Updated February 5May 7, 2020
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 officials in his Administration
have Administration officials have
questioned the tenets of the post–World War II
transatlantic transatlantic
security and economic architecture to an
unprecedented unprecedented
extent. President Trump’s criticisms of
NATO, the EU, and
key European countries have prompted
significant concerns
in Europe. 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 exist on a
on a wide range of regional and global
issues also pose challenges to issues and managing the
spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has
further strained U.S.-European relations. The
second second
session of the 116th Congress may wish to consider
the 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 have enlarged since the 1990s, extending security and
prosperity across the European continent.
The U.S. and European economies are deeply intertwined.
In 20182019, the EU accounted for about one-fifth of total U.S.
trade in goods and services. The United States and the EU
are each other’s largest source and destination for foreign
direct investment. According to data from the U.S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis, in 2017, the U.S.-European
economy generated $5 trillion a year in foreign affiliate
sales and directly employed over 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,
the transatlantic economy (including
the EU and non-EU countries such as the UK, Norway, and
Switzerland) typically generates more than $5 trillion per
year in foreign affiliate sales and directly employs over 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
workhave worked 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 asserts that the
United States supports
NATO and its Article 5 mutual
defense commitment but
contends argues that NATO will be stronger
when all members
“pay their fair share.” Critics contend
that President Trump’s perceived
transactional view of
NATO and his almost singular focus
on European defense
spending as the measure of NATO’s
worth are seen by many as damaging 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 Trump
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
contends that
the EU engages in unfair trade practices and
is especially
critical of the U.S. goods trade deficit with the
EU ($170 179
billion in 2018). The EU is concerned by what it
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
views2019). EU officials are concerned by what they
view as protectionist U.S. trade policies, including the use
of tariffs, and some question the extent to which the United
States will remain a partner in setting global trade rules.
and Future Prospects, by Kristin Archick, and CRS Report
R45745, Transatlantic Relations: U.S. Interests and Key
Issues, coordinated by Kristin Archick.)https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
U.S.-European divisions have emerged on numerous other
issues, includingfrom aspects of relations with Russia and China, to
the Middle East peace process, arms control, and the U.S.
decisiondecisions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate
change. Differences over Iran are considerable. The EU
strenuously opposed the U.S. decision to withdraw from the
and the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Iran. EU policymakers
policymakers viewed the dealnuclear deal with Iran as further
imperiled by the January 2020
U.S. drone strike that killed
a powerful Iranian military
commander. Although the UK,
France, and Germany
subsequently accused Iran of
violating the nuclear accord,
European officials resented
President Trump’s reported
efforts to coerce this decision
by threatening to impose
tariffs on European automobiles.
Issues for Congress
Some analysts also are concerned about possible
breakdowns in U.S.-European consultations, especially
after
Many European leaders also opposed President Trump’s
decision to halt U.S. funding to the World Health
Organization pending a review of its role in allegedly
mismanaging the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
European officials voice increasing concerns about
perceived breakdowns in consultations with the United
States. European governments appeared blindsided by
President Trump’s 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. 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. The EU also
criticized the Trump Administration’s lack of coordination
in announcing a travel ban from most EU countries in
March 2020 to help combat the spread of COVID-19.
Administration supporters maintain that President Trump’s
forceful approach is resulting in greater European efforts to spend
spend more on defense and to address inequities in U.S.-EU
economic relations. Some have sought to downplay
concerns about the transatlantic partnership’s demise. The
Trump Administration has endorsed new NATO initiatives
to deter Russia, 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 challenges posed
by Russia, China, and Iran (among others).
Future Prospects
Many U.S. supporters of close U.S.-European ties express
concern that President Trump’s approach is endangering
decades of cooperation that have advanced U.S. interests.
To many in Europe, U.S. policy trends appear to jeopardize
both 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 Canada, Japan, and Latin America. The
EU is at the forefront of international efforts to develop
COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, and aims to be a global
leader on issues such as data protection and climate change.
Other experts 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
and partners in NATO and the EU continue to work with
the Administration on common interests. (See also CRS
Report R44249, The European Union: Ongoing Challenges
R45745, Transatlantic Relations: U.S. Interests and
Key Issues, coordinated by Kristin Archick.)
Issues for Congress
Many Members of Congress appear to favor a strong, close
transatlantic partnership. , despite some concerns about
European positions on certain foreign policy or trade issues.
Broad bipartisan support exists in
Congress for NATO.
Many Members view U.S.-EU
economic and trade ties as
mutually beneficial. Potential
issues for the second session of the 116th Congress issues for deliberation include
NATO. In theThe 116th Congress, Members have
considered legislation to reaffirm has passed legislation
reaffirming U.S. support for
NATO and limit the limiting the
President’s authority to withdraw
from the ability to unilaterally withdraw from the
alliance. In light of NATO’s 70th anniversary in
2019,
Congressional hearings examined the future of the
alliance, including NATO’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 a U.S.-EU trade liberalization agreement. In
2018, the Administration notified Congress of the
negotiations under Trade Promotion Authority. U.S.-EU
talks have been at an impasse amid discord on their
scope, especially with respect to agriculture. Reports
suggest that U.S. and EU officials may seek to revive
trade negotiations in early 2020, but
discussions are continuing.
Future of the EU. The EU is contending with numerous
challenges, including its future relationship with the UK,
“euroskeptic” political parties, democratic backsliding
in some EU countries, migratory pressures, and
terrorism. Managing COVID-19’s economic
consequences and addressing climate change are also
top EU priorities. Congress may wish to consider
whether and
how such issues could affect the EU’s future
future development and U.S.-EU cooperation.
Brexit. The UK exited the EU on January 31, 2020.
Congress may wish to review Brexit’s implications for
U.S.-UK and U.S.-EU relations, for NATO, and for the
Northern Ireland peace process. Some in Congress
support a future U.S.-UK free trade agreement; U.S.-UK
negotiations began in May 2020.
Russia. Congress has consistently condemned Russian
aggression, including in Ukraine, and Russian influence
operations in Europe and the United States. The 116th
Congress has enacted sanctions aimed at curbing
Russian energy export pipelines to Europe. Members
also have considered additional sanctions legislation to
address Russian election interference, 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.
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 79 · UPDATED