All posts by : ECPS_admin

In an exclusive interview with ECPS, Professor Cornelia Woll, President of the Hertie School, criticized US Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, calling it “quite a hypocritical statement.” She pointed out that while Vance accused Europe of restricting free speech, the Trump administration actively attacks institutions like Wikipedia and NPR. Professor Woll also warned that the US, under Trump, is pursuing policies that align with Russia’s interests, deepening transatlantic fractures. With nationalist rhetoric rising on both sides of the Atlantic, she emphasized that Europe must navigate these challenges to maintain economic stability and security.

Interview by Selcuk Gultasli

In a striking critique of US Vice President J.D. Vance, Professor Cornelia Woll, President of the Hertie School in Berlin and a leading expert on international political economy, described his speech at the Munich Security Conference as “quite a hypocritical statement.” Speaking with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS) on Thursday, Professor Woll dissected the contradictions in Vance’s rhetoric, particularly his claims that Europe’s speech restrictions pose a greater threat than military aggression from Russia or China.

“I don’t know if one should even react,” Professor Woll said of Vance’s remarks, pointing out the glaring irony of his accusations. “Everyone in the room—and I was in the room when he gave that speech—was well aware of the hypocrisy.” She noted that Vance’s critique of European policies comes at a time when the Trump administration itself is actively attacking free expression within the US. “This comes at a time when the Trump administration is firing the head of an art institution, the Kennedy Center, attacking Wikipedia, and targeting public radio and NPR,” she explained. “It is a common strategy for the Trump administration to accuse others of doing precisely what they themselves are doing.”

Beyond hypocrisy, Professor Woll argued that Vance’s speech was little more than a domestic campaign statement. “It was a national campaign speech, like many heard during an election,” she said, adding that its delivery at a major security conference reflected “the weakness of J.D. Vance in international discussions.” She suggested that Trump’s broader geopolitical calculations—including talks with Russia and Saudi Arabia—likely influenced Vance’s remarks, forcing him to focus on internal US politics rather than engage in substantive global security discussions.

Professor Woll also raised concerns about the broader implications of US policy under Trump and Vance, particularly regarding Germany. “Let me put it very bluntly: what Elon Musk, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump are currently doing is supporting Russia’s interests,” she warned. She emphasized that many Germans still see these actions as fundamentally against their country’s security and long-term development, not just because of their history but also due to the risks posed by increasing Russian influence.

This growing divide is not just about rhetoric; it has real consequences for transatlantic relations. Professor Woll pointed out that Europe can no longer count on the US as a reliable partner. “Even though the US is not fully disengaging or explicitly leaving NATO, the uncertainty about whether it can be relied upon is significant,” she said. “Today, who can say with certainty that if Russia attacked a NATO partner, like Finland, the US would intervene. We simply do not know, and that uncertainty is deeply consequential.”

These shifts in US policy are also contributing to a broader geopolitical transformation. Professor Woll noted that a post-Western economic order is already emerging, driven in part by China’s strategic investments and growing sphere of influence. “We already see a stable and strong Chinese sphere of influence, which is now challenging the structure of multilateral institutions established under the Bretton Woods system,” she explained. This raises the question of Europe’s role—whether it will align fully with US interests or attempt to position itself as a third force between China and the US. “In my opinion, the latter would be the better path forward,” Professor Woll concluded.

At the same time, Europe faces internal struggles that could weaken its global standing. The rise of far-right parties like the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has been fueled by economic grievances and anti-globalization sentiments. Professor Woll warned that if the far right gains further power, Europe could see increased protectionism and economic fragmentation. “Every far-right party includes economic protectionism on their agenda, across all domains—whether it is student mobility, economic exchange, or military investment,” she noted.

With nationalist rhetoric gaining traction on both sides of the Atlantic and traditional alliances under strain, Professor Woll’s analysis underscores the fragility of the liberal world order. As the US embraces economic nationalism and European politics become more polarized, the future of global governance remains uncertain. The challenge now is whether European leaders can navigate these fractures while maintaining economic stability and security.

Here is the transcription of the interview with Professor Cornelia Woll with some edits.

The World Returned to an Era of Protectionism

Professor Woll, thank you very much for joining our interview series. Let me start right away with the first question: In one of your earlier studies, you and Ben Clift differentiate economic patriotism from economic nationalism, arguing that economic patriotism is not inherently protectionist but instead seeks to favor specific actors based on territorial status. You also examine how economic patriotism serves as a tool to balance market liberalization with national political imperatives. How do you see this concept evolving in an era of increasing protectionism, and do you see it as a sustainable strategy in an era of increasing economic fragmentation?

