🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership finally confront the US administration and US big tech? Present passivity is not just a regulatory or economic failure: it represents a moral failure. This situation throws into question the bedrock of Europe's democratic identity. What is at stake is not merely the fate of firms such as Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the right to regulate its own online environment according to its own rules.

How We Got Here

To begin, it's important to review how we got here. During the summer, the EU executive accepted a one-sided agreement with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also agreed to direct more than $1tn to the US through investments and purchases of energy and military materiel. The deal revealed the fragility of Europe's dependence on the US.

Soon after, Trump threatened severe new tariffs if Europe enforced its laws against US tech firms on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades EU officials has claimed that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable sway in international commerce. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, Europe has done little. No retaliatory measure has been taken. No invocation of the new trade defense tool, the so-called “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 yearly income for established market abuses, previously established in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “abuse” its market leadership in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it no longer seeks to support EU institutions. It seeks to undermine it. A recent essay released on the US State Department website, composed in alarmist, bombastic language reminiscent of Viktor Orbán's speeches, charged the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned supposed 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 anti-coercion instrument works by calculating the extent of the pressure and applying counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the European Commission could kick US goods and services out of Europe's market, or impose tariffs on them. It can strip their intellectual property rights, block their investments and require reparations as a condition of readmittance to Europe's market.

The tool is not merely financial response; it is a declaration of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that Europe would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it remains inactive. It is not a bazooka. It is a symbolic object.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the EU-US trade deal, many European governments talked tough in public, but failed to push for the instrument to be activated. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the last thing that Europe needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should shut down social media “for you”-style algorithms, that suggest material the user has not asked for, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Comprehensive Approach

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

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its digital rulebook. But now more than ever, Europe should make American technology companies responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure Ireland responsible for not implementing EU digital rules on American companies.

Enforcement is insufficient, however. The EU must gradually substitute all foreign “major technology” services and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the more profound the decline of its confidence in itself. The increasing acceptance that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its political system dependent.

When that happens, the route to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation 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 only to push back against Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to function as a independent and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In Canada, Asia and East Asia, democratic nations are watching. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of international cooperation, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are asking whether representative governments 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 deal with a bully is to respond firmly.

But if Europe hesitates, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to levy symbolic penalties, to anticipate a improved situation, it will have effectively surrendered.