🔗 Share this article

Will the EU finally stand up to the US administration and US big tech? The current passivity is not just a legal or economic shortcoming: it constitutes a moral failure. This inaction calls into question the very foundation of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not only the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the right to regulate its own online environment according to its own regulations.

How We Got Here

First, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating deal with Trump that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also agreed to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of resources and military materiel. The deal exposed the fragility of Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration threatened crushing new tariffs if the EU implemented its regulations against American companies on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable sway in trade negotiations. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, Europe has done little. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary protection against external coercion.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding market abuses, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US State Department platform, composed in paranoid, inflammatory language reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to PiS in Poland.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the extent of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. If most European governments consent, the EU executive could kick US products out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their financial activities and demand compensation as a condition of readmittance to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of political will. It was created to signal that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the EU-US trade deal, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be activated. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are challenging. Along with the trade tool, Europe should disable social media “for you”-style algorithms, that suggest material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

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

The US administration is putting Europe under pressure to water down its online regulations. But now more than ever, Europe should hold large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure certain member states responsible for not implementing Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “big tech” services and computing infrastructure over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of the current situation is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its regulations are not binding, its institutions not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that happens, the route to authoritarianism becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If Europe continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist Trump, but to create space for itself to function as a free and autonomous power.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, South Korea and East Asia, democracies are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are asking whether representative governments can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and showed that the approach to address a bully is to respond firmly.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to impose symbolic penalties, to anticipate a better future, it will have already lost.