The last four years saw extensive speculation about what would happen if Donald Trump returned as US-president. Securing 312 electoral votes and winning all seven key battleground states, the Republican will be the first president since Grover Cleveland at the end of the 19^th century to serve two non-consecutive terms. Most European leaders, some more subtly and others more openly, supported Democratic candidate Kamala Harris for her internationalist policies and commitment to NATO. In contrast, Trump’s ‘America First’ policies, speculation about his connection to Project 25 of the ‘Heritage Foundation’ and his perceived leniency toward Russia, sparked concerns about transatlantic security and unity within European capitals. Notably, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán stood out within the European community, openly supporting the 45^th U.S. President and viewing him as an ideological ally.

The spotlight of the next four years, however, will not solely be on Trump himself but also on his cabinet picks and advisors he has chosen to shape his administration. In contrast to 2017, the MAGA figurehead has nominated a cabinet that is strongly oriented towards him and will most likely act much less autonomously than during his first term in the White House—at least if his picks are confirmed by the Senate, where the Republicans hold a 53-47 majority of  votes after the elections. By analysing five of his top foreign and security policy appointments, we can gain crucial insights into the direction of U.S. policy and its impact on transatlantic relations, especially concerning Ukraine, Russia, and NATO.

Marco Rubio: The Hawk Turned Isolationist

Donald Trump nominated the 53-year-old Floridian Senator Marco Rubio as Secretary of State in mid-November. The Republican leader described Rubio as “a strong advocate for our nation, a true friend to our allies, and a fearless warrior who will never back down to our adversaries.” Despite these words of praise, Trump’s rhetoric toward Rubio had not always been so positive. Back during the 2016 election campaign, the 45th President belittled Rubio as “little Marco”. 

Rubio represents a complex blend of traditional hawkishness and growing isolationism. In the past, Rubio has staked out a position as a foreign policy hawk who favoured maintaining U.S. alliances, advocating for a strong NATO and taking hard lines on China, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. In 2022, Rubio observed: “Russia is an acute problem, and it’s a present-day challenge. But it’s a five-year or 10-year problem. China is a 100-year problem”.

Once critical of Trump’s leniency toward Vladimir Putin, Rubio has aligned more closely with his boss’s foreign policy stance in recent months. Like the MAGA figurehead, the upcoming Secretary of State is calling on the Europeans to massively increase their defence spending. Rubio wants the major European powers to play a more active role in connection with the Ukraine conflict, stating: “Germany, France and the United Kingdom are more than capable of managing their relationship with [Russia]”. In April this year, Rubio voted against the $95 billion U.S. aid package for Ukraine, urging the eastern European nation to negotiate an end to its war with Russia: “I’m not on Russia’s side—but unfortunately the reality is that the war in Ukraine can only be ended through a negotiated settlement”. 

Keith Kellog: Peace through Strength (and Conditional Support)

Like the incoming Secretary of State, Donald Trump’s soon-to-be Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, a staunch Trump loyalist, also advocates for a negotiated settlement between the two nations. The 80-year-old retired Army lieutenant, who served as security advisor to former Vice President Mike Pence, is one of the architects of the ‘America First’ security agenda. In May this year, Kellogg released a plan co-authored with former Trump aide Fred Fleitz that outlined how there should be a “formal U.S. policy to seek a ceasefire and negotiated settlement of the Ukraine conflict”. 

The plan included supplying Ukraine with weapons only if it agrees to peace talks while warning Russia that refusal to negotiate would lead to increased U.S. support for Ukraine. It said the conflict should be frozen along its current front lines, which, as it stands, would leave Russia controlling around one-fifth of Ukrainian territory. Additionally, NATO membership for Ukraine would be excluded for the time being. Kellogg, who repeatedly criticised the Ukraine strategy of President Biden, believes that the weakness of the 46^th POTUS encouraged Putin to launch the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the first place. Back in December 2023, Kellog argued that the United States should have provided Ukraine with heavy military equipment far earlier than Washington eventually did.

Pete Hegseth: The “least qualified” Pentagon chief ever? 

Although the Pentagon is a key position in any administration, the first four years of his presidency have shown that the office of Secretary of Defense is a particularly hot seat under Donald Trump. In his four years in office from 2017 until 2021, six men held the position as acting Secretary of Defense. Their relationships with the 45^th President were characterised by tension, confusion, and frustration, and many of the generals who worked in Trump’s first administration, both on active duty and retired, have slammed him as unfit to serve in the Oval Office.

Learning from these experiences, the MAGA leader nominated Peter Brian ‘Pete’ Hegseth, a former soldier and Fox News co-host, for the role. Hegseth, a loyal Trump supporter with almost no political experience, aligns closely with the ‘America First’ agenda. Shortly after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Hegseth initially aligned with the claim that Putin is a war criminal. Ever since, Hegseth has played down the likelihood of Russia expanding its aggression beyond Ukraine, saying: “I think [Putin] probably knows enough to know that it’s probably not going much further than Ukraine“. 

