Introduction
The Arctic is rapidly emerging as a region of strategic importance, offering both vast challenges and opportunities. Increased U.S. government exploration and development of the Arctic could yield numerous benefits that are common debate arguments – from enhancing international scientific cooperation to strengthening America’s global leadership. This essay examines six key potential benefits of a robust U.S. Arctic engagement: (a) science diplomacy, (b) climate research, (c) international law, (d) allied cooperation, (e) U.S. hard power, and (f) U.S. leadership. For each area, however, we also analyze how actions taken by President Donald Trump during his current presidency (2025) have undermined these theoretical benefits. Major reputable sources, including news reports and policy analyses, are cited to support each claim about the Trump administration’s impact.
(a) Science Diplomacy: Arctic Research as a Bridge Between Nations
Potential Benefits: The Arctic’s unique environment makes it a natural laboratory for international science collaboration. By investing in Arctic research, the U.S. can engage with other countries in joint scientific endeavors that build trust and diplomatic goodwill. Even rival powers have historically cooperated in polar science – for example, the Arctic Council (established in 1996) brings together eight Arctic nations (and Indigenous representatives) to coordinate research on climate, health, and environmental protection (Can Science Diplomacy Thaw Tensions with Russia in the Arctic?). Scientific partnerships in the Arctic help maintain dialogue even when political relations are tense. Indeed, experts argue that in interdependent regions like the Arctic, “scientific research on climate and health can sustain channels for diplomacy” (Can Science Diplomacy Thaw Tensions with Russia in the Arctic?). Shared research missions – such as monitoring polar health threats or mapping climate change – require data exchange and coordination, thereby opening communication channels. In short, science diplomacy in the Arctic serves as a neutral platform where nations can work together on common problems, fostering cooperation that can spill over into other diplomatic areas.
Trump’s Undermining Actions: President Trump’s approach in 2025 has undercut these science diplomacy benefits. His administration has politicized Arctic science cooperation and withdrawn support from multilateral research efforts. Notably, the U.S. under Trump previously broke consensus in the Arctic Council by vetoing a joint scientific declaration over references to climate change (US Policies in the Arctic Are Changing but the Extent Remains to Be Seen), signaling to other countries a reluctance to base policy on scientific findings. In his current term, Trump has also slashed funding for U.S. agencies that conduct Arctic research, such as NOAA, and made broader cuts to climate science programs (Breaking the ice As the U.S. and Russia tease Arctic cooperation, climate science could offer common ground — but neither side seems interested — Meduza). These budget cuts not only diminish America’s own research in the Far North but also “cut off the possibility for long-term involvement and investments” in international science partnerships (Breaking the ice As the U.S. and Russia tease Arctic cooperation, climate science could offer common ground — but neither side seems interested — Meduza). By de-prioritizing research and sidelining scientific expertise, the Trump administration erodes a crucial avenue of diplomacy. The result is fewer collaborative projects and a loss of U.S. credibility as a reliable scientific partner – precisely the opposite of what a strong Arctic science program would achieve.
Specificaly, we can identify 5 specific actions.
1. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO)
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14155, directing the United States to withdraw from the World Health Organization. This decision halted U.S. funding and support for the WHO, disrupted global health initiatives, and strained international collaborations on disease prevention and health research. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Congressman Steve Cohen+2Congressman Steve Cohen
2. Exit from the Paris Climate Agreement
The same day, Trump signed Executive Order 14162, pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement for the second time. This move signaled a retreat from global efforts to combat climate change and diminished the U.S.’s role in international environmental cooperation. Wikipedia
3. Significant Cuts to Scientific Research Funding
The administration proposed substantial budget cuts to key scientific agencies, including a $21 billion reduction for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These cuts threaten to impede medical research and innovation, prompting concerns about a potential “brain drain” as scientists consider opportunities abroad. Latest news & breaking headlines
4. Targeting Academic Institutions
The Trump administration has taken steps against academic institutions, exemplified by threats to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status and significant cuts to its federal funding. These actions are perceived as attempts to exert political influence over academic research and freedom. The Guardian
5. Dismantling of USAID
In early 2025, the administration moved to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), leading to the termination of thousands of employees and the cessation of numerous global health programs, including those combating HIV/AIDS. This has disrupted international development and health initiatives. Wikipedia
More: Trump will undermine US global science partnerships;
Trump administration has set Noaa on ‘non-science trajectory’, workers warn
(b) Climate Research: Advancing Understanding and Cooperative Solutions
Potential Benefits: The Arctic is often called the “canary in the coal mine” for global climate change. No region is warming faster, and the melting of Arctic ice and permafrost has worldwide impacts on weather patterns, sea levels, and ecosystems. Thus, exploring and studying the Arctic is vital for advancing climate science. Insights from the Arctic can improve climate models and inform mitigation and adaptation strategies around the globe. U.S.-led research expeditions, satellite observations, and long-term climate data from the Arctic contribute directly to understanding phenomena such as polar amplification (the Arctic warming trend) and feedback loops (e.g. methane release from thawing permafrost). Crucially, this research can spur cooperative solutions: Arctic climate science is typically conducted via international forums like the Arctic Council, which has “generated essential knowledge to inform regional and global policymaking” on climate issues (Arctic Climate Science: A Way Forward for Cooperation through the Arctic Council and Beyond | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs). For example, Arctic Council working groups have produced assessments on climate impacts that feed into global efforts like the IPCC. By investing in Arctic climate research, the U.S. not only gains information to protect its own communities (Alaska and coastal areas) but also demonstrates leadership in the collective effort to address climate change. In essence, understanding the Arctic’s climate helps the world craft better solutions, and U.S. engagement can encourage other nations to collaborate rather than compete in this arena.
