Between the U.S. and its allies, tensions are at an all-time high, and Trump calls the Europeans "cowards": why this time the rift is deeper than ever.

An unprecedented rift shakes the transatlantic alliance. The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has launched a viral and frontal attack against NATO allies, openly labeling Europeans as “cowards” and “paper tiger”.

In Washington's crosshairs is the Old Continent, accused of not wanting to provide concrete military support to “reopen” and secure the Strait of Hormuz.

Behind the verbal clash looms a first-rate economic crisis. The Strait of Hormuz, a passage just a few miles wide, carries about 20% of the world's oil trade and similar shares of Liquefied Natural Gas. The stakes are extremely high: any disruption of maritime traffic triggers an immediate spike in insurance premiums and significant volatility in energy markets. According to estimates, a rise of just 10 dollars per barrel could erode between 0.2% and 0.3% of global growth.

For Europe, safeguarding the stability of shipping routes is equivalent to defending its economies from the risk of energy inflation capable of choking off the recovery of 2026. The White House has intensified efforts to build a U.S.-led military coalition in the Gulf, asking European and Asian capitals for warships and escort capabilities for field operations.

The response from the United Kingdom, Italy, France, and Germany has been united: full political support for freedom of navigation, but no “blank check” or automatic operational commitment under the American flag.

A refusal that has ignited Trump's anger, who has chosen invective as a lever of pressure to secure the deployment of naval assets. European caution responds to a strategy of de-escalation. The governments of the continent resist the idea of deploying “call-up” forces for four main reasons: to avoid being dragged into a war campaign by shifting objectives; to preserve an autonomous strategic profile; to avert direct escalation with Iran, risking igniting Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Red Sea; and to calibrate limited resources, maintaining priority on defending the Eastern flank and supporting Ukraine.

Paris has already strengthened its naval deployment as part of the European operation EUNAVFOR “Aspides”, preferring a continental umbrella with strictly defensive rules of engagement. London, for its part, coordinates moves with the E4 group (France, Germany, Italy), in an attempt to balance Atlantic loyalty and European autonomy.

While U.S. sources leak assessments of high-risk options — such as the “blockade” or the “tactical occupation” of logistical hubs in the Gulf — Europe is betting on multilateralism.

The main capitals are calling for a transition to the UN Security Council and proposing a collective mechanism with defined naval corridors, coordinated supplies, and public insurance guarantees (“sovereign insurance”) for shipowners, with the aim of “normalizing” transit by reducing risk costs. The transatlantic rift thus appears clear: on one side, the muscular “all-in” called for by Trump; on the other, European diplomacy, which seeks to protect energy routes and prices without plunging into a new variable-geometry war.