Unlike in most White House races, each candidate has a first-term record that provides a roadmap for anxious Europeans seeking clues about what’s to come. However, with the campaign in full swing, the EU relationship isn’t a top priority for either candidate. Rather, each candidate is largely focused, six months before Election Day, on courting a fickle U.S. electorate that polls consistently show is much more worried about the economy, inflation, and immigration than the U.S. relationship with the EU, its nation-states, or foreign affairs in general.

In “normal times,” Americans identify more with individual European countries than with the governing bloc of the EU itself, and they generally see member nations as more progressive and quicker than the U.S. to recognise and regulate challenges the world faces, among them climate change, digital privacy security and online misinformation. A pan-European legacy also influences American attitudes: higher taxes in many nation-states and a larger social safety net – especially on healthcare. But with wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, these are hardly “normal times.”

Today, the implications of the Ukraine war for NATO, a trade policy that EU countries claim is hampering their energy policy and economies, and – above all — domestic U.S. politics are combining to shape U.S. perceptions of the EU. That’s important because the candidates themselves are staking out positions generally – including on policies that affect the EU – to excite different U.S. voting groups, especially working-class white voters who will be critical to victory in a race that is expected to be extraordinarily close.

With an eye on them, Biden retained certain Trump administration trade policies to bolster U.S. manufacturing, angering European leaders who also worry that U.S. subsidies for “green” initiatives in his signature Inflation Reduction Act are encouraging European companies to relocate to compete. Lately, nation-states have also expressed concern about Biden’s latest tariffs on Chinese goods – a move that plays well with Americans seething from persistent inflation – and warned about the ripple effects across Europe.

Trump, meanwhile, continues to show animosity toward EU countries, as well as international governing bodies like NATO and the United Nations. It’s a sure-fire way to draw cheers and applause at his campaign events and energise his core “Make America Great Again” supporters with his “America first” mantra. So are his frequent suggestions that, in a second term, he would double down on his protectionist trade policies that he espoused and enacted in his first term.

What to expect from a 2nd Biden Presidency

Of the two candidates, Biden is the more traditional politician with Democratic establishment tendencies and would provide more certainty than Trump for political and business leaders. And Biden definitely has a different worldview than Trump and a deep respect for international norms and governing bodies.

He likely would go significantly further in advancing policies that support European interests on the economy, security and international collaboration on major global challenges. For example, he’s largely aligned with the EU on climate goals, committing on his first day in office to re-enter the Paris Climate Accords of which Trump had pulled out, and his support for Ukraine, as well as NATO, has been unwavering against Russia’s efforts to weaken European security. His administration worked closely with the EU on Russian sanctions after the Ukraine invasion and helped American companies get liquefied natural gas to Europe when it faced energy challenges from Russia.

What to expect from a 2nd Trump Presidency

For his part, Trump – whose foreign policy matches his whip-lash governing style — has made clear his disdain for international or regional governing bodies, and he revels in angering long-time allies. Another Trump presidency would likely mean more protectionist trade policies. He has talked about imposing a 10 percent tax on all foreign imports, and he is considering targeting the EU for potential punitive trade measures because of what he views as the EU’s reluctance to take a hardline approach on China.

He also baulks at the U.S. getting involved in, much less leading, work with the EU and other regions on worldwide challenges, like climate change. He has sought to have it both ways on NATO and European security, saying that if European countries didn’t increase their defense spending, he “would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want,” while also saying that the U.S. would “100 percent” remain in NATO if he was re-elected.

The upshot

All that said, what precisely each will actually do if elected – and the implications of those actions for policy, regulations, politics and business – is hard to forecast because each will use the next four years to cement his legacy, and that could mean veering from the roadmap each created in his first term in office – or doubling down on it.

‍