Trump’s Undermining Actions: President Trump’s policies in 2025 have gravely undermined climate research and cooperation. Immediately upon returning to office, Trump moved to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement – again – reversing the nation’s commitments to global climate action (Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from Paris Agreement, revokes Biden climate actions : NPR). This second withdrawal, executed via executive order in January 2025, sent a clear message that the U.S. would not participate in the primary international framework for climate cooperation. It came despite 2024 being the hottest year on record, and drew condemnation from scientists and allies worldwide (Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from Paris Agreement, revokes Biden climate actions : NPR) (Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from Paris Agreement, revokes Biden climate actions : NPR). Trump justified the pull-out by claiming the accord was unfair to U.S. industries, echoing the stance from his first term (Trump orders U.S. withdrawal from Paris Agreement, revokes Biden climate actions : NPR). In tandem with leaving the Paris Agreement, the Trump administration in 2025 openly rejected policies aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and instead prioritized expanding fossil fuel development, including in Arctic lands and waters (US Policies in the Arctic Are Changing but the Extent Remains to Be Seen). Such actions directly undermine the collaborative spirit needed for climate research. By abandoning international pledges and embracing carbon-intensive development, the U.S. under Trump has isolated itself from scientific cooperation on climate. Allies in Europe and beyond have reaffirmed their own climate commitments, but America’s retreat has made it an outlier (The Trump Administration’s Retreat From Global Climate Leadership – Center for American Progress). This abdication not only weakens global climate diplomacy, but also hampers research: joint studies and data-sharing initiatives suffer when the U.S. is seen as an unreliable partner. In short, Trump’s 2025 climate stance – withdrawing from agreements and dismissing climate science – undercuts the very international collaboration that could emerge from Arctic research, impeding progress on cooperative climate solutions.
More: Trump seeks to undermine climate cooperation;
(c) International Law: Strengthening Rules and Norms through Arctic Engagement
Potential Benefits: A greater U.S. presence in the Arctic, if conducted responsibly, could reinforce international law and norms. The Arctic region is governed by a patchwork of treaties and legal frameworks – chief among them the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – which set rules for maritime rights, resource claims, and environmental protection. By actively exploring and developing the Arctic within these legal frameworks, the United States would demonstrate respect for the rule of law and encourage others to do the same. For instance, nations make claims to extended continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean through UNCLOS procedures, and they manage fisheries and shipping under international agreements. Although the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, in practice it abides by its key provisions; a concerted Arctic initiative might even build momentum for the U.S. to formally join, which would strengthen the overall legitimacy of international maritime law. Additionally, the Arctic Council has facilitated binding agreements among Arctic states – such as the 2011 Search and Rescue Agreement and the 2013 Oil Spill Response Agreement – showing how exploration leads to legal frameworks that enhance safety and cooperation. Increased U.S. development in the region would likely go hand-in-hand with negotiating and upholding such accords, thereby strengthening international law. In sum, when the U.S. follows agreed rules in pursuing Arctic interests, it helps set precedents for peaceful, law-abiding conduct that can bolster the broader rules-based order.
