The Trump Project: Dismantling the EU with the Patriots
Good morning! We are David Carretta, Christian Spillmann and Oliver Grimm, and we are presenting you the Morning Post Europe. Parts of it are translated with the help of AI, but always edited by one of us.
In today’s analysis, Christian focuses on the Trump’s project: dismantling the European Union and undermining its democracies through anti-European far-right parties. Yesterday, António Costa, the President of the European Council, called Trump’s new National Security Strategy unacceptable, as it establishes U.S. interference in the EU’s internal politics as official doctrine.
In today’s brief, we cover Ukraine: Volodymyr Zelensky and his European allies reject the agreement between Trump and Putin that foresees territorial concessions by Ukraine. The Commission appears willing to accommodate Trump in the investigation launched against META for violating the Digital Markets Act. Yesterday was a major day for the Danish EU presidency: Interior ministers approved, by qualified majority, a large package that further tightens migration policy.
If you like our work, please consider supporting the Morning Post Europe by signing up to a paying subscription.
The Trump Project: Dismantling the EU with the Patriots
By Christian Spillmann
The attack is overt, and the interference unapologetic. Donald Trump and his loyalists seek nothing less than the destruction of the European Union, pushing it back to the era of city-states. The US president is betting on Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, and his political allies — the increasingly powerful Patriots. The shift, if it comes, will be delivered democratically, through national ballots. Elon Musk, the formidable baron of American tech, has aligned himself with this mission. X, his social-media platform, has become the instrument for manipulating and influencing voters. The immediate objectives: Orbán’s re-election in 2026 and the capture of France by the Patriots of the Rassemblement National in 2027.
António Costa bristles at this behaviour. “We cannot accept this threat of interference in Europe’s political life. The United States cannot substitute itself for European citizens in deciding which parties are good and which are bad.” The president of the European Council sounds like the lone figure fully awake among the sleepwalkers at the helm of the institutions — perhaps, he hints, because he is a Socialist.
Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission president, and Roberta Metsola, president of the Parliament, remain silent. Both belong to the European People’s Party, the centre-right family led by Germany’s Manfred Weber. It is Weber who has driven the EPP’s rupture of the traditional cordon sanitaire with the Patriots, opening the way to alternative majorities whenever disagreements arise with the Socialists and Liberals in Parliament.
“Stop undermining the EU by cozying up to and collaborating with far-right forces that are trying to hollow us out from within — with the welcome support of Washington and Moscow,” snapped the Italian political scientist Nathalie Tocci. Her rebuke came in response to an EPP declaration on X that sought to distance the group from “the offensive launched against the EU by American tech giants and anti-European MAGA politicians allied with Russian warmongers”, as analyst Janis Kluge of Berlin’s German Institute for International and Security Affairs notes.
The €120 million fine the Commission imposed on X on Friday for violating EU transparency rules was the spark. It landed on the very day Washington published its national security strategy — a document that reads like a political firebomb aimed at the EU.
The US administration cries foul over an attack on “freedom of expression.” The gulf across the Atlantic could hardly be wider. In the United States, the First Amendment protects an almost absolutist vision of free speech, including hateful speech, in the name of a “marketplace of ideas.” In the EU, freedom is more tightly framed by national and European law — such as the Digital Services Act — which permits restrictions on hate speech, disinformation and defamation.
The offensive is ferocious. “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so governments can better represent their citizens,” Musk declares on X. “I’m serious. I’m not joking,” he adds. Musk has turned the matter into a personal crusade, urging the US administration to sanction “the people who brought this action against me” — just as judges of the International Criminal Court were targeted after issuing arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
The Commission’s response to this fury is astonishing. “Bizarre statements are part of free speech,” said the spokeswoman for von der Leyen. “We do not want to enter ideological debates.” It is the ostrich strategy in the middle of a storm: head buried in the sand. Von der Leyen wants to hear the positions of EU leaders before speaking out, and offers no support to Costa’s outburst.
“The United States has now officially committed itself — alongside Moscow — to interfering in European electoral politics in order to promote nationalist, anti-EU, far-right parties, from Reform in the UK to Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National in France, and the xenophobic AfD in Germany,” observes Eurasia Group director for Europe, Mujtaba Rahman.
