Updated May 20December 3, 2019
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
A Relationship in Flux?
Since the end of the Second World War, successive U.S.
Administrations and many Members of Congress have
supported a close U.S. partnership with Europe. Often
termed the transatlantic relationship, the U.S.-European
partnership encompasses NATO, the European Union (EU),
and extensive bilateral political and economic ties. Over the
past 70 years, political tensions, trade disputes, and changes
in the security landscape have tested U.S.-European
relations. Despite periodic difficulties, U.S. and European
policymakers have valued the transatlantic partnership as
serving their respective geostrategic and economic interests.
President Trump and some in his Administration have
questioned the fundamental tenets of the post–World War II
transatlantic security and economic architecture to an
unprecedented extent. President Trump’s criticisms of
NATO, the EU, and some key European countries have
prompted concerns about the trajectory of transatlantic
relations. The Administration contends that it is committed
to NATO and supports close U.S.-European ties, but some
Europeans question whether the United States will remain a
reliable, credible partner. Policy divergences on a wide
range of regional and global issues also pose challenges to
U.S.-European relations. The 116th Congress may wish to
consider the implications of Trump Administration policies
for U.S. interests in Europe and U.S.-European cooperation.
Transatlantic Relations and U.S. Interests
U.S. policymakers have long regarded both NATO and the
EU as crucial to maintaining peace and stability in Europe
and stymieing big-power competition that cost over
500,000 American lives in two world wars. The United
States spearheaded NATO’s creation in 1949 and
encouraged the European integration project from its
inception in the 1950s. During the Cold War, NATO and
the European project were considered essential to deterring
the Soviet threat. With strong U.S. support, NATO and the EU
EU have enlarged since the 1990s, extending security and
prosperity across the European continent.
The U.S. and European economies are deeply intertwined.
The EU accounts for about one-fifth of total U.S. trade in
goods and services, and the United States and the EU are
each other’s largest source and destination for foreign direct
investment. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, the U.S.-European economy generates $5 trillion
a year in foreign affiliate sales and directly employs aboutover 9
million workers on both sides of the Atlantic. (See also
CRS In Focus IF10930, U.S.-EU Trade and Investment
Ties: Magnitude and Scope, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar.)
U.S. leadership of NATO and cooperation with the EU has
helped to foster democratic and prosperous European allies
that, in turn, have bolstered U.S. foreign and security
policies, the multilateral trading system, and the credibility
of U.S. global leadership. The United States and Europe
work together on many common challenges—from
promoting stability in the Balkans and Afghanistan to
addressing Russian aggression in Ukraine to countering
terrorism and other transnational threats. U.S.-EU
cooperation has been a driving force in liberalizing world
trade. Experts point out that the well-honed habits of U.S.European political, military, and intelligence cooperation
are unique and cannot be easily replicated with other
international actors. U.S. engagement in Europe also helps
limit Russian, Chinese, or other possible malign influences.
At times, U.S. officials and analysts have expressed
frustration with certain aspects of the transatlantic
relationship. Previous U.S. Administrations and many
Members of Congress have criticized what they view as
insufficient European burden sharing in NATO, and some
have questioned the costs of the U.S. military presence in
Europe. U.S. policymakers have long complained about EU
regulatory barriers to trade and that the EU lacks a single
voice on many foreign policy issues. Some U.S. analysts
have argued that a close partnership with Europe at times
requires compromise and may slow certain U.S. decisions.
The Trump Administration and Current Tensions
The Trump Administration’s 2017 National Security
Strategy states that “the United States is safer when Europe
is prosperous and stable, and can help defend our shared
interests and ideals.” The Administration contends that its
policies toward Europe seek to shore up and preserve a
strong transatlantic partnership to better address common
challenges in an increasingly competitive world.
The Administration asserts that the United States firmly
supports NATO and its Article 5 mutual defense
commitment. Although the Administration contends that
NATO will be stronger when all members “pay their fair
share,” concerns about President Trump’s perceived
transactional view of NATO have arisen on both sides of
the Atlantic. President Trump’s almost singular focus on
European defense spending as the measure of NATO’s
worth is seen by many as damaging alliance cohesion.
Some believe that President Trump could seek to withdraw
the United States from NATO.
Given long-standing U.S. support for the EU, the
Administration’s seeming hostility has surprised the bloc.
President Trump has voiced support for the United
Kingdom’s (UK) decision to leave the EU (“Brexit”). He
also contends that the EU engages in unfair trade practices
and has been especially critical of the U.S. goods deficit
with the EU ($170 billion in 2018). The EU is concerned by
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
what it views as protectionist U.S. trade policies, including
the imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs and potential
auto use of tariffs. Some EU officials and analysts question
whether the United States will continue to be a partner for
the EU in setting global trade rules and standards.
U.S.-European divisions have emerged on other issues as
well. European leaders largely agree with the United States
that Russia is violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty but warn that the announced U.S.
suspension and expectedU.S. withdrawal from
the INF Treaty
could spark a new arms race and harm
European security.
The EU strenuously objects to the U.S.
decision to
withdraw from the 2015 multilateral nuclear
deal with Iran
as well as from the Paris Agreement on
climate change.
Some analysts are concerned about possible
breakdowns in
U.S.-European consultations, especially
after European
governments appeared blindsided by
President Trump’s
announcement in December 2018 that the United States
would withdraw forces fighting the Islamic State terrorist
group in Syria and by reports of possible U.S. troop
reductions in Afghanistan decision in October 2019 to withdraw
U.S. forces fighting the Islamic State terrorist group in
Syria. Many European countries have participated in the
U.S.-led effort to defeat the Islamic State, and some
European officials contend that the U.S. decision paved the
way for Turkey to launch a military operation in Syria
against allied Kurdish forces fighting the Islamic State.
