European officials who work daily with their American counterparts report a stark change in how the United States conducts its foreign policy. In conversations that have become routine over the past decade, a senior EU diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed, says that most decisions now flow through a handful of people he describes as 'The Family', a term he uses for Donald Trump and his closest advisers.

From institutional dialogue to personal gate‑keeping

When the diplomat reaches out to the State Department for information or to align positions on sanctions, trade or climate, he is often told that only a few senior officials have direct access to the President's inner circle. "I am told there are only three of them in the entire ministry," he recounts, noting that even senior career diplomats in Washington admit they are "out of the loop".

This perception, he argues, marks a departure from the more predictable, bureaucratic engagement that characterised US‑EU relations under previous administrations. The shift, he suggests, is not merely a matter of style but of substance: policy formulation is increasingly filtered through personal loyalty rather than institutional expertise.

Such a development has practical consequences for European governments. Coordination on sanctions against Russia, for example, now requires navigating an opaque hierarchy that can delay or dilute joint actions. Trade negotiations, climate commitments and joint security initiatives all risk being compromised when a single, unelected group holds the decisive voice.

European civil servants, accustomed to a certain degree of predictability, find themselves in a position where they must either adapt to a new reality or risk being sidelined. The feeling of powerlessness is echoed across Brussels, where officials describe a growing sense that "we have been bypassed and overruled".

Why the silence?

The diplomat's observations raise a broader question: why do public servants, who are trained to uphold democratic norms, appear reluctant to push back against a system that concentrates power in the hands of a few? The answer, he suggests, lies partly in the erosion of a shared purpose that once motivated collective action.

He points to the writings of French aviator and author Antoine de Saint‑Exupéry, whose wartime reflections from 1939‑1944 warn that societies lose their moral compass when individuals no longer see a common good beyond themselves. Saint‑Exupéry wrote that humanity, despite material wealth and leisure, had become "less human" because it lacked a unifying cause that could inspire sacrifice.

In the European context, the diplomat argues, the absence of such a purpose makes it easier for officials to accept the new order rather than confront it. Without a clear, collective goal, the incentive to risk career advancement or personal safety to challenge an authoritarian drift diminishes.

He draws a parallel with the rise of right‑wing populism in parts of Europe, citing the recent surge of the AfD in Saxony‑Anhalt as an example of how a lack of shared purpose can enable extremist forces to gain ground. When citizens and civil servants alike feel disconnected from a larger mission, the door opens for leaders who promise simple solutions, even at the cost of democratic standards.

For the EU, this is a warning sign. The Union's strength has traditionally rested on a network of shared values, rule of law, human rights, social protection, that bind member states together. If those values are no longer felt as a common cause, the capacity to present a united front against external pressures, whether from Washington or Moscow, weakens.

UnionPress has spoken to several European trade union leaders who echo this concern. They argue that the erosion of institutional channels in the United States not only hampers diplomatic coordination but also threatens the ability of European workers to defend their rights in a globalised economy. "When the US retreats into a personal network, it undermines the multilateral frameworks that protect labour standards across borders," one union representative said.

Meanwhile, some American analysts defend the shift as a necessary response to what they see as bureaucratic inertia in Washington. They claim that a tighter, more loyal advisory circle can act more swiftly in crises, such as the rapid imposition of sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. Yet critics counter that speed should not come at the expense of transparency and accountability.

In the background, the diplomat notes a recent revelation that Jared Kushner's brother‑in‑law was involved in a plan to privatise FIFA, a non‑profit body. While the episode may seem peripheral, it illustrates how personal connections can intersect with public institutions, blurring the line between private gain and public duty.

For European policymakers, the challenge is twofold. First, they must find ways to re‑establish reliable channels of communication with the United States, perhaps by engaging more directly with Congress or through multilateral forums where personal influence is less decisive. Second, they need to reinforce the sense of a shared European purpose that can motivate civil servants, politicians and citizens alike to stand up for democratic norms.

Saint‑Exupéry's wartime letters speak of the satisfaction derived from sharing the last morsel of food in a desert, a metaphor for the solidarity that can arise when people sacrifice for a greater cause. The diplomat suggests that Europe, as "children of an age of comfort", must rediscover that willingness to act collectively, especially when faced with external threats that test the resilience of liberal democracies.

In practice, this could mean bolstering EU mechanisms for crisis response, such as the European Defence Fund, and ensuring that European Union institutions retain the capacity to act independently of US whims. It also involves protecting the independence of European civil services, guaranteeing that they are not forced to operate as mere conduits for external pressure.

As the EU grapples with energy security, migration and the aftermath of the pandemic, the ability to coordinate with a reliable partner remains crucial. The diplomat's account suggests that, without a clear, shared purpose, Europe may find itself negotiating from a position of weakness, forced to accept the terms set by a US administration that no longer adheres to the same institutional checks.

Ultimately, the story is not just about one president's style of governance; it is about the health of democratic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic. If European civil servants feel increasingly marginalised, the broader project of transatlantic cooperation, built on mutual respect for rule of law and shared values, risks erosion.

UnionPress will continue to monitor how European officials adapt to this new reality, and whether the EU can forge a renewed sense of purpose that empowers its own institutions to act decisively, even when traditional allies retreat into personal networks.