February 4, 2019
U.S.-European Relations in the 116th Congress
A Relationship in Flux?
that, in turn, have bolstered U.S. foreign and security
Since the end of the Second World War, successive U.S.
policies, the multilateral trading system, and the credibility
Administrations and many Members of Congress have
of U.S. global leadership. The United States and Europe
supported a close U.S. partnership with Europe. Often
work together on many common challenges—from
termed the transatlantic relationship, the U.S.-European
promoting stability in the Balkans and Afghanistan to
partnership encompasses NATO, the European Union (EU),
addressing Russian aggression in Ukraine to countering
and extensive bilateral political and economic ties. Over the
terrorism and other transnational threats. U.S.-EU
past 70 years, political tensions, trade disputes, and changes
cooperation has been a driving force in liberalizing world
in the security landscape have tested U.S.-European
trade. Experts point out that the well-honed habits of U.S.-
relations. Despite periodic difficulties, U.S. and European
European political, military, and intelligence cooperation
policymakers have valued the transatlantic partnership as
are unique and cannot be easily replicated with other
serving their respective geostrategic and economic interests.
international actors. U.S. engagement in Europe also helps
limit Russian, Chinese, or other possible malign influences.
President Trump and some in his Administration have
questioned the fundamental tenets of the post-World War II
At times, U.S. officials and analysts have expressed
transatlantic security and economic architecture to an
frustration with certain aspects of the transatlantic
unprecedented extent. President Trump’s criticisms of
relationship. Previous U.S. Administrations and many
NATO, the EU, and some key European countries have
Members of Congress have criticized what they view as
prompted concerns about the trajectory of transatlantic
insufficient European burden sharing in NATO, and some
relations. The Administration contends that it is committed
have questioned the costs of the U.S. military presence in
to NATO and supports close U.S.-European ties, but some
Europe. U.S. policymakers have long complained about EU
Europeans question whether the United States will remain a
regulatory barriers to trade and that the EU lacks a single
reliable, credible partner. Policy divergences on a wide
voice on many foreign policy issues. Some U.S. analysts
range of regional and global issues also pose challenges to
have argued that a close partnership with Europe at times
U.S.-European relations. The 116th Congress may wish to
requires compromise and may slow certain U.S. decisions.
consider the implications of Trump Administration policies
for U.S. interests in Europe and U.S.-European cooperation.
The Trump Administration and Current Tensions
The Trump Administration’s 2017 National Security
Transatlantic Relations and U.S. Interests
Strategy states that “the United States is safer when Europe
U.S. policymakers long have regarded both NATO and the
is prosperous and stable, and can help defend our shared
EU as crucial to maintaining peace and stability in Europe
interests and ideals.” The Administration contends that its
and stymieing big-power competition that cost over
policies toward Europe seek to shore up and preserve a
500,000 American lives in two world wars. The United
strong transatlantic partnership to better address common
States spearheaded NATO’s creation in 1949 and
challenges in an increasingly competitive world.
encouraged the European integration project from its
inception in the 1950s. During the Cold War, NATO and
The Administration asserts that the United States firmly
the European project were considered essential to deterring
supports NATO and its Article 5 mutual defense
the Soviet threat. With U.S. support, NATO and the EU
commitment. Although the Administration contends that
have enlarged since the 1990s, extending security and
NATO will be stronger when all members “pay their fair
prosperity across the European continent.
share,” concerns about President Trump’s perceived
transactional view of NATO have arisen on both sides of
The U.S. and European economies are deeply intertwined.
the Atlantic. President Trump’s almost singular focus on
The EU accounts for about one-fifth of total U.S. trade in
European defense spending as the measure of NATO’s
goods and services, and the United States and the EU are
worth is seen by many as damaging alliance cohesion.
each other’s largest source and destination for foreign direct
Some believe that President Trump could seek to withdraw
investment. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic
the United States from NATO.
Analysis, the U.S.-European economy generates $5 trillion
a year in foreign affiliate sales and directly employs about 9
Given long-standing U.S. support for the EU, the
million workers on both sides of the Atlantic. (Also see
Administration’s seeming hostility has surprised the bloc.
CRS In Focus IF10930, U.S.-EU Trade and Investment
President Trump has voiced support for the United
Ties: Magnitude and Scope, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar.)
Kingdom’s (UK’s) decision to leave the EU (“Brexit”). He
also contends that the EU engages in unfair trade practices
U.S. leadership of NATO and cooperation with the EU has
and has been especially critical of the U.S. goods deficit
helped to foster democratic and prosperous European allies
with the EU ($153 billion in 2017). 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
CRS Report R44249, The European Union: Ongoing
the imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs and potential
Challenges and Future Prospects, by Kristin Archick.)
auto tariffs. Some EU officials and analysts question
whether the United States will continue to be a partner for
Issues for Congress
the EU in setting global trade rules and standards.
