🔗 Share this article

Will European leadership ever stand up to the US administration and US big tech? Present lack of response goes beyond a regulatory or financial shortcoming: it constitutes a moral failure. This situation throws into question the core principles of the EU's democratic identity. What is at stake is not only the fate of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the authority to regulate its own online environment according to its own regulations.

The Path to This Point

First, consider the events leading here. During the summer, the EU executive agreed to a humiliating deal with Trump that established a ongoing 15% tariff on EU exports to the US. Europe gained no concessions in return. The indignity was all the greater because the commission also agreed to provide well over $1tn to the US through financial commitments and acquisitions of energy and defense equipment. The deal revealed the fragility of Europe's dependence on the US.

Less than a month later, Trump threatened severe new tariffs if the EU enforced its regulations against US tech firms on its own territory.

Europe's Claim vs. Reality

For decades EU officials has asserted that its economic zone of 450 million rich people gives it significant sway in trade negotiations. But in the month and a half since the US warning, Europe has done little. Not a single retaliatory measure has been implemented. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the often described “trade bazooka” that the EU once promised would be its ultimate shield against foreign pressure.

By contrast, we have polite statements and a fine on Google of less than 1% of its yearly income for longstanding market abuses, previously established in US courts, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership in the EU's advertising market.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to support EU institutions. It aims to undermine it. A recent essay published on the US Department of State's website, written in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused the EU of “an aggressive campaign against Western civilization itself”. It criticized supposed limitations on authoritarian parties across the EU, from German political movements to Polish organizations.

Available Tools for Response

How should Europe respond? The EU's trade defense mechanism works by assessing the degree of the pressure and applying counter-actions. Provided EU member states consent, the European Commission could remove US goods and services out of the EU market, or impose tariffs on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, block their investments and require reparations as a condition of readmittance to Europe's market.

The tool is not only economic retaliation; it is a statement of determination. It was designed to demonstrate that the EU would never tolerate 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, many European governments used strong language in official statements, but did not advocate the instrument to be activated. Others, such as Ireland and Italy, openly advocated more conciliatory approach.

Compromise is the last thing that the EU needs. It must enforce its laws, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, the EU should disable social media “recommended”-style systems, that recommend content the user has not requested, on European soil until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

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

The US administration is pressuring the EU to weaken its online regulations. But now especially important, Europe should make large US tech firms responsible for anti-competitive market rigging, surveillance practices, and preying on our children. EU authorities must ensure certain member states responsible for failing to enforce EU online regulations on American companies.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must progressively replace all foreign “major technology” services and cloud services over the coming years with homegrown alternatives.

Risks of Delay

The significant risk of this moment is that if the EU does not take immediate action, it will never act again. The longer it waits, the deeper 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 institutions not sovereign, its democracy not self-determined.

When that happens, the path to authoritarianism becomes unavoidable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If the EU continues to cower, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must take immediate steps, not only to resist US pressure, but to create space 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 North America, South Korea and Japan, democracies are observing. They are questioning if the EU, the remaining stronghold of liberal multilateralism, will stand against foreign pressure or yield to it.

They are inquiring whether democratic institutions can endure when the most powerful democracy in the world turns its back on them. They also see the model of Brazilian leadership, who faced down US pressure and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a bully is to respond firmly.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to release polite statements, to levy symbolic penalties, to anticipate a better future, it will have already lost.