Trump’s Undermining Actions: President Trump’s recent actions have undercut the respect for international law that U.S. Arctic engagement would normally foster. Most glaring is the Trump administration’s renewed insistence on U.S. control over Greenland – an autonomous territory of Denmark. Trump has openly floated the idea of “taking over” Greenland, reviving a proposal to acquire the island “one way or the other” (Back to the Future? The Implications of Growing Strategic Competition in the Arctic for the US-Japan Alliance • Stimson Center) (Back to the Future? The Implications of Growing Strategic Competition in the Arctic for the US-Japan Alliance • Stimson Center). In 2019, Denmark rebuffed Trump’s attempt to purchase Greenland; in 2025, he returned to this unorthodox ambition with even greater intensity. Danish leaders reacted with outrage. During a visit to Greenland in April 2025, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen publicly condemned Washington’s pressure, asking: “When we are met by pressure and threats from our closest ally… What are we to believe about the country we have admired for so many years?” (Denmark’s PM Stands Up to Trump’s USA and for Arctic Security). Such U.S. demands on a sovereign ally’s territory are unprecedented in modern times and directly violate fundamental principles of international law regarding national sovereignty. Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen flatly denounced the U.S. approach to Greenland, saying these actions “amount to a violation of international law.” (Denmark’s PM Stands Up to Trump’s USA and for Arctic Security). By pursuing an annexationist stance outside of any legal framework, Trump is undermining the very international norms and laws that Arctic cooperation relies on. Furthermore, his administration’s general contempt for multilateral agreements – from climate accords to arms control treaties – telegraphs a U.S. rejection of rule-bound order (Trump Has Launched a Second American Revolution. This Time, It’s Against the World. | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). In the Arctic context, this could manifest in ignoring environmental regulations or refusing to acknowledge adverse legal rulings, which would weaken the rule-based cooperation among Arctic states. In short, Trump’s 2025 actions convey disregard for international law, imperiling the notion that U.S. Arctic development would proceed in a lawful, norm-strengthening manner.
More —
Sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC)
On February 6, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14203, imposing sanctions against the ICC. The order included visa restrictions and financial penalties for individuals assisting the ICC in investigating American citizens and allies, undermining international judicial processes. The White House+3Wikipedia+3The Guardian+3
Dismantling War Crimes Investigations
The Trump administration systematically dismantled efforts to hold Russia accountable for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. Actions included withdrawing from an EU-led international group targeting Russian violations, reducing the Justice Department’s War Crimes Accountability Team, and eliminating a coordinator role responsible for collecting intelligence on Russian atrocities.
Mass Deportations Under the Alien Enemies Act
In March 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to authorize the extrajudicial abduction and deportation of 238 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, citing dubious claims of criminal and terrorist links. These actions were condemned by the Supreme Court as violations of due process and international law.
Attempted Annexation of Greenland
President Trump revived discussions about the U.S. acquiring Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. This proposal was met with strong opposition from Danish officials and was seen as a violation of international norms regarding sovereignty.
In February 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and halting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). This action marked the second time the U.S. exited the UNHRC under Trump’s leadership, following a similar withdrawal in 2018.Politico+2Axios+2Wikipedia+2
(d) Allied Cooperation: Working with Allies to Strengthen Deterrence
Potential Benefits: Robust U.S. engagement in the Arctic inherently means working closely with American allies, especially the other Arctic and North Atlantic states. Many of America’s European allies have Arctic territories or strategic interests – Canada, Norway, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, and now Finland and Sweden (both recently joining NATO) are all U.S. partners. Exploration and development efforts in the Arctic would therefore be a multinational endeavor. Closer cooperation could range from joint scientific projects and economic ventures to coordinated security patrols in Arctic waters. This collaboration would tighten the bonds between the U.S. and its allies. For example, NATO allies regularly conduct cold-weather military exercises together in the high north (such as Norway’s “Cold Response” drills) to improve interoperability (How the US & NATO Can Confront Russian Arctic Aggression – CEPA) (How the US & NATO Can Confront Russian Arctic Aggression – CEPA). As the Arctic becomes more accessible, such allied activities would likely increase. By investing in Arctic infrastructure (ports, icebreakers, communication systems) and sharing them with allies, the U.S. can enable collective defense capabilities that deter aggression. The presence of a united coalition in Arctic regions sends a powerful signal of solidarity against any hostile moves by rival powers. Moreover, allied cooperation in humanitarian and search-and-rescue operations in the Arctic would save lives and build goodwill. In summary, U.S. Arctic development done in concert with European and Canadian allies would strengthen Western unity and enhance deterrence, as a coordinated alliance is far more formidable than any nation acting alone.
