🔗 Share this article

Will the EU finally resist the US administration and American tech giants? Present passivity is not just a regulatory or financial failure: it constitutes a moral failure. This inaction throws into question the bedrock of the EU's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not merely the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

First, consider how we got here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a humiliating deal with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The indignity was compounded because the commission also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and defense equipment. This arrangement revealed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of crushing new tariffs if the EU enforced its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant sway in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been implemented. No invocation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in US courts, that enabled it to “abuse” its market leadership in Europe's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to support European democracy. It seeks to undermine it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's platform, written in paranoid, bombastic language similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned alleged limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

What is to be done? Europe's trade defense mechanism functions through calculating the extent of the pressure and imposing counter-actions. If most European governments consent, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or impose taxes on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, prevent their investments and demand compensation as a condition of readmittance to Europe's market.

The instrument is not only economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was created to demonstrate that the EU would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Political Divisions

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be activated. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “for you”-style systems, that suggest content the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the algorithms of international billionaires serving foreign interests – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they view and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, the EU should hold American technology companies accountable for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure Ireland accountable for not implementing Europe's digital rules on US firms.

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

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are unenforceable, its institutions not sovereign, its democracy not self-determined.

When that occurs, the path to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same decline. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to push back against US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a free and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In North America, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are asking whether representative governments can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who confronted Trump and demonstrated that the way to address a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy token fines, to hope for a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.