The upcoming Secretary of Defense who defended Trump’s comments calling the Russian leader “very savvy” and “genius”, is known for criticising “woke” generals and questioning the capabilities of female soldiers in comparison to their male counterparts. Like his future boss, Hegseth holds scepticism of NATO. In his writings, he argued against America’s role of protecting Europe, calling allies of the United States “self-righteous and impotent” for underfunding their defences. Donald Trump praised Hegseth as “tough, smart, and a true believer in America First”, but his nomination has raised concerns about the Pentagon’s independence. Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Independent Veterans of America, said in a post on X on November 13^th: “He is […] beyond loyal to and trusted by Trump. […] Hegseth is undoubtedly the least qualified nominee for SecDef in American history. And the most overtly political. Brace yourself, America”. Given the size of the institution and Hegseth’s inexperience, he will likely require a strong deputy and skilled team at the Pentagon. However, the central focus may continue to rest with the White House, as it does under the current Democratic administration, where Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is not considered a key player within the Biden administration. As a result, incoming National Security Adviser Michael Waltz is expected to assume a crucial role. 

Mike Waltz: A National Security Pick Pushing for a Shift in U.S. Priorities

Trump’s selection of Waltz reflects lessons learnt from his strained relationships with previous advisors like John Bolton and H.R. McMaster. Working as a former White House staffer under the Bush administration, Waltz brings significant experience as a congressman, Green Beret, and former Pentagon official. He has been a vocal critic of Joe Biden’s handling of NATO’s reliance on Russian energy. Waltz has opposed recent U.S. aid packages for Ukraine, advocating for greater European responsibility and the use of U.S. military aid to pressure both Russia and Ukraine into negotiations. As a longtime China hawk, he has advocated for the United States to prioritize its strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific, particularly on countering China. 

Waltz and Kellog’s positions raise concerns about potential territorial concessions by Ukraine and suggest that continued U.S. support for Kyiv could diminish if the conflict persists. It remains to be seen whether the leaders of Ukraine and Russia will eventually enter negotiations at US urging, even if Washington were to increase pressure on one of the two countries from January 2025. In mid-November, Vladimir Putin demonstrated his stance on the conflict’s resolution in his own way—by launching airstrikes into Ukrainian territory, just after his first phone conversation about a possible end to the conflict with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the West since 2022. While generally saying that he would be open to negotiations, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an interview on Ukrainian radio, made it clear that the “rhetoric of sit and listen” would not be acceptable to Ukraine. He emphasised that such an approach would undermine the principle of national equality, signalling that he rejects the idea of a peace settlement dictated by foreign pressure. Elon Musk, who has been nominated by Trump to head the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, mocked Zelenskyy’s comment on X, calling his “sense of humor” amazing. This reaction offers a glimpse of the tone that the new U.S. administration might adopt toward Ukraine.

Tulsi Gabbard: Russian Asset as Director of National Intelligence?

Tulsi Gabbard was the first Hindu to serve in Congress, representing Hawaii from 2013 until 2021 as a Democrat before leaving the party in 2022. She accused the Democratic Party of being an “elitist cabal of warmongers” driven by “cowardly wokeness”. Becoming a contributor to Fox News, she became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump before joining the Republican Party in October 2024. Gabbard has faced accusations of amplifying Russian propaganda, even being criticised by fellow Republicans such as Mitt Romney. Her comments on NATO and her scepticism of U.S. involvement in Ukraine have drawn sharp criticism, with some calling her unfit for the role. 

Gabbard has made a string of controversial statements relating to Russia and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Tweeting on 24^th of February 2022, the day of the full-scale invasion, she said the war could have been prevented if the US and its Western allies had recognised Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” about Ukraine’s bid to join NATO. One month later she said it was an “undeniable fact” that there were “US-funded biolabs in Ukraine” that could release and spread “deadly pathogens”. If Gabbard is confirmed as Head of National Intelligence, she would manage a budget exceeding more than $70bn and oversee 18 intelligence agencies, including communication with European allies, particularly Ukraine, which could further strain transatlantic ties.

Although there are checks and balances within these institutions that would closely monitor Gabbard’s work, her nomination raises serious concerns about the future integrity of co-operation with US intelligence agencies. “Not only is she ill-prepared and unqualified, but she traffics in conspiracy theories and cozies up to dictators like Bashar al- Assad and Vladimir Putin”, Democratic Virginia congresswoman and member of the House Intelligence Committee Abigail Spanberger said. 

Conclusion

Although the Senate’s confirmation of all of Trump’s nominees in January remains uncertain, his choices clearly indicate a continuing shift in U.S. priorities, with reduced emphasis on European affairs and an increased focus on China and the Indo-Pacific. Right now, it is speculative to predict the future of Ukraine and transatlantic relations after Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, but it seems highly probable that his administration will place less emphasis on European and Ukrainian security concerns compared to Joe Biden, who may have been one of the last presidents strongly committed to transatlantic ties. While some of the analysed picks have been vocal in the past about supporting Ukraine and cracking down on Russia, their support has waned significantly over the past year. 

But even if some of Trump’s nominations seem reckless for US and European security and it may be challenging to engage with conspiracy theorists and anti-European figures, the current state of international security and the crucial role of the United States in European defence leave EU member states with limited options for alternatives. 

While one can certainly debate the way figures such as Trump or Pete Hegseth communicate with European partners, it is important to recognise that their criticism of the underfunding of European armed forces, particularly in Western Europe, is not entirely unfounded. It would therefore be wise for European states to take immediate action to address this justified criticism. Not only to deprive the new US administration of this basis for argument, but also to send a clear message to a revisionist Russia and to strengthen Europe’s own defence capabilities.