Trump’s Undermining Actions: President Trump’s actions in 2025 have tended to fray U.S. alliances rather than strengthen them, directly undercutting the benefits of allied Arctic cooperation. The Greenland episode has proved especially corrosive. By aggressively pursuing U.S. control of Greenland, Trump alienated one of America’s closest allies (Denmark) and sowed distrust in the wider alliance. Danish officials described the U.S. approach as “unacceptable and disrespectful,” noting that an ally resorting to pressure and threats over their territory was shocking (Denmark’s PM Stands Up to Trump’s USA and for Arctic Security) (Denmark’s PM Stands Up to Trump’s USA and for Arctic Security). Copenhagen has had to shore up unity with Greenland in the face of U.S. demands (Denmark’s PM Stands Up to Trump’s USA and for Arctic Security), a situation that pits the U.S. against its NATO partner. This dispute not only damages bilateral relations with Denmark but also unnerves other European allies – after all, if Washington can treat one ally’s sovereignty so cavalierly, others wonder where they stand. At the same time, Trump has sent mixed signals on America’s commitment to collective defense. He has shown a “certain warmth” toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin and stepped back U.S. support for Ukraine, even as European allies remain unified against Russian aggression (US Policies in the Arctic Are Changing but the Extent Remains to Be Seen). This equivocation in the face of Russian expansionism has caused allies to “wonder if they and the U.S. share fundamental assumptions about their security interests.” (US Policies in the Arctic Are Changing but the Extent Remains to Be Seen) The Trump administration’s open criticism of NATO allies (for example, belittling their defense spending or imposing trade tariffs on European partners) further strains the alliance (US Policies in the Arctic Are Changing but the Extent Remains to Be Seen) (Forecasts and Recommendations about the Second Trump Administration Policies toward the Two Polar Regions). All of these moves undermine the trust and cohesion needed for effective Arctic cooperation. Instead of collaborating seamlessly in the far north, allies are preoccupied with Trump’s unpredictability and the reliability of U.S. support. This weakens the united front that would be critical for deterring adversaries in the Arctic. In effect, President Trump’s behavior has undercut allied cooperation and eroded confidence in U.S. leadership within NATO – the opposite of the solidarity that a successful Arctic strategy requires.
Thanks for clarifying! I’ll now find 10 specific actions the Trump administration has taken during its current 2025 term that have hurt U.S. relations with Europe. I’ll provide clear explanations and hyperlink reputable sources for each action. I’ll update you as soon as it’s ready!
Ten Trump 2025 Actions That Damaged U.S.–Europe Relations
- Withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement (again) – On his first day back in office in January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord for a second time (World reacts to Trump withdrawing US from Paris climate pact | Reuters). European leaders reacted with anger and alarm, as the EU has been a staunch supporter of the pact. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra called it “a truly unfortunate development” that one of Europe’s closest allies would abandon the global climate effort again (World reacts to Trump withdrawing US from Paris climate pact | Reuters). This unilateral withdrawal undermined transatlantic cooperation on climate change and immediately strained relations with European governments.
- Imposing sweeping tariffs on European imports (“reciprocal” trade war) – Early in his term, Trump launched a transatlantic trade war by slapping high blanket tariffs on goods from Europe. In fact, the administration imposed a 20% tariff on all European Union exports to the U.S. as part of a sweeping “reciprocal tariffs” policy (EU imposes new tariffs on $23 billion in US goods in retaliation for Trump’s steel, aluminum tariffs | AP News). European officials blasted the move as “unjustified and damaging,” noting it would hurt economies on both sides of the Atlantic (EU imposes new tariffs on $23 billion in US goods in retaliation for Trump’s steel, aluminum tariffs | AP News). The EU quickly retaliated with billions in counter-tariffs on American products, a tit-for-tat escalation that badly soured U.S.–EU relations and eroded trust in trade negotiations.
- Questioning the U.S. commitment to NATO’s mutual defense – Trump repeatedly suggested the United States might not honor NATO’s Article 5 defense pledge for allies he felt were “delinquent” in military spending. He warned that America might refuse to defend NATO countries that “don’t spend enough” on their own militaries (Turmoil churns below the surface as Rubio meets NATO allies – POLITICO). This rhetoric – effectively making U.S. protection conditional – shocked European allies. Undermining the bedrock principle of collective defense “lit a fire” under the 75-year-old alliance, calling into question whether Washington would really come to Europe’s aid in a crisis (Turmoil churns below the surface as Rubio meets NATO allies – POLITICO). Such comments gravely weakened European trust in the U.S. and damaged transatlantic unity.
