🔗 Share this article

Can the EU ever confront Donald Trump and American tech giants? The current inaction is not just a regulatory or economic failure: it constitutes a ethical collapse. This inaction throws into question the very foundation of the EU's democratic identity. The central issue is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own regulations.

How We Got Here

First, consider how we got here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a one-sided agreement with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the commission also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of energy and defense equipment. The deal exposed the vulnerability of the EU's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump threatened severe additional taxes if Europe implemented its regulations against US tech firms on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years Brussels has claimed that its market of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since the US warning, Europe has taken minimal action. No counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its ultimate shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding market abuses, previously established in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “abuse” its dominant position in the EU's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to support EU institutions. It seeks to undermine it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's platform, written in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged the EU of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

What is to be done? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the extent of the coercion and imposing retaliatory measures. If most European governments consent, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their financial activities and demand reparations as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to signal that Europe would never tolerate external pressure. 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 transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in public, but did not advocate the instrument to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.

Compromise is the last thing that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving foreign interests – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they view and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, the EU should hold American technology companies accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold certain member states responsible for failing to enforce Europe's digital rules on American companies.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. Europe must progressively replace all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The greater the tendency that its laws are not binding, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its democracy dependent.

When that occurs, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the acceptance of lies. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same decline. Europe must act now, not only to push back against Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a free and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community 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 resist external influence or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who confronted Trump and demonstrated that the way to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy token fines, to hope for a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.