• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Erik Brattberg"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Coronavirus"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Trump’s Coronavirus Travel Ban Delivers a Blow to Transatlantic Relations

With the bungled announcement of an ill-conceived policy, the Trump administration forfeited another opportunity for global leadership.

Link Copied
By Erik Brattberg
Published on Mar 13, 2020

The novel coronavirus outbreak is the most serious global challenge since the financial crisis of 2008. International cooperation is a must, and so far the administration of President Donald Trump is failing.

Trump announced in his Oval Office address on Wednesday evening that the United States would impose unilateral restrictions on travel from Europe. Waking up the next morning, EU leaders greeted the news with scorn.

It is not hard to see why Trump’s move did so little to offer reassurance. First, the travel ban is unlikely to prove effective given that the virus is already spreading rapidly in the United States. Though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that some 70 percent of U.S. cases are linked to Europe, Trump’s draconian ban is more or less meaningless at this point. Rather than banning European travelers altogether, the administration could have simply increased screening at U.S. arrival airports or mandated that travelers be tested before boarding U.S.-bound flights.

Trump’s travel ban better serves a different purpose: to scapegoat Europe in order to cover up for his administration’s mishandling of the outbreak. Having already blamed China for the “foreign virus,” Trump’s latest policy is in line with his past claims that the EU is a “foe” aiming to “take advantage” of the United States. His criticism of European countries for not closing off flights from China also mirrors his earlier attacks on Europe’s handling of the refugee crisis, which he claims has led to an increase in crime.

Second, although early travel restrictions may slow the spread of the virus, the ban was implemented without regard for diplomatic protocols. Trump did not coordinate with European governments in advance, leaving European diplomats unprepared to deal with the ensuing chaos and confusion. When asked about the ban during a press conference with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar on Thursday, Trump explained the lack of consultation as retaliation for European leaders’ failure to consult him on tax issues.

Rather than using his Oval Office address to express solidarity with the people of Italy, who have been hit the hardest in Europe, Trump opted to slam the door in Europe’s face. Meanwhile, China is stepping in to provide medical help and equipment to Italy. That contrast reinforces Europeans’ impression that the United States is no longer a reliable partner, while allowing Beijing to score “brownie points” that could have a lasting impact.

Third, the UK’s exclusion from the ban makes little sense. Trump apparently misspoke during his address when he suggested that all of Europe would be affected as opposed to only the Schengen Area countries. The UK is outside that open-border zone but has more than 460 confirmed cases, suggesting Trump’s motivations may be at least as political as scientific. It’s true that the Trump Organization maintains properties in the UK, but a more likely explanation for excluding the UK from the ban is Trump’s affinity for Britain’s pro-Brexit prime minister, Boris Johnson.

Fourth, Trump’s handling of the virus illustrates his disdain for multilateral institutions and cooperation. As recently as February, his administration sought to reduce U.S. funding for the World Health Organization. As the chair for 2020 of the Group of Seven, the United States should use its convening power to rally major partners around a coordinated public health and economic effort like the one recently proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron and those implemented by Trump’s predecessors in response to SARS, H1N1, and other outbreaks. During the November 2009 EU-U.S. summit, President Barack Obama’s administration and EU leaders set up a transatlantic task force on antibiotic resistance.

European confidence in U.S. leadership under the Trump administration was already at rock bottom. Having previously failed to convince Trump to stick to multilateral arrangements such as the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal or to rescind unilateral trade tariffs, most European leaders have been planning just to wait out his first term.

Going forward, transatlantic ties will likely take another beating. If Trump is reelected in November, many European leaders fear that he would feel emboldened to double down on his “America first” instincts, including his assault on multilateral institutions, and that U.S. isolationism and retrenchment would deepen. As some in Europe conclude they can no longer rely on the United States, the risk of a perceived moral equivalence between the United States and China will grow.

While countries around the world struggle to contain the coronavirus pandemic, the United States should be leading the pursuit of multilateral solutions. Instead, Trump has resorted to acting unilaterally, pointing fingers at others, and arbitrarily throwing up barriers around U.S. borders. Unless reversed quickly, his administration’s approach to the virus both at home and abroad could exact a devastating, long-term toll on U.S. credibility and global leadership.

This quick take has been updated to reflect recent developments.

About the Author

Erik Brattberg

Former Director, Europe Program, Fellow

Erik Brattberg was director of the Europe Program and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He is an expert on European politics and security and transatlantic relations.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    How the Transatlantic Relationship Has Evolved, One Year Into the Biden Administration
      • +11

      Cornelius Adebahr, Dan Baer, Rosa Balfour, …

  • Paper
    China’s Influence in Southeastern, Central, and Eastern Europe: Vulnerabilities and Resilience in Four Countries
      • +1

      Erik Brattberg, Philippe Le Corre, Paul Stronski, …

Erik Brattberg
Former Director, Europe Program, Fellow
Erik Brattberg
Foreign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesWestern Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Brussels and Baku Are Talking Again: What Next?

    Azerbaijan’s relations with the EU appear to be going from strength to strength after several years in the deep freeze following the military escalation in Karabakh in 2023 and Azerbaijan’s bitter fallout with France and several other EU member states.

      Shujaat Ahmadzada

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Trump Turns NATO into a Tool of Coercion

    The full list of humiliations Europe has endured since Donald Trump returned to the White House makes for grim reading. But Washington’s adversarial approach to its allies undermines its own power base.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella on stage during a Rassemblement National RN rally For la France du Travail in Macon in Saone et Loire France May 1 2026
    Paper
    The French Far Right’s Foreign Policy: Big Ambitions, Uncertain Direction

    The National Rally’s electoral strength, coupled with its internal fragility at a crucial political juncture, contributes to foreign policy vagueness.

      Catherine Fieschi

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.