In Trump’s game, the US and China win and Europe pays the bill

In the opening moves of Trump’s second presidency, a pattern has emerged: Washington sets the agenda, Beijing adapts with precision, and Brussels capitulates. What emerges is a bipolar order where Europe has relegated itself to the role of financier and cheerleader.

Trump plays poker, Xi plays go and Europe struggles with simple puzzles. Within five months, Trump secured defense spending commitments previous presidents only theorized about. While China’s rare earth export restrictions forced Washington into rapid recalibration, Europe responded with nothing but hollow laments. The asymmetry reveals everything: One bloc wields leverage, another answers with resolve, and the third writes checks.

Trump’s return exposed the EU’s strategic failures. Instead of setting boundaries or leveraging collective power, leaders defaulted to flattery toward Washington and scapegoating toward Beijing. The ‘antidiplomacy’ weakens the EU on China while offering America servitude without guaranteed returns.

Where Mexico and Canada bargained, Europe genuflected without conditions. Where China retaliated decisively, Europe escalated rhetoric and surrendered substance. The latest example: Four days after Washington conceded to Beijing in a rare earths deal, von der Leyen launched a new offensive against China on the same issue – as if the agreement had never happened.

Timing shouldn’t ruin a well-staged display of servility: Her G7 speech preached toughness while ignoring Europe’s real vulnerabilities. Accusing China of “weaponizing” its dominance while relying on it for 99% of rare earths is like demanding fair play in a knife fight – a measure of how well her de-risking policy proceeds. Apparently, she has yet to grasp what great powers do: They use leverage. Then came the admission: “Donald is right,” showing how Brussels handed over control long ago.

The subsequent defense spending capitulation proved equally abject. Leaders like Merz, Macron, and Sánchez agreed – without any public debate – to raise military spending to 5% of GDP. No questions, no rationale. Trump didn’t need to demand it; they volunteered their own surrender. While European analysts obsess over his populism and threats to democracy, they miss what matters – he’s getting exactly what he wants.

This commitment – announced after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte also humiliated himself – is a gift to the U.S. arms industry. Trump identified his cashier and Europe submitted a blank check to Lockheed Martin, RTX and Northrop Grumman. Europe funds America’s military revival while sacrificing its own autonomy, clinging to the illusion this purchases lasting American protection.

The anti-China obsession

Europe’s China policy reveals the terminal stage of dependence: performative hostility without leverage, coordination or endgame. Every measure – from 5G restrictions to EV tariffs – originated in Washington’s playbook, photocopied by Brussels and rebranded as European autonomy.

The irony approaches parody. While Europe imposed sanctions on Chinese technology, Washington extracted concessions through direct pressure. While Brussels moralized about economic coercion, Trump applied tariffs exceeding 50% on European exports. The contradiction exposes Europe’s confusion: it has adopted America’s adversarial rhetoric toward China while accepting America’s adversarial treatment of Europe.

The evidence is devastating: Trump slaps 50% tariffs on the EU without justification, blocks key exports, pressures Europe to cut trade with China, insults them at Munich, demands 5% of GDP for American weapons and drains European industry through targeted subsidies. Meanwhile, Brussels accuses Beijing of unfair tactics while Washington applies harsher ones – openly, unapologetically.

Moreover, instead of opening diplomatic channels to defuse trade tensions or address critical supply dependencies, European leaders chose moral grandstanding and erratic restrictions. China was labeled “partly malign,” a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s war in Ukraine, and policymakers crafted new “security threat” frameworks. Just as Brussels escalated rhetoric, Trump’s return exposed the truth: Europe’s entire posture was built on borrowed American narratives.

The EU leaders’ pilgrimages to Washington – while avoiding Beijing – crystallize this blindness. They act as though European relevance ran through American approval alone, neglecting direct engagement with the world’s second-largest economy. What could have been triangular diplomacy became linear supplication.

Friedrich Merz’s case is more scandalous. In his first foreign policy speech, he parroted talk of an “axis of autocracies,” lumping China, Russia, Iran and North Korea into a undifferentiated threat – while Germany’s auto industry wonders who speaks for them.

He calls for “permanent” European naval presence in the Indo-Pacific, a fantasy when Europe struggles to support Ukraine. He warned German businesses that investing in China is a “great risk” and made clear his government won’t bail them out. At Munich, his deference to Washington earned the response it deserved: JD Vance ignored him and met the AfD instead. Message received.

The collapse

Trump, unlike his European counterparts, applies a brutal but coherent approach to China. He values force, not sycophancy. And Xi never bent. When Washington escalated, Beijing responded with precise retaliation, not statements. One bureaucratic move tightened China’s grip on rare earths and forced White House recalibration. That’s how power works – something Europe refuses to learn.

Trump’s planned engagement with Beijing – booking flights for normalization talks with top CEOs and high-level diplomatic preparation – demolishes European assumptions about American China policy. Perhaps the plan was never confrontation for its own sake but leverage for a deal. Now it’s clear: Trump intended to reframe US-China ties on his terms.

The implications devastate Europe. It spent political capital aligning with what it assumed was permanent American-Chinese confrontation, only to discover Washington still views Beijing as a negotiating partner while treating Brussels as a compliant client. Von der Leyen’s anti-China positioning, designed to curry favor with the White House, has guaranteed Europe’s exclusion from the bilateral reset that will define global economic architecture.

Europe could have defined clear priorities, protected economic interests and maintained equidistance between superpowers. It could have set red lines with Trump, defended its industrial base, and engaged China pragmatically. Instead, it chose deference, moralism and transatlantic vassalage – the worst possible mix in any negotiation.

Europe’s path leads to managed decline disguised as alliance loyalty. Defense budgets will drain social spending while importing American weapons that compete with European manufacturers. Trade will fluctuate between American demands and Chinese retaliation, with European industry losing market share to both. Diplomatic initiatives are subjected to prior Washington approval while Beijing builds alternative partnerships.

The few leaders who resist – notably Italy’s Giorgia Meloni – speak for themselves, not Europe. There is no common voice, no compass, no coherent narrative. What remains is a bloc that reacts, adapts and concedes, but never leads.

In the meantime, the US and China play for long-term leverage. This leaves Europe with two choices:

• first, triangular diplomacy: Rather than picking between Washington and Beijing, Europe must make both capitals compete for European cooperation;
• second, Europe’s industrial policy must prioritize technological autonomy over ideological alignment: Critical supply chains, defense production, and digital infrastructure require European control regardless of American preferences.

If Europe continues subsidizing American defense industries while alienating Chinese markets, moralizing about values while depending on others, it will face the hard truth: True autonomy requires the ability to enforce its interests.

For now, Europe’s performance of independence guarantees irrelevance. Speeches earn your minions’ applause; leverage delivers results. Hence, Europe would do well to recall the wisdom of one of its most influential thinkers: It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa is a Hong Kong-based geopolitics strategist with a focus on Europe-Asia relations.