A MAGA Manifesto in Munich: Why Marco Rubio’s Speech Exposes the Fragility of Transatlantic Trust
Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan
At the Munich Security Conference this year, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered what many in Europe took as a defining foreign policy statement of the Trump era — one that was praised in Washington but has raised profound questions across the Atlantic about the future of transatlantic relations and the viability of the liberal world order that the United States helped build after World War II.
Rubio’s speech, which received a standing ovation from parts of the packed Munich audience, was deft in delivery but striking in content: a friendly tone, underscored by a clear core message that resonates unmistakably with the MAGA (Make America Great Again) doctrine. In Rubio’s telling, Western civilization — defined narrowly in terms of Christian heritage, sovereign borders, and traditional cultural norms — is under existential threat. Europe, he suggested, must choose to align itself with this vision or risk decline.
But to many Europeans — policymakers and publics alike — the speech did not reassure. Instead, it came as a late and inadequate attempt to repair a transatlantic partnership that has been deeply strained by successive policies from the Trump administration and accompanying shifts in American diplomatic focus.
Rubio’s Munich Message: Civilizational Rhetoric Meets MAGA Doctrine
At its core, Rubio’s Munich address was a civilizational appeal. He invoked shared history, culture, and what he termed “Western civilization” as the glue binding the United States and Europe together. He described the post–Cold War belief in open borders, free trade, and global institutions as a “dangerous delusion,” lamented liberal migration policies, and even dismissed climate policies as a “climate cult” that weakens economic and social resilience.
In Rubio’s narrative, allowing “mass migration” and ceding authority to supranational institutions erodes social cohesion and threatens the continuity of Western identity. This framing — arguably rooted more in American domestic culture wars than in strategic diplomacy — frames cooperation with Europe not as partnership among equals but as alignment with a U.S.-led vision of civilizational revival.
Rubio’s rhetoric bears resemblance to the MAGA foreign policy line: strong borders, skepticism of global institutions, prioritization of national sovereignty, and an emphasis on cultural homogeneity. While delivered in measured tones, the subtext — that Europe must first accept American political and cultural premises to secure partnership — has unsettled many leaders in Berlin, Paris, Brussels and beyond.
The Strains of Recent U.S. Policy: A Stock take
To understand the skepticism in Europe, one must look beyond one speech and toward the aggregate of recent American policy actions.
1. NATO and Security Commitments
One of the central pillars of the transatlantic alliance has been NATO’s mutual defense guarantee — Article 5. Yet under the Trump administration, that commitment has been rhetorically uncertain at times. Previous speeches and policy positions from Washington’s leadership raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to collective defense, prompting European leaders to question whether the alliance remains a reliable security framework.
Even at the 2026 Munich conference, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz underscored that “the U.S. is not powerful enough to go it alone” and that Europe cannot rely on unilateral American leadership. He argued for European strategic autonomy within a reimagined NATO framework — a clear response to perceptions of American disengagement.
2. Greenland Tariffs and Territorial Frictions
Perhaps no single episode encapsulates the unease more vividly than the episode around Greenland. President Trump revived a long‑standing interest in purchasing Greenland, a semi‑autonomous Danish territory, and escalated the issue by threatening punitive tariffs on several European countries if Denmark did not accede.
European capitals reacted with alarm and condemnation. Many called the move tantamount to coercive economic diplomacy, and some, like France and Germany, said such tariff threats risked a serious erosion of transatlantic trust.
3. Trade Wars and Tariff Retaliations
Trade relations have long been a sticking point between the U.S. and EU, but in recent years, Washington’s use of unilateral tariffs — including the threat of escalating duties on European goods — has strained relations further. Even a proposed trade framework that would have reduced tariffs was suspended as the political context soured.
In response, European leaders have openly debated retaliatory measures and anti‑coercion instruments, signaling a Europe that is no longer content to absorb unilateral American economic pressures without pushback.
4. Diverging Views on Climate and Global Governance
The United States’ skeptical stance on global climate commitments — framed at times as economically harmful or ideologically driven — directly conflicts with the priorities of major European states that view climate diplomacy as a central pillar of their foreign policy.
