🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels finally resist Donald Trump and American tech giants? The current passivity goes beyond a legal or economic failure: it represents a ethical failure. This inaction calls into question the bedrock of the EU's democratic identity. The central issue is not only the future of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the right to govern its own online environment according to its own regulations.

How We Got Here

First, consider the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive agreed to a humiliating agreement 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 well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of resources and defense equipment. The deal revealed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of severe new tariffs if Europe implemented its regulations against US tech firms on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades EU officials has claimed that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, the EU has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No invocation of the recently created trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

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

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It seeks to weaken it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's website, written in paranoid, inflammatory language reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It condemned supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the degree of the coercion and applying retaliatory measures. Provided most European governments agree, the EU executive could kick US products out of Europe's market, or impose taxes on them. It can remove their intellectual property rights, block their investments and require reparations as a condition of readmittance to Europe's market.

The instrument is not only financial response; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would always resist foreign coercion. 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 preceding the EU-US trade deal, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but failed to push for the instrument to be activated. Others, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that Europe needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are challenging. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest 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 automated systems of international billionaires beholden to foreign interests – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they see and share online.

The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to weaken its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, Europe should make American technology companies accountable for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. Brussels must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” services and computing infrastructure over the coming years with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, 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 lacking autonomy, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to create space for itself to function as a independent and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, Asia and East Asia, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will resist foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who confronted Trump and showed that the approach to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy token fines, to anticipate a better future, it will have already lost.