When President Donald Trump strode onto the stage in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on October 13, 2025, to announce a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the symbolism was hard to miss. World leaders from Europe clustered behind him, more onlookers than equals, in what many observers called a defining image of Europe’s struggle to maintain influence on the world stage amid Trump’s assertive foreign policy. According to the Associated Press, this moment captured the shifting dynamics in global diplomacy, with European governments finding themselves increasingly sidelined as Trump’s “America First” agenda recasts alliances and priorities.
For Europe, the Gaza war and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine have become litmus tests of its diplomatic muscle. Yet, as Lindsay Newman, a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO Media, bluntly stated, “Is Europe able to influence Trump? I think the short answer … is no.” Newman argued that U.S. policy on Ukraine, Israel, and its broader relationship with Europe is determined by the president and his closest advisors, leaving European leaders with little room to maneuver. “He's remaking the world in his image,” she added, challenging the notion that “America First” equates to isolationism.
European leaders have faced an uphill battle influencing Trump’s approach to Ukraine, a conflict now dragging into its fourth year. While the continent has rallied behind Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, Trump’s priorities have often diverged. The president has repeatedly expressed a desire to end the war—even if it means Kyiv must cede territory to Moscow. According to BBC reporting, Trump’s willingness to apply pressure was evident when, after months of lobbying by Kyiv and European capitals, he finally imposed sanctions on Russia’s oil and gas sector in October 2025. However, his decision appeared driven more by personal frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin than by European appeals. “Every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don’t go anywhere,” Trump said, voicing his exasperation. “I just felt it was time. We waited a long time.”
Despite this show of resolve, Trump’s broader stance on Ukraine has been a source of concern for European governments. He has alternately berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and entertained the idea of supplying Kyiv with long-range Tomahawk missiles, only to then suggest support for Russia’s demand that Ukraine surrender the entire eastern Donbas region—including areas still under Ukrainian control. After a tense meeting with Putin in Alaska, Trump hosted Zelenskyy and top European leaders at the White House. There, he signaled a willingness to back European efforts to police a potential peace deal, but the mixed messages left many in Europe uncertain about Washington’s long-term commitment.
Internal divisions within Europe have further complicated the continent’s response. The European Union, with its 27 member states, has struggled to agree on a plan to use frozen Russian assets as collateral for a substantial loan to Ukraine. Belgium, which holds a significant portion of these assets, has sought guarantees that other EU countries will share any blowback from Russian retaliation. Meanwhile, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, known for his pro-Moscow stance, has openly opposed EU support for Kyiv, highlighting the bloc’s lack of unanimity.
Despite these challenges, some see progress. Grégoire Roos, director of the Europe and Russia program at Chatham House, told The Washington Post, “I don’t see absolute unanimity, but on the other hand, I didn’t see unity crumbling significantly. And as far as Europe is concerned, this is already a victory.” French President Emmanuel Macron echoed this cautious optimism, declaring the U.S. sanctions on Russia’s energy sector “a turning point.”
Europe’s influence on the Israel-Hamas conflict has been even more tenuous. At the October 13 summit, Trump described the ceasefire as “a once-in-a-lifetime chance to put the old feuds and bitter hatreds behind us.” While the European Union remains the world’s largest provider of aid to Palestinians, its leverage over Israel is limited by internal disagreements over how to address the conflict. As Chatham House’s Roos put it, “Europe has had no real impact, let’s face it.” The U.S. administration’s irritation with Europe was on display when Trump’s ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, publicly criticized a senior British official for suggesting the UK had played a critical role in brokering the ceasefire.
This friction was further heightened when several European countries recognized a Palestinian state in September 2025. The move, intended as a gesture of support for Palestinian aspirations, instead drew the ire of Washington. The ceasefire, at least temporarily, muted European criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza—a criticism often laced with implicit rebukes of the U.S. for its unwavering support of the Israeli government. Jonath Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies noted, “The Trump ceasefire brought the blistering European criticism to a murmur. This has enabled all parties to move ahead in a more constructive manner.”
Trump’s foreign policy has also forced Europe to reassess its security posture. His repeated warnings that the U.S. might not defend NATO allies unless they increase military spending have prompted many European countries to boost their defense budgets. Despite these threats, Trump has not withdrawn American troops from Europe or pulled the U.S. out of NATO. His much-touted tariff blitz has not resulted in the threatened 100% taxes on European goods, offering some reassurance to European leaders.
Britain, which left the EU in 2020, has found itself drawn closer to its continental neighbors in the face of these geopolitical challenges. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has emerged as a key intermediary between Washington and Europe, helping to coordinate responses to crises and maintain transatlantic dialogue. Kathleen Burk, emeritus professor of Modern and Contemporary History at University College London, observed that Trump “respects unity and that if the Europeans hang together, they can hope to have some influence. Trump may have actually realized that it’s always better to have allies than enemies.”
As Trump’s second term unfolds, the worst European fears—a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, the imposition of crippling tariffs, or a complete rupture in transatlantic relations—have not materialized. Yet, the continent remains wary. Trump’s focus on forging ties with Middle Eastern powers, his transactional approach to alliances, and his willingness to upend longstanding diplomatic norms have left Europe searching for a new role in a changing world order.
For now, Europe’s leaders continue to navigate a delicate balancing act: supporting Ukraine without alienating Washington, providing aid to Palestinians while lacking leverage in the peace process, and maintaining unity in the face of internal divisions. Whether this will be enough to restore Europe’s influence remains to be seen, but the stakes—for peace in Ukraine, stability in the Middle East, and the future of the transatlantic alliance—could hardly be higher.
In a world where the rules are being rewritten, Europe’s ability to adapt and assert itself will determine whether it remains a player or a bystander in global affairs.
