But history wasn’t done with him. In 2030, Russia invaded Estonia, a former Soviet republic in northeastern Europe. It was Ukraine all over again. Estonia was a NATO member, but the United States, still led by the Republican Party’s isolationist right wing, refused to intervene. Europe was on its own.
In those dark years, Macron emerged as Europe’s moral and military leader. His cause: the creation of a single European nation — a United States of Europe.
In 2035, seven European countries — France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Poland — merged and established the European Federation. Macron was elected its first president.
Now, a decade later, Macron is finishing his second term. Under his leadership, the Federation has expanded to more than 20 countries. It has repelled the Russian threat. And it has grown into a global superpower to rival America and China.
The idea of a United States of Europe might sound like a fantasy, but it is a serious proposition whose time has come. Threatened by Vladimir Putin on its eastern flank and abandoned by Donald Trump’s America, Europe must evolve or fall apart. As the new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, put it, “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.”
The best way to do that will be to form a European federation. A federation would unite Europe far more extensively than the European Union does — it would bind countries into a truly unified system of government like what exists in the United States. And it’s the only way the continent can guarantee its security, protect its democratic values, and secure its influence in the 21st century and beyond.
The current EU is a constitutional Frankenstein: a byzantine economic and political union whose power is split between the European Commission in Brussels and the 27 member states. There’s also the European Council and the Council of the European Union — each of which plays a different role in setting the rules for the EU.
That’s not all. There’s also a European Parliament, directly elected by European voters, which shares legislative power with the Council — the Council of the European Union, that is, not the European Council. The Parliament also votes to elect the president of the Commission, who is nominated by the Council — the European Council, that is, not the Council of the European Union.
Oh, and 20 EU countries have adopted the euro as their currency, while seven have kept their own.
Confused? You’re not alone. According to surveys, nearly half of European citizens are, too. As a result of its Kafkaesque institutions, the EU moves at a snail’s pace. And let’s not even talk about foreign policy. While Brussels does its best to get all the European countries in line, national governments still call the shots. No wonder Henry Kissinger liked to quip, “Who do I call if I have to speak to Europe?”
Everything would be simpler with a European federation. The historian Brendan Simms, who leads Cambridge University’s Centre for Geopolitics, has proposed that the EU remake itself “on Anglo-American constitutional principles.”
Think of how the United Kingdom or the United States works: There is one central government, with devolved governments at the regional or state levels. As Simms outlines in his book “Britain’s Europe,” a European federation, or a United States of Europe if you will, would have a president elected by universal suffrage, as well as two parliamentary chambers. There would also be a single military, a single foreign intelligence agency, and, crucially, a single voice on the international scene. Each country would hold a referendum on whether to join.
A federal Europe isn’t a new idea. It became a real possibility after World War II. In 1951, six countries — including France, West Germany, and Italy — formed a common market for coal and steel. Two years later, they laid plans for a European Political Community. A constitution was drafted: It proposed a parliamentary system with an “executive council.” Laws voted on by the Parliament would apply to all six countries. There was also going to be one European army. But the French hesitated, afraid of giving up their “sovereignty,” and the whole project collapsed.
At the end of the Cold War, Europe had another chance to become a federation with the advent of the EU in 1993. The German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, wanted to fulfill “what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of after the last war: the United States of Europe.” But the French (again) wouldn’t have it. And so the EU (again) became an economic union with limited political power. Kohl warned that it was unlikely to last. “The idea of maintaining in the long run an economic and a currency union without political union is mistaken,” he said.
But Kohl’s warning fell on deaf ears. Pundits predicted that the EU would soon rival the United States as the apex of liberal civilization. Books appeared with grand titles like “The European Dream” and “Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century.”
They were all wildly mistaken. First there was the 2008 financial crash, then the eurozone debt crisis, the 2015 migration wave, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. Political power mattered more than ever.
But under pressure, the EU has started to show some teeth. Take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The EU has given $50 billion in aid to Ukraine since 2022, and the European Commission recently presented an ambitious plan to rearm Europe. It gives member states more leeway to boost defense spending without falling afoul of Brussels’s deficit rules. And it unlocks €150 billion ($176 billion) in loans to help them do it. Altogether, the plan is expected to unleash €800 billion ($940 billion) in defense spending and investment among EU nations by 2030.
In recent years, the EU has also taken on Big Tech, enacting strict regulations and fining Apple and Meta for breaching EU competition law. This has irked the Trump administration. Peter Navarro, the president’s senior adviser on trade, decried it as “lawfare.”
