls to mind the memories of a much-maligned colonialism that has recurred repeatedly in the courses and recourses of history.

 It is the old strategy of divide et impera, successfully experimented by the Roman Empire; it is characterised, in this case, by its modalities of application, which see the Sovereign disengaged from responsibilities and burdens of any kind in the exercise of powers that confer upon him the possibility of being the absolute dominus of the aforesaid reality.

3. The new National Security Strategy

 We have reached the epilogue of this narrative, which spreads fears and undeniable concerns. These are attributable above all to the current geopolitical context and, in particular, to the situation of uncertainty and fragility characterising the European Union following the recent publication by Donald Trump of the new National Security Strategy, a document which rewrites the manner in which the United States intends to present itself to the world in its capacity as a sovereign power.[12]

 In that document, after a self-exalting preface by the American President (“in the past nine months, we have lifted our nation – and the entire world – from the brink of catastrophe”) and after reiterating accusations against the elites who, in past years, led the country, there is set out the intention to “restore American power both at home and abroad”. This is to be implemented through a strategy aimed at preventing hostile actions by giving effect to responses of the utmost gravity, a logic therefore founded upon the principle of deterrence, to which are added the «necessary corrections» that the executive proposes to introduce. The latter are an expression of the founding principles of the National Defense Strategy, among which, for the purposes of a comprehensive assessment of relations between the United States and third countries, particular centrality attaches to those relating to ‘peace through strength’ and to a ‘predisposition to non-interventionism’.

 The document in question is expressly inspired by the doctrine bearing the name of President James Monroe, who proclaimed it in 1823. In relation to it, the application of a “Trump Corollary” is claimed[13], intended to supplement its scope in order to reaffirm American influence in the Americas[14]. As is well known, according to that doctrine, the European powers were no longer to intervene in the affairs of the American continent, nor to attempt new colonisations, in return for the United States’ commitment not to interfere in European internal matters. The objective of protecting the South American States from conceivable forms of colonialism and, at the same time, consolidating American influence in the Western Hemisphere is evident[15]; in the National Security Strategy, reference thereto indicates the will to afford renewed space to the isolationist logic imposed by Trump, while reserving to the United States the right to “oppose technocratic drifts and restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed by political elites in Europe and in the Anglosphere”, as has been correctly hypothesised[16] .

 That being so, the pages of the National Security Strategy devoted to Europe give rise to considerable perplexity, in that they confirm the criticisms repeatedly directed at the European States and institutions, from the very first Cabinet meeting of the new executive, in arrogant tones and with an ostentation of strength intended to be perceived

as such. We are confronted with statements that reveal an ideological colouring attributable to sovereigntist conservatism, which proposes the absolute centrality of the

nation and of tradition, rejects supranational constraints, and entrusts social cohesion to a strong authority, to the detriment of liberal pluralism[17]. Hence the character of the aforesaid criticisms as an identitarian reaction to globalisation and to European integration, which in practical terms pursues an erosion of the guarantees of liberal constitutionalism, while conversely enhancing a decisionist conception of sovereignty that creates tension in the balance between law, politics and markets.

 The harsh words employed by the American executive are intended to portray the existence within the EU of “economic stagnation … (due) … to national and supranational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness … economic decline obscured by an even more radical prospect: that of the erasure of European civilisation”, as is textually stated in the National Security Strategy. Hence the suggestion to address certain issues (migration, censorship of freedom of expression, loss of national identities) which “weaken political freedom and sovereignty”. This is a narrative that tends fundamentally to undermine the construction of a European federal State, inasmuch as it presupposes recourse to the aforementioned principle of divide et impera, the premise of a community of national States readily disposed to activate bilateral relations with the United States, engaging in negotiations whenever the opportunity arises.

 Trump’s critical statements concerning Europe’s “self-destructive” policy, referred to above, are promptly confirmed by him in a lengthy interview with Politico, in which he once again attacks the European Union and Volodymyr Zelensky, accusing the former of weakness and the latter of “using the war in order not to hold elections”. If any further proof were required, he makes clear his real intentions of desiring a completely subjugated Europe and of “regarding Ukraine with far greater hostility than that aroused in him by the Russia of Vladimir Putin”[18]. The US President demonstrates in unequivocal terms the termination of a relationship between America and Europe founded upon mutual respect and upon an understanding whereby military protection (offered by the former) was always matched by the opening of the European market to the United States and by economic cooperation that undoubtedly benefited the latter.

