Updated December 3, 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 have long 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 strong U.S. support, NATO and the
commitment. Although the Administration contends that
EU 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 over 9
Given long-standing U.S. support for the EU, the
million workers on both sides of the Atlantic. (See also
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) 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 ($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
CRS Report R45745, Transatlantic Relations: U.S.
the use of tariffs. Some EU officials and analysts question
Interests and Key Issues, coordinated by Kristin Archick.)
whether the United States will continue to be a partner for
the EU in setting global trade rules and standards.
Issues for Congress
Many Members of Congress support a strong, close
U.S.-European divisions have emerged on other issues as
transatlantic partnership. In the 115th Congress, both the
well. European leaders largely agree with the United States
House and the Senate passed resolutions expressing the
that Russia is violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
United States’ continued commitment to NATO and Article
Forces (INF) Treaty but warn that the U.S. withdrawal from
5. Many Members view U.S.-EU economic ties as mutually
the INF Treaty could spark a new arms race and harm
beneficial. Potential issues for the 116th Congress include
European security. The EU strenuously objects to the U.S.
decision to withdraw from the 2015 multilateral nuclear
NATO. In the 116th Congress, Members considered
deal with Iran as well as from the Paris Agreement on
legislation to reaffirm U.S. support for NATO and limit
climate change. Some analysts are concerned about possible
the President’s authority to withdraw from the alliance.
breakdowns in U.S.-European consultations, especially
In January 2019, for example, the House passed H.R.
after European governments appeared blindsided by
676 to prohibit the use of funds to withdraw from
President Trump’s decision in October 2019 to withdraw
NATO. In light of NATO’s 70th anniversary in 2019,
U.S. forces fighting the Islamic State terrorist group in
Congressional hearings examined the future of the
Syria. Many European countries have participated in the
alliance, including NATO’s costs and benefits for the
U.S.-led effort to defeat the Islamic State, and some
United States. Congress also may wish to assess NATO
European officials contend that the U.S. decision paved the
efforts to counter terrorism and address emerging
way for Turkey to launch a military operation in Syria
security challenges, including cyber and hybrid threats.
against allied Kurdish forces fighting the Islamic State.
U.S.-EU economic relations. Congress may review
Administration supporters contend that President Trump’s
progress on proposed new U.S.-EU trade talks. The
“tough love” approach is resulting in greater European
Administration notified Congress in October 2018 that it
efforts to spend more on defense and to address inequities
intends to pursue such negotiations, but U.S.-EU talks
in U.S.-European economic relations. Some have sought to
appear to be at an impasse amid discord on their scope,
downplay concerns about the transatlantic partnership’s
especially with respect to agriculture.
demise. The Trump Administration has endorsed new
NATO initiatives to deter Russian aggression, increased the
Future of the EU. The EU is contending with numerous
U.S. military footprint in Europe, and sought to de-escalate
challenges, including Brexit, “euroskeptic” political
trade tensions with the EU. U.S. officials have invited
parties, democratic backsliding in some EU countries,
European allies and friends to work with the United States
migratory pressures, and terrorism. Congress may wish
to confront common challenges posed by Russia, China,
to examine whether and how such issues could affect the
and Iran (among others) and to reform institutions such as
EU’s future development and U.S.-EU cooperation.
the United Nations and World Trade Organization.
Brexit. The UK is scheduled to exit the EU by January
Future Prospects
31, 2020, but the UK Parliament still must approve a
To many in Europe, U.S. policy trends appear to jeopardize
withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU. Congress
the transatlantic partnership and the broader U.S.-led post–
may wish to assess Brexit’s implications for U.S.-UK
World War II international order. Some European leaders
and U.S.-EU relations and for NATO and the Northern
argue that Europe must be better prepared to address future
Ireland peace process. Some in Congress support a
challenges on its own. The EU has put new emphasis on
future U.S.-UK free trade agreement following Brexit.
enhancing defense cooperation and concluding trade
agreements with other countries and regions, including
Russia. Congress has consistently condemned Russian
Canada, Japan, and Latin America. U.S. supporters of close
aggression, including in Ukraine, and Russian influence
U.S.-European ties express concern that President Trump’s
operations in Europe and the United States. In the 116th
approach to Europe endangers decades of cooperation that
Congress, Members have considered additional
have advanced key U.S. security and economic interests.
sanctions legislation to address Russian election
interference, energy export pipelines, arms sales, and
Others contend that the transatlantic partnership will
other malign activities. European vulnerabilities to
endure. Europe remains largely dependent on the U.S.
hostile Russian measures and the degree to which
security guarantee, and the magnitude of U.S.-EU trade and
Russia could benefit from transatlantic divisions may be
investment ties will continue to bind together the two sides
issues for continued congressional oversight.
of the Atlantic. Some observers note that European allies
have sought to respond constructively to President Trump’s
China. Many Members of Congress have expressed
criticisms of NATO. Despite various policy divisions, the
concern about China’s growing strategic interest and
EU continues to work with the Administration on common
financial investments in Europe, especially with respect
interests and hopes to preserve political and economic
to fifth generation (5G) network security and other
relations with the United States for the long term. (See also
critical infrastructure. Congress may wish to examine
CRS Report R44249, The European Union: Ongoing
further the implications of Chinese activities for
Challenges and Future Prospects, by Kristin Archick, and
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 6 · UPDATED