Washington, Brussels at odds over how to tackle global challenges, experts say

Editor's note: Amid shifting global geopolitics in recent decades, the trans-Atlantic bond is being reshaped. China Daily will present a special series to examine these shifts and their long-term implications.

In recent years, the trans-Atlantic partnership has been strained by recurring differences over international governance and other global issues, prompting European countries to rethink the nature of their ties with the United States and explore more pragmatic forms of cooperation with a wider range of international partners, experts said.

From climate change, public health to international development, Washington and Brussels are increasingly at odds over how global challenges should be addressed and who should bear the costs, they said.

READ MORE: Trade tensions strain EU-US ties

After the Cold War, the US and Europe presented themselves as architects of the global order and champions of international rules. They cited multilateralism, free trade and human rights discourse as core demonstrations of their strength, while pursuing the global advancement of their own institutional models.

In recent years, however, the two sides have drifted apart over what international responsibilities they should shoulder and how best to shape the international order.

For instance, in January 2025, US President Donald Trump returned to the White House for his second term. On his first day in office, he signed an executive order directing the US to once again withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the global accord on climate change, and to proceed with its withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

In a Politico interview published in December 2025, Trump doubled down on his criticism of European countries, branding the continent "weak" and "decaying" over its immigration policies.

The multilateral system established after World War II, with the World Trade Organization as one of its key pillars, is built on the principle of creating common rules at the global level and shaping the international economic order through collective negotiations among all economies. Its defining features are openness, inclusiveness and governance based on agreed rules, said Zhao Yongsheng, a professor of European studies at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.

In recent years, nevertheless, the US has come to believe that this mechanism has, in some respects, limited its competitive advantages. This perception has contributed to a gradual decline in its enthusiasm for traditional multilateralism and a growing preference for "plurilateralism" — arrangements built around a smaller number of like-minded countries rather than universal participation, he said.

Europe has pursued its climate agenda largely out of genuine environmental concerns, while the US has never treated climate governance as a core national interest, Zhao said.

"By promoting stringent carbon emission standards, Washington sought to raise the costs of China's industries and potentially slow its industrial development. Trump went even further, at one point dismissing global warming as a 'hoax' and arguing that climate policies could undermine US manufacturing competitiveness," he said.

As China continues to advance its green development agenda, the divergence between the US and the EU over global climate governance highlights a broader shift in climate leadership, Zhao said.

Reshaping influence

With Washington stepping back from some aspects of international climate engagement, the influence once associated with the US is increasingly being shared by Brussels and Beijing, he added.

He Yun, an associate professor at Hunan University's School of Public Administration, said that as the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has not only weakened global efforts to curb emissions but also set a poor example for the international community.

Structural strains run deep in the current trans-Atlantic partnership. The US tends to approach its relationship with other partners through a cost-benefit lens, choosing selective engagement or outright withdrawal, said He, who also serves as a researcher at Tsinghua University's Belt and Road Institute.

"Europe, by contrast, leans more heavily on rules, institutions and multilateral coordination to sustain its global influence. The widening gap between 'America First' and multilateralism is steadily pushing the international order toward greater fragmentation," she said.

Europe still faces significant challenges in its pursuit of genuine strategic autonomy, experts said.

"For example, on the Gaza issue, if Europe were to follow the US without reservation, it could face growing criticism from the Global South over perceived inconsistencies in the application of international law and human rights principles," He said.

"On Iran, continued reliance on a US-led approach centered on maximum pressure, sanctions and geopolitical confrontation could further erode Europe's credibility as an independent player in the Middle East and the wider Global South," she added.

ALSO READ: Trans-Atlantic relationship reveals cracks

Therefore, a more pragmatic approach for Europe would be to preserve the trans-Atlantic alliance while adopting a more independent and balanced position on issues such as the Middle East, development cooperation and global governance, she said.

Zhao said the current upheaval reflects, to a large extent, the erosion of the post-World War II order, under which the US provided security guarantees, Europe benefited from economic stability and welfare development, and many countries in the Global South served as suppliers of resources and raw materials.

"As the US becomes increasingly reluctant to provide global public goods unconditionally, Europe is being compelled to assume greater responsibilities. Against this backdrop, Europe needs to reassess the limits of its 'Trans-Atlantic Priority' and work to rebuild stronger partnerships with countries in the Global South," he added.

Contact the writers at liujianqiao@chinadaily.com.cn