- Threatening to annex Greenland, a Danish territory – Trump revived his interest in acquiring Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) but escalated far beyond mere offers to purchase. In a late-March 2025 interview, he bluntly declared “We’ll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%,” adding that while he hoped to do it peacefully, he “[doesn’t] take anything off the table,” even implying the use of force (Greenland’s new PM rejects Trump’s latest threat: ‘We do not belong to anyone else’ | Greenland | The Guardian). This shockingly aggressive stance toward seizing another country’s territory infuriated Denmark (a NATO ally) and rattled Europeans. Danish leaders publicly rejected Trump’s threats, warning that “you cannot annex another country”, and the episode severely strained U.S. relations with both Denmark and the wider EU, which saw the move as a hostile affront to national sovereignty.
- Freezing military aid to Ukraine without consulting allies – The Trump administration abruptly paused all U.S. military aid and arms deliveries to Ukraine in early 2025 as a tactic to pressure Kyiv into peace talks with Moscow. This decision was made unilaterally with no advance notice to NATO allies or other European partners supporting Ukraine (Ukraine’s allies had no notice of Trump freezing military aid, Poland says | Ukraine | The Guardian). European governments were blindsided and “rattled” by the freeze, which came at a critical moment in the war. Poland’s foreign ministry complained that the announcement was made “without any information or consultation” with NATO, leaving allies feeling undermined (Ukraine’s allies had no notice of Trump freezing military aid, Poland says | Ukraine | The Guardian). The aid cutoff was seen across Europe as a betrayal of Ukraine and a dangerous concession to Russia, harming U.S. credibility and unity with Europe in opposing Kremlin aggression.
- Pressuring Ukraine to cede territory to Russia for a peace deal – Along with halting aid, Trump pushed a peace plan that would require Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia – a proposal strongly opposed by European allies. Near the 100-day mark of his term, Trump openly urged Ukraine to “accept the terms of a peace deal” by giving up major territorial concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin (Trump says he’s got his ‘own deadline’ for Ukraine talks as tensions flare – POLITICO). He signaled that Ukraine would have to yield areas Russia seized by force (such as Crimea or eastern regions) as “the price” of ending the war (Trump says he’s got his ‘own deadline’ for Ukraine talks as tensions flare – POLITICO). European leaders bristled at this approach, seeing it as rewarding Russian aggression and undermining the principle of national sovereignty. For Europe – which views Ukraine’s territorial integrity as fundamental – Trump’s pressure to let Putin keep conquered land created a serious rift in transatlantic relations (Trump says he’s got his ‘own deadline’ for Ukraine talks as tensions flare – POLITICO).
- Slandering Ukraine’s president in terms echoing Russian propaganda – President Trump repeatedly attacked and insulted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy – the very leader whom Europe has rallied behind in the war. In off-the-cuff remarks, Trump suggested Ukraine was to blame for the conflict, saying Zelenskyy “should have never started it” and “could have made a deal” with Russia to avoid war (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO). He went even further the next day, deriding Zelenskyy as “a dictator without elections,” essentially parroting Kremlin talking points against the democratically elected Ukrainian leader (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO). These public broadsides against Zelenskyy infuriated European officials. U.K. and EU leaders staged displays of support for Zelenskyy in response, and even conservative European lawmakers noted the “badly damaged” state of the transatlantic relationship as Trump lambasted a key European ally (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO) (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO). The personal attacks on Ukraine’s president deeply undermined U.S. moral leadership in Europe’s eyes.
- Vice President Vance’s inflammatory speech berating Europe – At the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a blistering 19-minute speech that shocked America’s European allies. Vance chastised European governments for “ignoring the will of their people,” for eroding religious freedoms, and for failing to halt illegal migration, claiming Europe’s greatest threat “is not Russia… it’s the threat from within” (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO). He essentially argued that Europe’s own liberal policies and social trends were its downfall, rather than external aggressors. This unprecedented public dressing-down of Europe by a sitting U.S. official left the conference room of European diplomats “aghast,” with one German official calling it “insane and worrying” (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO). European leaders were outraged at the speech’s tone and content, seeing it as gross interference in their domestic affairs and a sign that the new U.S. administration held Europe in contempt – a clear blow to transatlantic goodwill.