Professor Cornelia Woll: Thank you for that question. When we developed the concept of economic patriotism, Ben Clift and I were interested in how governments defend the interests of their countries in open societies committed to free trade and free exchange while still wanting to protect their national interests.

What I see now is that this is no longer the issue because we have returned to an era of protectionism that is willing to sacrifice an open liberal order with free trade on the altar of national interests. We are essentially back a century ago when countries sought to close their borders, and if their interests were not fulfilled, they would retaliate against trading partners with protectionist measures. To a certain degree, that work is almost outdated because it started with a different premise.

Given the resurgence of state-led economic strategies, do you believe we are witnessing a fundamental shift away from the neoliberal order, or is this merely a cyclical adjustment? In your view, how fragile is the liberal world order today, and do you see a path for its reinvigoration, or are we witnessing its irreversible decline?

Professor Cornelia Woll: I think we are seeing a fundamental shift. It is a break, particularly in the position of the United States, away from multilateral institutions that were built to support a liberal order of the West, one might say. It is also a break away from the political systems that came with that liberal economic order, particularly democracy.

There was this Western combination of democracy and free markets that formed the backbone of the post-war order, which I will refer to as the order of the West. What we see now is a trend in different parts of the world toward more authoritarian systems or illiberal democracies. There is an ongoing debate on the best term for this shift.

I definitely see that it is important for many players, even within Europe—European countries and different political parties—to promote a vision that is quite orthogonal to these ideals. And yes, that is the biggest challenge to the liberal world order and to the governments that support it.

Trump’s Second Term Would Be an Intensified Attack on the Liberal Order

What role did President Donald Trump play in the fragmentation of global governance structures during his first term, and do you foresee a second Trump presidency further accelerating this decline?

Professor Cornelia Woll: I think everyone would agree that Donald Trump did not change his fundamental convictions between his first and potential second term. His approach remains the same and is clearly articulated in the “America First” doctrine—highly self-interested and transactional in nature, both for himself as a person, for the government, and for America’s role in the world.

We saw this during his first term with numerous decisions that opposed multilateral institutions, including his withdrawal from the climate agreements. Now, we see this approach returning even more forcefully because he has learned how to better navigate the system to achieve his goals.

For example, he has become more strategic about avoiding legal challenges. In his previous term, he denied press licenses, whereas now, he simply withdraws access, which is more difficult to challenge in court. Similarly, in dismantling USAID, the development agency of the United States, he is effectively shutting it down without officially closing it—keeping only a handful of staff, making it harder to contest legally.

Everything he is doing in his second term represents an intensified, more systematically executed attack on the liberal order.

Trump to Sacrifice the Liberal Economic Order for His Own Gains

The Trump administration ushered in an era of economic nationalism, trade wars, and tariff challenges—how much of this shift has been institutionalized within US trade policy, and can it be reversed? Given the protectionist tendencies under the Trump administration, including tariffs on European and Chinese goods, how much do you think Trump’s policies accelerated the erosion of the liberal economic order? Do you see a long-term shift in US trade policy away from multilateralism?

Professor Cornelia Woll: Trump has engaged in an outright tariff war, and as everyone knows, trade wars are retaliatory. If you impose tariffs on goods, you will face tariffs on your own goods from the countries you are trying to exclude from your market. That is what we are currently seeing.

This type of protection for domestic production is one form of defending economic interests. I would say it is a form of industrial policy. We talk about the protection of infant industries, for example, and for a long time, I would have said this is the industrial policy of emerging economies—countries that lack many tools to protect their industries. The US had much sharper, more sophisticated ways of protecting its companies, but now it is reverting to a very crude tariff war, a trade war where one country’s interests are set against another’s.

What will happen next? Most countries have understood that Donald Trump only respects strength and that they must respond in kind and be very clear about where they set their boundaries. As a result, we will see an acceleration of retaliatory measures. However, we have also seen that Trump uses tariffs not just to influence the economy but often as a tool to negotiate deals on entirely different issues.

With Mexico, for example, one of the concessions he secured by threatening tariffs was increased protection of the US-Mexico border. Similarly, regarding the inflow of drugs, particularly fentanyl, the stakes may be different with other countries. Essentially, he uses economic threats to extract concessions on issues that may be related to security, borders, or other policy areas.

This means that, yes, Trump is willing to sacrifice the liberal economic order for his own gains and objectives. The question of what will happen in the medium or long term depends on how extensively he actually enforces these measures. If he primarily uses tariffs as a negotiation tool without fully implementing them, they might prove to be effective bargaining instruments. However, if he puts them into practice and raises the tariffs he has announced, the consequences will be significant.

