Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
**Key Takeaways**
1. **Geopolitical Risk Premium Escalates:** The shifting landscape of U.S. Republican foreign policy, oscillating between aggressive interventionism and isolationism, introduces significant uncertainty, driving up geopolitical risk premiums in energy markets, defense stocks, and global supply chains.
2. **European Fiscal and Defense Imperatives:** The potential for reduced American commitment to European security under an isolationist Republican administration compels European nations to accelerate defense spending, impacting national budgets, sovereign debt, and creating opportunities for the continent’s defense industrial base.
3. **Market Volatility and Investor Confidence:** The unpredictability of future U.S. foreign policy direction—whether leaning towards unilateral interventions or disengagement—directly correlates with increased market volatility, impacting investor confidence in global stability and asset allocation strategies.
After his death last month, a video surfaced of US Senator Lindsey Graham cheering the bombing of Iran and his own part in it. Other Republicans had advised President Donald Trump against the war. But Graham knew his golf partner “loves blowing stuff up”. The recording was apparently made in March. Such hawkish rhetoric, even from a historical clip, instantly sends ripples through global markets. It serves as a stark reminder of the inherent geopolitical risk, prompting traders to price in higher premiums on crude oil futures and boosting the valuations of defense contractors who stand to benefit from escalating conflicts. The mere *perception* of increased military engagement, particularly in a volatile region like the Middle East, can trigger sharp movements in energy commodities, impacting inflation forecasts and central bank monetary policy decisions worldwide.
In August, Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments. The US has lost face and Patriot missiles, a tangible hit to its strategic credibility and a potential demand signal for next-generation defense systems. Households globally have lost purchasing power as oil prices have risen, a direct consequence of perceived instability in key production regions. This inflationary pressure squeezes consumer discretionary spending, dampens retail sales, and creates headwinds for economic growth, directly impacting corporate earnings across various sectors. Even if the war had “worked” – a contentious premise – a senator in his eighth decade might be expected to greet the use of lethal force with some regret and decorum. From a market perspective, the lack of decorum itself signals an unpredictable foreign policy, an anathema to the stability investors crave.
Still, European liberals cannot recoil too much. Graham’s belligerence often came in useful, acting as a bulwark against more immediate threats. He was a staunch friend of Ukraine in Washington, advocating for aid packages that sustained the nation’s defense against Russian aggression. This support, while costly, helped stabilize Eastern European markets and mitigated the broader contagion risk to the continent. He was vigilant to the threat from Vladimir Putin when Germany was still building a gas pipeline to Russia – Nord Stream 2, a project whose cancellation later sent shockwaves through European energy markets – and Mayfair was a recreational space for the Kremlin-connected rich. This period saw vast flows of Russian capital into Western financial centers, raising questions about financial transparency and ultimately leading to significant sanctions-related asset freezes that impacted global banks and real estate markets. Graham’s last public act was a visit to Kyiv, underscoring his consistent stance. A bill is going through Congress now that would grant extraordinary new tariff powers against Russia and its enablers. Graham introduced it. Such legislation, if enacted, could further disrupt global supply chains, affecting prices for commodities like nickel, palladium, and agricultural products, and forcing companies to re-evaluate their sourcing and operational footprints. He was pro-Nato in a Republican movement that often wasn’t, offering a degree of predictability that helped underpin European security and, by extension, investment stability.
Are the two things — the Ukraine stalwart and the man who never met a war he didn’t like — separable? Could Europe have had the one without the other? For markets, this is the crux of the dilemma: can investors bank on selective interventionism that stabilizes one region (Europe) without risking destabilization in another (Middle East), which inevitably sends shockwaves through energy and commodity markets globally?
If not, then Europe must prepare to experience this problem all over again in the coming years. Something of Graham lives on in Marco Rubio. The secretary of state’s aggression can be unnerving, what with his role in the Iran war – any direct conflict with Iran would likely send Brent crude soaring past $150 a barrel, triggering a global recession – his side line as a kind of imperial proconsul in Venezuela, exerting pressure that has historically impacted oil production and regional stability, and his pressure on the regime in Cuba with who knows what planning for the aftermath of its possible collapse, potentially creating new investment opportunities but also significant political risk. At the same time, this is the man who wanted to sanction Russia even before the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as a deterrent. Such pre-emptive sanctions, while potentially effective politically, could have caused immediate market turmoil, forcing companies to divest from Russian assets and recalibrate their geopolitical risk models much earlier.
Rubio, as Graham did, personifies a dilemma for the continent. The Americans who are likeliest to agitate for reckless actions abroad, causing market jitters and commodity price spikes, are sometimes also the likeliest to defend democratic Europe, providing a security umbrella that stabilizes regional economies. Both habits stem from a belief that America has a historical and almost celestial role to guard free societies. It is a dangerous belief, for it predicates global market stability on the whims of a single power, and, for a continent in need of friends, a useful one, as it channels American military and financial might towards European security. On that basis, Europe has to hope that Rubio rather than JD Vance or Tucker Carlson is the future of Republicanism, as their alternative visions imply vastly different risk profiles for investors.
