MARSEILLE, France (CN) — France is considering spreading its nuclear deterrent shield across Europe as the continent grapples with the United States’ once-unthinkable foreign policy shifts under the Trump administration.
Fears are deepening that the U.S. could align more closely with authoritarian regimes and leave behind its long-term allies. European Union nations have already agreed to allow higher military spending, speed up domestic defense production, and increase assistance to Ukraine in its fight against Russia as U.S. President Donald Trump pushes the EU to take more responsibility for its own defense.
Germany, Poland and the Baltic states have already expressed interest in being protected by France’s nuclear umbrella.
“I have decided to open the strategic debate on protection through deterrence for our allies on the European continent,” French President Emmanuel Macron said during a televised address earlier this month. “I want to believe that the United States will remain by our side, but we need to be ready if that is no longer the case.”
It’s difficult to parse what such protection might look like — and that’s the point. These strategies are meant to remain ambiguous so adversaries can’t leverage the knowledge of red lines.
NATO functions on a similar basis, as members are covered by its “Article 5” promise of mutual defense in case of an attack. Leading member the U.S. is the world’s second biggest nuclear power. However, Trump’s unpredictable actions have led to questions about who would be protected by whom if allies were attacked.
France and the United Kingdom are the only nuclear powers in Europe — but there’s a key difference between the two. The U.K. relies heavily on U.S. technology for its nuclear arsenal and imports critical parts from the States. Conversely, France’s arsenal is manufactured within the country from start to finish, making the supply chain completely independent.
In France, the president is the only person with the power to deploy a nuclear weapon. In the U.K., that power is technically in the hands of the king or queen, although they traditionally pass the decision on to the prime minister.
“In the United Kingdom, we have a designated person who has nuclear power,” Benoît Grémare, an associate researcher at the Institute for Strategy and Defense Studies at the University of Lyon III, told Courthouse News. “In France, it’s an elected person.”
This would almost certainly remain true, even if France extends its nuclear deterrent across the continent. France could place weapons in shielded countries, or its bombers could patrol European borders. In both cases, the French president would remain the sole person who could decide to use a nuclear weapon.
“Yes, European partner countries would obtain nuclear weapons, but the decision to use them would fall to the French command to avoid accusations of proliferation,” Grémare said. “This is a method already used by the Americans in Europe and by Russia, particularly in Belarus.”
Even so, France wouldn’t be obligated to act in the case of aggression against one of its European partners. Emmanuelle Maitre, a research fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research, told Courthouse News that the idea is really to offer protection, rather than enter into an engagement.
“We’re not in a situation where the slightest territorial conflict or the slightest cyberattack or anything else immediately among our partners would trigger nuclear reprisals,” she said. “That would obviously not make sense, it would not be credible and there would be an enormous risk, so for the moment, we’re not in that logic — I think the objective of President Macron today is, on the contrary, to lower the risk.”
France’s nuclear strategy has always followed a defensive logic, which is clear from its arsenal. The nation keeps the minimum number of weapons to show it’s capable of inflicting serious damage without entering into an arms race, according to Maitre. France has just under 300 nuclear warheads, compared to 3,748 in the United States and 5,580 in Russia.
French policy is to use these warheads only to target decision-making and industrial centers rather than cities, and primarily to protect France’s “vital interests” — an idea which is again vague by design.
Macron’s comments have already drawn criticism within France’s political sphere. The two leaders of the extreme-right National Rally — Marine Le Pen, and her protégée Jordan Bardella — had different reactions. While Bardella said that Europe already falls under France’s nuclear umbrella, citing the “vital interest” component, Le Pen said that the deterrent is French and should not be shared.
“In France, for a very long time, there have been statements from leaders who believe that France’s vital interests are not entirely within its borders,” Maitre said. “Aggressions or attacks that may happen to its neighbors, to its partners, can also impact France’s vital interests.”
Alain De Neve, a research fellow at the Royal Higher Institute of Defense in Brussels, told Courthouse News that this is effectively “existential deterrence.”
France gets an added layer of security, even if the terms of engagement are not clearly outlined, he explained, because adversaries considering an attack would have to grapple with the mere existence of the nuclear deterrent.
“They cannot free themselves from this dimension,” he said.