🔗 Share this article

Can the EU finally stand up to Donald Trump and US big tech? The current lack of response is not just a regulatory or economic failure: it constitutes a ethical failure. This inaction undermines the very foundation of Europe's democratic identity. The central issue is not only the future of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the authority to regulate its own online environment according to its own regulations.

The Path to This Point

To begin, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission accepted a humiliating deal with the US that locked in a permanent 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was compounded because the EU 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 Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump threatened crushing new tariffs if Europe implemented its regulations against US tech firms on its own soil.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades EU officials has asserted that its market of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable sway in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has taken minimal action. Not a single 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 ultimate protection against foreign pressure.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its market leadership in Europe's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to support EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. An official publication released on the US Department of State's platform, composed in alarmist, inflammatory rhetoric similar to Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against democratic values itself”. It criticized alleged restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

What is to be done? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by assessing the degree of the coercion and applying retaliatory measures. Provided EU member states agree, the European Commission could remove US products out of the EU market, or impose tariffs on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, block their financial activities and demand reparations as a condition of re-entry to EU economic space.

The tool is not only financial response; it is a statement of determination. It was created to demonstrate that Europe would always resist foreign coercion. But now, when it is most crucial, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Political Divisions

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in official statements, but failed to push for the mechanism to be activated. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that Europe needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “for you”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not requested, on European soil until they are proven safe for democratic societies.

Broader Digital Strategy

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

Trump is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now especially important, the EU should make large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. Brussels must ensure Ireland responsible for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all foreign “big tech” platforms and cloud services over the coming years with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of this moment is that if Europe does not act now, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the deeper the decline of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the acceptance of lies. If Europe continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must take immediate steps, not just to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a independent and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must make a statement that the international community can see. In North America, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will resist foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions can endure when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the model of Lula in Brazil, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to release diplomatic communications, to levy token fines, to anticipate a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.