Negotiations for the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union represent an opportunity for Trump to reaffirm his political action against Brussels and its unity. A divided Europe would be more congenial to the White House’s economic aims: facing individual countries in commercial competition would certainly be easier than confronting an economically strong and cohesive subject. It is no mystery that for Trump Europe is an inconvenient ally: unreliable on the military level and even seen almost as an enemy on the economic side. Despite the lack of affinity with the British prime minister, the US president has defended England against the Union because of the treatment that Brussels is reserving in London. According to Trump, Europe is too strict on the process of English autonomy. The annotation is not, however, accidental, but it is instrumental to the decision to impose customs duties on European commodity sectors, such as the agri-food sector and, above all, that relating to the production of aerial vehicles for civil use. For Trump, instead of looking at the costs and benefits induced by the global nature of trade with foreign countries, it is necessary to rebalance every single balance of payments with each respective economic partner and that towards Europe is in favor of Brussels of around 10 billion euros. The tactic of the American president seems the same: to raise the price of the negotiation and then collect a smaller result, but which, however, constitutes an advantage for the United States. But Trump’s irritation also stems from England’s failure to exit the Union without agreement, a solution that would have favored direct relations between London and Washington and weakened the Union, according to the perspective of the US government. Moreover, the lengthening of the negotiations, which is emerging, represents a hindrance to Trump’s hopes, which, indeed, sees the possibility of an agreement agreed with the real possibility of a customs union between England and Europe materializing; this would not favor American products in England, both physical and financial. The American president also spoke out against the possibility of a new referendum being held, considering it wrong because it would go against the first pronouncement of the English people, which he considers definitive. Trump’s aversion to the European Union is thus not only a practical one, but also a political one, refusing to admit, in accordance with European sovereignists and the English supporters themselves of an exit without agreement, that the referendum voted was only by nature consultative and did not oblige the British government, of whatever political address it had been, to open a phase of internal negotiations and negotiations with the Union, which are bringing the English country to heavy lacerations within it and with very serious economic consequences. The signal that Trump launches with these statements is eloquent: although the USA remains Europe’s best allies, many things have changed and from Brussels a strong signal should arrive to show that the message has been received. In the same way, this latest intervention by Trump must become a lesson for European institutions, which must preserve their territory even from the interference of allies that have special interests in dividing the Union.