Donald Trump’s foreign policy adjustments were much better received in the Middle East than in Europe. While Trump’s European policy mirrors Obama’s in many ways, it contrasts sharply in a few select areas. Both put forward a far more hands off approach to Europe’s military destiny than has historically existed. Under Obama this took the form of ‘leading from behind’ in Libya and minimal interference in the Ukrainian crisis. If anything, Trump has only furthered the disengagement by assailing NATO allies who refuse to abide by the treaty’s terms. However, Obama was widely liked by Europeans while Trump scored abysmal marks. This discrepancy looks to be largely based on Trump’s temperament and domestic policy positions.

Trump broke with decades of US tradition in attacking NATO allies during the campaign and he did not change tact once he was sworn into office. He has continually been openly antagonistic towards their leaders and attacked their perceived failures in handling domestic issues. While the intended target of this rhetoric was mostly aimed at his isolationist base, it was not ignored by foreign governments. Unlike the Middle East, European leaders responded in kind, pulling few punches when speaking of the Trump administration. Apparently they haven’t been paying attention. Trump responds well to flattery, not confrontation. It may be tempting to write this off as reactionary politics, but it shows an increasing drift between the popular desires of the US and Europe populations. For these attacks to resound a domestic audience desiring such sentiments is required.

The major point of contention is the Paris Accords. The agreement holds significant symbolic value in addressing climate change, but with no enforcement mechanisms it was never posed to deliver much. Obama refused to allow the Senate a vote, making it an executive agreement and giving Trump the ability to withdraw on his own. While there are serious arguments that a withdrawal could damage future prospects for international agreements, it would also have the benefit of undermining unilateral executive action that commits the country to major policy actions. Future agreements in Obama’s fashion would be seen for what they are, pithy promises from a soon to be departed politician, not a solid foundation for a strong partnership. It would restore a modicum of power back to the Senate, thus requiring broad public support for major foreign agreements.

However, the domestic struggle between the US branches of government is not what has the EU upset. Europe had largely been hitting its commitments prior to the agreement. For years, they have been forcing their populations to pay much higher utility rates in order to reduce carbon emissions. It was seen as a major success for the EU to have the US to agree to follow a similar path, offsetting some of its competitive advantage. Withdrawing from the agreement strikes a blow not only against climate change ideologues, but also against Europe’s economic competitiveness. Regardless of whether Trump withdraws, he has already reversed the policies in place that would allow the US to achieve its commitments. With cheap energy again a US policy, anti-competitive policies in Europe are under major pressure. The ECB’s drive to zero has papered over the instability of many southern governments, but their sclerotic economies remain. Without the Paris Agreement to justify the costly intervention in the energy markets, Europeans are faced with the trade off between ideology and growth. Trump’s actions are thus seen as a direct assault on the green ideology pervasive in Europe’s domestic politics. With Trump seen as actively undermining an extremely popular sentiment in Europe, it is little wonder that they don’t approve.