“Trump is a mafia boss”, says EU

At EVision 2026, the discussion this year has been more heated than usual. Regarding the “Made in EU” agenda and Europe’s independence, the French MEP Thomas Pellerin-Carlin, in particular, pulled no punches—describing Europe as “surrounded by bullies” and emphasizing the ever more pressing need for European independence.

At a critical moment for European energy policy, EU officials and lawmakers are sounding alarms about the bloc’s energy independence and its industrial future. The discussion centers on a collision between ambitious climate commitments and a dramatically shifting geopolitical landscape, with the Trump administration’s return to fossil fuels and confrontational trade policies casting a shadow over European plans.

During a panel discussion on the EU’s automotive and energy policies, the tensions became impossible to ignore. What emerged was a frank assessment of Europe’s vulnerability and the urgent need for strategic independence—both economically and diplomatically.

The Trump Factor

When the conversation turned to global geopolitics, European officials pulled no punches about the current American administration. In stark language that reflected the gravity of the situation, Pellerin-Carlin noted the precarious position Europe finds itself in:

“The fate of the European economy is decided by what Islamic theocrats in Iran and a crazy guy in the White House are choosing to do.”

This blunt assessment underscores a fundamental anxiety: Europe’s energy security and economic stability are increasingly dependent on forces beyond its control. With oil markets volatile and the Trump administration’s approach unpredictable, European policymakers are grappling with the reality of energy dependence in an unstable geopolitical era.

The characterization of the Trump administration went further, with the European Parliament member drawing a sharp distinction between traditional diplomatic engagement and what he sees as a threat-based approach:

“Trump is not a transactional person, is in favor of extortion, is not a businessman that has contracts, is a mafia boss that threatens you, bullies you, takes away your lunch money unless you stand up to him.“

This visceral comparison reflects a larger European concern: the US under Trump is not a reliable partner for negotiated agreements, but rather an adversarial power pursuing “energy dominance”—a doctrine that explicitly seeks to dominate global energy markets rather than cooperate within them.

Energy Dominance vs. European Independence

The Trump administration’s stated policy of “energy dominance” is being interpreted by European strategists as a direct threat to their autonomy. According to the panel discussion:

“The US wants to enslave us through what they call energy dominance.”

This is not mere rhetoric. The concern reflects a strategic assessment that American energy policies—prioritizing fossil fuel extraction and exports—directly undermine European efforts to transition away from oil and gas dependency. Europe has spent nearly two decades building climate and energy policy frameworks intended to decouple from fossil fuels. Trump’s fossil fuel nostalgia threatens to destabilize global energy markets in ways that could force Europe back into dependence on hydrocarbon imports.

Perhaps most sobering is the security angle.

“If there is one country in the world that understands the fact that energy is the backbone of a society, it’s the Russian machine…If Russia wants to attack us not only through Non-kinetic war, but through a kinetic war, one of the first things they will do is to use Russian drones in the Atlantic to sink oil tankers.“

The point is stark: as long as Europe depends on ocean-going supplies of fossil fuels, it remains vulnerable to disruption not just by economic forces, but by military action. Ukraine has already demonstrated this vulnerability, sinking over a dozen oil tankers with its limited naval capacity. Were Russia to pursue similar tactics in the Atlantic, Europe’s economy could face unprecedented disruption—unless it has already transitioned to electric vehicles and renewable energy.

 Electrification as strategic independence

The case for rapid electrification, in this context, becomes a security imperative rather than merely an environmental one.

This efficiency advantage is no longer just a climate argument. It is a geostrategic one. By electrifying transport and power generation, Europe can insulate itself from the geopolitical chaos swirling around fossil fuel markets. It can reduce its exposure to coercion by authoritarian suppliers and to disruption by hostile powers.

In response to these pressures, the European Commission has proposed an Industrial Accelerator Act designed to build European battery manufacturing and electric vehicle production. The goal is to ensure that Europe does not simply abandon its automotive sector—it transforms it into a competitive advantage.

The message from EU officials is clear: Europe must not only electrify, it must do so using technologies and supply chains built in Europe, by European workers. This is not protectionism in the traditional sense; it is strategic resilience.

An unconfortable truth

The discussion also revealed a striking mismatch between European political discourse and global reality. Some in the European Parliament still operate under assumptions that have not held true for twenty years—that free trade naturally leads to democracy, that rising middle classes will push authoritarians toward liberalism, that economic interdependence ensures peace.

Again the French MEP:

“We live in a world of bullies. China wants to enslave us through the disappearance of the European industry. The US wants to enslave us through what they call energy dominance.“

The blunt assessment reflects a painful recalibration. Europe can no longer assume that good intentions or trade agreements will protect it. It must assume it is in strategic competition with major powers that do not share its values or respect its interests.

The urgency underlying this debate cannot be overstated. The combination of climate imperatives, geopolitical threats, and technological opportunity creates a narrow window for action. Europe must: