Former High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell.
Genya SAVILOV / AFP
Josep Borrell’s latest outburst as former High Representative—accusing the United States of wanting “a white Europe divided into nations”—has triggered a political shockwave that reveals far more than he intended.
Rather than describing an external threat, his message exposes how, for years, a substantial part of the EU’s governing elite has stopped viewing Europe as a constellation of distinct peoples with their own identities and has instead reimagined it as a post-national, multicultural space managed technocratically from Brussels. The mere fact that Borrell frames the historical existence of European nations as something negative illustrates just how far the institutional narrative has drifted from the continent it purports to represent.
The former EU foreign policy chief (a role now held by Kaja Kallas) posted on X words that leave little room for doubt: “Vance already made clear in Munich his disdain for Europe, now elevated by Trump to the level of a National Security Strategy. It is a political declaration of war against the EU. He wants a white Europe divided into nations, subjected to his demands, and voting for whoever he wants.”
1. Vance ya dejó claro en Munich su menosprecio a Europa, ahora elevado por Trump al rango de Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional. Es una declaración de guerra política a la UE. Quiere una Europa blanca dividida en naciones, sometida a sus exigencias y que vote a quien él quiere. pic.twitter.com/kcUVOg3FLg
— Josep Borrell Fontelles (@JosepBorrellF) December 9, 2025
In a second message, Borrell urged European leaders to “assert the sovereignty of the EU” against Washington. Brussels calls for sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States while systematically denying it to its own member states.
The issue is not merely tone—it is what the statement implies. Borrell takes for granted that a Europe composed of nations—the continent’s historical reality—is undesirable, dangerous, or incompatible with the European project. His criticism is not directed at U.S. interventionism but at a conceptual return to Europe as a civilization rooted in national frameworks. In other words, what troubles Brussels is not the United States, but the possibility that Europeans might once again claim what belongs to them: the ability to decide their political future without external or supranational tutelage.
These remarks come at a particularly tense moment. The recent U.S. National Security Strategy described Europe as a continent at risk of “civilizational erasure,” a diagnosis that resonated strongly with sovereigntist governments, especially in Budapest. Brussels interpreted the document as a direct challenge to its political direction, responding with a mixture of indignation and apprehension.
The reaction was not limited to Borrell. In an interview in Brussels, Ursula von der Leyen urged Donald Trump “not to interfere in European democracy,” responding to the U.S. president’s criticisms of Europe’s strategic weakness. The Commission president pointed to the EU’s new ‘Democracy Shield,’ designed to combat foreign interference. Yet this insistence on defending European democracy contrasts sharply with the Commission’s own frequent interventions in the internal politics of member states—whether through financial conditionality, rule-of-law procedures, or institutional campaigns—whenever governments deviate from the prevailing ideological line.
The debate over U.S. influence has escalated alongside another unprecedented development: Denmark’s Defence Intelligence Service (FE) included, for the first time, the United States as a “negative factor” in its annual national security assessment. The report notes that Washington exerts economic pressure on allies, does not rule out coercive measures, and is reshaping its global priorities without necessarily placing European stability at the center. Several Danish analysts described the reference as “historic.”
If Denmark now identifies the U.S. as a risk and the EU accuses Washington of attempting to shape European politics, the conclusion is clear: Brussels fears losing control not to an external rival, but to its own member states, should they regain strategic autonomy through more flexible bilateral alliances.
At its core, the debate is both political and civilizational. For the past two decades, Brussels has championed a post-national, multicultural model administered through supranational institutions that dilute the decision-making power of national governments—a Europe where cultural diversity is abstract and detached from historical roots. Tensions arise when external actors such as the United States describe that very model as a driver of European decline, or when governments within Europe advocate an alternative rooted in national sovereignty, cultural identity, and democratic control.
Diplomatic sources acknowledge privately that Brussels’ real concern lies elsewhere: the possibility of a rebalancing of the European project toward a more intergovernmental model in which member states reclaim strategic autonomy. The rise of sovereignist parties, demographic pressure, energy crises, and the failures of regulatory centralization have opened debates once considered taboo.
Accusations of U.S. interference thus function as a smokescreen. Brussels does not fear Washington imposing an agenda; it fears that Washington’s critique might resonate with increasingly frustrated European societies who perceive that the EU no longer protects either their interests or their identity—an erosion that would ultimately translate into a profound loss of power for the EU institutions as they have operated in recent decades.
