🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership ever resist Donald Trump and US big tech? Present passivity goes beyond a legal or economic failure: it represents a moral failure. This situation undermines the core principles of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that Europe has the right to govern its own digital space according to its own rules.

The Path to This Point

First, consider how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a one-sided deal with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. This arrangement revealed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, the US administration warned of severe new tariffs if Europe enforced its laws against American companies on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

For decades EU officials has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. No counter-action has been taken. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its ultimate protection against external coercion.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it no longer seeks to support European democracy. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay released on the US Department of State's website, composed in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on political groups 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 functions through assessing the degree of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. If EU member states consent, the EU executive could kick US goods and services out of the EU market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their intellectual property rights, prevent their investments and require reparations as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.

The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would always resist foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the period preceding the transatlantic agreement, many European governments talked tough in public, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the last thing that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the trade tool, Europe should shut down social media “recommended”-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

Citizens – not the algorithms of foreign oligarchs beholden to foreign interests – should have the freedom to decide for themselves about what they view and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now more than ever, the EU should hold American technology companies accountable for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. Brussels must hold Ireland accountable for not implementing Europe's online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must progressively replace all foreign “big tech” platforms and cloud services over the next decade with European solutions.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not act now, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the more profound the decline of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its regulations are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that happens, the path to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not just to push back against US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a free and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in doing so, 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 questioning if the EU, the last bastion of international cooperation, will resist 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 Brazilian leadership, who confronted US pressure and demonstrated that the way to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to impose token fines, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.