Updated May 727, 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 Administration officials have
questioned the 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
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
wide range of regional and global issues and managing the
spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has
further strained U.S.-European relations. The second
session of 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 have enlarged since the 1990s, extending security and
prosperity across the European continent.
The U.S. and European economies are deeply intertwined.
In 2019, 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, the transatlantic economy (including
—
including the EU and non-EU countries such as the UK, Norway, and
Switzerland) typically generates more than $5 trillion per
United
Kingdom (UK), Norway, and Switzerland—typically
generates over $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
have 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 asserts that the
United States supports NATO and its Article 5 mutual
defense commitment but 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 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 voiced support for the United Kingdom’s
(UK)UK’s 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 ($179
billion in 2019). EU
officials are concerned by what they
view as protectionist
U.S. trade policies, including the use
of tariffs, and some
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
question the extent to which the United
States will remain a
partner in setting global trade rules.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
U.S.-European divisions have emerged on numerous other
issues, from aspects of relations with Russia and China, to
the Middle East peace process, arms control, and the U.S.
decisions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate
change and the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Iran. EU
policymakers viewed the nuclear deal with Iran as further
imperiled by the January 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed
a powerfulan Iranian military commander. Although the UK,
France,
and Germany subsequently accused Iran of
violating the
nuclear accord, European officials resented
President President
Trump’s reported efforts to coerce this decision
by by
threatening to impose tariffs on European automobiles.
Many European leaders also opposedoppose President Trump’s
decision to haltsuspend U.S. funding to the World Health
Organization (WHO) pending a review of its role in allegedly
allegedly mismanaging the response to the COVID-19 pandemic
pandemic and view the threat to withdraw the United States
from the WHO as counterproductive.
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 announcingimposing a travel ban from most EU countries in
March 2020 to help combat the spread of COVID-19. March
2020 to help combat the spread of COVID-19. In May
2020, the U.S. announcement of its intent to withdraw from
the Open Skies Treaty due to concerns about Russian
compliance took European governments by surprise; the
treaty permits unarmed surveillance flights over
participating states, including most European countries.
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
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
EU, and invited European
governments to work with the United States to confront
challenges posed
by Russia, China, by 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
international order. SomeSome 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. 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
(See CRS Report 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
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 deliberation include
NATO. The 116th Congress has passed legislation
reaffirming U.S. support for NATO and limiting the
President’s 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, 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 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 Russian
energy export pipelines to Europe. Members
also have
considered additional sanctions legislation to
address address
Russian election interference, arms sales, and
other malign other
activities. European vulnerabilities to
hostile Russian measures and the degree to which
which Russia could benefit from transatlantic divisions
may be
issues for continuedongoing 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.how Chinese activities, including Chinese efforts
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
IF11094 to assist European countries in responding to COVID19, could affect transatlantic relations.
Kristin Archick, Specialist in European Affairs
IF11094
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 910 · UPDATED