🔗 Share this article

Can Brussels ever confront Donald Trump and US big tech? Present inaction is not just a legal or financial failure: it constitutes a moral failure. This situation throws into question the bedrock of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not only the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that the European Union has the authority to regulate its own digital space according to its own rules.

Background Context

To begin, consider how we got here. During the summer, the European Commission accepted a humiliating agreement with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tax on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the commission also agreed to provide more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and purchases of energy and defense equipment. The deal exposed the fragility of the EU's reliance on the US.

Soon after, the US administration threatened severe new tariffs if the EU enforced its regulations against US tech firms on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years EU officials has claimed that its market of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. Not a single counter-action has been taken. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once vowed would be its ultimate shield against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of under 1% of its yearly income for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in American legal proceedings, that allowed it to “abuse” its dominant position in Europe's advertising market.

US Intentions

The US, under Trump's leadership, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US State Department website, written in paranoid, inflammatory rhetoric similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by calculating the degree of the coercion and imposing retaliatory measures. If EU member states agree, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or impose tariffs on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, block their financial activities and demand compensation as a requirement of readmittance to EU economic space.

The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a declaration of political will. It was designed to signal that Europe would never tolerate external pressure. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months leading to the EU-US trade deal, many European governments used strong language in public, but did not advocate the instrument to be activated. Others, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the last thing that the EU needs. It must enforce its regulations, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should shut down social media “recommended”-style systems, that suggest content the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are proven safe for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

The public – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving foreign interests – should have the freedom to make independent choices about what they see and share online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to weaken its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, the EU should hold large US tech firms responsible for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. Brussels must hold Ireland accountable for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all foreign “major technology” services and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

The significant risk of the current situation is that if Europe does not act now, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its confidence in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its regulations are not binding, its institutions not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the route to authoritarianism becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the acceptance of lies. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. The EU must act now, not just to push back against US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a independent and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, Asia and East Asia, democracies are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will stand against foreign pressure or surrender 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 Lula in Brazil, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a bully is to hit hard.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to release polite statements, to impose token fines, to hope for a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.