Since the US is part of an interconnected global economy, these measures will also harm the US economy. For example, American car manufacturers—whom Trump wants to protect—would lose access to steel and aluminum imported from abroad. Technology producers might face disruptions in their supply chains due to components manufactured in China, and the list goes on.

Economists analyzing this issue are now trying to estimate the impact on US GDP, which will translate into economic pain for American consumers and producers. The key political question is: how long will Trump be willing to impose that kind of pain, and at what point will it start to hurt him politically? He knows that if gas prices rise in the US, even his base will be unhappy. He has stated on television that people will tolerate some level of hardship if they believe it serves their interests—but for how long?

At this point, we do not know exactly how long this will continue, because we do not yet fully understand the economic consequences and fallout—but there will certainly be an impact.

We Are Entering a Multipolar World of Fragmented Economic Influence

With the resurgence of mercantilist policies and protectionism, particularly in the U.S. and China, are we witnessing the end of globalization as we know it? What alternative economic models might emerge?

Professor Cornelia Woll: I don’t think an alternative economic model is emerging. What we are seeing instead is an alternative geopolitical model. Simply put, we previously lived in a world where economies were connected through structures created by the West, particularly the US, after World War II. It was a Western-led system of economic interdependence across markets. Today, the US is deeply concerned about the rise of China as an economic superpower and seeks to either shut itself off or at least reduce its rivalry with China by blocking certain aspects of Chinese economic development. This leads to greater fragmentation—both geopolitical and economic. China has been highly effective at forging partnerships and economic interdependencies around the world, creating its own sphere of influence. That sphere has now grown significantly.

The key question is: What kind of economic relationships will exist in a world increasingly dominated by China’s sphere of influence? What portion of global trade will remain within the US sphere of influence? And where will other countries position themselves? What role will Europe play between these two giants? What direction will Latin America take? Will what is sometimes referred to as the “Global South” develop into an independent trade bloc that avoids having to choose between the US and China? We are currently witnessing the emergence of a multipolar world with fragmented zones of economic exchange and influence. That trend is certainly to continue.

How has the EU responded to the deterioration of transatlantic relations under Trump, and do you believe these fractures are temporary or part of a long-term geopolitical shift?

Professor Cornelia Woll: I am quite certain they are part of a long-term geopolitical shift. The news cycle was filled with images from the Munich Security Conference, particularly Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the conference, which was a clear criticism of Europe at a time when much is at stake in international security and the global order—Ukraine, the Middle East, and many other issues where the transatlantic partnership is central.

The fact that none of these concerns were addressed in the Vice President’s speech, and that he explicitly criticized European partners, while at the same time the US was organizing peace talks for Ukraine with Russia—without inviting other stakeholders—signals that the EU can no longer count on the US as a reliable partner to support European concerns both on the continent and beyond.

I believe these fractures are real and will persist. Even though the US is not fully disengaging or explicitly leaving NATO, the uncertainty about whether it can be relied upon is significant. In security matters, guarantees and trust are crucial. Today, who can say with certainty that if Russia attacked a NATO partner, like Finland, the US would intervene? We simply do not know, and that uncertainty is deeply consequential.

European leaders have repeatedly stated that they have heard the wake-up call and understand the need to become more self-reliant. The challenge, however, is that this realization has come very late. Organizing military capabilities requires significant investment, is extremely costly, and must account for the diverging opinions of the 27 EU member states. Moreover, Europe has only a limited window—just a few months—to organize itself in response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and other potential crises.

This geopolitical shift is real and long-term. Where Europe ultimately positions itself will depend on the ability of European governments to coordinate effectively and forge a united path forward.

Far-Right Parties Turn Economic Grievances Into a Political Weapon

The rise of the far right in Europe, particularly the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, has been fueled in part by economic grievances and globalization backlash. How much of this is a structural trend versus a temporary political wave?

Professor Cornelia Woll: Economic grievances are always very important to address, and it is crucial to ensure that both mainstream and fringe parties recognize the challenges faced by different parts of the country. Globalization, as we know, has created both winners and losers. There is a highly mobile, urban elite that sees no flaws in global interconnectedness, and then there are other parts of the population—perhaps more disconnected or more concerned about the industries and regions they depend on, such as the automobile sector or others. These concerns must be central to political debate.

The rise of the AfD, in particular, is not solely fueled by economic grievances but also by how political leaders have been able to mobilize around these grievances. There is an element of political entrepreneurship at play—this is, in many ways, a political game. The key question for many countries, including Germany, is to what extent the far right is able to dominate the discourse and shape the terms of debate.

