🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels ever confront Donald Trump and American tech giants? Present lack of response is not just a regulatory or economic shortcoming: it represents a moral failure. This inaction undermines the core principles of Europe's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not only the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the right to regulate its own online environment according to its own regulations.

The Path to This Point

To begin, it's important to review the events leading here. In late July, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating agreement with Trump that established a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. This arrangement revealed the fragility of the EU'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.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades 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. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its ultimate protection against foreign pressure.

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

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. An official publication published on the US State Department website, written in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, charged the EU of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It condemned alleged limitations on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

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 European Commission could kick US goods and services out of the EU market, or impose tariffs on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and demand compensation as a requirement of readmittance to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that the EU would always resist foreign coercion. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the EU-US trade deal, several EU states used strong language in official statements, but failed to push for the mechanism to be used. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that Europe needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs serving external agendas – should have the freedom to decide for themselves about what they view and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now especially important, Europe should make large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. Brussels must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing Europe's digital rules on US firms.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. Europe must progressively replace all foreign “big tech” platforms and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the deeper the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the normalisation of lies. If the EU continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. Europe must act now, not only to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, South Korea and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will stand against foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, who faced down Trump and showed that the approach to deal with a bully is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to impose token fines, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.