European Parliament President Roberta Metsola issued a sharp warning to the Trump administration against interfering in European elections, marking a significant escalation in transatlantic tensions and reflecting growing European concerns about American influence operations across the continent.
In remarks delivered Tuesday, Metsola told what she termed "MAGA warriors" to stay out of European democratic processes, according to Politico Europe. The unusually direct language from a sitting European Parliament president signals mounting frustration in Brussels over perceived American support for right-wing populist movements across Europe.
This represents a fundamental shift in how Europe views America. For seven decades, the United States served as guarantor of European security and champion of democratic values across the continent. European leaders might privately criticize specific American policies, but public confrontation over interference in European democracy would have been unthinkable during the Cold War or even in the early post-Cold War period.
That deference has evaporated. Metsola's comments reflect widespread European concern that elements of the Trump administration are actively supporting parties and movements that seek to undermine the European Union, weaken NATO, and realign Europe closer to Russia. Whether through social media amplification, financial support via sympathetic donors, or diplomatic engagement that elevates fringe actors, European officials see a pattern they describe as election interference.
The evidence remains fragmentary and contested. American officials with connections to the Trump administration have met with right-wing European politicians. Social media platforms have amplified messages aligned with populist narratives. But establishing coordination versus parallel interests proves difficult, and accusations of interference risk becoming self-fulfilling if they discourage legitimate political engagement.
What's clear is that European elections have become a venue for competing American visions. Traditional foreign policy establishments view a strong, united Europe as essential to Western interests. Elements of the Trump coalition see the EU as a bureaucratic impediment to national sovereignty and bilateral relationships with individual European states.
Those divergent views translate into different preferred outcomes in European elections. When right-wing populists skeptical of the EU and sympathetic to Russia gain power, it's seen by some in Washington as a positive development and by others as a strategic disaster.
Metsola, a center-right politician from Malta, occupies a delicate position. She must maintain institutional neutrality as Parliament president while defending European democracy against perceived threats. Her warning suggests she believes the threat has become severe enough to justify breaking normal diplomatic protocols.
"The European Parliament will not tolerate interference," Metsola stated, according to officials present for her remarks. The question is what "not tolerate" means in practice. Europe has limited tools to constrain American political actors who choose to engage with European movements, short of visa restrictions or public diplomatic confrontations that could damage broader transatlantic relations.
The timing is significant. Multiple European nations face elections in 2026, including Germany, where the far-right Alternative for Germany party polls competitively, and France, where President Emmanuel Macron faces challenges from both left and right. Outcomes in these elections could reshape European politics and the EU's strategic direction.
For the Trump administration, European concerns about interference likely carry limited weight. The administration has demonstrated skepticism toward multilateral institutions and traditional alliances, viewing them as constraints rather than force multipliers. If European elections produce governments more aligned with Trump's worldview, that would be seen as validation, not interference.
The confrontation exposes a deeper question: can the transatlantic relationship survive fundamentally divergent views about democracy, alliances, and international order? The post-1945 partnership assumed shared values and common threats. If those assumptions no longer hold, what replaces them remains unclear.
