🔗 Share this article

Can the EU ever confront the US administration and American tech giants? Present passivity is not just a legal or financial shortcoming: it represents a ethical failure. This situation throws into question the bedrock of Europe's democratic identity. The central issue is not only the fate 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 laws.

Background Context

To begin, let us recount how we got here. In late July, the EU executive agreed to a one-sided deal with Trump that established a permanent 15% tax on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the EU also agreed to direct well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. This arrangement exposed the vulnerability of the EU's reliance on the US.

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

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades Brussels has claimed that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it significant sway in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been implemented. No invocation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established market abuses, previously established in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in the EU's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. An official publication released on the US State Department website, composed in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by assessing the extent of the pressure and imposing retaliatory measures. If EU member states consent, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or apply taxes on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, block their investments and require reparations as a condition of re-entry to Europe's market.

The instrument is not only financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was created to demonstrate that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Political Divisions

In the period preceding the transatlantic agreement, many European governments talked tough in public, but did not advocate the instrument to be used. 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. In addition to the trade tool, Europe should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the automated systems 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 water down its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should make American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure certain member states accountable for failing to enforce Europe's digital rules on American companies.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. The EU must gradually substitute all foreign “major technology” services and computing infrastructure over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of the current situation is that if the EU 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 institutions not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the route to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same decline. Europe must act now, not only to push back against US pressure, but to create space for itself to function as a free and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, South Korea and East Asia, democratic nations are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against external influence or surrender to it.

They are asking whether representative governments can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the way to deal with a bully is to respond firmly.

But if Europe delays, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to impose token fines, to hope for a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.