- Signaling a U.S. pivot away from Europe (troop and command shifts) – The Trump administration indicated it would reorient U.S. strategic focus toward Asia at Europe’s expense, raising alarms in NATO capitals. Reports surfaced that Washington planned to move key U.S. weapons systems out of Europe to the Indo-Pacific and even floated the idea of giving up the American lead role in NATO’s command structure in Europe (Turmoil churns below the surface as Rubio meets NATO allies – POLITICO). Such moves would represent a major pullback of the U.S. security presence in Europe. Allied officials scrambled for answers upon hearing these reports, which came on the heels of Trump’s repeated hints that defending Europe was not a priority. The mere suggestion of downgrading U.S. military commitments in Europe – including possibly relinquishing the U.S. commander who has traditionally led NATO forces – deeply unnerved European NATO members (Turmoil churns below the surface as Rubio meets NATO allies – POLITICO). It signaled a weakening of the transatlantic defense bond and harmed confidence in U.S. support for Europe’s security.
- Undercutting the EU by refusing to engage with it as a bloc – The Trump administration took a conspicuously dismissive approach toward the European Union itself, preferring to deal with countries one-on-one and snubbing EU institutions. In one telling incident, a delegation of European Parliament members visiting Washington was basically rebuffed by U.S. officials. A senior EU lawmaker revealed that it was made “general policy” that American counterparts would not meet with “Europeans” as a group – only with French, or British, or Italian individuals, “but not Europeans” (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO). This deliberate refusal to recognize or consult the EU as a unified partner angered Brussels. It was seen as an attempt to divide Europe and ignore its collective voice. By sidelining the European Union and only engaging bilaterally, the Trump administration dealt a diplomatic slight that hurt U.S.–EU relations, reinforcing European perceptions that Washington could no longer be counted on to respect or support European unity.
Sources: Major news outlets and official statements from January–April 2025, including Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, and Politico, documenting these actions and European reactions (World reacts to Trump withdrawing US from Paris climate pact | Reuters) (World reacts to Trump withdrawing US from Paris climate pact | Reuters) (EU imposes new tariffs on $23 billion in US goods in retaliation for Trump’s steel, aluminum tariffs | AP News) (EU imposes new tariffs on $23 billion in US goods in retaliation for Trump’s steel, aluminum tariffs | AP News) (Turmoil churns below the surface as Rubio meets NATO allies – POLITICO) (Greenland’s new PM rejects Trump’s latest threat: ‘We do not belong to anyone else’ | Greenland | The Guardian) (Ukraine’s allies had no notice of Trump freezing military aid, Poland says | Ukraine | The Guardian) (Trump says he’s got his ‘own deadline’ for Ukraine talks as tensions flare – POLITICO) (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO) (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO) (Turmoil churns below the surface as Rubio meets NATO allies – POLITICO) (The untold story of how Trump shocked Europe in a few short days – POLITICO). Each of the above examples is a concrete policy move, statement, or decision by Trump in 2025 that directly caused friction with U.S. allies in Europe.
(e) U.S. Hard Power: Strategic Strength and Deterrence through Arctic Development
Potential Benefits: Greater exploration and development of the Arctic would bolster U.S. hard power – that is, its military strength and strategic capabilities – thereby enhancing deterrence. The Arctic holds significant strategic value. It is home to vast untapped natural resources (an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas) and critical shipping lanes that could shorten global trade routes (Arctic Governance: Challenges and Opportunities) (Arctic Governance: Challenges and Opportunities). A U.S. that actively exploits resources in Alaska and beneath the Arctic Ocean can improve its energy security and economic power, reducing dependence on others. More importantly, a U.S. physical presence in the Arctic (through naval patrols, air surveillance, and possibly new bases or ports) extends the reach of American power into a region where rivals are increasingly active. Russia has heavily militarized its Arctic coast, reopening Soviet-era bases and deploying air and naval assets in the High North (Back to the Future? The Implications of Growing Strategic Competition in the Arctic for the US-Japan Alliance • Stimson Center) (Back to the Future? The Implications of Growing Strategic Competition in the Arctic for the US-Japan Alliance • Stimson Center). China, too, has declared itself a “near-Arctic” state and seeks influence. To maintain a balance of power, the U.S. must not cede this domain. Investment in Arctic-capable military hardware – such as icebreakers, Arctic-equipped ships and aircraft, and communications infrastructure – would allow the U.S. to project power year-round in polar regions where it currently has limited capabilities. Such development, especially in concert with allies, creates deterrence by signaling that the Arctic is not a lawless frontier but is under the vigilant watch of the U.S. and its partners. As one analysis noted, “regional stability is highly contingent upon successful Arctic-specific deterrence against existing regional threats”, and a “carefully crafted regional presence” by the U.S. and allies will create appropriate deterrence (How the US & NATO Can Confront Russian Arctic Aggression – CEPA). In practical terms, this means the U.S. having enough assets (like an expanded Coast Guard icebreaker fleet and forward-deployed units) to patrol Arctic sea lanes and respond to incidents. Strength in the Arctic would contribute to U.S. global power projection, ensuring America can protect its interests and support its allies in any theater, including the far north.
