For Norwegians, Americans are both “them” and “us.” This duality has historical roots, tracing back to the massive Norwegian emigration to the United States that began in the early 19th century. Today, almost as many people of Norwegian descent live in the United States as live in Norway, and the bonds between the two groups remain strong. Consequently, Norwegians exhibit a deep attraction, indeed fascination, with the United States and have formed strong emotional attachments to it.
Norwegian politicians and the general public closely follow developments in U.S. politics. Media outlets cover a wide range of topics, from news and celebrities to popular culture and scandals; academics attend American conferences, build networks, and seek to publish in American journals. Many people travel across the Atlantic both ways. Left-leaning Americans have been fascinated by the Nordic Model, which features generous public health and welfare policies, as well as Norway’s use of its petroleum-based sovereign wealth fund, which has attracted particular attention.
Geopolitical developments reinforced Norwegians’ attachment to the United States, especially once the United States became more globally active during the first half of the 20th century. Norwegians have expressed deep gratitude for the American war effort in Europe and its role in quashing the Nazi regime that occupied Norway. Prior to the rise of the Nazi regime, Norway had been more closely aligned with continental Europe, particularly Germany. After World War II there was a pronounced transatlantic turn, with Britain and the United States becoming far more prominent not only in economic and security matters but also culturally and scientifically.
Ironically, just as Norway/US ties in recent years were becoming stronger, the Trump regime began a highly effective job of wrecking America’s reputation as a reliable partner and as a beacon for democracy, the rule of law and legally regulated trade and international relations. The reaction to this “wrecking ball” approach was to begin shifting Norway back toward the European continent.
Attraction and distance
The Norway-U.S. relationship is marked by attraction and distance. The distance is not merely physical but also political and ideological. Though the United States and Norway belong to the same Western liberal-democratic family, there are ideological and socioeconomic differences. Norway is far more egalitarian than the United States, and even if it has a history of violations of the rights and culture of Sami people, this was never of the same magnitude as America’s institutionalized slavery or slaughter of Native Americans, and Norway has not experienced internal strife comparable to the American Civil War (the Quisling government during the Nazi occupation had very limited popular support).
Ideologically speaking, the Norwegian party-political spectrum is clearly to the left of the American. There is still a high level of trust in government and a widely held recognition that a well-functioning state bureaucracy is essential for a well-functioning society. There is cross-partisan support for the public health system and generous welfare programs. While there is disagreement over the nature and level of taxation, most parties in Norway recognize the need for tax revenues sufficient to cover the costs of generous public benefits. Indeed, it is possible to promise higher taxes and still win elections. Demography, topography, and the need for security vis-à-vis neighbouring Russia place stress on Norway’s generous welfare state within a decentralized governing system, but its politicians can and do draw on the massive petroleum fund to make up the shortfall.
Dependence and vulnerability
The high level of Norwegian interest in the United States combines an attraction based on inquisitiveness with concerns due to power and vulnerability. As the world’s major superpower, the United States has a significant impact on Norwegian affairs, both directly and indirectly. Here, distance is an asset and a resource, while proximity is a source of vulnerability.
The Trump administration’s wrecking job draws attention to Norwegian vulnerability to erratic American policies. Vulnerability can be said to comprise two key dimensions: external threats and internal coping mechanisms. An intensified external threat and a decline in internal coping mechanisms yield an increase in vulnerability. For Norway, the most apparent area of vulnerability is security. Norway is a member of NATO and has dismantled much of its Cold War military capability, leaving it largely dependent on rapid allied military support in the event of a Russian attack. There is now a commitment to a significant increase in military spending, but this will take time to translate into operational capability.
Norway has a 197.7-kilometre-long border with Russia, so the threat is tangible. This border runs near the Kola Peninsula, where Russia has most of its nuclear submarine fleet. Russia is therefore also concerned with what Norway and its allies do, especially in the border province of Finnmark, Norway’s northernmost province. Norway has maintained a self-declared policy since 1949 of not allowing permanent foreign bases on its soil. Still, this stance has been reversed in the last decade, with the establishment of a small American base in central, though not northern, Norway.
The Russian external threat has arguably increased since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Even if Russia has not directly threatened Norway, cyberattacks have increased. Russia is militarizing the Arctic, potentially putting Norway’s sovereignty over the Svalbard archipelago in jeopardy. Moreover, Norway is not a member of the European Union and therefore cannot rely on the same level of European support as can EU members. This is important because the EU is itself shifting from emphasis on “civilian power Europe” to strategic autonomy, including in security terms. Together with its member states, the EU is taking measures to make up for waning U.S. military interest and presence in Europe, and has become engaged in a wide range of areas of soft security (including cyberthreats and economic security).
The question of Norway’s EU affiliation is closely tied to the internal dimension of Norway’s vulnerability. EU membership is highly contested, and there is little appetite among most politicians for undertaking a lengthy and arduous application process, given that the question of Norwegian EU membership was rejected in two popular referendums (1972 and 1994). With the membership option more or less domestically blocked, there is less assurance of European support, which places Norway in a precarious security position. Norway has sought as close an affiliation with the EU as possible for a non-member in virtually all areas of EU activity, but that cannot compensate for the vulnerability that non-member status entails.
