🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels ever resist Donald Trump and American tech giants? Present passivity is not just a legal or economic shortcoming: it constitutes a moral collapse. This situation calls into question the core principles of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own laws.

The Path to This Point

First, consider how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission accepted a one-sided deal with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the commission also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and defense equipment. This arrangement exposed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration warned of severe additional taxes if the EU implemented its laws against American companies on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years EU officials has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since the US warning, Europe has done little. No counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “abuse” its dominant position in Europe's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to strengthen European democracy. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay published on the US State Department platform, written in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the extent of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. If most European governments agree, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of Europe's market, or impose tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, block their investments and require compensation as a requirement of readmittance to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to signal that the EU would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

In the period preceding the EU-US trade deal, many European governments talked tough in official statements, but failed to push for the mechanism to be activated. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are inconvenient. Along with the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should shut down social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest material the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

Citizens – not the algorithms of international billionaires serving foreign interests – should have the autonomy to make independent choices about what they view and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should hold large US tech firms accountable for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing EU digital rules on American companies.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the more profound the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The greater the tendency that its regulations are unenforceable, its institutions lacking autonomy, its democracy dependent.

When that occurs, the route to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the normalisation of lies. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same decline. The EU must take immediate steps, not just to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a independent and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, who confronted Trump and showed that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to levy symbolic penalties, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have already lost.