🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels finally stand up to Donald Trump and American tech giants? The current inaction goes beyond a legal or economic shortcoming: it represents a moral collapse. This inaction calls into question the core principles of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not merely the future of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the right to govern its own digital space according to its own regulations.

Background Context

First, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a one-sided agreement with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also agreed to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases 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 Europe implemented its regulations against US tech firms on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades Brussels 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 retaliatory measure has been taken. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate protection against external coercion.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for established anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has made its intentions clear: it no longer seeks to strengthen European democracy. It seeks to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US State Department platform, written in alarmist, inflammatory language similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned alleged limitations on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the extent of the pressure and applying retaliatory measures. If EU member states agree, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and require reparations as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The instrument is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the period leading to the EU-US trade deal, many European governments talked tough in official statements, but failed to push for the instrument to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the worst option that Europe needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the trade tool, the EU should shut down social media “for you”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the automated systems of international billionaires beholden to external agendas – should have the freedom to decide for themselves about what they see and distribute online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, Europe should hold large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold Ireland responsible for not implementing Europe's digital rules on American companies.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms 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 act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its regulations are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If the EU continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same decline. The EU must act now, not only to resist US pressure, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, Asia and East Asia, democracies are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, who confronted Trump and demonstrated that the approach to address a bully is to hit hard.

But if Europe delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to impose symbolic penalties, to anticipate a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.