U.S.–European relations and the NATO alliance are foundational pillars of the post–World War II international order. Since President Trump began his second term, however, tensions between the United States and its traditional allies have deepened—both over concrete disputes such as Greenland, relations with Russia, and the imposition of protective tariffs, and over the core principles that have underpinned the partnership between the Western democracies. Canada’s prime minister expressed this sense of irreversible rupture at the January 2026 Davos forum. Against this backdrop, European leaders treated Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s address at the Munich Security Conference (February 14, 2026) as a note of reassurance, particularly when contrasted with Vice President Vance’s more confrontational speech at the same forum a year earlier. Rubio repeatedly emphasized America’s historic ties to Europe and its commitment to preserving—not dismantling—the alliance.
Nevertheless, he made clear that Europeans must abandon what he called the illusion of a “rules-based world order.” In practice, the Trump administration is demanding policy shifts on economic policy—protecting domestic industries from unconstrained competitors and moving away from climate-driven regulation—on migration, and on questions of identity, including framing Western civilization as Christian and reassessing Europe’s colonial past, which in Europe today is often approached through a lens of guilt that also shapes policy toward the Palestinian issue.
Despite the pronounced Christian framing, which is consistent with other markers of the current administration, Israel has a place within this conceptual framework as a bastion of national, religious, and historical identity, and as a state prepared to defend itself rather than rely on international institutions. Rubio criticized the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, pointing both to the return of hostages held by “barbarians” and the establishment of a (fragile) ceasefire in Gaza, as well as to U.S. action (he did not reference Israeli operations) against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, presenting these as instances in which the United States achieved what the UN had been unable to secure.
Israel has an interest in the implementation of these principles — not only in the emphasis on European force buildup, which is already generating returns for its defense industries. The message of partnership conveyed in Rubio’s speech, together with the easing of tensions over Greenland following President Trump’s meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, created an opening for this to happen, despite the gaps that remain. A rupture between the United States and Europe—to which Israel is tied geopolitically, including through its Mediterranean partnerships, and culturally—would be costly, while an uncontrolled trade war would be costlier still, particularly for an export-oriented economy. Although many European Union member states take problematic and at times hostile positions toward Israel, the EU is not an “enemy,” and Israel has a clear interest in sustaining its partnership with Washington.
A Message of Conditional Partnership
In his first appearance as Secretary of State at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2026, (he had previously attended as a senator), Rubio implied that the forceful American tone adopted by Vice President J.D. Vance at the same forum the year (and statements by President Trump) should be understood not as an attempt to dismantle the alliance but as an expression of the United States’ desire to keep it intact. He also pushed back—again implicitly—against Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks at the January 22 Davos forum, where Carney had portrayed a deep rupture between Trump’s America and the rest of the “West,” rooted in irreconcilable differences in the worldview of the partners that rebuilt the international order after 1945.
Rubio’s speech was warmly received in the conference hall, even if European media commentary was more ambivalent. The reaction reflected a palpable desire among European participants to identify voices within the current U.S. administration willing to acknowledge the risks of a sustained transatlantic crisis and prepared to rebuild common ground—albeit within the ideological framework set by the president.
Rubio was careful to frame America as Europe’s “daughter,” built by European immigrants (he did not mention Jews, though he credited German immigrants with improving the quality of American beer). The United States, he argued, is not seeking to dissolve the alliance or abandon the partnership that withstood the strain of the Cold War and is once again required in the face of common threats. He added however that preservation and renewal of the alliance depend on Europe adopting a more sober assessment of the Rules-Based World Order and ceasing to rely on international bodies such as the United Nations—whose limitations he underscored—and on international law, which the West’s adversaries (China went unmentioned) routinely disregard.
Following President Trump’s lead, Rubio criticized European climate policy as a strategic error—one that weakens the West’s industrial base and undermines its competitiveness vis-à-vis its rivals. More broadly, Rubio identified what he sees as the central bond across the Atlantic: a shared threat of “civilizational erasure” driven by uncontrolled migration—from Latin America in the American case and from the Muslim world in Europe. Within that frame, Rubio advanced a wider argument about common values grounded in civilizational identity, echoing in many respects Samuel Huntington’s 1990s formulation of the “West” as the highest expression of human achievement.