It must be acknowledged that Donald Trump is attempting to implement a regime

change in the United States that marks the abandonment of democratic logic, the indispensable premise of liberal systems which repudiate totalitarianism, the dynamics

of which, founded upon authoritarianism, generate tensions (within the countries in which it asserts itself) destined to explode at the geopolitical level, disturbing the previous international equilibrium and producing incalculable damage on a global scale.[19]

 Naturally, Trump’s manifest hostility towards the European Union is destined to receive enthusiastic endorsement from the techno-plutocratic exponents who support his political stance. Confirmation thereof is found in the treacherous attack by his associate Elon Musk upon the EU, who – angered by a fine of 120 million imposed by Brussels upon his social network X – called for the abolition of the Union and the consequent return of sovereignty ‘to the individual States’[20].

 One is reminded of the note issued by the Quirinale with which President Sergio Mattarella, on the occasion of a previous attack by Elon Musk upon our country (November 2024), responded to the latter’s criticisms of the judiciary and of our socio-political situation by emphasising that “Italy is a great democratic country and knows how to look after itself in compliance with its Constitution” [21] These are words that emphasise respect for the sovereignty of the European States, whereby undue interference or prescriptions of any kind from abroad are unacceptable.

 I cannot, however, conceal my concern that in the near future the Union may be subjected to new and dangerous intimidations by exponents of a United States socio-economic class which, aligning itself with Trump’s desiderata, seeks to rid itself of the regulatory encumbrances of a system that believes in the values of the rule of law and

of democracy. This is a fear justified by present events that are overturning the established order which, for decades, has characterised the political regime of the United States, a country which by its origins, history, culture and traditions has always maintained a special bond with the ‘old continent’.

4. End of the historic friendship between America and Europe.

The analysis set out in my recent book mentioned earlier, reached conclusions which, in these days, are proving to be well founded. From the very beginning of the US administration, it appeared clear to me that the entire planet would undergo geopolitical changes resulting from the rising of a conservative logic oriented towards an autocratic institutional model, consistent with the business-driven approach of the American President and the expansionist ambitions of his Russian counterpart.

 The conduct that characterised the beginning of the new US presidency indeed revealed a clear preference for an uncompromising defence of national interests in the name of the free market and individual liberties. Hence the predictable adoption of an interventionist stance which, with a view to securing new profits for the United States, would run counter to the principles of liberal democracy and international law. This has entailed consequences of various kinds: from an exacerbated hostility towards migratory flows, to a progressive detachment from European affairs and a substantial lack of interest in Ukraine.

 Within this context, the objective of drawing Russia closer in order to limit China’s influence over it has led Trump to converge towards Putin, with whom he is bound by prior relations and a sense of admiration, showing himself willing to accommodate his ambitions by facilitating a conclusion favourable to him of the “special military operation” launched with conquering intent. Conversely, the US President has become increasingly unconcerned with Europe’s fate, directing criticism at it and repeatedly expressing disdain for the leaders of the Union.

 In assessing the components of this scenario, I questioned various questions: concerning the present viability of democracy in the United States; the substantive fracture in the historic friendship between America and Europe; and the conceivable outcome of the Russian–Ukrainian war.

 Dealing with a future of uncertainties, I realised that Trump’s election has not only opened the way to a new American isolationism, but also fosters the conditions for the initiation of a process which, in the long term, could lead to the death of democracy in America. Certain recent events – such as the dramatic episodes caused in Minneapolis by federal ICE agents [22]– demonstrate, through a harsh anti-immigrant offensive marked by violence and abuses of every kind, that in Trump’s America coercion has become an ordinary instrument of government.

 The conviction to which I had come after the first months of Trump’s presidency – namely, that his excesses had to be accepted as a ‘necessary evil’ (from which one cannot escape) while awaiting better times – gives way to the bitter realisation that it is becoming increasingly difficult to redefine the democratic process and to overcome present sufferings.

