🔗 Share this article

Can the EU finally resist the US administration and American tech giants? The current inaction is not just a regulatory or financial failure: it constitutes a ethical collapse. This inaction throws into question the core principles of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the future of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own regulations.

Background Context

First, let us recount the events leading here. In late July, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating agreement with the US that established a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. The deal exposed the fragility of the EU's reliance on the US.

Soon after, the US administration threatened severe additional taxes if Europe implemented its laws against American companies on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades EU officials has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No invocation of the new anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its ultimate shield against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “abuse” its dominant position in the EU's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. An official publication published on the US State Department platform, written in paranoid, inflammatory language similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused the EU 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.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by assessing the extent of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided EU member states agree, the European Commission could kick US products out of the EU market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their investments and demand compensation as a condition of readmittance to Europe's market.

The instrument is not only financial response; it is a declaration of political will. It was designed to signal that Europe would always resist external pressure. 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 months leading to the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be activated. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the trade tool, the EU should shut down social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that recommend content the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs serving external agendas – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and share online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now especially important, Europe should hold large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing Europe's digital rules on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must progressively replace all foreign “big tech” platforms and cloud services over the coming years with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of the current situation is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, 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 political system dependent.

When that happens, the path to authoritarianism becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same decline. Europe must act now, not only to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a free and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, South Korea and Japan, democracies are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will resist foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy token fines, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.