A disastrous leadership in disastrous times by Thanos Kalamidas

The European Union (EU) stands at a crossroads, facing profound challenges on both economic and political fronts. The ongoing tensions between the EU and the United States under former President Donald Trump, and the looming threat of trade wars, have placed the European economy in peril. But the leadership steering this vast political and economic entity through these turbulent waters, Ursula von der Leyen, seems dramatically and lethally ill-equipped to manage the storm. As the President of the European Commission, von der Leyen has struggled with the kind of strategic foresight and economic acumen required to protect the EU from the very real threats posed by Trump’s political volatility and his punitive trade policies. Instead, her tenure has been marked by inconsistency, indecision, and a lack of bold leadership, putting the future of Europe’s economic strength at risk.

When von der Leyen took office as the head of the European Commission in late 2019, she inherited an EU that was already battling significant challenges: the fallout from Brexit, a rising populist wave within member states, and the growing economic and geopolitical influence of China. However, von der Leyen's approach to these issues has often appeared more reactive than proactive. From handling the pandemic to negotiating the EU's post-Brexit relationship with the UK, her responses have frequently lacked the kind of clear vision and unity that the EU so desperately needs in a world of shifting alliances and economic uncertainty.

Her leadership was under severe strain even before Trump took office, but his administration’s approach to international trade and diplomacy has exacerbated the weaknesses in her strategic planning. Trump's disdain for multilateralism and his aggressive, transactional approach to trade agreements have directly threatened the EU’s economic stability. Under his leadership, the U.S. imposed tariffs on European goods, attacked the EU’s trade policies, and launched a trade war that rattled industries across the continent. Instead of standing firm in the face of these challenges, von der Leyen’s response has been far too conciliatory, opting for compromises that leave the EU vulnerable to further exploitation.

Donald Trump’s trade wars were nothing short of an economic battering ram. His tariffs on steel, aluminium, and other European exports were intended to reshape global trade dynamics to suit American interests, often without regard for the long-term consequences for the rest of the world. The EU, with its emphasis on trade cooperation, regulation, and economic integration, was especially vulnerable to Trump's tactics. The U.S. under Trump sought to disrupt the status quo, making the EU a prime target for trade punishment.

But where was Ursula von der Leyen in all of this? While European leaders struggled to find a coherent strategy to confront Trump's erratic trade policies, von der Leyen’s efforts appeared far too tentative. She attempted to negotiate with the U.S. on issues such as digital tax reform and agricultural tariffs, but these overtures were often seen as concessions rather than meaningful negotiations. Europe, under her leadership, failed to establish a strong, unified front against the trade threats posed by the U.S.

Instead of taking a hard stance and protecting Europe’s interests, von der Leyen’s diplomatic approach only invited further aggression from Trump. Her efforts were mired in bureaucracy, and the Commission’s focus on internal issues such as climate policy and immigration further diluted its ability to respond decisively to external challenges. When faced with the Trump administration’s coercive tactics, von der Leyen’s leadership faltered, failing to offer the kind of bold responses needed to secure Europe’s economic future.

The core problem with Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership is that it lacks the decisiveness necessary for a continent like Europe, where competing interests and complex political dynamics often demand clear, swift action. She has consistently failed to unite member states in a common purpose or vision, resulting in fragmented policies that ultimately weaken the EU’s bargaining position on the world stage.

Take, for example, her handling of the U.S.-EU trade relationship. Trump’s administration demanded massive concessions from European nations, particularly regarding the agricultural sector. Despite the EU's existing strength in global trade negotiations, von der Leyen's inability to take a firm stance left European producers exposed to the volatility of American demands. The EU’s lack of a cohesive counter-strategy meant that, while European businesses were grappling with tariffs and sanctions, they saw little support from the Commission. Von der Leyen’s failure to lead effectively in these crucial negotiations left many questioning her ability to steer the EU through the complex and often contentious world of international trade.

Furthermore, von der Leyen’s approach to Europe’s internal economic issues has been equally inadequate. Despite overseeing the development of the European Green Deal and the EU’s recovery plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, her leadership has been riddled with delays, budgetary disputes, and a lack of cohesive implementation. The lack of urgency and coordination has compounded the EU’s vulnerability in dealing with external threats like Trump’s trade policies. Instead of presenting a clear, unified vision for Europe’s economic future, von der Leyen has often appeared bogged down by political infighting and bureaucratic inefficiency.

The consequences of von der Leyen’s weak leadership are clear. Europe’s economy has suffered as a result of the U.S. trade war under Trump. Tariffs have disrupted industries ranging from automotive to agriculture, costing European businesses billions. While Trump’s administration made aggressive moves against the EU, von der Leyen’s responses were often insufficient or muddled, signalling a lack of preparation for such a scenario. This failure to decisively defend Europe’s economic interests has only strengthened Trump’s narrative that Europe is a weak and fragmented union, ripe for exploitation.

As von der Leyen prepares for the next phase of her leadership, the question remains: Can she rise to the occasion? With Donald Trump’s influence still looming, and the possibility of another trade war under a future Republican administration, Europe cannot afford to have a leader who lacks the political will and economic strategy to defend its interests. The EU needs a leader who is not just reactive but proactive, someone who can build alliances, negotiate from a position of strength, and ensure Europe’s economy remains competitive in the global marketplace.

Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership of the European Union has thus far proven inadequate in the face of the growing economic threats posed by Donald Trump and his trade policies. Her failure to provide a clear, unified response to the U.S. trade war, her inability to galvanize the EU into a cohesive economic force, and her overall lack of strategic vision make her a poor fit for the role of President of the European Commission during such turbulent times. Europe deserves stronger, more decisive leadership—one that is ready to confront the challenges posed by aggressive trade policies, rising nationalism, and the increasing unpredictability of global politics. Ursula von der Leyen has failed to deliver that leadership, and it may be time for a change.