With Trump 2.0, the EU is at the verge of irrelevance

Amid an increasingly competitive geopolitical environment, the European Union finds itself at a crossroads. Faced with mounting challenges—ranging from the global AI race to security concerns and great power politics—the EU must reconsider its regulatory approach. Instead of focusing on overly detailed, nitpicking rules, it is time for Brussels to adopt a more balanced regulatory strategy that safeguards safety and industrial needs without stifling innovation and competitiveness. The stakes are the highest the EU has arguably ever faced, and failure to recalibrate means permanently losing relevance in a world where, in the words of Thucydides, “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must”, writes Louis Auge.

Critics of the EU’s regulatory overreach, like German opposition leader and likely next chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU), have pointed to the bloc’s fixation on minor issues at the expense of addressing major geopolitical challenges. “All this small stuff they’re doing with this over-regulation and paternalism of people throughout Europe, that has to stop,” Merz recently remarked. He specifically referenced examples like EU regulations on bottle caps that can no longer be unscrewed or the mandatory beeping sound in cars when speeding—policies that may irritate consumers while doing little to address pressing global concerns.

Nutri-Score nutrition label embodies EU’s fatal flaw

Merz’s warnings are emblematic of a broader frustration: the EU’s preoccupation with micromanagement could undermine its legitimacy. Citizens and member states alike are increasingly frustrated with a bureaucratic machine that seems more concerned with regulating day-to-day life than tackling existential challenges, and that is wasting vast human, intellectual and monetary resources in the process.

To mention just one example, case in point is the years-long wrangling about Nutri-Score, a front of package nutritional label whose evident flaws have forced its creators to adjust its underlying algorithm. Even so, the scientific community continues to heap criticism on Nutri-Score’s validity, not least because rather than promoting healthy consumer choices, it causes confusion and even favours processed foods over traditional, wholesome options.

Despite all of this, untold man-hours spent in committees, conferences and plenary sessions have not resulted in the logical conclusion that the Nurti-Score label, and its bureaucratic refuse, should ideally be abandoned. Apart from the fact that Brussels’ penchant for bureaucratic tinkering often results in ineffective solutions that alienate citizens and fail to address root causes, they also represent a massive waste of money, a precious resource that the EU would do well to spend where it matters.

Falling behind on key topics

A look across the Atlantic leaves no doubt as to this criticism’s urgency. U.S. President Donald Trump begins his second term with a sweeping agenda that upends international norms. Within hours of his inauguration, Trump revoked policies on offshore drilling and renewable energy, suspended refugee settlement, rolled back AI safety regulations, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

While Trump’s approach veers toward the extreme—embracing deregulation and aggressive executive action—it underscores the changing nature of governance in shaping the international order. His administration’s sharp pivot towards nationalism and unilateralism signals a seismic shift in the global balance of power. By contrast, a paralysed EU stifled by its own bureaucratic maze and obsession with minutiae will be the biggest loser.

This disconnect becomes especially glaring when considering the EU’s faltering response to major technological and security developments, especially regarding the global race for artificial intelligence (AI). Trump’s announcement of a $500 billion AI initiative caught European policymakers flat-footed, exposing the bloc’s lack of ambition and strategic foresight.

While the European Commission has championed AI as a key area for growth, its regulatory-heavy approach risks stifling innovation. French President Emmanuel Macron is expected to outline Europe’s AI vision at an upcoming global summit, but it remains to be seen whether these efforts can bridge the gap with the U.S. and China. Without a competitive edge in AI, the EU risks falling behind in a technology that will shape the 21st century.

Shoring up EU defences

Equally urgent is the EU’s need to bolster its security and defense capabilities. Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder of Europe’s vulnerabilities. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has warned that Russia could test the bloc’s readiness to defend itself within three to five years.

Yet, despite such alarming assessments, Brussels – and most EU members – has struggled to present a unified and robust response. The EU’s first priority should be to support Ukraine while simultaneously investing in its own defense capabilities, but after three years of war, no major initiatives have come off the ground. This is especially critical given the likelihood of Trump pursuing a rapprochement with Russian President Vladimir Putin in which European interests would likely be sidelined.

The potential dissolution of NATO—a scenario that seemed unthinkable a few years ago—now looms as a genuine threat. Trump’s second-term rhetoric suggests he may seek to weaken the alliance, particularly if he pushes for controversial initiatives like acquiring Greenland or striking independent deals with Russia. Such moves would leave the EU scrambling to fill the security void, a task for which it remains woefully underprepared, despite all the lofty statements and announcements.

Striking an elusive balance

For the longest time, the EU was praised for being able to find a middle way that represents a moderate compromise between extremes. In this case, the EU should not – indeed, must not – follow Trump’s footsteps and scrap most regulations altogether; rather, it calls for smarter, more targeted policies that address the needs of a rapidly changing world. For example, instead of imposing rigid AI rules that stifle growth, the EU could foster innovation by creating flexible frameworks that encourage experimentation while safeguarding ethical standards. Similarly, in defense, the EU clearly knows to prioritise investments in cutting-edge technologies and joint capabilities to ensure its readiness against emerging threats.

The honest truth is that the EU’s relevance in the 21st century will hinge on its ability to adapt to a new, very unpleasant environment in which Brussels will have to stand on its own feet. Overregulation and bureaucratic inertia are luxuries the bloc can no longer afford. If Brussels fails to focus on what truly matters, it risks being sidelined in a world increasingly dominated by decisive actors. The choice is clear: the EU must embrace a future-oriented vision that balances pragmatism with ambition, ensuring its place as a leader in an era of unprecedented change.

Share this article: