If the EU is serious about de-risking, why stop at China?

Over the past few years, the European Union has embraced a new watchword in its economic and foreign policy vocabulary: “de-risking”. Meant as a softer alternative to decoupling, the term gained traction as Brussels sought to recalibrate its relationship with China without provoking outright confrontation. The message was clear: Europe is not against trade, but it is against strategic dependence.

Yet beneath this veneer of pragmatism lies a more troubling question: What exactly constitutes “risk”? And who decides?

As China gets framed as the dominant threat in policy papers and media headlines, it’s time to ask a more provocative and intellectually honest question:

If the EU is serious about de-risking, why stop at China?

Redefining “Risk” in a Fragmenting World

Traditionally, risk in international trade referred to issues like:

• Market volatility

• Supply chain disruptions

• Overreliance on a single source

• Political instability

But today, “risk” has taken on a far more ideological and strategic flavor. EU policy documents increasingly cite “economic coercion,” “values-based trade,” and “resilience” as reasons to reorient trade away from China—even in sectors where China is a reliable, low-cost supplier.

Yet if the goal is resilience, not rivalry, why hasn’t the EU applied the same lens to the United States, a country that:

• Regularly imposes unilateral tariffs under the guise of “national security”

• Uses extraterritorial sanctions to shape the behavior of European firms

• Has a political system increasingly prone to wild electoral swings, with the very real prospect of a second Trump presidency

• Has openly threatened NATO commitments and pursued industrial policies (IRA, CHIPS Act) that siphon investment away from Europe

Is this not also a form of strategic vulnerability?

The U.S. as a Risk Factor

Let’s look at a few examples that would surely raise red flags if they were coming from Beijing rather than Washington:

1. Security Uncertainty

Donald Trump has stated—repeatedly—that NATO is obsolete and that the U.S. might not defend allies who don’t “pay their fair share.” Whether or not one believes he would follow through, the damage to strategic trust is already done.

2. Trade Hostility

The U.S. has:

• Imposed tariffs on European steel and aluminum

• Threatened tariffs on German cars

• Initiated “Buy American” policies via the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act

• Announced new tariffs on Chinese EVs, including those built in Europe

This is not the behavior of a stable trade partner. It is the behavior of an increasingly inward-looking, industrially aggressive power.

3. Legal Overreach

The U.S. routinely fines European banks and companies for violating U.S. law applied abroad—a practice that undermines European legal sovereignty. EU firms must navigate a web of conflicting obligations and can find themselves punished for doing business in countries legal under EU law but sanctioned by the U.S.

A Mirror to Europe’s Own Policy

The EU’s de-risking strategy is built on the principle that no single partner should have the power to coerce, distort, or destabilize. But when viewed through that lens, the U.S. raises as many flags as China—albeit of a different color.

So why is only China labeled a “systemic rival”?

The uncomfortable truth is that the EU is not consistently applying its own logic. Risk assessment has become entangled with ideology and geopolitics, not grounded in empirical analysis.

Strategic Autonomy Must Be Non-Ideological

This is not a call to turn away from the U.S. or to embrace authoritarian regimes. Rather, it is a call for coherence and realism.

If Europe is to be truly autonomous—strategically, economically, and technologically—it must:

• Diversify partnerships across Asia, Africa, and Latin America

• Invest in its own capabilities: defense, digital infrastructure, energy, semiconductors, AI

• Build legal and institutional resilience to withstand pressure from any direction

• Push back diplomatically and legally when even allies violate international norms

Strategic autonomy means having the capacity to cooperate where possible, compete where necessary, and stand alone where needed.

Conclusion: A Two-Front Challenge

The EU faces a double challenge: managing a rising China and a potentially receding America. Both present risks. Both require Europe to think and act like a strategic actor.

De-risking should not be a euphemism for disengaging from China. Nor should it become a blind spot in our transatlantic alliance.

If we truly want a resilient, sovereign Europe, we must look east and west with equal clarity.

If the EU is serious about de-risking, it shouldn’t stop at China.