🔗 Share this article

Can European leadership ever confront the US administration and US big tech? The current passivity goes beyond a legal or economic failure: it represents a moral collapse. This situation throws into question the very foundation of the EU's democratic identity. The central issue is not merely the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the fundamental idea that the European Union has the authority to govern its own online environment according to its own laws.

How We Got Here

To begin, let us recount the events leading here. In late July, the EU executive accepted a one-sided deal with the US that locked in a ongoing 15% tariff on European goods to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the EU also agreed to direct well over $1tn to the US through investments and acquisitions of resources and military materiel. The deal exposed the vulnerability of Europe's reliance on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump warned of crushing new tariffs if Europe enforced its regulations against American companies on its own soil.

The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action

Over many years Brussels has asserted that its market of 450 million rich people gives it unanswerable sway in international commerce. But in the six weeks since Trump's threat, Europe has taken minimal action. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the new trade defense tool, the often described “trade bazooka” that Brussels once vowed would be its primary shield against external coercion.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its annual revenue for established anticompetitive behaviour, already proven in American legal proceedings, that enabled it to “exploit” its dominant position in Europe's digital ad space.

US Intentions

The US, under the current administration, has signaled its goals: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It seeks to weaken it. A recent essay released on the US Department of State's platform, composed in paranoid, inflammatory rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, charged the EU of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed restrictions on political groups across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the degree of the coercion and applying retaliatory measures. If EU member states agree, the European Commission could kick US goods and services out of the EU market, or apply tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their financial activities and demand reparations as a requirement of re-entry to EU economic space.

The instrument is not merely financial response; it is a statement of political will. It was created to signal that the EU would always resist external pressure. But now, when it is most crucial, it lies unused. It is not the powerful weapon promised. It is a symbolic object.

Political Divisions

In the period preceding the transatlantic agreement, several EU states talked tough in public, but did not advocate the instrument to be used. Some nations, including 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 challenging. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should shut down social media “for you”-style systems, that recommend material the user has not asked for, on European soil until they are proven safe for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the automated systems 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 more than ever, the EU should hold large US tech firms responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and targeting minors. EU authorities must hold Ireland accountable for not implementing EU digital rules on American companies.

Regulatory action is not enough, however. Europe must progressively replace all non-EU “major technology” services and cloud services over the next decade with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The real danger of this moment is that if Europe does not act now, it will become permanently passive. The more delay occurs, the more profound the erosion of its self-belief in itself. The increasing acceptance that opposition is pointless. The more it will accept that its laws are unenforceable, its governmental bodies lacking autonomy, its political system dependent.

When that occurs, the route to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through algorithmic manipulation on social media and the acceptance of misinformation. If Europe continues to remain passive, it will be pulled toward that same decline. The EU must act now, not only to push back against Trump, but to establish conditions for itself to exist as a independent and sovereign entity.

International Perspective

And in taking action, it must plant a flag that the rest of the world can see. In North America, South Korea and East Asia, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will stand against foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions 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 US pressure and showed that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to hit hard.

But if Europe delays, if it continues to issue polite statements, to levy token fines, to hope for a improved situation, it will have already lost.