Recent developments also underscore the need to consider power and vulnerability in relation to trade and tariffs. The United States is one of Norway’s main trading partners, with Norway registering a trade surplus. In 2024, Norway’s imports from the United States amounted to NOK 61.756 billion, and its exports to the United States were NOK 82.677 billion, for a surplus of NOK 20.921 billion (USD 2.034 billion).
By Trumpian logic, this constitutes unfair trade, so Norway was subjected to a 15 per cent tariff. Norway’s large trade volume with the United States makes it vulnerable to Trump’s machinations. Furthermore, whereas Norway is incorporated into the EU’s internal market through the European Economic Area Agreement (EEA), it is not a member of the EU’s Customs Union and is therefore vulnerable to EU retaliatory measures against American tariffs and the shield that the EU puts up against third countries to protect its market from being flooded. The EU has expressed support for Norway’s situation, but what that concretely amounts to remains to be seen.
A third source of vulnerability stems from Norway’s significant involvement in the U.S. economy, largely due to the substantial investment its large petroleum-based Pension Fund has made in the American stock market. Most of the fund’s investments are in equities, which makes it vulnerable to the vagaries of the market and erratic and unpredictable politicians. Indeed, the value of the Pension Fund has declined considerably since Trump took office (by NOK 1.1 trillion out of a total of close to NOK 20 trillion in 2024).
This brief overview reveals that Norway is highly susceptible to American influence and vulnerable to shifts in U.S. policy, particularly in both conventional and unconventional forms of security. Further, as a small country with a very open economy, Norway relies heavily on a legally regulated and predictable global economic system. Its close EU affiliation provides some protection, but has its limits because of Norway’s reluctance to become an EU member.
The Trump administration has threatened to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal, and even talks of making Canada the 51st state. It also directly seeks to influence politics elsewhere, such as when Vice President Vance supported the extremist AfD in the German election. In the case of Norway, the American embassy demanded that the company delivering remote heating, Hafslund Celsio, sign a declaration stating that it does not have any DEI programs. If it did not, the embassy could cease its payments. The company is majority owned by the Oslo municipality; not surprisingly, it declined to sign. An editorial in the major broadsheet Aftenposten commented: “There are probably some employees in the embassy who are annoyed by what is being imposed on them by their chiefs in Washington … embarrassing and futile diplomacy.”
Trump’s lack of resonance
The Norwegian political establishment is, unsurprisingly, unimpressed by Trump II, but exercises caution in how it expresses this. That is evident in the decision by Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre’s Labour-led government not to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs. Instead, he and the finance minister, former NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, went to Washington and met with Trump, with whom Stoltenberg reportedly has a good rapport. Media reports of the meeting vary from commending the Norwegian government for its efforts to scolding it for not standing up to Trump.
Norway ranks at the top of the World Press Freedom Index 2025, and the media scene is in effect unanimously anti-Trump. No major media outlet voices support for Trump or his policies. It is on social media that much pro-Trump propaganda is to be found (one example is Dokument.no). Given that Trumpism does cross the Atlantic, a crucial question is how it should be addressed and opposed. The overall impression is that Norwegian media outlets are fairly cautious, striving to provide balanced accounts. One risk is underestimating the challenges to democracy or the strength of the authoritarian onslaught.
The differences outlined above between the American and Norwegian political scenes underline the lack of resonance for Trump’s policies within the Norwegian political establishment. There is no doubt that the vast majority of Norwegians will continue to support American values and, precisely because of that, be anti-Trump. After the election and Trump’s assumption of office, a poll found that 83 per cent of Norwegians think Trump is moving the United States in the wrong direction, with 7 per cent believing the United States is on the right track. Yet we should not ignore pre-election polls revealing that almost half of Norwegian young men would have voted for Trump.
We do not live in normal times (however we define normal). Perhaps in the future, people will look back on this time as the end of an unprecedentedly long period of peace and tranquillity in the West. We have had the privilege not only of dreaming democratic dreams but also of practising what we preach. Within the large tapestry of history, this may stand out as a rarer pattern than we would like it to be.
But morality, not history, should be our main guiding light. We need pessimism to cut through the conspiracy theories, but optimism to recognize the sheer value of what we already have. By fully recognizing the morality we have embedded in laws, institutions and political cultures, we have important and powerful countervailing measures. Public opinion is also shifting. The Canadian and Australian elections give grounds for hope, as does the rising US resistance. Every society that stands up, refuses to be bullied and joins hands with others supports a livable future.
To get there, we need to “bell the cat,” as the Norwegian saying goes. Autocracy, corruption, nepotism and deceit must be called out and confronted. We must work to ensure that the trolls will burst when the penetrating light of truth-telling shines upon them.
Notes
1 John Erik Fossum, “Is the Nordic Model More Compatible with the American Dream than Present-Day United States?”, in Robert C. Hauhart and Mitja Sardoc, eds., The Routledge Handbook on the American Dream, Vol. 1 (New York: Routledge, 2024), pp. 105–120; Ingrid Christensen, John Erik Fossum and Bent-Sofus Tranøy, “From American Dream to Nordic Realities?”, in Robert C. Hauhart and Mitja Sardoc, eds., The Routledge Handbook on the American Dream, Vol. 2 (New York: Routledge, 2025), pp. 64–120.
2 Ibid.
3 Simply put, the left-right dimension manifests itself in contestation over how much of health and welfare services should be provided by public versus private actors, not whether welfare should be publicly funded.
There is a recognized need to maintain a substantial population in the northernmost part of the country, which borders Russia.
