Qamar Bashir
Europe’s streets are erupting in anger. From Paris to Berlin, Rome to Lisbon, young people, workers and ordinary citizens are protesting against unaffordable housing, deteriorating public services, declining purchasing power and an increasingly uncertain future. Some demonstrations have descended into clashes, arson and looting. President Donald Trump has attributed the disturbances to immigrants and weak border controls. Yet an examination of his administration’s economic, military and geopolitical decisions raises an uncomfortable question: how much of Europe’s present financial distress has been intensified by the policies of the very president now blaming immigrants?
Europe’s younger generation is protesting against circumstances it can no longer comfortably endure. Students demand functioning schools and qualified teachers. Workers seek wages capable of meeting essential expenses. Families struggle with rent, electricity, transportation and groceries. These grievances cut across religious, ethnic and national backgrounds. They reflect a widening crisis of affordability and confidence in Europe’s political and economic institutions.
Trump has nevertheless portrayed European unrest as evidence that immigration has undermined Western societies. His interpretation places cultural identity and border enforcement at the centre of the crisis. But the available evidence does not establish that immigrants, Muslims or descendants of immigrant families organised the demonstrations or were collectively responsible for the violence. The demands articulated by protesters point overwhelmingly towards economic hardship and domestic governance.
The first major geopolitical pressure concerns Russian energy. Before the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Europe relied extensively upon Russian pipeline gas and other energy supplies. These arrangements supported industries, heating systems and household consumption. Russia’s invasion, subsequent supply disruptions, European sanctions and the decision to reduce dependence upon Moscow transformed that energy relationship.
Trump subsequently intensified pressure on European governments to terminate their remaining Russian energy purchases. He publicly accused them of hypocrisy, arguing that they were financing Russia while demanding stronger Western action against Moscow. His criticism added American political pressure to a transition already underway, reinforcing the expectation that Europe should abandon Russian supplies even as alternative energy arrangements remained costly.
The economic consequences were substantial. Europe increasingly relied upon liquefied natural gas and other supplies from the United States, the Middle East and international markets. Replacing established pipeline arrangements required expensive infrastructure, new contracts and greater exposure to volatile shipping and commodity prices. European manufacturers and households consequently became more vulnerable to international energy shocks.
Then came the Trump administration’s military confrontation with Iran, undertaken alongside Israel. Disruptions affecting the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf energy shipments threatened another major source of global oil, gas and refined petroleum products. For Europe, the timing was particularly damaging. Having reduced its reliance on Russian energy, the continent faced renewed uncertainty in markets upon which its diversification strategy increasingly depended.
This created a striking geopolitical contradiction. Washington was pressing European governments to end purchases from Russia while its confrontation with Iran disrupted the wider energy markets to which Europe had turned. The two developments were not identical in origin, but their combined economic consequences intensified Europe’s vulnerability.
Higher energy prices travelled rapidly into everyday life. Expensive diesel increased transportation and agricultural costs. Rising gas prices affected electricity generation, manufacturing and heating. More expensive fuel and freight contributed to higher prices for food and consumer goods. Households already struggling with inflation faced another reduction in purchasing power, while businesses confronted mounting operating expenses.
The Ukraine war introduced additional financial pressures. European governments committed substantial resources to military assistance, humanitarian support and the defence of their eastern neighbourhood. As Washington’s approach to Ukraine became less predictable, European leaders faced growing pressure to assume greater responsibility for their own security and for supporting Kyiv.
Trump’s insistence upon increased European defence expenditure added another dimension to these fiscal challenges. NATO members agreed to work towards defence and security-related spending equivalent to 5% of GDP by 2035, comprising 3.5% for core defence and up to 1.5% for broader security and resilience. Although this is a gradual target rather than an immediate transfer of funds, its implications for future national budgets are considerable.
For students confronting overcrowded classrooms and families waiting for affordable housing, the resulting debate is unavoidable. How can governments expand military expenditure while struggling to maintain hospitals, schools, universities, transport systems and social protections? Defence spending may be necessary for national security, but it also competes with other priorities for limited fiscal resources.
American tariffs have compounded these difficulties. Under the negotiated transatlantic trade framework, most European exports became subject to a 15% American tariff ceiling, with exceptions. Export-dependent industries must accommodate these additional costs through prices, margins, supply-chain adjustments or investment decisions. For Germany’s industrial manufacturers, Italy’s exporters and other European businesses, trade uncertainty can discourage expansion and threaten employment prospects.
These economic pressures reinforce one another. Expensive energy raises production costs; tariffs complicate access to export markets; weaker growth constrains tax revenues; and increasing security commitments intensify budgetary competition. Governments consequently face greater difficulty responding to public demands for better services and economic relief.
Trump’s statements concerning Greenland have further unsettled European security calculations. His interest in acquiring territory belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark raised questions about sovereignty and the reliability of longstanding American alliances. European governments must now consider not only external threats but also uncertainty within the transatlantic relationship itself.
Pakistan’s experience offers a historical parallel. During the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and the subsequent war on terrorism, Islamabad became an important American strategic partner. Yet changing priorities in Washington repeatedly altered the relationship, leaving Pakistan to manage difficult regional consequences. Europe’s current predicament similarly demonstrates the risks of depending excessively upon another country’s strategic decisions.
Europe’s governments nevertheless remain responsible for their own domestic policies. Housing shortages, ageing infrastructure, public debt and inadequate services did not originate with Trump. Nor can every demonstration, riot or criminal incident be traced directly to American decisions. But the cumulative impact of Washington’s energy pressure, military confrontation, tariff policies and demands for greater allied defence expenditure deserves serious scrutiny.
That is the contradiction at the heart of Trump’s immigration narrative. While he presents immigrants as the principal explanation for Europe’s unrest, his administration’s policies have contributed to the economic and strategic pressures confronting European governments and households. Blaming demographic communities without evidence risks diverting attention from the material grievances expressed by protesters.
Europe’s young people are not merely demanding order in the streets. They are demanding affordable homes, functioning schools, dignified employment and a credible future. Their protests reveal a society struggling to reconcile international commitments with domestic expectations.
The central lesson is that national security cannot be sustained indefinitely without economic and social security. Trump’s immigration explanation does not adequately account for Europe’s unrest; understanding it requires examining the consequences of American policies alongside the domestic failures of European governments.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd), Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France , Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC .He is living in Michigan, USA