Administration supporters contend that President Trump’s
“tough love” approach is resulting in greater European
efforts to spend more on defense and to address inequities
in U.S.-European economic relations. Some have sought to
downplay concerns about the transatlantic partnership’s
demise. The Trump Administration has endorsed new
NATO initiatives to deter Russian aggression and increased
the U.S. military footprint in Europe. In July 2018, the
United States announced a deal aimed at de-escalating trade
tensions with the EU and subsequently signaled its intention
to launch new U.S.-EU trade negotiations. Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo has invited European allies and friends
to work with the United States to confront common
challenges posed by Russia, China, and Iran (among others)
and to reform international institutions, such as the United
, increased the
U.S. military footprint in Europe, and sought to de-escalate
trade tensions with the EU. U.S. officials have invited
European allies and friends to work with the United States
to confront common challenges posed by Russia, China,
and Iran (among others) and to reform institutions such as
the United Nations and World Trade Organization.
Future Prospects
To many in Europe, U.S. policy trends appear to jeopardize
the transatlantic partnership and the broader U.S.-led post–
World War II international order. Some European leaders
argue that Europe must be better prepared to address future
challenges on its own. The EU has put new emphasis on
enhancing defense cooperation and concluding trade
agreements with other countries and regions, including
Canada, Japan, and Latin America. U.S. supporters of close
U.S.-European ties express concern that President Trump’s
approach to Europe endangers decades of cooperation that
have advanced key U.S. security and economic interests.
Others contend that the transatlantic partnership will
endure. Europe remains largely dependent on the U.S.
security guarantee, and the magnitude of U.S.-EU trade and
investment ties will continue to bind together the two sides
of the Atlantic. Some observers note that European allies
have sought to respond constructively to President Trump’s
criticisms of NATO. Despite various policy divisions, the
EU continues to work with the Administration on common
interests and hopes to preserve political and economic
relations with the United States for the long term. (See also
CRS Report R44249, The European Union: Ongoing
Challenges and Future Prospects, by Kristin Archick, and
CRS Report R45745, Transatlantic Relations: U.S.
Interests and Key Issues, coordinated by Kristin Archick.)
Issues for Congress
Many Members of Congress support a strong, close
transatlantic partnership. In the 115th Congress, both the
House and the Senate passed resolutions expressing the
United States’ continued commitment to NATO and Article
5. Many Members view U.S.-EU economic ties as mutually
beneficial. Potential issues in U.S.-European relations in the
first session offor the 116th Congress include:
NATO. Congress is considering In the 116th Congress, Members considered
legislation to reaffirm
U.S. support for NATO and limit
the President’s
authority to withdraw from the alliance.
In January
2019, for example, the House passed H.R.
676 to
prohibit the use of funds to withdraw from
NATO. In
light of NATO’s 70th anniversary in April 2019,
Congress may wish to examine further2019,
Congressional hearings examined the future of the
alliance, including the implications of Administration
policies for U.S. leadership and alliance cohesion and
NATO’s costs and benefits for the United StatesNATO’s costs and benefits for the
United States. Congress also may wish to assess NATO
efforts to counter terrorism and address emerging
security challenges, including cyber and hybrid threats.
U.S.-EU economic relations. Congress may review
progress on proposed new U.S.-EU trade talks. (The
Administration notified Congress in October 2018 that it
intends to pursue such negotiations with the EU.)
Congress may also be interested in the implications of
Administration trade and tariff policies and the extent to
which EU retaliatory tariffs and potential U.S. auto
tariffs could affect U.S.-EU trade and investment ties, but U.S.-EU talks
appear to be at an impasse amid discord on their scope,
especially with respect to agriculture.
Future of the EU. The EU is contending with numerous
challenges, including Brexit, “euroskeptic” political
parties, democratic backsliding in some EU countries,
migratory pressures, and terrorism. The EU also faces
leadership changes, with European Parliament elections
in May 2019 and a new European Commission and
president of the European Council expected to take
office in late 2019. Congress may wish Congress may wish
to examine
whether and how such issues could affect the
EU’s
future development and U.S.-EU cooperation.
Brexit. The UK is scheduled to exit the EU by October
31, 2019January
31, 2020, but the UK Parliament has rejectedstill must approve a
withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU. Some
suggest that Brexit could be delayed further, but others
note that a disorderly “no deal” scenario in which the
UK “crashes out” of the EU remains possible. Congress
may wish to assess Brexit’s implications for U.S.-UK
and U.S.-EU relations and for NATO and the Northern
Ireland peace process. Some in Congress support a
future U.S.-UK free trade agreement following Brexit.
Russia. Congress has consistently condemned Russian
aggression, including in Ukraine, and Russian influence
operations in Europe and the United States. TheIn the 116th
Congress may consider imposing, Members have considered additional sanctions or
employing other foreign policy tools to address concerns
about Russia’s
sanctions legislation to address Russian election
interference, energy export pipelines, arms sales, and
other malign activities. European vulnerabilities to
hostile Russian measures and the degree to which
Russia could benefit from transatlantic divisions may be
issues for continued congressional oversight.
China. Many Members of Congress have expressed
concern about China’s growing strategic interest and
financial investments in Europe, especially with respect
to fifth generation (5G) network security and other
critical infrastructure. Congress may wish to examine
further the implications of Chinese activities for
transatlantic security and economic relations.
congressional oversight.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
IF11094
Kristin Archick, Specialist in European Affairs
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11094 · VERSION 36 · UPDATED