Since last year’s electoral victory, Donald Trump’s second presidency has already managed to arouse an unprecedented outcry, both at the national and international level. At the national level, the Ministry of Efficiency of the Trump Government (DOGE) had a day in the field with the federal budget. Under the direction of Elon Musk, DOGE reduced the funding of the Ministry of Education, the American Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others. This resulted in the end of several government employees and launched an American bureaucracy in a tailpin. Internationally, however, the history of Trump is more complicated.
On the one hand, it is possible to measure the impact of the second of Donald Trump to come in a relatively simple way. President Trump has managed to alienate the United States of some of his most passionate supporters. His statements, including his threats to annex Greenland and promises to impose prices on European exports, did not do much to acclimatize it to his EU counterparts. In addition, the concerns about Mr. Trump’s apparent proximity to Moscow, have more undermined international confidence in the president’s commitment to his NATO allies. A stormy exchange with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has left many people wondering if Trump will continue to support the country throughout his third year of Russian invasion.
On the other hand, the economic impacts of a second Trump presidency have not yet completely taken shape. A long -standing defender of the use of import prices as a negotiation tools, President Trump’s first mandate had already offered an overview of what was going to happen. His trade war against China and prices on iron and steel imports have paved the way for what can only be considered as a wholesale abuse of the goodwill of its partners. After campaigning on a strong increase in already existing prices, Trump has also offered new levies on imports from some among the economic partners closest to his country, including Mexico, Canada and the European Union.
To hear Trump saying, these prices are largely “reprisals”, they have been linked to different foreign policy positions where non-compliance is a stay. The prices offered on Mexico and Canada, for example, were initially deployed from March 4th. The two countries are accused by the president of not having played their role in the limitation of illegal border crossings and the smuggling of narcotics. Threats have also been directed against Europe and the BRICS countries for various reasons. The prices on Europe would suppose the trade deficit between the two partners, while threats intended for the BRICS countries would be a remote for a possible decision of the Bloc to replace the US dollar as reserve currency.
Whatever the reason, Trump’s trade wars have left his country’s sequestration partners to find themselves to find appropriate answers. While tit-for-tat tariffs have been announced, or at least threatened, by many countries, many have been forced to adapt more to this new reality. In the European Union, fears of a stagnant economy prompted legislators to reassess what they considered as an overly vague European bureaucracy. Meanwhile, Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva, suggested tensions at the scale of international trade regulation organizations. These measures, however, are not without drawbacks. In particular, the European effort to adapt to this new wave of market uncertainty took place at the cost of an unlikely victim: the European green agreement.
Although the European green agreement is not factually died, new legislative developments in the EU have established its future in a verifiable state of limbo. The concerns concerning competitiveness between European and non -European companies have prompted the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen to introduce the Omnibus I package. The proposal describes the modifications targeting the current legislation linked to the sustainability of the EU, namely the directive on corporate sustainability reports (CSRD), the reasonable diligence directive (CSDDD or CS3D) and EU taxonomy for sustainable activities (EU taxonomy). Announced on the 26thth In February, the proposed omnibus would considerably reduce the thresholds for the declaration of sustainability and the requirements for companies acting within the European Union, as well as limiting the requirements of reasonable diligence for companies concerning their supply chains. Although this measure was initially proposed as a measure of the reduction of administrative formalities linked to sustainability for European companies, many have denounced it as a massive step on the durability objectives of the EU.
It is simplistic to attribute the full blame for the recent return of the regulation of sustainability by the EU to the influence of Trump. However, it would also be short -see to reject the potential repercussions of a second term Trump on European sustainability discourse. As the OMNIBUS legislation of the EU on sustainability reveals, the green policy frameworks of Europe remain fragile. The requirements of the CSRD and the CSDDD, painted as “bureaucratic administrative formalities”, were very quickly rejected, leaving European professionals in confused sustainability, but unfortunately without surprise. While Trump’s trademines degenerate, Europe is forced to count with a new reality: its prolonged dependence on the United States has left it too vulnerable without it. Now, rushing to find new partnerships, the EU is forced to relieve its previous sustainable commitments. Other laws, such as the EU deforestation regulation, could soon be on blockage.
The erosion of the ambitions of sustainability of Europe underlines a truth which gives to think: global interdependence cuts in both directions. Although Trump’s policies cannot be considered as the only catalyst for EU regulations, the transactional chaos of its commercial wars has undeniably accelerated a crisis of confidence in Europe’s ability to balance competitiveness with long -term sustainability objectives. The elimination of the CSRD and the CSDDD – Cornerston of the Green Agreement – exposes the vulnerability of sustainability frameworks in an era dominated by the economy in zero sum. European officials, rushing towards the protective of the Trumpian pricing industries are discreetly sidelined climate commitments in favor of competitiveness. While Brussels looks more at hikes, the dilemma is deepened and the question must be asked if Europe can maintain its status as the leader in sustainability while being Hogtied by its aspirations of economic renaissance in the short term?
Read more in -depth on international relations
