Feasibility and Contestation of EU Strategic Autonomy: Bridging Security and Economic Governance

Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term, the European Union has faced a new strategic challenge, unexpectedly emerging from its strongest ally. While navigating increasing geopolitical uncertainty, the pursuit of strategic autonomy in defense and security seems to emerge as a key priority for the future of the continent. However, growing demands for greater burden-sharing within NATO have constrained the space available for a common EU defense policy, making the path toward European strategic autonomy increasingly contested. The potential reallocation of resources toward defense and security initiatives has sparked significant debate, with diverging national and international perspectives, institutional rivalries, and competing strategic visions shaping and firing up the public discourse. Some actors frame strategic autonomy as an essential step toward reducing dependency and securing European interests in an unpredictable global environment, while others view it as an overstretch of EU competencies that risks undermining national sovereignty and social spending priorities. This paper examines the alternative narratives that challenge not only the prioritization of defense spending over other investments but also the broader allocation of funds between EU defense initiatives and NATO commitments. It also explores the institutional and political struggles over the objectives of the allocation of resources, including tensions between the European Commission, the European Council, and national governments. By analyzing the political contestation over resource allocation and the construction of strategic autonomy as a policy imperative, this paper sheds light on the broader struggles defining the EU’s role in security and defense. In doing so, it critically examines the EU’s capacity to act independently in foreign and security policy, while also reflecting on the competing visions of European sovereignty and autonomy from the US that underlie this debate.