• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "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 China

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

    For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

    In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

    Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

      Alvin Camba

  • Commentary
    China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

    The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

      Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.