In theory, of course, it is possible to have the best of both worlds: a selectively belligerent leader who picks only the right fights, aligning geopolitical strategy with global economic stability. But in the field of actually existing Republican candidates to succeed Trump, the choice is often between Rubio, representing a form of hawkish internationalism with inherent market volatility risks, and those who would sheathe the American blade even when the cause is just – or *only* when the cause is just, if we regard the war secretary Pete Hegseth as keen on the Iran intervention but reluctant to support Ukraine. The latter scenario implies a potentially fatal reduction in the US security guarantee for Europe, forcing the continent to shoulder a far greater defense burden, with significant implications for national budgets, sovereign debt, and the balance sheets of European defense companies. It should be obvious with whom Europe’s faint hope lies for continued security support, even if it comes with the price of broader geopolitical uncertainty.
Let me anticipate the obvious counter-argument. Rubio is slipperier than a skinned eel. He voted against aid to Ukraine in 2024. Though he cited a reason — the bill did not come with extra border funding at home — the vote reeked of careerist desperation from someone who feared getting on the wrong side of Maga’s Russia apologists. Such political maneuvering introduces profound uncertainty for investors, as a leader’s convictions appear secondary to political expediency, making long-term strategic planning difficult. Graham was a career-long war zealot, a consistent if unsettling force. Rubio is not a career-long anything. Don’t bet Europe on a man who six months ago accused the continent of inviting “civilisational erasure” through immigration, a narrative that fuels xenophobia and undermines transatlantic cooperation, making a united front against geopolitical threats less likely. (As ever in the Maga telling, western civilisation is supreme, but also so weak as to succumb to a few decades of liberal government. It is not for us to question how it can be both.)
To this case against Rubio, there is but one answer: consider the alternatives. Vance’s animus for Europe, and specifically for underwriting its security, is much deeper and longer standing. His stance implies a radical shift towards an “America First” isolationism that would leave Europe exposed, potentially triggering a regional arms race, increasing political instability, and deterring foreign direct investment into European markets. Carlson has described himself as “more sympathetic to Putin” than to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a viewpoint that would be catastrophic for NATO’s cohesion and could embolden authoritarian regimes, leading to a significant repricing of geopolitical risk across all asset classes. If by 2028 the Iran war is seen on the right as a clear mistake and a betrayal of America First, both of these men could enter the Republican primaries on an I-told-you-so platform, further solidifying an isolationist foreign policy that would be detrimental to European security and global trade.
On the balance of probabilities, a Democratic president would be better for Europe, offering more predictable alliances and a multilateral approach. But even that is less clear than it was. The leftward drift of the party might extend to a new scepticism of the “war machine”, a Democratic Socialists of America phrase that sounds worryingly open-ended. This could translate into reduced defense spending, less foreign aid, and a reluctance to intervene even in humanitarian crises, potentially leading to power vacuums that could destabilize regions and create new market risks. The left will argue that Joe Biden grew unpopular because he was seen as being preoccupied abroad as inflation surged at home, a narrative that links foreign policy decisions directly to domestic economic well-being, influencing future political calculus and potentially constraining international engagement.
Through a process of elimination, then, Europe is left with Rubio, certainly on the GOP side. When Graham died, he became the closest thing to a traditional George W Bush-era hawk in Trump’s orbit, and certainly the last one with a future. This leaves investors and policymakers alike grappling with a very narrow band of potentially supportive, albeit unpredictable, U.S. leadership.
As such, Europeans have no choice but to wish him well, even if it is through teeth so gritted that we have to get them capped afterwards. There were always two sides to America as a protector. It was indispensable, and it was reckless. In the now-romanticised era of US-Europe solidarity, when Nato was sacrosanct, the US fought wars in Vietnam, in which no European country participated, and Iraq, which split the continent. Those who live under one wing of the hawk can’t feign surprise when the other flaps around to disastrous effect from time to time, impacting global oil supplies, diverting defense budgets, and creating investor uncertainty. Europeans would find a President Vance dangerously prudent, as his ‘prudence’ would likely translate into a withdrawal from global responsibilities, leaving Europe to face its security challenges alone, with profound implications for its economic stability and defense spending.
***
**Market Impact**
The evolving and increasingly unpredictable nature of U.S. foreign policy leadership, particularly within the Republican party, casts a long shadow over global markets. The oscillation between aggressive interventionism and isolationism embeds a significant geopolitical risk premium across asset classes. Energy markets remain acutely sensitive to any rhetoric or action concerning key production regions, with potential conflicts or sanctions driving volatility in oil and gas prices, directly impacting corporate profitability and consumer spending power. Defense sector valuations, conversely, often surge on the prospect of increased global instability or renewed military engagement. For Europe, the prospect of reduced U.S. security guarantees under an isolationist administration necessitates a re-evaluation of national defense budgets, potentially increasing sovereign debt levels but also creating a robust tailwind for European defense contractors. Conversely, a hawkish U.S. stance, while offering security, introduces the risk of market-disrupting unilateral actions. Investors must prepare for sustained periods of heightened volatility, particularly in currency markets where the Euro could face pressure relative to the Dollar as a safe haven, and for supply chain disruptions, necessitating agile portfolio management and a deep understanding of geopolitical risk factors.
[email protected]