🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels ever stand up to Donald Trump and American tech giants? Present inaction is not just a regulatory or economic failure: it represents a ethical collapse. This situation calls into question the bedrock of Europe's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the right to govern its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

First, let us recount the events leading here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a one-sided deal with Trump that established a permanent 15% tax on European goods to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the EU also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. The deal exposed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration warned of crushing additional taxes if the EU implemented its laws against US tech firms on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades EU officials has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since the US warning, the EU has taken minimal action. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its ultimate shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for established market abuses, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership in Europe's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen European democracy. It seeks to undermine it. A recent essay released on the US Department of State's platform, composed in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? Europe's trade defense mechanism works by assessing the degree of the pressure and imposing counter-actions. Provided most European governments agree, the European Commission could remove US products out of the EU market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their intellectual property rights, block their financial activities and demand compensation as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The instrument is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the trade tool, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the automated systems of international billionaires beholden to foreign interests – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they view and share online.

The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to water down its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should make large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. Brussels must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing EU online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. The EU must progressively replace all foreign “major technology” services and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of the current situation is that if Europe does not act now, it will become permanently passive. 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 regulations are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

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 Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will resist external influence or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who confronted US pressure and demonstrated that the way to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to levy token fines, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.