One issue that often emerges alongside economic grievances on the far right is migration. Economic concerns quickly become linked to migration, which in turn leads to discussions about internal security—an issue that currently dominates political debate in Germany.

A central question now is: Are we safe? Following Chancellor Merkel’s decision to welcome a large number of immigrants into Germany, many of whom have not been successfully integrated, some are now being linked to violent incidents in public spaces. How to address this issue is a major challenge.

The most emotionally charged and dominant topics in recent political discourse have been attacks in cities like Aschaffenburg and now Munich, carried out by individuals who initially came to Germany seeking refuge. As a result, migration has become an even more prominent issue than economic grievances. This trend is evident in all countries where the far right has gained significant influence.

In an interview you gave to Greece’s To Vima newspaper, you emphasized that protecting democracy in Germany requires centrist parties to focus on economic stability and security rather than engaging with the far-right AfD’s populist rhetoric. How can governments effectively address voters’ economic anxieties—such as deindustrialization, energy costs, and labor market access—without legitimizing the nationalist economic narratives of parties like the AfD?

Professor Cornelia Woll: That’s a good question. I do think it is important to address economic grievances. And, of course, for any government or any party running for office, it is essential to have a clear vision of where they want to take the country and its economy.

What is striking about far-right parties is that their rhetoric is often more focused on social and identity issues rather than purely economic concerns. They link economic grievances to broader themes of migration and national identity.

What I would recommend—because we have seen that it does not work in other countries—is that centrist parties should avoid adopting the identity-based language of populist parties. When centrist politicians begin to frame economic well-being in terms of who should be considered German and who should not, they risk legitimizing the far right’s rhetoric and giving it a more central place in political discourse. Most of the time, this strategy ends up benefiting the far right by increasing their support rather than drawing voters away from them.

This is ultimately a question of the best electoral strategy. My recommendation would be to focus on economic development and well-being: How do you address deindustrialization? How do you ensure energy costs remain manageable? How do you expand and improve access to the labor market for all? These economic issues should take priority over engaging in the identity politics promoted by the far right.

Europe Must Rely on Itself as the Transatlantic Divide Deepens

With the rise of economic nationalism in the US, Germany, and across Europe, coupled with shifting global alliances, do you foresee a deeper transatlantic divide between the US and the EU on trade and economic governance? How might the world navigate these fractures, particularly as it balances economic autonomy with its reliance on global trade?

Professor Cornelia Woll: Yes, we do see these fractures, and for European countries, it is quite clear that they will be cut off from some of the resources they previously relied on. Take Germany, for example. I may be oversimplifying, but Germany essentially outsourced its defense capabilities to the US and relied on Russia for cheap energy. It structured its economy and investments around the assumption that these needs could be met through external partnerships rather than domestic restructuring.

Now, Germany must find a way to provide for its own defense with less reliance on the US. It has also struggled in recent years to reduce its dependence on cheap energy from Russia, and this process will need to continue. For Europe, it is clear that the only viable scale for addressing these challenges effectively is the European market rather than individual national markets.

It is quite clear that in a world where two giants, China and the US, dominate the game—and where Russia is also an important player—Germany alone is not enough. France alone is not enough. Certainly, Belgium is not big enough. What we can do is leverage the market power of the single European market and use it as a still very important economic space, not only for Europe but also for other countries with which we aim to remain on equal footing.

This means we must move toward a European project that is less focused on overregulating every minor detail and more focused on answering the key question: How do we provide peace and stability within the region? By fostering an integrated economic space, Europe can actively participate in global discussions and remain on par with the world’s major powers.

Given the recent rise of the far right in both Germany and France, the traditional engines of European integration, do you believe these internal struggles will hinder the EU’s ability to advance industrial and defense strategies? Could leadership on these issues shift to other European actors, and if so, what role might Germany still play in shaping the future of European economic governance?

Professor Cornelia Woll: It is certainly true that both Germany and France have struggled domestically to provide leadership for the EU in recent years. Let me be an optimist here. I think France is slowly making progress. They have now passed the budget, even though the government remains fragile. A vote of no confidence is not imminent as it was in the past.

Germany is approaching an election this weekend, and there is still hope that the outcome will be less fragile than the three-party coalition of recent years. Perhaps a two-party coalition will emerge, allowing for a return to more stable leadership. So, I remain optimistic that both Germany and France will regain some footing.

On foreign policy, France has a strong presidency. Emmanuel Macron can take initiatives that are less constrained by internal debates. For example, he recently invited European countries to discuss defense and their position on Ukraine at the beginning of the week. Initiatives like this remain important in the security domain. Europe cannot move forward without France and possibly the UK as key drivers of decision-making.

