🎤 The architecture of trust - tested in real time.

The transatlantic partnership has been built on shared interests and shared values. But shared values do not mean identical institutions.

In a world where technology, data and artificial intelligence increasingly shape geopolitical influence, institutional differences increasingly matter alongside strategic objectives.

The past month has illustrated this with unusual clarity.

On May 20th 2026, the European Parliament and the European Council reached a provisional agreement with the United States that removes EU tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and caps most U.S. tariffs on EU products at 15% - averting an imminent tariff escalation and creating a new enforcement and safeguard architecture that will reshape transatlantic supply chains. The deal features a sunset clause expiring at the end of 2029 unless renewed and empowers the European Commission to suspend concessions if the U.S. fails to lift tariffs on European steel and aluminium products by the end of 2026.

Within the same period, the European Parliament approved amendments to the EU AI Act - simplifying compliance for providers while maintaining core safeguards, including bans on AI systems that generate non-consensual intimate imagery.

Two decisions. Same institutions. Same weeks. First about trade stability. Second about the conditions under which technology develops.

The connecting logic is identical: Europe is not seeking isolation. It is seeking the conditions under which openness remains sustainable. This is why concepts such as economic security, trusted partnerships and strategic resilience are becoming central to European policy - not as defensive reflexes, but as the architecture of long-term cooperation.

🎤 Spain's strategic position - more complex than it appears.

This is where geography and history become strategic assets. And where the analysis requires precision.

Spain is not a passive observer of the EU–U.S. relationship. Four U.S. AEGIS destroyers are permanently deployed at the Naval Station in Rota, contributing to NATO's Ballistic Missile Defence System. Spain hosts NATO's Combined Air Operations Centre in Torrejón de Ardoz, its Counter-IED Centre of Excellence in Hoyo de Manzanares, and its Rapid Deployable Corps headquarters in Bétera. These are not symbolic arrangements. They are operational infrastructure on which U.S. and NATO defence capabilities depend.

And yet the relationship is not frictionless. In early 2026, a diplomatic dispute intensified between Washington and Madrid over the possible use of Spanish military bases for operations in the Middle East - with contradictory statements from both governments revealing the depth of the underlying tensions. Spain was the only NATO member that refused to commit to the Alliance's new defence spending target of 5% of GDP by 2035, securing instead a special exemption capping its military budget at approximately 2.1% of GDP.

This complexity is analytically important. A country that simultaneously provides critical U.S. military infrastructure and maintains independent foreign policy positions on conflicts the U.S. is directly involved in is not a simple ally. It is a relationship that requires constant, careful calibration - from both sides.

Spain's value to the transatlantic partnership is not merely logistical. Its Mediterranean position creates direct exposure to questions of energy, migration and regional stability. Its historical and institutional links with Latin America provide insight into political and economic dynamics in countries -Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil- that Washington monitors closely. Spanish diplomat Javier Colomina was appointed NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for the Southern Neighbourhood in July 2024 -a signal of Spain's emerging role as an institutional bridge between the Alliance's northern core and its southern periphery.

A country capable of engaging credibly across Brussels, Washington, Rabat, Latin America -as a Region- and Kyiv is not simply a mid-sized European economy. It is a node in a network that the transatlantic relationship needs to understand - and to maintain.

🎤 The translation challenge.

The transatlantic relationship requires a capability that is often overlooked: translation.

Not linguistic translation. Institutional translation - the ability to take a policy priority that makes complete sense within one political system and make it understandable, actionable and legitimate within another. It is the capacity to understand not only what different actors decide, but why they reach different conclusions.

When the European Union regulates emerging technologies, it is applying a governance approach rooted in fundamental rights, accountability and public trust. When the United States prioritises technological leadership, it reflects a tradition focused on entrepreneurship, competition and market dynamism. When Spain maintains an independent position on a military conflict while hosting U.S. bases on its territory, it is not being incoherent. It is navigating the space between alliance obligations and democratic legitimacy - a space that every European ally is managing, with varying degrees of visibility.

- The challenge is not eliminating these differences. It is making them productive.

That requires institutions and professionals capable of understanding both systems from the inside: their incentives, their constraints, the historical and political reasons behind different approaches - and the analytical capacity to identify where they diverge, where they can be made to converge, and where the divergence itself is strategically meaningful.

🎤 What the next strategic cycle demands.

The period from June 2026 to December 2030 will not be defined by whether Europe and the United States remain partners. They will.

The defining question will be whether they can translate partnership into coordinated action on the issues that will shape the next strategic cycle: artificial intelligence governance, critical supply chain resilience, energy security, digital infrastructure, defence cooperation - and the management of relationships with countries in the Global South that neither side can afford to lose.

Building bridges in this environment is not a metaphor for goodwill. It is a practical capability. It requires analytical rigour, institutional knowledge, a network of contacts across public and private sectors, and the ability to produce reporting and analysis that is both factually grounded and strategically relevant.

The future of transatlantic cooperation will depend not only on who has influence. It will depend on who can build the frameworks through which influence becomes coordinated action.

And in that process, countries such as Spain - with their particular combination of strategic assets and political complexities - may have a role that deserves considerably more analytical attention than they currently receive.

Reference framework.

This analysis draws on recent policy developments and institutional frameworks shaping the transatlantic agenda, including the European Union’s approach to strategic autonomy, economic security and artificial intelligence governance; U.S. strategies focused on technological leadership, innovation capacity and national security resilience; and NATO’s evolving priorities regarding collective defence and emerging security challenges.

Recent assessments and policy frameworks from institutions such as the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the U.S. Department of State, NATO and the OECD increasingly highlight a common trend: future competitiveness and international influence will depend not only on technological capability or economic strength, but on the ability to build trusted frameworks for cooperation across different institutional models.

Christopher O. de Andrés is a strategic communications and public affairs professional with over 20 years of experience working across European institutions, international organisations and multilateral environments. His current analytical work explores how Artificial Intelligence is reshaping strategic competition, security policy and transatlantic cooperation.

And that remains essential.
But the environment in which influence operates has changed profoundly.
Trust is fragmenting.
Information travels instantly.
Artificial Intelligence is accelerating both knowledge and misinformation.
And citizens increasingly expect not only decisions, but explanations.

In this context, I believe Public Affairs is evolving beyond advocacy alone.
Its most valuable contribution may increasingly lie in helping organisations, institutions and stakeholders make sense of complexity.

Not simply influencing decisions.
Helping create the conditions in which better decisions become possible.
Less about controlling narratives.

More about helping stakeholders understand and navigate complexity into informed action.
Less about access to power.

More about building the informed dialogue that power ultimately depends on.
This is not a retreat from influence.
It is an expansion of it.

Because in a world flooded with information, influence may become easier to achieve.
Understanding may become harder.
And therefore, more valuable.

This challenge is increasingly visible across governments, international organisations, businesses and civil society alike.

The organisations and professionals that will lead Public Affairs in the next decade may not be those with the loudest voices.

They may be those most capable of building trust, fostering understanding and translating complexity into meaningful dialogue.

Because influence without understanding can shape decisions.
But understanding is what sustains legitimacy.

So perhaps the question is no longer whether Public Affairs should influence decisions.
The question is whether influence alone is still enough.

What do you think?

In an era defined by complexity, trust and AI, should Public Affairs be measured only by its ability to influence outcomes - or also by its ability to help society understand them?

*** One additional thought:

For years, Public Affairs professionals have been asked how effectively we influence decisions.
Perhaps one of the defining questions of the next decade will be:
How effectively do we help others understand the context behind those decisions?
The two are not mutually exclusive - but the balance may be shifting.