Trump’s Undermining Actions: President Trump’s conduct in 2025 has, paradoxically, put U.S. hard power advantages in the Arctic at risk. While Trump publicly emphasizes American “strength,” some of his decisions have undermined the long-term foundations of U.S. power in the region. First, by antagonizing allies and weakening alliances (as described above), Trump undercuts the combined hard power that the U.S. can bring to bear. Deterrence in the Arctic relies not just on American might but on the backing of NATO partners that form a unified coalition. When allies question U.S. resolve or withhold cooperation due to mistrust, the effective military presence available in the Arctic is reduced. Russia, for instance, may feel emboldened if it perceives divisions between the U.S. and Europe. Indeed, Trump’s conciliatory approach toward Moscow – “reaching out” to Putin even as Russia remains under sanctions for its war in Ukraine – could weaken deterrence by sending a signal of U.S. wavering (US Policies in the Arctic Are Changing but the Extent Remains to Be Seen) (US Policies in the Arctic Are Changing but the Extent Remains to Be Seen). Allied officials have warned that if U.S. positions on Russia are seen as too lenient, NATO members will be “less enthusiastic in supporting U.S. priorities” in places like the Arctic (Forecasts and Recommendations about the Second Trump Administration Policies toward the Two Polar Regions). Secondly, Trump’s neglect of critical Arctic capabilities has slowed the growth of U.S. hard power in the region. For example, despite talking up the Arctic’s strategic importance, the administration dramatically cut funding for Arctic observation and science programs (Breaking the ice As the U.S. and Russia tease Arctic cooperation, climate science could offer common ground — but neither side seems interested — Meduza). This includes NOAA’s sea ice forecasting and climate research that U.S. naval and Coast Guard forces rely on for operational planning (Breaking the ice As the U.S. and Russia tease Arctic cooperation, climate science could offer common ground — but neither side seems interested — Meduza). The Guardian noted that broader science cuts have accompanied Trump’s push for fossil fuels, hampering America’s understanding of the changing Arctic environment (Breaking the ice As the U.S. and Russia tease Arctic cooperation, climate science could offer common ground — but neither side seems interested — Meduza). Over the long term, starving these programs can leave U.S. forces “blind” to environmental conditions, undermining their preparedness. In short, Trump’s 2025 actions – from alienating allies to disregarding essential investments – risk eroding the very hard power and deterrence that an expanded Arctic presence is meant to strengthen. Instead of a confident projection of power, the U.S. faces a potential capability gap and a less cohesive force posture in the far north under Trump’s watch.
(f) U.S. Leadership and Soft Power: Resolving Global Challenges
Potential Benefits: A strong U.S. role in the Arctic would reinforce American leadership and soft power on the world stage. “Soft power” refers to the ability to influence others through example, expertise, and values rather than coercion. By taking initiative in the Arctic, the United States can position itself as the leader on key global issues – climate change, scientific discovery, and the governance of the global commons. Successfully spearheading cooperative efforts in the Arctic (one of the planet’s last frontiers) would demonstrate U.S. commitment to multilateral problem-solving and respect for international norms. This, in turn, boosts America’s moral authority and diplomatic clout in arenas far beyond the Arctic. For instance, if the U.S. leads in forging agreements on Arctic shipping safety or environmental standards, it shows that Washington can still convene and guide the international community in tackling tough transnational challenges. Such leadership could help resolve or ease global conflicts by strengthening the rules-based international order that manages competition peacefully. Moreover, positive engagement in the Arctic – working with Indigenous communities, balancing development with environmental stewardship, and sharing research – would enhance the U.S. image as a benevolent global actor. In contrast to rival powers that might pursue a narrow, self-interested agenda, the U.S. can earn respect by championing cooperation in the Arctic. All of these soft power gains would amplify U.S. influence: allies and neutral countries alike are more likely to follow a nation that leads by example. Ultimately, effective U.S. Arctic engagement would signal that America is prepared to lead in solving the next generation of global issues, reinforcing its status as an indispensable nation.
