🔗 Share this article

Can European leadership ever confront the US administration and American tech giants? The current inaction is not just a legal or economic failure: it represents a moral collapse. This situation undermines the very foundation of the EU's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the authority to govern its own digital space according to its own laws.

Background Context

First, consider the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive agreed to a one-sided agreement with Trump that locked in a permanent 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the commission also consented to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. This arrangement exposed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, the US administration threatened severe new tariffs if Europe enforced its laws against American companies on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it significant leverage in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, the EU has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the new anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its ultimate protection against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have polite statements and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established market abuses, previously established in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in Europe's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to strengthen European democracy. It aims to weaken it. An official publication released on the US Department of State's website, composed in paranoid, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged the EU of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It condemned supposed restrictions on authoritarian parties 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 calculating the degree of the pressure and imposing counter-actions. Provided EU member states consent, the European Commission could kick US products out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their financial activities and require reparations as a condition of readmittance to EU economic space.

The tool is not only financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Political Divisions

In the period leading to the transatlantic agreement, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but failed to push for the mechanism to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are proven safe for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

Citizens – not the automated systems of international billionaires serving foreign interests – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and distribute online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to water down its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, Europe should hold large US tech firms responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. Brussels must hold certain member states responsible for not implementing Europe's digital rules on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

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 deeper the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its institutions not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that occurs, the route to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of lies. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not just 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 international community can see. In Canada, South Korea and East Asia, democracies are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will resist foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can survive when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Brazilian leadership, who faced down Trump and demonstrated that the way to address a bully is to hit hard.

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