Many Members of Congress support a strong, close
transatlantic partnership. In the 115th Congress, both the
U.S.-European divisions have emerged on other issues, as
House and the Senate passed resolutions expressing the
well. European leaders largely agree with the United States
United States’ continued commitment to NATO and Article
that Russia is violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
5. Many Members view U.S.-EU economic ties as mutually
Forces (INF) Treaty but warn that the announced U.S.
beneficial. Potential issues in U.S.-European relations in the
suspension and expected withdrawal from the INF Treaty
first session of the 116th Congress include
could spark a new arms race and harm European security.
The EU strenuously objects to the U.S. decision to
NATO. Congress is considering legislation to reaffirm
withdraw from the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Iran,
U.S. support for NATO and limit the President’s
as well as from the Paris Agreement on climate change.
authority to withdraw from the alliance. In January
Some analysts are concerned about possible breakdowns in
2019, for example, the House passed H.R. 676 to
U.S.-European consultations, especially after European
prohibit the use of funds to withdraw from NATO. In
governments appeared blindsided by President Trump’s
light of NATO’s 70th anniversary in April 2019,
announcement in December 2018 that the United States
Congress may wish to examine the future of the
would withdraw forces fighting the Islamic State terrorist
alliance, including the implications of Administration
group in Syria and by reports that the United States may
policies for U.S. leadership and alliance cohesion, and
reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan.
NATO’s costs and benefits for the United States.
Administration supporters contend that President Trump’s
U.S.-EU Economic Relations. Congress may review
“tough love” approach is resulting in greater European
progress on potential new U.S.-EU trade talks (the
efforts to spend more on defense and to address inequities
Administration notified Congress in October 2018 that it
in U.S.-European economic relations. Some have sought to
intends to pursue such negotiations with the EU).
downplay concerns about the transatlantic partnership’s
Congress also may be interested in the implications of
demise. The Trump Administration has endorsed new
Administration trade and tariff policies and the extent to
NATO initiatives to deter Russian aggression and increased
which EU retaliatory tariffs and potential U.S. auto
the U.S. military footprint in Europe. In July 2018, the
tariffs could affect U.S.-EU trade and investment ties.
United States and the EU announced a deal aimed at de-
escalating trade tensions and subsequently engaged in talks
Future of the EU. The EU is contending with numerous
on a possible new trade agreement. In December 2018,
challenges, including Brexit, “euroskeptic” political
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo invited European allies
parties, democratic backsliding in some EU countries,
and friends to work with the United States to confront
migratory pressures, and terrorism. The EU also faces
common challenges posed by Russia, China, and Iran
leadership changes, with European Parliament elections
(among others) and to reform international institutions, such
due in May 2019 and a new European Commission and
as the United Nations and World Trade Organization.
President of the European Council expected to take
office in late 2019. Congress may wish to examine
Future Prospects
whether and how such issues could affect the EU’s
To many in Europe, U.S. policy trends appear to jeopardize
future development and U.S.-EU cooperation.
the transatlantic partnership and the broader U.S.-led post-
World War II international order. Some European leaders
Brexit. The United Kingdom is scheduled to exit the EU
argue that Europe must be better prepared to address future
on March 29, 2019, but the UK Parliament has rejected
challenges on its own. The EU has put new emphasis on
a withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU. Some
enhancing defense cooperation and concluding trade
suggest that Brexit could be delayed, but fears have
agreements with other countries and regions, including
increased about a disorderly “no deal” scenario in which
Canada, Japan, and Latin America. U.S. supporters of close
the UK “crashes out” of the EU. Congress may wish to
U.S.-European ties express concern that President Trump’s
assess Brexit’s implications for U.S.-UK and U.S.-EU
approach to Europe endangers decades of cooperation that
relations, and for NATO and the Northern Ireland peace
has advanced key U.S. security and economic interests.
process. Some in Congress support a future U.S.-UK
free trade agreement following Brexit.
Others contend that the transatlantic partnership will
endure. Europe remains largely dependent on the U.S.
Russia. Congress has consistently condemned Russian
security guarantee, and the magnitude of U.S.-EU trade and
aggression, including in Ukraine, and Russian influence
investment ties will continue to bind together the two sides
operations in Europe and the United States. The 116th
of the Atlantic. Some observers note that European allies
Congress may consider imposing additional sanctions or
have sought to respond constructively to President Trump’s
employing other foreign policy tools to address concerns
criticisms of NATO. Despite various policy divisions, the
about Russia’s activities. European vulnerabilities to
EU continues to work with the Administration on common
hostile Russian measures and the degree to which
interests and hopes to preserve political and economic
Russia could benefit from transatlantic divisions may be
relations with the United States for the long term. (Also see
issues for 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 2 · NEW