The so-called trade deal between the United States and the European Union, announced on July 27, 2025, by President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, is not a classic international agreement. Rather, it is a psychopolitically motivated construction - symbolically charged, legally non-binding, and strategically calculated. It reflects an asymmetrical power dynamic and a psychological strategy designed more for theatrical dominance than for sustained cooperation. This deal is not an expression of renewed transatlantic partnership, but the controlled prelude to a separation - tactically masked as cooperation.

Donald Trump declared the agreement signed on his golf course in Glasgow as "the greatest deal ever." In reality, it is a non-binding framework. His rhetoric, once perhaps attention-grabbing, has long crossed into farce. Trump's persistent use of superlatives - every deal is the greatest, every win unprecedented - reveals less about actual achievement than about the fragile ego of a political performer. The United States, under his leadership, behaves less like a mature geopolitical actor and more like an impulsive adolescent who believes that dominance equals respect. This adolescent posture - brash, short-sighted, and allergic to reciprocity - has eroded trust, destabilized institutions, and alienated allies. Trump and his circle dismantle carefully constructed trade frameworks with the sweep of a tweet, disregarding years of technical negotiation and the systemic consequences. His trade policy is a textbook case of economic populism: loud, symbolic, and ultimately self-defeating. It fails to reduce the trade deficit, undermines confidence in international agreements, and threatens the United States’ role as a reliable partner in global commerce. If continued, it risks ushering in a new era of global protectionism - with severe consequences for growth, prosperity, and geopolitical stability. intended mainly to temporarily avoid escalation. The reduction of threatened tariffs from 30% to 15% was sold as a concession, even though the new rate marks the highest transatlantic tariff in 70 years. Other elements - such as €600 billion in European investments or €750 billion in purchases of U.S. energy - are vague intentions, interpreted differently by each side. Legal enforceability is absent.

Under Trump, the United States does not operate based on multilateral norms but according to narcissistic performance. The "deal" is not a policy of economic partnership but a controlled spectacle to reinforce a narrative of greatness. In this logic, the trade partner is not an equal actor but a projection surface. The "treaty" becomes a performance of humiliation - even if that humiliation is strategically tolerated.

Contrary to some public criticism, the European Commission did not capitulate but opted for a psychopolitically intelligent de-escalation. Drawing on psychodynamic theory (Kernberg, 2016), we know that confrontation with narcissists does not lead to resolution but to escalation. Only mirroring, delay, and controlled distance allow the development of structural independence. The apparent humiliation by Trump was calculated: it gave the U.S. administration a narcissistic victory, lulled it into a false sense of control, and bought Europe time. Time to forge new alliances. Time to build economic resilience. Time to prepare for strategic separation.

In this context, more and more political thinkers and governments around the globe are embracing the logic of WOMA – a 'World Minus America'.

The term, originally popularized in commentary on Asia-Pacific alignments by Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has taken on a deeper significance considering U.S. unpredictability. WOMA does not imply anti-Americanism but reflects a new realism: the need for resilient alliances, technological sovereignty, and post-hegemonic cooperation beyond the gravitational pull of a volatile superpower.

An overt decoupling from a narcissistic nation like the United States would be met with intense rage and retaliatory behavior. Europe cannot afford escalation while still structurally dependent on U.S. data flows, military protection, dollar dominance, and critical infrastructure. Thus, the first step toward separation must be slow and strategic - through disentanglement, economic diversification, and stealth. Europe must avoid being perceived as the initiator of the breakup. Instead, it should appear that the U.S. chose to walk away—disappointed, offended, but seemingly in control. Only if the narcissistic power perceives itself as the actor does its injury remain manageable.

The breakup resembles the end of a toxic relationship. A narcissist does not let go willingly because they are sustained by the reflection they receive. When that mirror is withdrawn, they respond with devaluation, rage, and retaliation. Europe must anticipate this dynamic and begin detaching from its most vulnerable dependencies long before the rupture becomes visible. This means developing its digital infrastructure independent of U.S. technology, diversifying its sources for critical resources, constructing alternative security architectures such as EUFOR or NORDEFCO, and ensuring legal and institutional autonomy within global organizations. As with any toxic separation, the process itself is fraught with danger. The United States may retaliate through economic, diplomatic, or even military means to destabilize Europe. Therefore, Europe must not expect a morally balanced or "fair" divorce. It must approach any gestures of reconciliation with caution and ensure that every form of coercion is meticulously documented and made visible to the international community.

Europe must not respond to this phase with rebellion, but with strategic subversion. Every apparent setback is part of a larger, more comprehensive plan. The "losses" in this agreement are, in fact, investments in time. Time to grow. Time to disentangle. Time to begin a new chapter: one of autonomous, multipolar, and empathy-driven global order.

#For those interested in the theoretical underpinnings and broader geopolitical context, recommended reading includes:

• Otto Kernberg (2016), Narcissism – Theory and Therapy, on the clinical structure of narcissistic personalities.

• G. John Ikenberry (2011), Liberal Leviathan, on the fragility of U.S.-led order in a changing world.

• Alexander Wendt (1992), “Anarchy is what States Make of It,” a seminal text on the social construction of international politics.

• Janice Bially Mattern (2005), Ordering International Politics, for insights on representational power and identity.

• ECB (2023), The International Role of the Euro, an institutional perspective on monetary autonomy.

• Lee Hsien Loong (2020), “Why Asia Needs Rules-Based Multilateralism,” World Economic Forum.

• Dani Rodrik (2011), The Globalization Paradox, on the tensions between democracy, sovereignty, and global integration.

• Joseph E. Stiglitz (2017), Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited, a critique of economic orthodoxy under U.S. leadership.

• Adam Tooze (2018), Crashed, on systemic shocks since 2008 and the shifting foundations of global order.

• Francis Fukuyama (2018), Identity, on the politics of recognition and the fracturing of liberal consensus.