Europe's Hidden Weapon to Combat US Economic Pressure: Time to Activate It

Can Brussels ever resist Donald Trump and US big tech? The current lack of response goes beyond a legal or financial failure: it represents a moral failure. This situation calls into question the very foundation of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not only the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the right to regulate its own digital space according to its own rules.

How We Got Here

First, it's important to review how we got here. In late July, the European Commission agreed to a one-sided deal with Trump that established a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was compounded because the commission also agreed to provide more than $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of energy and defense equipment. This arrangement revealed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened severe additional taxes if the EU implemented its laws against US tech firms on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades Brussels has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable sway in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has done little. No counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the new anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU 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 yearly income for established anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “abuse” its dominant position in the EU's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US Department of State's platform, composed in paranoid, bombastic rhetoric similar to Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It criticized supposed limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

What is to be done? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by calculating the extent of the pressure and applying counter-actions. If most European governments agree, the European Commission could remove US products out of the EU market, or impose taxes on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and demand compensation as a requirement of readmittance to EU economic space.

The tool is not only economic retaliation; it is a statement of political will. It was created to demonstrate that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Political Divisions

In the months leading to the EU-US trade deal, several EU states used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the last thing that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democratic societies.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the automated systems of international billionaires beholden to foreign interests – should have the freedom to decide for themselves about what they view and distribute online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now more than ever, Europe should make large US tech firms accountable for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. Brussels must hold Ireland responsible for not implementing EU online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all foreign “big tech” services and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not act now, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the deeper the erosion of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The greater the tendency that its regulations are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the route to authoritarianism becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist 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, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will resist external influence or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who confronted US pressure and demonstrated that the way to address a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to levy symbolic penalties, to hope for a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.