🔗 Share this article

Will the EU ever confront the US administration and American tech giants? The current passivity is not just a regulatory or financial failure: it constitutes a ethical failure. This situation undermines the bedrock of the EU's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not only the future of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

To begin, let us recount the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a one-sided deal with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the commission also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. The deal exposed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of crushing new tariffs if the EU enforced its regulations against US tech firms on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable sway in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. Not a single retaliatory measure has been implemented. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate shield against external coercion.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for established anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it no longer seeks to strengthen EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. A recent essay released on the US State Department platform, composed in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized 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 assessing the degree of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their investments and require compensation as a requirement of readmittance to Europe's market.

The instrument is not only economic retaliation; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to signal that Europe would always resist 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 official statements, but did not advocate the instrument to be used. Others, including Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

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

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving foreign interests – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they view 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 distorting competition, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must hold certain member states accountable for failing to enforce EU online regulations on American companies.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. The EU must progressively replace all foreign “major technology” services and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will never act again. 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 lacking autonomy, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the route to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to push back against Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a free and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, Asia and East Asia, democracies are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will stand against foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, 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 issue polite statements, to levy token fines, to anticipate a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.