🔗 Share this article

Will the EU finally stand up to the US administration and American tech giants? Present passivity goes beyond a regulatory or financial failure: it represents a moral collapse. This inaction calls into question the core principles of the EU's political sovereignty. The central issue is not merely the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the authority to regulate its own online environment according to its own rules.

The Path to This Point

First, consider the events leading here. During the summer, the European Commission agreed to a humiliating deal with Trump that locked in a ongoing 15% tax on EU exports to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The embarrassment was all the greater because the EU also agreed to direct more than $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of resources and defense equipment. The deal exposed the vulnerability of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened crushing new tariffs if the EU implemented its regulations against US tech firms on its own territory.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable leverage in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has taken minimal action. No retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate shield against external coercion.

Instead, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for longstanding anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in the EU's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to support European democracy. It seeks to undermine it. An official publication published on the US State Department website, written in paranoid, inflammatory language similar to Hungarian leadership, charged the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned alleged restrictions on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

What is to be done? Europe's anti-coercion instrument functions through calculating the degree of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided EU member states agree, the EU executive could remove US goods and services out of Europe's market, or apply tariffs on them. It can strip their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and require compensation as a condition of readmittance to EU economic space.

The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a statement of political will. It was designed to signal that the EU would always resist foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the EU-US trade deal, several EU states used strong language in public, but failed to push for the mechanism to be activated. Others, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

Compromise is the worst option that Europe needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are challenging. Along with the trade tool, the EU should shut down social media “for you”-style systems, that suggest content the user has not requested, on European soil until they are proven safe for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

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

Trump is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now more than ever, the EU should hold large US tech firms accountable for distorting competition, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure Ireland responsible for not implementing Europe's digital rules on US firms.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” services and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of the current situation is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The more delay occurs, the more profound the decline of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The greater the tendency that its regulations are not binding, its institutions not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the route to undemocratic rule becomes unavoidable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If Europe continues to cower, it will be pulled toward that same abyss. The EU must act now, not just to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a free and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will resist foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who confronted US pressure and showed that the way to deal with a aggressor is to respond firmly.

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