 Indeed, considering the manner in which the US President has performed his role as mediator in the Ukrainian affair, as well as the distrust and contempt shown towards Zelensky, a reality emerges that is particularly harsh for Ukraine, also because the head of the world’s greatest military power has demonstrated through his conduct that he does not intend to pursue an aggressive line towards Russia. I have therefore inferred that the battered Ukraine would, in all probability, have to renounce the dream of a ‘just and lasting’ peace that would allow it to preserve its territorial integrity and, with it, the possibility of joining NATO in the not too distant future. It thus seems likely that a scenario is taking shape in which the tycoon, in order to fulfil his electoral promise to bring the conflict to an end and to please Putin, might compel Zelensky to conclude a peace that would transform Ukraine into a new vassal state of Russia.

 Lastly, the fate of the historic friendship between America and Europe appears to me particularly complex. At the end of my analysis, I asked myself: what will become of Europe? Currently it presents a weak and divided image, reflecting the intrinsic difficulty in which the EU finds itself in identifying a rational point of balance and shared purpose capable of paving the way towards a more coherent integration, at least in the military sphere.

 The events of recent months have been marked by a flow of negative judgments by Trump concerning the allies, together with a concurrent acknowledgement of Russia’s ‘position of strength’, while the strange suggestion to Zelensky to “accept the facts” – a statement that leaves no doubt as to the US President’s intention to secure a substantial Ukrainian surrender. Further Added to this are the continual criticisms of the European Union’s migration policies which, in his view, have produced a ‘crisis of civilisation’. Equally unequivocal is the discredit directed at the leaders of certain European States, contrasted with appreciation for those who define themselves in sovereigntist terms and display an ideological affinity with Trumpism, thereby sharing the trajectory of his MAGA plan; States with which he intends to cooperate (above all Hungary and Italy), implementing ‘bilateral agreements’ consistent with the logic of divide et impera upon which he relies in order to dismantle the European Union.

 It is therefore clear that the last illusory possibilities of relational continuity between the United States and the European Union are destined to vanish. Conversely, the bond between the United States and the Russian Federation emerges in its entirety, as may also be seen from the statements of Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, who has pointed to the existence of a tactical convergence between the two countries, highlighting areas of common interest in seeking a solution to the conflict in Ukraine.[23]

 In Trump’s eyes, the European Union does not exist, because it is not a legal subject (as Lucio Caracciolo pointed out in an interview broadcast on the Italian television channel La7). Moreover, according to the indications contained in the National Security Strategy, it has suffered a significant decline in its economic weight, from 25 per cent of global GDP to 14 per cent.[24] Indeed, the EU is split between countries willing to comply with the desiderata of the US President and others determined to support Ukraine with financial means and weapons. At the same time, account must be taken of the fact that the Union is, on the one hand, subjected to a ‘hybrid war’ waged by the Russian Federation and, on the other, concerned by America’s irretrievable detachment, which has withdrawn the military protective umbrella hitherto provided, thereby initiating a substantial disengagement from NATO.

 In this context, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe in the prospect of a genuine political union and to ensure support for Ukraine in pursuit of a just and lasting peace, if the Atlantic vocation is disavowed. Consequently, one is struck by the identity-based resurgence underlying certain statements by the spokesperson of the European Commission, such as “we decide the rules for ourselves”, accompanied by the warning that “Europe remains strategically and culturally vital for the United States” and that “transatlantic trade remains one of the pillars of the global economy and of American prosperity”.[25]

It is clear that the time has come for major decisions, concerning not only the choice to adhere to a distinctly pro-European alignment (which appears to have taken shape through participation in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’), but also the identification of the most appropriate means of defining a unified system of defence. Europe must decide upon its own survival and thus assess the risk of being forced to renounce any relevance within the geopolitical order of the planet, in which – alongside the group of major world powers (the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan) identified by Trump – there seems to be no place for the politically divided States of the Union, lacking a common and unified military force, even though together they comprise a population of over 400 million citizens.

 From another perspective, it should not be overlooked that the project of an autonomous European defence is opposed by certain countries, such as Hungary and Italy, which – being, as I have already emphasised, ideologically aligned with Trump’s policy – are unwilling to contemplate the establishment of a unified EU ‘armed force’,[26] the cost of which would be decidedly lower than that allocated to NATO following the recent increase in contributions required for participation therein.[27] Properly considered, the creation of such a force, essentially centred upon coordination of existing structures, could represent a decisive step towards greater political integration founded precisely upon the convergence of EU armed forces into a single army.[28]

 It is apparent that Europe stands at a crossroads: its future destiny is at stake, as a regime change appears plausible which, in practical terms, would not only mark the decline of liberal democracies but also open the way to forms of autarky whose negative implications have been experienced repeatedly in the history of citizens. The time has come to emerge from ambiguities, to abandon prudential positions aimed at preserving an Atlanticism that has in fact ceased to exist, and to replace it with a stance of firmness directed towards that freedom and autonomy to which peoples legitimately aspire, especially those which, as European history teaches, have long struggled to attain them.

