🔗 Share this article

Will Brussels finally stand up to Donald Trump and American tech giants? Present lack of response goes beyond a regulatory or economic shortcoming: it represents a moral collapse. This inaction throws into question the core principles of Europe's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not only the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the right to govern its own online environment according to its own laws.

How We Got Here

To begin, it's important to review the events leading here. In late July, the European Commission accepted a humiliating agreement with the US that established a ongoing 15% tariff on European goods to the US. The EU gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and military materiel. The deal revealed the fragility of the EU's reliance on the US.

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

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades EU officials has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million affluent people gives it unanswerable leverage in international commerce. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, Europe has taken minimal action. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No invocation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary shield against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a penalty on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established anticompetitive behaviour, previously established in US courts, that allowed it to “exploit” its market leadership in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen European democracy. It seeks to undermine it. An official publication published on the US Department of State's platform, composed in paranoid, inflammatory language similar to Viktor Orbán's speeches, accused the EU of “an aggressive campaign against democratic values itself”. It condemned alleged restrictions on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism functions through assessing the extent of the coercion and imposing counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the European Commission could remove US products out of Europe's market, or impose tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and demand reparations as a condition of re-entry to Europe's market.

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

Political Divisions

In the months preceding the transatlantic agreement, several EU states used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the mechanism to be used. Some nations, such as Ireland and Italy, publicly pushed for more conciliatory approach.

A softer line is the last thing that the EU needs. It must implement its regulations, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should shut down social media “for you”-style systems, that suggest material 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 serving external agendas – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they view and share online.

The US administration is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now especially important, Europe should make American technology companies responsible for distorting competition, snooping on Europeans, and preying on our children. EU authorities must hold Ireland responsible for not implementing Europe's online regulations on US firms.

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

Risks of Delay

The real danger of the current situation is that if Europe does not take immediate action, it will become permanently passive. The longer it waits, the deeper the decline of its self-belief in itself. The more it will believe that resistance is futile. The more it will accept that its regulations are not binding, its institutions lacking autonomy, its democracy not self-determined.

When that occurs, the path to authoritarianism becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of misinformation. If the EU continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same decline. The EU must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

Global Implications

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the international community can see. In Canada, South Korea and Japan, democratic nations are observing. They are wondering if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against external influence or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether representative governments can survive when the leading democratic nation in the world abandons them. They also see the example of Lula in Brazil, who confronted US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to address a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if the EU hesitates, if it continues to issue polite statements, to impose token fines, to hope for a better future, it will have already lost.