Trump’s Undermining Actions: President Trump’s current term has seen a marked retreat of U.S. global leadership, and this retreat severely undermines the soft power benefits that Arctic engagement could bring. Trump’s “America First” posture in 2025 has often meant America alone – withdrawing from international commitments and undermining the alliances and institutions that undergird U.S. influence. The decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement (for a second time) is a prime example. Analysts described that move as a “profound abdication of leadership,” noting that the United States voluntarily ceded its longstanding role as a global leader on climate and joined a tiny handful of pariah states outside the accord (The Trump Administration’s Retreat From Global Climate Leadership – Center for American Progress). The message to the world was that the U.S. is an unreliable partner on even the most urgent common challenge. This abdication has created a vacuum that other major powers are eagerly filling. In April 2025, when world leaders convened for a high-level climate discussion, the U.S. was pointedly not invited – a stunning break from past U.S. leadership in such forums (Xi contrasts China’s clean energy promises with Trump turmoil | Climate crisis | The Guardian). China’s President Xi Jinping took the opportunity to contrast Beijing’s steady commitment to clean energy with the chaos in Washington, implicitly positioning China as a more stable and responsible world leader (Xi contrasts China’s clean energy promises with Trump turmoil | Climate crisis | The Guardian) (Xi contrasts China’s clean energy promises with Trump turmoil | Climate crisis | The Guardian). According to The Guardian, China is now attempting to present itself as a “counterweight to the unpredictability of Trump.” (Xi contrasts China’s clean energy promises with Trump turmoil | Climate crisis | The Guardian) This dynamic illustrates how Trump’s actions are squandering U.S. soft power. Allies in Europe, Asia, and beyond, who traditionally looked to America for steady leadership, are alarmed by Trump’s open disdain for multilateralism and his attacks on international institutions. A Carnegie Endowment analysis observes that Trump has essentially “declared independence from the global system that America made,” rejecting responsibilities for global leadership and destabilizing the international order (Trump Has Launched a Second American Revolution. This Time, It’s Against the World. | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). The fallout is that on issues from climate change to public health, the U.S. is no longer seen as leading – or even participating constructively – and others are moving on without it (Xi contrasts China’s clean energy promises with Trump turmoil | Climate crisis | The Guardian) (Xi contrasts China’s clean energy promises with Trump turmoil | Climate crisis | The Guardian). This loss of leadership credibility directly harms U.S. interests. It means fewer countries are willing to align with U.S. initiatives or defer to U.S. preferences, whether in the Arctic or elsewhere. Rather than resolving global conflicts, the Trump approach of going it alone has in many cases exacerbated them (for example, trade wars and weakened alliances). In sum, President Trump’s undermining of alliances, international norms, and cooperative frameworks has gravely diminished U.S. soft power. The promise that Arctic engagement could bolster American leadership and help address global issues is left unfulfilled as long as the U.S. itself turns inward and adversarial under Trump’s leadership.
Conclusion
The Arctic is a realm where the United States has much to gain through proactive exploration and development. In theory, a robust U.S. Arctic strategy could unlock significant benefits: it could serve as a conduit for science diplomacy, advance critical climate research, reinforce respect for international law, deepen cooperation with allies, expand America’s hard power deterrence, and enhance U.S. leadership and soft power globally. Each of these benefits, however, hinges on wise policy choices and international collaboration. As this essay has detailed, the actions of President Trump during his current (2025) tenure have largely undermined these potential gains. From withdrawing from international agreements and angering allies to sidelining science and flouting norms, Trump’s policies have weakened the very foundations of Arctic cooperation and U.S. credibility.
The contrast between the theoretical advantages of constructive Arctic engagement and the reality of Trump’s approach is stark. Going forward, if the United States wishes to realize the Arctic’s benefits – and secure its interests in a rapidly changing polar region – it will need to rebuild bridges, restore trust in U.S. commitments, and reassert principled leadership. The Arctic’s challenges demand unity and vision, and only by working with others can the U.S. truly capitalize on what the “top of the world” has to offer. In the end, the Arctic will test America’s capacity for leadership in a complex global environment. Whether the U.S. meets that test will depend on decisions made now, and on choosing cooperation over confrontation – a choice that will reverberate far beyond the ice and cold of the Far North.