 It is equally necessary to confront reality, objectively assessing the outcomes of the choices that EU countries are compelled to make, if necessary setting aside expectations formed when there was not yet full awareness – unlike today – that national security is at stake, and that it coincides with European security. In the face of current events and of the continual barbs with which the American administration assails the majority of the States of the ‘Old Continent’, once its allies, it now seems impossible to continue to believe in Atlanticism. The latter no longer forms part of the geopolitical framework established by the United States after the end of the Second World War; today it looks to new friendships deemed preferable to those experienced in the past, as is demonstrated – inter alia – by the tacit bond between the tycoon and Putin. It may therefore be said that a will to dissolve the European Union has taken hold, which – in the logic of Trumpism – is certainly regarded as an economic power not to be underestimated and thus to be colonised, since it could represent an obstacle to the MAGA plan.

 Hence the need to strengthen the aggregation of those countries willing to assume responsibility for defending Ukraine, subjected to pressing threats from the Russian Federation and to continual injunctions from Trump, who seeks to close this long-standing affair and to add another peacemaker’s medal to his record. A general climate of concern is observable, yet I prefer to join those who trust in the hope that, in the end, intelligence and common sense will prevail over all else.

---

[1] See Il declino delle democrazie liberali, Turino, Utet, 2025

[2] See CIOCCA, Commento a F. Capriglione, Il declino delle democrazie liberali. Diritto-Economia-Geopolitica, available at Suppl. n. 3, of Riv. Trim. Dir. Econ., 2025.

[3] See. l’editoriale intitolato The 2024 Executive Power Survey – Unitary Executive, in The New York Times, 15 settembre 2023

[4] See GABANELLI e GATTI, Trump, il vero successo dei suoi primi 100 giorni: l’arricchimento available at personale, https://www.corriere.it/dataroommi lena-gabanelli/trump-il-vero-successo-dei-suoi-primi-100-giorni-l-arricchimento per-sonale).

[5] See TAIT, Key thinkers of the radical right: behind the new threat to liberal democracy, Oxford University Press, 2019

[6] See MATTHEWS, Neo-monarchist blogger denies he’s chatting with Steve Bannon, su Vox, 7 febbraio 2017

[7] See MAHLER, How Tech Billionaires Became the G.O.P.’s New Donor Class, in New York Times, 18 ottobre 2024.

[8] See the editorial entitled Ci incontreremo ancora, in Limes, no. 12, 2024, p. 33.

 

[10] See the editorial entitled Mattarella boccia i dazi di Trump: “un rischio per l’economia globale”, available at https://lavocedinewyork.com/news/2025/04/30/mattarella-bocciai-dazi-di-trump-un-rischio-per-leconomia -globale

[11] See the editorial Vance dà lezioni di democrazia all’Europa: “La libertà di parola è in ritirata. Preoccupa l’allontanamento dell’Ue dai valori comuni”, available at http://www.affari-italiani.it/esteri/vance-monaco-conferenza-sicurezzamonaco-migranti-afd-europa-9565

[12] The National Security Strategy 2026 emphasises a realistic, focused approach to protecting core US national interests, moving away from expansive global interventions toward concrete priorities. It stresses that US foreign policy should be guided by practical assessments of threats and available resources, ensuring that the country maintains its global strength, economic prosperity, and security. The strategy underscores that America will defend its interests decisively while encouraging allies to contribute proportionally to shared security responsibilities. See National Security Strategy of the United States of America (November 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf.

[13] See para. II, point 2 What Do We Want In and From the World?

[14] See the editorial entitled Il “Corollario Trump” per le Americhe, la centralità indo-pacifica e il disentanglement europeo: Tre volti del nuovo paradigma della strategia nazionale statunitense available at https://www. geopolitica.info/corollario-trump-per-le-americhe

[15] See GUALTIERI, Storia degli Stati Uniti, Roma-Bari, 2016, pp. 67-70

[16] See BENTIVOGLIO, La nuova National Security Strategy Usa tra sovranità, deterrenza e ristrutturazione delle alleanze, available at https://formiche.net/2025/12/nuova-national-security-strategy-usa-sovranita-deterrenza-ristrutturazione-alleanze

[17] See AA.VV., La sostenibilità della democrazia nel XXI secolo, edited by Cartabia and Simoncini, Bologna, 2009.

