🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels finally confront the US administration and US big tech? The current lack of response goes beyond a legal or economic failure: it represents a ethical failure. This situation undermines the core principles of Europe's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not merely the future of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the authority to govern its own online environment according to its own laws.

The Path to This Point

To begin, let us recount the events leading here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating agreement with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was all the greater 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 fragility of Europe's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of crushing additional taxes if the EU implemented its laws against US tech firms on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years EU officials has asserted that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, Europe has done little. Not a single counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate protection against external coercion.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of under 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding market abuses, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “abuse” its dominant position in Europe's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it no longer seeks to support EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay released on the US State Department platform, composed in paranoid, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized alleged limitations on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism functions through assessing the degree of the coercion and applying counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the EU executive could kick US products out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, prevent their investments and demand compensation as a condition of re-entry to Europe's market.

The tool is not only economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was created to signal that the EU would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

In the months leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states talked tough in official statements, but failed to push for the instrument to be activated. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the trade tool, Europe should shut down social media “recommended”-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 algorithms of foreign oligarchs beholden to foreign interests – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they see and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, Europe should hold American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. Brussels must hold certain member states accountable for failing to enforce EU digital rules on US firms.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. The EU must progressively replace all foreign “major technology” services and cloud services over the next decade with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. 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 make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, South Korea and Japan, democracies are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will resist external influence or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who confronted US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to hope for a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.