🔗 Share this article

Will Brussels ever confront the US administration and US big tech? The current inaction goes beyond a legal or economic failure: it represents a ethical failure. This situation undermines the bedrock of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the right to govern its own online environment according to its own laws.

How We Got Here

To begin, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission accepted a one-sided deal with Trump that established a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the commission also agreed to direct more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. The deal revealed the fragility of Europe's reliance on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened crushing new tariffs if the EU implemented its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable sway in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. No retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the recently created trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate shield against external coercion.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established anticompetitive behaviour, 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 European democracy. It aims to weaken it. An official publication published on the US State Department website, written in paranoid, bombastic language reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, charged the EU of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It condemned alleged restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument works by assessing the degree of the pressure and applying retaliatory measures. If most European governments consent, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of Europe's market, or impose tariffs on them. It can remove their intellectual property rights, prevent their financial activities and demand compensation as a condition of re-entry to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was created to signal that Europe would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the worst option that Europe needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are proven safe for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

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

Trump is putting Europe under pressure to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, the EU 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 failing to enforce EU online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” platforms and cloud services over the next decade with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of the current situation is that if the EU does not act now, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its laws are not binding, its institutions lacking autonomy, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the path 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 US pressure, but to establish conditions 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, Asia and East Asia, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will resist external influence or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who confronted Trump and showed that the way to address a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to impose symbolic penalties, to anticipate a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.