🔗 Share this article

Will Brussels ever confront the US administration and American tech giants? The current inaction is not just a regulatory or economic failure: it constitutes a moral failure. This situation throws into question the bedrock of Europe's political sovereignty. The central issue is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe 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. In late July, the European Commission accepted a one-sided agreement with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tariff on European goods to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the EU also agreed to provide more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of resources and defense equipment. The deal revealed the vulnerability of the EU's reliance on the US.

Soon after, the US administration warned of severe additional taxes if Europe implemented its laws against US tech firms on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years Brussels has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it significant leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, Europe has done little. No counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for established market abuses, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has made its intentions clear: it no longer seeks to strengthen European democracy. It aims to weaken it. A recent essay published on the US State Department website, written in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It condemned supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

What is to be done? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by calculating the degree of the pressure and imposing counter-actions. Provided EU member states consent, the EU executive could kick US products out of the EU market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their financial activities and demand compensation as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely economic retaliation; it is a declaration of political will. It was designed to signal that Europe would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the trade tool, Europe should disable social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not requested, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving external agendas – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they see and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, Europe should hold American technology companies responsible for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. Brussels must hold certain member states accountable for not implementing EU online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. The EU must progressively replace all non-EU “major technology” platforms and cloud services over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of the current situation is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the path to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If the EU continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must act now, not only to push back against Trump, but to create space for itself to function as a free and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democracies are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will resist external influence or yield to it.

They are asking whether representative governments can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down Trump and demonstrated that the way to deal with a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to impose token fines, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.