Rubio’s Concept of Western Civilization
Western culture, as Rubio frames it—distilling themes President Trump often articulates less coherently—rests on a Christian inheritance (he notably avoided the more common American term “Judeo-Christian”) and on a European tradition that produced Mozart and the Beatles, Michelangelo and Leonardo, and the great achievements of medieval and Renaissance religious architecture (he cited specifically Cologne Cathedral and the Sistine Chapel ceiling). In doing so, the speech departed from the predominantly transactional pattern associated with the current administration and instead highlighted a structural, value and identity-based dimension.
He went further, openly urging European states—contrary to prevailing currents within many of their elites, reflected in historical scholarship, museum narratives, and educational systems—to cast off what he portrayed as paralyzing guilt and to adopt a more affirmative view of their colonial past. Expressing clear hostility toward what he termed “godless communism” (a theme consistent with his background as the son of Cuban immigrants who fled Castro’s regime and settled largely in Florida, the state he represented in the Senate), Rubio argued that Soviet subversion and agitation—encouraging nationalist uprisings—had driven Western retreat and hastened the collapse of European empires. (In fact, it was the United States under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy that actively pressed Britain and France to relinquish their colonial possessions.) Implicit in this reading is a call for the West to shed its apologetic posture, including in response to demands advanced by Third World countries.
Remaining Points of Friction
Even so, the speech alone cannot bridge the substantive disagreements that have strained transatlantic relations over the past year:
- The question of Greenland’s future has largely subsided (President Trump has ceased publicly pressing claims of U.S. sovereignty) following his conversation with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte but the episode left visible scars. In some European capitals, it even prompted discussion—however theoretical—about the prospect of defense against American aggression. Doubts also resurfaced over whether the United States would in fact honor its NATO Article 5 commitments and come to Europe’s defense in the event of an attack.
- Diverging approaches toward Putin’s Russia remain another fault line. While most European governments regard Moscow as an existential threat, President Trump and key members of his administration have treated Russia as a legitimate interlocutor. Rubio stressed, however, that diplomatic engagement has proceeded alongside continued enforcement of sanctions, and that Washington has reached understandings with India aimed at limiting its purchases from Russia.
- Above all, the dispute over protective tariffs remains unresolved. President Trump’s stance toward imports from Europe (particularly in pharmaceuticals and other sectors) has generated significant resentment and helped accelerate negotiations with India toward an unprecedented trade agreement. It remains unclear how policy will evolve following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which six justices—including three conservatives—invalidated the president’s use of emergency powers in this context.
Implications for Israel
As noted, Israel was not mentioned by name, nor did Rubio dwell on other Middle Eastern issues—except for two examples he cited, alongside Ukraine, to illustrate the United Nations’ ineffectiveness: securing the release of hostages “held by barbarians” and achieving a ceasefire—fragile though it is—in Gaza; and preventing nuclear weapons from reaching the Shiite Islamist regime in Tehran.
The speech’s overt emphasis on the Christian identity of Western civilization is bound to generate discomfort—particularly among American Jews, who also perceive troubling signs, from their perspective, of erosion in the constitutional separation between church and state. Yet as a state firmly rooted in its national and cultural identity, prepared to defend itself, and harboring no illusions about the limits of the international order, Israel fits naturally within the core assumptions of the speech and the worldview it reflected on behalf of the Trump administration.
In any case, Israel’s interest lies in the success of efforts to narrow the transatlantic divide—both because of its historical, cultural, economic, and strategic ties to European states (including Germany, countries in Eastern Europe, and Israel’s Mediterranean partners), and because of the potentially severe consequences for Israel’s export-oriented economy should an unchecked trade war erupt. While many European Union member states adopt problematic and at times openly hostile positions toward Israel, particularly on the Palestinian issue, the EU is not an “enemy,” even if its criticism can sometimes be quite venomous. Behind the scenes, Israel can advance these positions in its engagement with relevant administration officials and members of Congress.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