Rubio’s characterization of climate policies as a “cult” was not merely rhetorical; it reflects an administration agenda that rejects the mainstream scientific consensus driving European decarbonization strategies.
Europe’s Response: A Fraying Consensus
Across European capitals, reactions to Rubio’s speech and the broader American policy trajectory have been mixed — but more critical than welcoming.
French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz both used the Munich platform to articulate visions of European autonomy. Macron rejected caricatured depictions of Europe as weak or overregulated, while Merz emphasized cooperation within NATO but on terms that respect Europe’s chosen policies rather than as echoes of American domestic debates.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer — representing one of Europe’s closest historical allies — emphasized that Europe’s strength lies in its ability to uphold diversity and shared democratic values. He stressed that the migration debate, far from threatening cohesion, reflects the continent’s commitment to pluralism.
European officials pointedly rejected the notion that culture wars imported from Washington belong in European discourse. They reaffirmed commitments to climate policy, free trade, and multilateral institutions — even as they acknowledged the need for pragmatic cooperation with the United States.
Why the Public Sentiment Has Soured
It’s not just policymakers who are uneasy. Public opinion in Europe has shifted noticeably over the past few years.
Polling data from several EU member states indicate a growing skepticism toward American leadership — a development that predates Rubio’s speech but has been amplified by recent policy disputes and cultural rhetoric emanating from Washington. European publics now express greater confidence in regional cooperation mechanisms like the EU and, in some cases, more favorable views of emerging global powers such as China. This shift reflects both pragmatic reassessments of geopolitical interests and fatigue with a U.S. foreign policy perceived as unpredictable.
The Irony of Rubio’s Appeal
Which brings us to the central paradox of Rubio’s Munich address: the speech aimed to reaffirm American commitment to Europe while simultaneously reiterating policy positions that helped fuel European doubts in the first place.
Invoking shared heritage and urging joint action against threats like migration and economic decline plays well among certain American constituencies. But for many Europeans, the substance of the message — and not just its tone — raises difficult questions about whether the U.S. and Europe still share strategic visions that go beyond broad civilizational language.
For example, Rubio’s absent discussion of Russia’s war in Ukraine — a defining security issue for the continent — was striking. European leaders have sought robust support in countering Russian aggression, yet American policy under Trump has vacillated, often framing security assistance in transactional or conditional terms rather than as part of enduring strategic solidarity.
The Emerging World Order: Beyond Washington Consensus
The transatlantic alliance, forged in the aftermath of the Second World War, was built on a shared belief in liberal democracy, collective security, and rules‑based international cooperation. For decades, it stood as the bedrock of global stability.
Today, however, that order is under strain. New power balances — with Europe exploring strategic autonomy, China rising as a global economic force, and the Global South asserting its voice in international affairs — suggest that no one nation or alliance will dictate the future world order. Many analysts believe Europe is seeking to play a more balanced role internationally, engaged with Russia and China simultaneously while also preserving Western values — a multipolar vision that contrasts sharply with an American model that centers cultural definitions and confrontation over cooperation.
In this emerging context, Rubio’s appeal to civilizational unity looks backward rather than forward — a call to re‑center Western dominance when the geopolitical terrain is already shifting toward pluralism, equity, and diversified leadership.
Can Trust Be Rebuilt?
Rubio’s Munich speech was a carefully calibrated piece of rhetoric, blending reassurance with admonition. But words — however affirming — cannot substitute for the actions that solidify trust between nations.
If the United States hopes to restore deeper confidence in Europe, future leadership will have to move beyond cultural appeals and address the policy disagreements that have widened rifts: clear and consistent commitments to collective defense, respect for multilateral trade and climate frameworks, and diplomacy grounded in mutual respect rather than transactional leverage.
Europe is not closing the door to cooperation. But it is seeking partners who see it as an equal, not merely as an extension of America’s own domestic agenda or civilizational narrative. In the fast‑changing world of the 21st century, the old post‑war order has given way to a global landscape where shared leadership — not unilateral primacy — will define the future.
Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Advisor, Consultant, Researcher at Global South Economic and Trade Cooperation Research Center, and Non-Resident Fellow of CCG. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).