[18] See the editorial entitled Fine delle illusioni. È ora di considerare l’ipotesi che Trump dica quel che pensa, available at www.linkiesta.it/2025/12/e-ora-di-considerare-lipotesi-che-trump-dica-quel-che-pensa.

[19] See Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York, 1951, in which the mechanisms of totalitarian regimes are analysed; as well as Simone Weil, Oppression et liberté, Paris, posthumously published in 1955, a work offering a critical vision of authoritarianism and its related hierarchical structures

[20] See the editorial entitled Musk attacca l’Ue: “Abolirla e tornare ai singoli Stati”, available at www.ansa.it /sito/notizie/mondo/2025/12/07/musk-attacca-lue-abolirla-e-tornare-ai-singoli-stati.

[21] See the editorial entitled Mattarella risponde a Musk: reazioni della politica italiana, available at https://www.zazoom.it/news-notizia/post/768331/2024-11-13–mattarella-risponde-musk-reazioni-della-politica-italiana

[22] See the interesting editorial of CHARLES HOMANS, ‘Watching America Unravel in Minneapolis’ in New York Time Magazine, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/magazine/minneapolis-trump-ice-protests-minnesota.html.

[23] See the editorial L’Europa sotto assedio, available at: https://www.ilpost.it/2025/12/08/le-prime-pagine-di-oggi-4411

[24] See Lucio Caracciolo, ‘Trump ha saputo cavalcare la rabbia dell’America tra California e New York’ (7 November 2024), https://www.la7.it/otto-e-mezzo/video/usa-lucio-caracciolo-trump-ha-saputo-cavalcare-la-rabbia-dellamerica-tra-california-e-new-york-06-11-2024-566324

See also the editorial entitled Stati Uniti, Trump: “Lasceremo la Nato se alleati non pagano di più”, 9 December 2024, available at: https://it.euronews.com/2024/12/09/ stati-uniti-trump-lasceremo-la-nato-se-alleati-non-pagano-di-piu.

[25] See the editorial ‘Ue risponde a Trump: “Regole le decidiamo noi e per noi”, http://www.rotonotizie.it/ue-risponde-a-trump-regole-le-decidiamo-noi-e-per-noi.

[26] See the editorial entitled Meloni dice no all’esercito europeo: non serve un doppione dell’alleanza”, available at Il Sole 24 Ore of 25 June 2025, which reports the words with which the Italian Prime Minister reiterated that “the Western defence system is based on NATO, where there is no single army but rather national armies that cooperate with one another.

[27]See the editorial entitled Cottarelli: “800 miliardi in armi sono troppi, rischiano di far aumentare per l’Italia il rapporto tra debito pubblico e Pil”, available at: https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2025/03/16/riarmo-europa-cottarelli-armi-debito-pil-dazi-trump/7915896, which reports the following words of the economist: “Italy is still below 2% of GDP, which was the commitment we undertook ten years ago. We are still at 1.6%; however, by adding one and a half percentage points to the current level, .

[28] See the editorial entitled Difesa europea, tra garanzie NATO e scommesse sull’UE, 15 April 2025, available at: https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/difesa-europea-tra-garanzie-nato-e-scommesse-sullue-205787, in which, with regard to the internal debate on European defence, it is specified that Minister Crosetto has repeatedly maintained that the Italian Government places greater reliance on NATO and on its (as yet to be constructed) European ‘pillar’ rather than on the EU as such. The reason put forward for this preference is to be found in the circumstance that NATO, unlike the EU, contains in its founding Treaty the provision set out in Article 5. This overlooks the fact that a reading of that provision clearly shows that the rule of collective defence among the Member States is devoid of any form of automaticity, being left to the discretionary judgment of each individual country, which “shall determine” – in my view in full autonomy – the necessity of undertaking action, if necessary also through the “use of armed force”. For this reason, the provision in question does not adequately guarantee the security of the European States; cf., in this regard, TERTRAIS, L’article 5 de l’OTAN: du mythe à la réalité, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, Paris, 2011, where a clear reflection may be found on the discretionary nature of intervention pursuant to Article 6 of the NATO Treaty.