🔗 Share this article

Can the EU ever resist Donald Trump and American tech giants? Present inaction is not just a regulatory or financial shortcoming: it constitutes a ethical failure. This situation throws into question the bedrock of Europe's democratic identity. The central issue is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

To begin, let us recount the events leading here. In late July, the EU executive accepted a one-sided agreement with Trump that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The indignity was compounded because the commission also consented to provide more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. This arrangement revealed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened severe new tariffs if the EU enforced its laws against American companies on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years EU officials 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 taken minimal action. Not a single retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate protection against external coercion.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established market abuses, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership 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 EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. An official publication released on the US Department of State's website, written in alarmist, inflammatory language similar to Hungarian leadership, accused the EU of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument functions through calculating the degree of the coercion and applying retaliatory measures. If EU member states consent, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, block their financial activities and demand compensation as a requirement of readmittance to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that the EU would never tolerate 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 preceding the EU-US trade deal, many European governments talked tough in public, but failed to push for the mechanism to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should shut down social media “for you”-style algorithms, that recommend material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the algorithms of international billionaires beholden to external agendas – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they view and share online.

Trump is putting Europe under pressure to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, Europe should make American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. Brussels must hold Ireland accountable for failing to enforce Europe's digital rules on American companies.

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

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of the current situation is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its laws are not binding, its institutions not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that happens, the route to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same decline. Europe must act now, not just to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to function as a independent and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In Canada, South Korea and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will resist external influence or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who confronted US pressure and showed that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to impose symbolic penalties, to hope for a better future, it will have already lost.