This interference poses a particularly immediate threat to France and Emmanuel Macron. “The first European elections where the new Trump doctrine could make a real difference will take place in Hungary in April. But if Trump helps Orbán — a Kremlin-friendly figure — to be re-elected, that merely preserves a problematic status quo. The next decisive moment for the EU will be the French presidential election of April–May 2027. If the far right, already strong in the polls, wins France, it would be a devastating blow to the Union,” Rahman warns. The year 2027 looms as a critical one for the EU, with legislative elections also due in Spain and Poland.
“Our democracies were not designed for social media. We must regulate,” insists Macron. “The EU has given itself the tools — we need to use them,” fumes former commissioner Thierry Breton, architect of Europe’s digital regulations.
The Commission is investigating whether “social-media platforms are being used to influence electoral processes,” an EU official told us. The inquiry proceeds, but the Commission refuses to reveal what it has uncovered. Musk’s hysterical reaction to a relatively modest fine — designed merely to force greater transparency around the awarding of verification badges — illustrates the scale of the challenge posed by X, as well as platforms like TikTok and Telegram. But the process is slow.
The old argument had been the need to “preserve dialogue with the Americans and avoid polarisation.” Trump’s ideological declaration of war last Friday destroys that pretext. The US administration violates free expression without embarrassment. National Security has been invoked against the Chinese-owned TikTok, and Trump relentlessly attacks media outlets he dislikes — including his new “Hall of Shame,” a White House website listing journalists accused of spreading falsehoods.
Discontent is rising across Europe. Trump’s and Musk’s attacks rankle. The EU flag is suddenly blooming across X profiles. “All these bots and anonymous accounts being weaponised — along with the insults from American officials — will end up making a lot of people more pro-European,” predicts Estonia’s former president, Toomas Hendrik Ilves. Von der Leyen’s submissive posture during her July meeting with Trump at his Turnberry golf club in Ireland has infuriated many. European leaders meet in Brussels on 18–19 December. Europeans expect decisions — and actions — that will restore their pride in choosing the EU.
The Quote
“It is part of the freedom of speech to put out even completely crazy statements”.
The Commission’s spokesperson, Paula Pinho, on Elon Musk’s campaign against the EU.
Geopolitics
Zelensky rejects territorial concessions; European leaders sceptical of Trump – “There are the visions of the United States, Russia and Ukraine, and we do not have a unified view on Donbas,” Volodymyr Zelensky told Bloomberg yesterday, rejecting US pressure to cede territory that Russia failed to occupy militarily as part of a peace agreement. The Ukrainian president was en route to London for a meeting with Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz. The German chancellor said he was “sceptical about some of the details we see in documents coming from the United States.” Merz assured that “no one should have any doubts: our support will not falter.” Macron emphasised that “the main issue” is “alignment between our joint positions—between Europeans, Ukrainians and the United States.” But Europeans and Ukrainians still have “many cards to play,” the French president insisted.
The three leaders focused on security guarantees for Kyiv. “We agreed on a common position on the importance of security guarantees, reconstruction and the next steps,” Zelensky said at the end of the London meeting. Last night, the Ukrainian president had dinner with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and European Council President Antonio Costa. “Are we considering ceding any territories? We have no right under the law, under the law of Ukraine, under our Constitution, under international law, to be honest, and we have no moral right either”, Zelensky said.
Seven countries sign up to accelerate the use of Russian sovereign assets (but only seven) – The prime ministers of Poland, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ireland wrote yesterday to Antonio Costa and Ursula von der Leyen endorsing the proposal for a reparations loan financed by Russian sovereign assets frozen in the EU. According to the seven governments, it is “the most financially feasible and politically realistic solution.” But “time is of the essence.” A decision at next week’s European Council would put Ukraine “in a stronger position to defend itself and in a better position to negotiate a just and lasting peace.”
The small number of signatories reveals the caution of other EU countries. Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands would have to provide guarantees worth tens of billions of euros to cover Belgium’s risks. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was one of the few leaders to state publicly that he is prepared to do so.
Costa denounces Trump’s alignment with Putin – European Council President António Costa yesterday broke the silence of EU leaders on Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy, which effectively designates Europe and its democracies as an adversary. “It is now clear: JD Vance’s speech in Munich and the various tweets by President Trump have officially become US doctrine. We must take note and act accordingly,” Costa said in a speech at the Delors Institute annual conference. “The alliances of the post–Second World War era have changed.”
