🔗 Share this article

Will the EU finally confront Donald Trump and US big tech? Present inaction is not just a regulatory or financial shortcoming: it represents a moral collapse. This situation calls into question the bedrock of the EU's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not merely the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own laws.

Background Context

First, let us recount how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating deal with the US that established a ongoing 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the commission also consented to direct well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. This arrangement revealed the vulnerability of Europe's dependence on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump warned of severe new tariffs if the EU enforced its laws against US tech firms on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years Brussels has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, Europe has done little. No counter-action has been taken. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its primary 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, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to support European democracy. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay released on the US Department of State's website, composed in alarmist, inflammatory language reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged Europe 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.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the extent of the pressure and imposing retaliatory measures. If EU member states agree, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or impose tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, prevent their financial activities and demand reparations as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.

The instrument is not only financial response; it is a statement of political will. It was created to signal that Europe would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states talked tough in official statements, but did not advocate 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 regulations, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the trade tool, the EU should disable social media “for you”-style algorithms, that recommend content the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the algorithms of international billionaires beholden to external agendas – should have the freedom 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, the EU should hold large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold Ireland responsible for not implementing EU online regulations on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” services and cloud services over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of the current situation is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the more profound the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its institutions not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. The EU must act now, not just to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a free and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In Canada, Asia and East Asia, democratic nations are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will resist external influence or surrender to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons 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 hit hard.

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