\n
<\/p>\n
If you have a rudimentary understanding of how police interrogation sometimes works (or if you\u2019ve ever watched Law and Order<\/a><\/em>), then you know all about the good cop\/bad cop routine. A suspect gets brought in for questioning (ideally without their lawyer present). At first, they refuse to confess or tell the cops what they want to know. One cop gets angry at the suspect, yells at them, maybe roughs them up a little, and describes all the dire consequences that will befall them if they don\u2019t confess.<\/p>\n The other cop then intervenes, tells their abusive partner to stop, sends them out of the interrogation room to cool off, and offers the suspect a cup of coffee or a cigarette. Speaking calmly, the second cop says they understand the terrible bind that the suspect is in and they just want to help, and then they suggest that the smart thing to do is to admit what they did in exchange for gentler treatment. Rattled and desperate, but grateful for the apparent show of sympathy, the suspect tells the good cop whatever they want to know and sometimes even confesses to a crime they didn\u2019t commit. Case closed.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n If you have a rudimentary understanding of how police interrogation sometimes works (or if you\u2019ve ever watched Law and Order<\/a><\/em>), then you know all about the good cop\/bad cop routine. A suspect gets brought in for questioning (ideally without their lawyer present). At first, they refuse to confess or tell the cops what they want to know. One cop gets angry at the suspect, yells at them, maybe roughs them up a little, and describes all the dire consequences that will befall them if they don\u2019t confess.<\/p>\n The other cop then intervenes, tells their abusive partner to stop, sends them out of the interrogation room to cool off, and offers the suspect a cup of coffee or a cigarette. Speaking calmly, the second cop says they understand the terrible bind that the suspect is in and they just want to help, and then they suggest that the smart thing to do is to admit what they did in exchange for gentler treatment. Rattled and desperate, but grateful for the apparent show of sympathy, the suspect tells the good cop whatever they want to know and sometimes even confesses to a crime they didn\u2019t commit. Case closed.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been thinking of that well-known scenario as I\u2019ve watched the Trump administration deal with U.S. allies, especially NATO. The broad thrust of U.S. policy has been highly predatory<\/a>\u2014imposing punitive tariffs for fanciful or even vengeful reasons, openly declaring a desire to take other countries\u2019 territories, receiving bribes from countries eager for U.S. favors, and intervening in European domestic politics on the side of far-right groups\u2014and the good cop\/bad cop approach is a key part of the strategy.<\/p>\n The administration\u2019s \u201cbad cops\u201d are U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who began the process with a famously hostile speech<\/a> at the 2025 Munich Security Conference; U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose inflammatory remarks<\/a> in Davos, Switzerland, led European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde to walk out; several of U.S. President Donald Trump\u2019s decidedly undiplomatic ambassadorial appointments<\/a>; and, of course, Trump himself. Trump has repeatedly called the European Union an enemy, falsely accused the United States\u2019 NATO allies of \u201cripping us off,\u201d denigrated<\/a> European sacrifices in Afghanistan, and used the threat of additional tariffs, further reductions in U.S. support for Ukraine, and the idea of leaving NATO to extract concessions from allies whom he regards with ill-disguised contempt. His long, rambling, and factually challenged speech<\/a> at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month was perfectly consistent with his role as bad-cop-in-chief.<\/p>\n The \u201cgood cops,\u201d by contrast, include U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, who gave a constructive speech<\/a> at the NATO headquarters in Brussels on Feb. 12, calling for a \u201cNATO 3.0\u201d; U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose address<\/a> at the 2026 Munich Security Conference was at least somewhat conciliatory; and pro-NATO legislators like Sen. Lindsey Graham. While being careful not to criticize the bad cops or Trump openly, these officials insist that the United States and Europe \u201cbelong together\u201d (to use Rubio\u2019s words) and say that they want to get past the current frictions. But like good cops everywhere, their goal is to get their listeners to do what they want.<\/p>\n To be clear: I don\u2019t know if this division of labor is part of a deliberate strategy intended to keep Europe divided and off-balance, but it certainly looks like it. It is consistent with Trump\u2019s belief that unpredictability is a key negotiating asset that will keep others off-balance. The bad cops issue warnings and remind Europeans that resisting the United States will be expensive; the good cops\u2019 job is to appeal to those Europeans who are still hoping that some combination of appeasement and flattery will either win Trump over or allow trans-Atlantic amity to survive until he is gone.<\/p>\n It is easy to understand why Trump would embrace such an approach. A serious European effort to become more autonomous, let alone stand up against the United States, will require genuine sacrifices and a coordinated effort by many countries. It faces the usual dilemmas of collective action and is therefore vulnerable to divide-and-rule tactics. Because Trump\u2019s enduring aim is to extract concessions and tributes from friend and foe alike\u2014as predatory hegemons are wont to do\u2014sowing as much division as possible is an obvious move. Trump wants to deal with European countries individually, where the United States\u2019 greater size gives him more leverage\u2014it\u2019s the main reason he supported Brexit back in 2016. This same motive helps explain Trump\u2019s support for far-right movements in Europe: They share MAGA\u2019s belief in blood-and-soil nationalism and various notions of white supremacy, and they also tend to be hostile to the EU. Their rise to power would make it easier for Washington to play European states against each other, which is exactly what Trump wants.<\/p>\n Some might see this as an ideal situation for the United States, but it is an outcome that Americans would come to regret. A weaker, more divided, and probably more conflictive Europe is not in the United States\u2019 long-term interest, especially in a multipolar era where the United States faces a serious peer competitor and where friendly ties with a stronger Europe would be a significant asset. At best, a divided Europe will be easier for China and others to exploit, and it will be less likely to work with Washington to share intelligence or limit high-tech transfers to Beijing. At worst, continuing to bully longtime allies will encourage them to diversify their economic relations (as some are already doing) and to overcome the barriers to collective action that currently exist. In my judgment, a true \u201cUnited States of Europe\u201d remains a remote possibility, but persistent pressure from the United States on one side and Russia on the other might be the one scenario in which serious movement in that direction becomes feasible. When 51 percent<\/a> of Europeans regard the United States as an enemy and 9 percent see it as a friend, the possibility of a decisive and enduring rift cannot be entirely dismissed.<\/p>\n According to the New York Times<\/em>, European leaders are confused by the conflicting messages they\u2019re getting from the good cops and the bad cops. But they shouldn\u2019t be. Trump\u2019s views are now familiar, and Europeans should remember that good cops and bad cops are working together to bamboozle their hapless prisoners. Talk is cheap, and what matters now is not what senior officials say but what each side does. Will Trump keep fueling the trade war, moving tariff levels up and down in response to personal whims or perceived slights? Will his threats to seize Greenland become a distant memory or resurface again in a few months? Will he stick to agreements or will he keep revising the terms and demanding more concessions? The answer to these questions will determine whether trans-Atlantic relations evolve in a more predictable and constructive direction or continue their downward slide. If the rest of NATO wants to encourage the former and prevent the latter, then presenting a united front is its only option.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n