Beyond rejecting interference in the EU’s internal affairs, Costa also condemned Donald Trump’s alignment with Russia as described in the National Security Strategy. “When Moscow says it largely shares the US vision of Europe, that should make us reflect. Indeed, by reading carefully the passages on Ukraine, we understand why Moscow shares this vision. Because the objective of this strategy is not a just and lasting peace, but simply the cessation of hostilities and the stabilisation of relations with Russia,” Costa said.
Costa confirms: from 2027 Europeans will have to assume leadership of NATO – On Saturday 6 December, Reuters revealed that the United States wants Europe to take responsibility for much of NATO’s conventional defence capabilities—from intelligence to missiles—by 2027. The change would be dramatic for the Alliance. Whether intentionally or not, and paying tribute to Emmanuel Macron for his foresight on European sovereignty, Costa confirmed the deadline yesterday. “By 2027, Europeans must take over from the United States in leading NATO. And it is clear: this is what we must do,” Costa said. “I know not everyone here supports President Macron, but we must be honest: Macron had a clear vision in 2017. And what he foresaw in his Sorbonne speech in 2017—well, I don’t think he imagined it would become reality,” Costa added.
Digital Sovereignty
Commission drops daily fine against META – The Commission announced yesterday that META has offered remedies to comply with the Digital Markets Act, after being hit in April with a €200 million fine for its “pay or consent” system governing personal-data use on Facebook and Instagram. Under the DMA, gatekeepers must ask users for consent before combining their personal data across services. Users who do not consent must have access to a less personalised but equivalent alternative.
META has committed to introducing a third option in the EU, offering an alternative choice that would show users less personalised ads on the two platforms. The system is expected to be implemented in early 2026.
“The case is not closed, but it is a good step forward,” a Commission spokesperson said. The DMA violation procedure therefore remains open. However, the Commission no longer wants to discuss daily penalties for META, choosing to emphasise the positive developments. Have the Trump administration’s threats after the fine against X had their intended effect?
Migration
Asylum Zeitenwende - Ten years after the EU’s largest migration crisis to date, interior ministers on Monday agreed on a far-reaching reform of the common asylum system. At their council meeting in Brussels, they reached agreement on four key regulations. They still need to negotiate three of these with the European Parliament. Major changes are unlikely.
The first law will enter into force before the end of the year without parliamentary approval. It provides for the establishment of a “solidarity pool”, from which those Member States under migratory pressure will receive assistance from the others. This scheme will start on June 12th next year. Support can take three forms: financial aid (via a special budget line in the EU’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund), technical support in the form of experts or equipment, or relocation of asylum seekers.
For 2026 (more precisely: 203 days, starting from June 12th), Council agreed that the four Member States under migration pressure—Greece, Italy, Spain, and Cyprus—should either have a total of 21,000 asylum seekers taken off their hands, or receive financial assistance of up to €420 million via the EU budget.
Solidarity, on paper - However, it is currently unclear which Member States will agree to relocate these 21,000 asylum seekers. Being a highly sensitive issue, none of our interlocutors wanted to name names, or numbers. The preference amongst governments clearly is for paying to absolve themselves of their solidarity duties. Besides, only six Member States are, according to the new nomenklatura of the Asylum and Migration Pact, neither “at risk of migratory pressure”, nor do they face “a significant migratory situation due to the cumulative migratory pressure of the previous years”, which gives them a free pass for 2026. Hence, the idea of spreading migratory pressure across the entire Union risks failure, as it did in 2015/2016.
Safe countries of origin - The second regulation agreed upon (without, as so often, Hungary) establishes, for the first time, a single EU list of safe countries of origin. The applications of asylum seekers from these countries are supposed to be dealt with at the border in accelerated procedures, and with a higher likelihood of rejection. The list is composed of Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia.
Green light for return hubs - The third regulation establishes the legal basis for agreements to set up deportation centers (”return hubs”, in official terms) in third countries. The Dutch government has a plan for such an agreement, although it would send there only rejected asylum seekers from Uganda’s neighboring countries. Greece and Germany are exploring similar options, also likely in Africa. Italy’s interior minister, Matteo Piantedosi, declared on Monday that the two struggling centres for processing asylum applications in Albania would serve as “as detention facilities for the implementation of accelerated border procedures, and, above all, to become the first example of the return hubs.”
This regulation also facilitates the deportation of rejected asylum seekers. Currently, only between 20 and 25% of foreigners who receive an order to leave the EU actually do so. Starting next year, anyone who receives a request to quit EU territory will be obliged to remain available to the authorities, to identify themselves and provide their biometric data, and not to resist deportation in a fraudulent manner. Imprisonment shall also be a sanction for resisting deportation in all Member States.
Safe third countries - The fourth regulation defines “safe third countries”. This is intended to allow authorities to immediately reject an asylum application as unfounded if the applicant could have applied for international protection in such a third country on their way to the EU, but failed to do so. Contrary to current legislation, a connection between the asylum seeker and this state (by family ties, or a prior longer stay there) is no longer required. The status of safe third country can also be established on the basis of an agreement with the EU – however, not for unaccompanied minors.
Spain raises legal doubts over innovative solutions – Spain is one of the few EU countries that has resisted populist proposals on migration and refused to back several ideas discussed yesterday at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska explained that he opposed the new concept of a “safe third country” and the returns regulation, because there are “serious legal, political and economic doubts.” “Return hubs,” he warned, could also have a “negative impact” on bilateral relations with third countries.
“The position of EU ministers on the Returns Regulation reveals the EU’s stubborn and misguided insistence on ramping up expulsions, raids, surveillance and detention at all costs,” said Olivia Sundberg Diez of Amnesty International. “These punitive measures amount to an unprecedented deprivation of rights based on migrant status and will leave a growing number of people in precarious situations and legal limbo.”
According to Amnesty International, the “return hubs,” in addition to being “cruel,” are “unworkable.”
Trade wars
Parliament wants stronger safeguards on Mercosur – The European Parliament’s Trade Committee yesterday adopted its position on safeguard mechanisms for agricultural imports linked to the trade agreement with Mercosur countries. Time is running short: Ursula von der Leyen wants to sign the free trade agreement with Latin American countries by Christmas. But governments’ approval is contingent on the adoption of the safeguard mechanisms. MEPs want to strengthen them compared to the Commission’s original proposal. The threshold for launching investigations into the need for protective measures should be lowered to a 5 percent increase, on a three-year average, in imports of sensitive agricultural products, compared to the 10 percent proposed by the Commission. According to MEPs, the duration of the investigations should be reduced from six to three months in general, and from four to two months for sensitive products. Parliament also adopted an amendment stating that safeguard measures may take the form of a reciprocity requirement for Mercosur countries to apply EU production standards.
Socialists
Socialists & Democrats searching for their identity around “affordability” – One year into the new Commission’s mandate, the Bureau and Heads of Delegation of the Socialists & Democrats are meeting in Antwerp for the Strategic Days, with the goal of adapting their political agenda to the new European and global context. The topics on the agenda are political mobilisation, policy content, and strategy. The Socialists want to renew their narrative by focusing it on people’s daily lives. While U.S. Democrats are emphasising the affordability of everyday life, the Socialists of the old continent want to do the same, campaigning for a European plan for affordable housing, a European strategy against poverty, and a Quality Jobs Act. Another priority: fighting against “a short-sighted deregulatory approach,” an internal source told us: “Europe’s ability to set high standards for the benefit of its citizens must be strengthened, not weakened.”
Today’s Agenda
Competitiveness Council (Research and Space session)
Justice and Home Affairs Council (Justice session)
European Council: President Costa in Dublin meets PM Michael Martin
Commission: President von der Leyen receives Renew Europe group president Valérie Hayer
Commission: Commissioner Dombrovskis meets US Chamber of Commerce representatives
Commission: Commissioner Kubilius speaks at the Martens Centre European Ideas Forum
Commission: Vice-President Ribera speaks at the CRA Brussels Conference
Commission: Commissioner Tzitzikostas speaks at the European Travel Tech Summit
EEAS: High Representative Kallas meets UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk; speaks at the EU–NGO Human Rights Forum
European Parliament: High Representative Kallas appears before the Foreign Affairs Committee
European Parliament: President Metsola speaks at the event marking the 25th anniversary of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Eurostat: agriculture price index for the third quarter