🔗 Share this article

Can the EU finally stand up to the US administration and American tech giants? Present inaction is not just a legal or economic shortcoming: it constitutes a moral collapse. This inaction calls into question the very foundation of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not only the fate 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.

The Path to This Point

First, consider how we got here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a humiliating agreement with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tax on European goods to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the commission also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. 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 regulations against US tech firms on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in international commerce. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its primary protection against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in US courts, that enabled it to “abuse” its dominant position in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It seeks to weaken it. An official publication published on the US State Department platform, composed in paranoid, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized supposed limitations 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 anti-coercion instrument works by assessing the extent of the coercion and imposing retaliatory measures. Provided most European governments consent, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or impose taxes on them. It can remove their intellectual property rights, block their financial activities and require reparations as a condition of re-entry to Europe's market.

The tool is not only financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to signal that the EU would never tolerate foreign coercion. 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 period leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the instrument to be activated. Some nations, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the trade tool, the EU should shut down social media “for you”-style algorithms, that recommend content the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the algorithms of international billionaires beholden to external agendas – should have the freedom to decide for themselves about what they see and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now especially important, the EU should make American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must ensure Ireland responsible for not implementing EU digital rules on American companies.

Regulatory action is insufficient, however. Europe must progressively replace all foreign “major technology” platforms and cloud services over the coming years with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same decline. The EU must act now, not only to push back against Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In North America, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the way to deal with a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.