🔗 Share this article

Will the EU ever confront the US administration and American tech giants? The current passivity is not just a regulatory or economic failure: it represents a moral collapse. This situation calls into question the bedrock of the EU's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own regulations.

Background Context

To begin, consider how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission accepted a one-sided agreement with Trump that established a permanent 15% tax on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the commission also consented to direct well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of resources and military materiel. The deal revealed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of severe additional taxes if the EU enforced its laws against American companies on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years Brussels has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the recently created trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its primary shield against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “exploit” its market leadership in the EU's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen European democracy. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay released on the US State Department platform, written in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It criticized alleged restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

What is to be done? Europe's trade defense mechanism functions through assessing the degree of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the EU executive could kick US products out of the EU market, or impose taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and demand compensation as a condition of readmittance to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely economic retaliation; it is a declaration of political will. It was created to demonstrate that the EU would always resist foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Others, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that Europe needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the automated systems of international billionaires beholden to foreign interests – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, the EU should make American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold Ireland responsible for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. The EU must progressively replace all non-EU “major technology” services and cloud services over the next decade with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the deeper the erosion of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are unenforceable, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the normalisation of lies. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In North America, South Korea and Japan, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who confronted Trump and showed that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if Europe delays, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have already lost.