Europe's Covert Weapon to Counter Trump's Trade Coercion: Time to Deploy It

Can Brussels ever confront Donald Trump and American tech giants? The current inaction is not just a legal or financial shortcoming: it represents a moral failure. This situation throws 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 the European Union has the right to govern its own online environment according to its own laws.

The Path to This Point

To begin, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission accepted a one-sided deal with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the EU also agreed to provide more than $1tn to the US through investments and purchases of resources and defense equipment. The deal revealed the vulnerability of Europe's dependence on the US.

Soon after, the US administration warned of severe new tariffs if Europe enforced its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years Brussels has claimed that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, Europe has taken minimal action. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the recently created trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its primary protection against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for longstanding market abuses, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its dominant position in Europe's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to support European democracy. It aims to undermine it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's website, written in paranoid, inflammatory rhetoric similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? Europe's trade defense mechanism works by calculating the degree of the coercion and imposing retaliatory measures. If EU member states consent, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can remove their intellectual property rights, prevent their financial activities and demand compensation as a condition of readmittance to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely economic retaliation; it is a declaration 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 the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

In the period preceding the EU-US trade deal, many European governments talked tough in official statements, but failed to push for the instrument to be used. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the last thing that Europe needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should shut down social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the algorithms of international billionaires serving foreign interests – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they see and distribute online.

The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to weaken its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should make American technology companies accountable for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. Brussels must ensure Ireland responsible for not implementing EU digital rules on American companies.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all foreign “major technology” services and computing infrastructure over the next decade with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the more profound the decline of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its laws are unenforceable, its institutions lacking autonomy, its democracy not self-determined.

When that occurs, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must act now, not just to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a free and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, South Korea and East Asia, democratic nations are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against foreign pressure 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 US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.