🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership ever stand up to Donald Trump and US big tech? Present inaction goes beyond a legal or economic failure: it represents a moral collapse. This situation calls into question the core principles of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to regulate its own online environment according to its own rules.

How We Got Here

To begin, let us recount the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive agreed to 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 embarrassment was all the greater because the commission also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through investments and purchases of energy and defense equipment. This arrangement revealed the fragility of Europe's dependence on the US.

Soon after, the US administration warned of severe additional taxes if Europe implemented its regulations against US tech firms on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades Brussels has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. Not a single counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its ultimate shield against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established market abuses, already proven in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in Europe's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to strengthen EU institutions. It seeks to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US State Department website, composed in alarmist, bombastic language similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism functions through assessing the degree of the coercion and imposing retaliatory measures. Provided most European governments agree, the EU executive could remove US products out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, prevent their financial activities and demand reparations as a requirement of re-entry to Europe's market.

The tool is not only economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to signal that Europe would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the period preceding the transatlantic agreement, many European governments talked tough in public, but failed to push for the instrument to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the last thing that the EU needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the trade tool, the EU should shut down social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

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

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, Europe should make large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, 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 gradually substitute all foreign “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its regulations are not binding, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If Europe continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to push back against Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a free and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will resist external influence or surrender 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 Brazilian leadership, who faced down Trump and showed that the way to deal with a bully is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.