Tiago Torrin Itoh Viergever

Download PDF

Mar 8 2025

0

Ever since his electoral victory last year, Donald Trumps second presidency has already managed to stir an unprecedented uproar, both domestically and internationally.Domestically, Trumps Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has had a field day with the federal budget. Under the leadership of Elon Musk, DOGEhas slashed fundingfor the Department of Education, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) among others. This hasresultedin the termination of multiple government workers and thrown American bureaucracy into a tailspin. Internationally, however, Trumps track record is more complicated.

On the one hand, it is possible to measure the impact of Donald Trumps second coming in a relatively straightforward way. President Trump has managed to alienate the United States from some of its most avid supporters. His declarations,including his threats to annex Greenland, andpromises to impose tariffson European exports, have done little to acclimate him to his EU counterparts. Moreover, concerns regarding Mr. Trumps apparent proximity to Moscow, have furtherundermined international confidencein the Presidents commitment to his NATO allies. Aheated exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyyhas left many questioning whether Trump will continue supporting the country through its third year of Russian invasion.

On the other hand, the economic impacts of a second Trump presidency have yet to fully take shape. A long-standing advocate of using import tariffs as tools for negotiation, President Trumps first term had already offered a glimpse of what was to come. His trade-war against China, andtariffs on iron and steel importspaved the way to what can only be seen as wholesale abuse of his partners goodwill. Having campaigned on a steep increase to already existing tariffs, Mr. Trumpfurther proposed new levies on importsfrom some among his countrys closest economic partners, including, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.

To hear Trump tell it, these tariffs are largely retaliatory, they have been tied down to different foreign policy stances where non-compliance is met with swift reprieve.Proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada, for example, were initially rolled out starting March 4th. Both countriesstand accusedby the president of not playing their part in curbing illegal border crossings and narcotics smuggling. Threats have also been directed at Europe and the BRICS countries for different reasons.Tariffs on Europe would supposedly cover the trade deficit between the two partners, whereas threats directed at the BRICS countries would be retribution foran eventual decision by the bloc to replace the US dollaras a reserve currency.

Whatever the reason, Trumps trade wars have left his countrys begrudging partners scrambling to find proper responses.While tit-for-tat tariff tactics have been announced, or at least threatened, by numerous countries, many have been forced to adapt further to this new reality. In the European Union, fears of a stagnant economyhave pushed lawmakersto reassess what they deemed to be an over-bloated European bureaucracy.Meanwhile, Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, has hinted at escalating tensions towards international trade regulatory bodies.These measures, however, are not without their drawbacks. Particularly, the European effort to adapt to this new wave of market uncertainty has come at the cost of an unlikely victim: The European Green Deal.

While the European Green Deal is not factually dead, new legislative developments in the EU have set its future in a verifiable state of limbo. Concerns regarding competitivity between European and non-European firms have prompted European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to introduce the Omnibus I package. The proposal outlines alterations targeting current EU sustainability-related legislation, namely, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D), and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities (EU Taxonomy).Announced on the 26th of February, the proposed Omnibuswould significantly reduce sustainability reporting thresholds and requirements for companies acting within the European Union, as well as limit due diligence requirements for companies regarding their supply chains. Whilst this measure was originally proposed as a measure to cut sustainability-related red tape for European firms, many have denounced it as a massive step-back on EU sustainability goals.

It is simplistic to attribute full blame for the EUs recent rollback of sustainability regulations to Trumps influence. Yet it would be equally shortsighted to dismiss the potential repercussions of a second Trump term on European sustainability discourse. As the EUs Omnibus legislation on sustainability reveals, Europes green policy frameworks remain fragile. CSRD and CSDDD requirements, painted as nothing but bureaucratic red tape, were very quickly discarded, leaving European sustainability professionals confused, but regrettably unsurprised. As Trumps trade war antics escalate, Europe is being forced to reckon with a new reality: its prolonged dependence on the US has left it all too vulnerable without it. Now, scrambling to find new partnerships, the EU is forced to ease up on its prior sustainability commitments. Other legislation, such as the EUs Deforestation Regulation, might soon find itself on the chopping block.

The erosion of Europes sustainability ambitions underscores a sobering truth: global interdependence cuts both ways. While Trumps policies cannot be deemed the sole catalyst for the EUs regulatory rollbacks, the transactional chaos of his trade wars has undeniably accelerated a crisis of confidence in Europes ability to balance competitiveness with long-term sustainability goals. The gutting of the CSRD and CSDDDcornerstones of the Green Dealexposes the vulnerability of sustainability frameworks in an era dominated by zero-sum economics. European officials, scrambling to shield industries from Trumpian tariffs are quietly sidelining climate commitments in favour of competitiveness. As Brussels eyes further rollbacks, the dilemma deepens and the question must be asked of whether Europe can maintain its status as a sustainability leader while hogtied by its aspirations of short-term economic revival?

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Opinion Europe Cannot Ignore the Republican Partys Shifting Foreign Policy Playbook
• Opinion Leading the Free World Through a Second Trump Administration
• Opinion How Much Will Bidens Trade Policy Differ from Trumps?
• Opinion Nationalism and Trumps Response to Covid-19
• Opinion Bidenomics: US Trade Policy under a Biden Presidency
• Opinion Iran at the Crossroads Pending Trumps Return

About The Author(s)

Tiago Torrin Itoh Viergeveris a Brazilian/Dutch Political Scientist specialized in international Development. He holds a Masters degree in International Development Studies from the University of Amsterdam.

Climate and EnvironmentDonald TrumpEuropean UnionSustainabilityTariffs