🔗 Share this article

Will the EU finally confront the US administration and American tech giants? Present inaction is not just a regulatory or economic failure: it represents a ethical failure. This situation calls into question the core principles of Europe's political sovereignty. The central issue is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the right to regulate its own digital space according to its own regulations.

How We Got Here

First, it's important to review how we got here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a one-sided agreement with the US that established a permanent 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the commission also consented to provide more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. The deal revealed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened crushing additional taxes if the EU enforced its regulations against US tech firms on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades EU officials has claimed that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. Not a single counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the new trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “abuse” its dominant position in Europe's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to support European democracy. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US State Department website, written in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It condemned alleged restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by calculating the extent of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided EU member states consent, the European Commission could remove US products out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, block their investments and demand reparations as a condition of readmittance to EU economic space.

The instrument is not only economic retaliation; it is a statement of political will. It was created to demonstrate that the EU would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, many European governments talked tough in public, but failed to push for the instrument to be used. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that suggest material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs beholden to foreign interests – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and distribute online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now especially important, the EU should hold American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must ensure Ireland accountable for failing to enforce EU online regulations on American companies.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the deeper the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If Europe continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same decline. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to push back against Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, South Korea and East Asia, democracies are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will resist foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, who confronted Trump and showed that the way to address a bully is to hit hard.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.