🔗 Share this article

Can European leadership finally confront Donald Trump and US big tech? The current passivity goes beyond a legal or financial shortcoming: it represents a ethical failure. This situation calls into question the core principles of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own laws.

Background Context

First, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the EU executive agreed to a one-sided deal with the US that established a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. Europe 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 purchases of energy and military materiel. This arrangement exposed the fragility of the EU's reliance on the US.

Soon after, Trump warned of severe new tariffs if Europe enforced its laws against US tech firms on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years EU officials has asserted that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it significant leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has taken minimal action. Not a single retaliatory measure has been implemented. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its ultimate protection against external coercion.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in Europe's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen European democracy. It aims to weaken it. A recent essay published on the US State Department website, written in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized alleged restrictions on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the extent of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. If most European governments agree, the European Commission could kick US products out of Europe's market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, prevent their financial activities and require compensation as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that the EU would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in public, but failed to push for the instrument to be activated. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the last thing that Europe needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style algorithms, that recommend content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the algorithms of international billionaires beholden to external agendas – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they see and distribute online.

Trump is putting Europe under pressure to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, the EU should hold American technology companies responsible for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. Brussels must ensure certain member states accountable for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. The EU must progressively replace all foreign “major technology” services and computing infrastructure over the coming years with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its laws are not binding, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its political system not self-determined.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to push back against US pressure, but to create space for itself to exist as a free and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In Canada, South Korea and East Asia, democratic nations are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will stand against foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who faced down Trump and demonstrated that the approach to address a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if Europe delays, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have already lost.