Germany, meanwhile, remains crucial for any funding decisions. There will need to be significant shifts in how investments are financed, possibly through common borrowing or changes to the European budget. These decisions cannot happen without both France and Germany.

That said, other countries also matter and will take on leadership roles, which is a positive development. The traditional Franco-German axis is certainly less central than it once was, and in the future, forming strong coalitions of willing partners will be key.

Italy and Poland are hugely important players. There has been a divide between Western and Eastern European countries, and bridging that gap is crucial for many of these issues. The Franco-German axis will not necessarily be essential if a coalition of other countries can be built. If another country steps up to take leadership, that would be good news for Europe.

A Far-Right Surge Would Bring Further Protectionism and Economic Fragmentation

What are the economic risks if the far right gains further power in Europe? Could we see increased protectionism and economic fragmentation within the EU itself?

Professor Cornelia Woll: Yes, I think the answer is quite simple—yes. And I’ll give you one example. Every far-right party includes economic protectionism on their agenda, across all domains—whether it is student mobility, economic exchange, or military investment. So, it is quite a clear tendency.

With China, Russia, and other powers seeking to establish alternative economic alliances, do you see the possibility of a post-Western economic order emerging? What role, if any, will Europe play in this transition?

Professor Cornelia Woll: Yes, a post-Western economic order is emerging, and it has been for quite some time—over the past 20 years, I would say. If you look at the economic connections China has built through its initiatives to establish new trade routes across Asia and toward Europe, it is quite clear. The same is true of its investments in Africa and its support for countries struggling with sovereign debt. Many of these nations now turn to China as a lender of last resort, a role previously played only by multilateral institutions.

We already see a stable and strong Chinese sphere of influence, which is now challenging the structure of multilateral institutions established under the Bretton Woods system. As a result, these institutions must be redesigned and revised to continue playing a role in global economic cohesion. However, they are struggling to fulfill the functions for which they were originally created.

What role can Europe play? The reason, for example, that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is not as inclusive of Chinese interests as it should be is not due to European opposition but rather to opposition from the US. I believe Europe must decide whether to align entirely with US interests, which are strongly anti-Chinese, or to position itself as a third force in the geopolitical struggle between China and the US. In my opinion, the latter would be the better path forward.

Trump, Vance and Musk Are Advancing Russia’s Interests

US Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk have both lent support to the AfD, which is surprising given that they come from the US—a country Germans have long thanked for putting an end to a deeply shameful period in their history. Do you think this approach signals the end of bilateral relations between the US and Germany as we know them?

Professor Cornelia Woll: Well, it certainly makes clear to Germans that the US, even with its capacities in government, will pursue objectives that are contrary to what Germany considers its own security and national interests. Let me put it very bluntly: what Elon Musk, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump are currently doing is supporting Russia’s interests. I think the majority of Germans still believe that this is not in Germany’s best interest or in the best long-term development of the country. This is not just because of Germany’s own history and the National Socialist period, but also because of what it would mean for Russia’s influence in Germany.

And lastly, Professor Woll, in his speech to the Munich Security Conference, J.D. Vance called Europe’s restrictions on speech a greater threat than a military attack by Russia or China, comparing them to those imposed by the Cold War Soviet Union. What is your reaction to this statement?

Professor Cornelia Woll: I don’t know if one should even react because everyone in the room—and I was in the room when he gave that speech—was well aware of the hypocrisy in J.D. Vance’s declarations about incidents in Europe. This comes at a time when the Trump administration is firing the head of an art institution, the Kennedy Center, attacking Wikipedia, and targeting public radio and NPR. It is a common strategy for the Trump administration to accuse others of doing precisely what they themselves are doing. So, it was quite a hypocritical statement.

Beyond that, his remarks were purely national in scope. It was a domestic campaign speech, similar to many others heard during an election cycle—nothing new.

The fact that he delivered it at a security conference, however, was, I think, a sign of J.D. Vance’s weakness in international discussions. Trump had just stated his intention to negotiate with Russia and was preparing talks with Saudi Arabia. I believe the last thing he wanted was for his Vice President to make any statements that could be considered newsworthy or that might contradict Trump’s own diplomatic efforts. As a result, J.D. Vance had to deliver a speech that was purely focused on domestic politics and did not address the security concerns of anyone else in the room.

As for the content, the attacks were so obviously false that I don’t think it is even worth deconstructing. Free speech is under far greater threat in Russia than in Europe. The anecdotes he cited—half of which may not have been as accurate as he claimed—do not change this reality. I won’t go into the details because doing so would give too much credit to the fake news bubble that J.D. Vance was catering to.