At the Munich Security Conference, several prominent Democrats signaled presidential ambitions while facing a sobering message from Europe: the transatlantic relationship may never return to its previous form. As global alliances strain under renewed nationalism and geopolitical rivalry, questions about America’s leadership loom over the 2028 race.
The annual gathering at the Munich Security Conference has long functioned as a testing stage for emerging statesmen, and for years American presidents and presidential hopefuls journeyed to the Bavarian capital to reaffirm Washington’s dedication to Europe and to emphasize that the United States guided the Western alliance. This year’s meeting, though, unfolded amid rising skepticism and strategic reconsideration, as European leaders publicly questioned whether the United States can still lay claim to the role of leader of the free world.
A number of Democratic figures with national ambitions attended the conference, seeking to project steadiness abroad even as domestic politics remain volatile. Among them were California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and Sen. Mark Kelly. Each appeared intent on demonstrating foreign policy credibility ahead of a potential 2028 presidential campaign. Yet the mood in Munich suggested that reassurance alone may not be enough to restore Europe’s confidence in Washington.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz offered opening remarks that conveyed the tension spreading through the conference halls, speaking openly about a growing rift between Europe and the United States and hinting that America’s once-presumed position of leadership may now be fundamentally in question. His observations echoed wider European concerns that the post–World War II framework, long upheld by U.S. security commitments, is entering a period of deep and far‑reaching change.
European uncertainty and the mounting pressure facing the transatlantic alliance
Throughout the modern era, the transatlantic alliance has largely been anchored in a shared trust built on democratic principles and joint security, with NATO, economic interdependence, and coordinated diplomacy serving as its core supports; however, in recent years these pillars have come under strain, as President Donald Trump’s confrontational tone toward allied nations and his readiness to reconsider long-established obligations have created unease in European capitals.
In Munich, European officials conveyed a sobering message to visiting Democrats: even if political winds shift again in Washington, trust cannot be instantly restored. Some leaders privately suggested that the damage to the alliance may take generations to repair. The notion that U.S. policy can swing dramatically with each election cycle has forced European governments to contemplate greater strategic autonomy.
Merz admitted to engaging in confidential talks with France on Europe’s nuclear deterrent, a remarkable indication that confidence in automatic U.S. protection is no longer fully assured, whereas in previous decades such exchanges would have seemed virtually unimaginable when American security commitments were broadly taken for granted.
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a more measured tone in his address, receiving polite applause from attendees. His remarks contrasted with the sharper rhetoric delivered at the conference a year earlier by Vice President JD Vance. Yet Rubio’s broader message—that the geopolitical landscape has fundamentally shifted—reinforced the perception that a new era is underway. His subsequent travel to Slovakia and Hungary, countries led by populist figures sympathetic to Trump, underscored the complexity of America’s current diplomatic posture.
For Democrats aiming to cast themselves as guardians of the long‑standing alliance, the challenge was evident: how to pledge reliability in a world that grows ever more skeptical of Washington’s steadiness.
Geopolitical realities confront presidential aspirations
Several Democratic attendees widely regarded as prospective 2028 contenders were present. Beyond Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez, the broader discussion of Democratic foreign policy credentials also included Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Sen. Chris Murphy, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Sen. Ruben Gallego, and former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.
Newsom, whose stature and visibility set him apart in Munich’s crowded corridors, acknowledged that European leaders increasingly see the United States as unpredictable. While he expressed confidence that ties can be repaired, he conceded that many interlocutors doubt a full return to the previous status quo. His message to both Europeans and fellow Democrats emphasized strength and clarity, arguing that American voters historically gravitate toward leaders perceived as decisive.
Ocasio-Cortez’s appearance, billed by some as a global debut for the progressive lawmaker, proved more complicated. During a discussion touching on Taiwan—a central flashpoint in relations between the United States and China—she hesitated when asked whether she would support deploying U.S. troops to defend the island in the event of an invasion. Taiwan remains a cornerstone of U.S. strategy in the Indo-Pacific, and ambiguity on the issue quickly drew scrutiny. The episode illustrated the steep learning curve facing domestic-focused politicians as they transition onto the international stage.
Even so, Ocasio-Cortez and allies framed their message around skepticism of entrenched elites and a belief that the existing international system has failed to deliver equitable outcomes for working-class citizens. That critique resonated with broader debates about globalization and inequality, themes that have reshaped politics on both sides of the Atlantic.
A declining American footprint in Munich
This year’s conference unfolded with an ambience markedly different from earlier periods, when U.S. participation conveyed cohesion and assurance. The late Sen. John McCain had long made Munich a centerpiece of American involvement, delivering addresses that upheld Western unity and democratic principles. His presence embodied a bipartisan dedication to the transatlantic alliance.
Although a dinner held in his honor goes on, the lack of an equivalent unifying presence was unmistakable, and turnout from the U.S. House of Representatives proved slimmer than anticipated after Speaker Mike Johnson withdrew the official congressional delegation, while a small group of lawmakers, including Rep. Jason Crow, made the trip on their own to demonstrate sustained involvement.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, long associated with hawkish foreign policy views, struck a notably stern tone in his public comments. He warned that inaction against adversarial regimes could embolden leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. His remarks reflected ongoing debates within Washington about deterrence, intervention, and the costs of perceived weakness.
The cumulative result conveyed a portrait of an America grappling with how it fits into the world. European commentators, having witnessed the swings in U.S. policy across successive administrations, seemed increasingly reluctant to expect consistency. Trump’s return to power strengthened the perception that his style is not a fleeting exception but rather a lasting evolution within American political life.
Domestic shifts and global consequences
Back in the United States, political dynamics are evolving. Trump’s approval ratings have fluctuated, and Democrats see opportunities in upcoming midterm elections. Some at the conference suggested that a change in congressional control could recalibrate aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Yet European leaders, while attentive to American electoral cycles, increasingly emphasize their own strategic planning independent of Washington’s internal debates.
The broader question looming over Munich was whether the international order established after World War II is undergoing irreversible change. For decades, that framework combined American military strength, economic leadership, and a network of alliances grounded in shared democratic norms. Now, leaders on both continents speak openly of a multipolar world in which U.S. dominance is no longer assured.
Merz’s assertion that the rules-based order “no longer exists in this form” encapsulated the moment. His statement echoed sentiments expressed by policymakers who believe Europe must shoulder greater responsibility for its own security and economic resilience.
For Democratic hopefuls, the conference emerged as both a chance and a cautionary signal, offering a platform to present alternative concepts of American engagement while simultaneously exposing how little rhetoric can achieve against deep geopolitical shifts; securing the White House in 2028 may no longer guarantee reclaiming the mantle every American president has asserted since the 1940s.
As Munich concluded, the sense lingered that the world is entering a transitional period—one in which alliances are renegotiated, assumptions reexamined, and leadership redefined. Whether the United States can reestablish itself as the unquestioned anchor of the Western alliance remains uncertain. What is clear is that future presidential contenders will inherit not only domestic divisions but also a global landscape reshaped by skepticism, competition, and the recalibration of power.