Macron deserves much of the credit for Europe’s awakening, despite France’s historic resistance to a unified Europe. “Only Europe can guarantee genuine sovereignty or our ability to exist in today’s world to defend our values and interests,” he said in a landmark speech at the Sorbonne in 2017.
At the height of the pandemic, Macron spearheaded the creation of an €800 billion ($940 billion) “European recovery fund.” For the first time, the EU borrowed collectively on behalf of all its member states. This was a huge leap forward: It meant that smaller countries could access bigger, better loans than they ever could have on their own, thanks to the EU’s strong credit rating. The media hailed it as Europe’s “Hamiltonian moment.” As Macron put it in another major speech at the Sorbonne last year, “It was a choice of a united Europe.”
But Europe must unite more closely still. The circumstances demand it. It’s become obvious that Russia sees the EU as an enemy. It’s waging hybrid war against the bloc, interfering in elections, and sabotaging critical infrastructure. In the coming years, French and German intelligence reports indicate, Putin will invade more Eastern European countries.
At the same time, Europe’s longstanding ally, America, is stepping back. Trump no longer wants the United States to underwrite the continent’s security. Instead, he seems hellbent on going over the heads of Europeans to strike a grand bargain with Putin. And he’s made clear he has nothing but disdain for the EU. “It was formed in order to screw the United States,” he has said.
Europe must strike out on its own
Fortunately, both Macron and Merz seem to understand that Europe must now chart its own path.
The United States of Europe would be a force to be reckoned with — thanks to a population of 450 million people, a highly educated workforce, and a diverse economy worth $20 trillion.
Europe should also become a federation to better rein in multinational corporations and build an economy that works for the many. The continent has a unique socioeconomic model: social democracy. But only if countries pool their resources will Europeans be able to preserve their cherished welfare states and long summer holidays.
What’s more, the two great challenges of the 21st century — climate change and artificial intelligence — will require sustained collective action. Again, only a federation can deliver that.
There’s only one way forward — and now is the time
“A United States of Europe isn’t some utopian dream, it’s a necessary evolution,” says Daniela Vancic of the Democracy International think tank, adding that there’s federalist chatter in some Brussels policy circles. According to the former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, many European leaders apparently admit in private that a federation would be a good idea.
History is also on the side of a European federation. “Federations are established when there’s an external threat,” says Matt Qvortrup, a senior research fellow at Australian National University’s Centre for European Studies.
This was the case with the United States. After declaring independence in 1776, the states were a loose confederation. They only became the federation we have today in 1789. Menaced by bigger powers — Britain, France, and Spain — they came together to safeguard their sovereignty. As Simms writes, “successful unions have resulted not from gradual processes of convergence in relatively benign circumstances but through sharp ruptures in periods of extreme crisis.”
But, even in a crisis, a European superstate won’t magically appear. It has to be willed into existence. The political landscape across Europe isn’t helping. The EU is divided between pro-European parties and Euro-skeptic nationalist parties. The pro-European faction must do more than simply defend against nationalist attacks; it must start advocating for a federation outright. Otherwise, it risks being seen as apologists for the EU’s bureaucracy. The choice shouldn’t be between the EU as it is now and nationalism. It should be between deeper integration and nationalism.
If pro-Europeans don’t offer that choice, nationalists will prevail. Far from pursuing a United States of Europe, some countries could even slam the door on the status quo: the EU. After all, Brexit showed that leaving the bloc is possible.
But failure is not inevitable. Public opinion across Europe is complicated — and more pro-European — than it might seem. Voters may be frustrated with the EU, but they are not opposed to a unified Europe. To the contrary. According to the latest Eurobarometer poll, 81 percent of Europeans support “a common defense and security policy among EU member states” while 74 percent approve of the euro. On average, Europeans also trust the EU more than their national governments. These are all signs that a federalist project might resonate with many, maybe even the majority of, Europeans.
Yet Europeans won’t clamor for a federation if leaders fail to champion it. More than anyone else, that responsibility falls to Macron. Rumor has it he fancies himself the first president of the United States of Europe. To be sure, he’s one of the few European politicians with the shoulders for the job. And at 47, he’s still young and ambitious enough to pull it off.
It will require all of his political courage. As a wise man once said, “The answer lies not in timidity but in boldness.” Macron should know. He’s the one who said it.