🔗 Share this article

Can European leadership finally resist the US administration and American tech giants? The current passivity goes beyond a regulatory or economic failure: it constitutes a moral failure. This situation calls into question the bedrock of Europe's political sovereignty. What is at stake is not merely the future of companies like Google or Meta, but the principle that Europe has the right to regulate its own online environment according to its own regulations.

Background Context

To begin, it's important to review the events leading here. In late July, the EU executive accepted a humiliating agreement with the US that established a ongoing 15% tax on European goods to the US. Europe received nothing in return. The indignity was all the greater because the commission also consented to provide well over $1tn to the US through investments and purchases of resources and military materiel. The deal exposed the fragility of the EU's dependence on the US.

Soon after, the US administration threatened crushing new tariffs if the EU implemented its regulations 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 rich people gives it significant sway in international commerce. But in the month and a half since Trump's threat, the EU has done little. Not a single counter-action has been implemented. No activation of the recently created anti-coercion instrument, the so-called “trade bazooka” that Brussels once promised would be its primary protection against external coercion.

By contrast, we have diplomatic language and a fine on Google of under 1% of its annual revenue for established market abuses, already proven in US courts, that allowed it to “abuse” its market leadership in the EU's digital ad space.

American Strategy

The US, under the current administration, has made its intentions clear: it does not aim to strengthen EU institutions. It aims to weaken it. An official publication released on the US State Department platform, composed in alarmist, bombastic rhetoric reminiscent of Hungarian leadership, accused Europe of “systematic efforts against Western civilization itself”. It condemned alleged limitations on political groups across the EU, from the AfD in Germany to PiS in Poland.

The Solution: Anti-Coercion Instrument

How should Europe respond? The EU's anti-coercion instrument functions through assessing the extent of the pressure and applying counter-actions. Provided most European governments consent, the EU executive could remove US products out of the EU market, or apply taxes on them. It can remove their patents and copyrights, prevent their investments and require compensation as a requirement of re-entry to EU economic space.

The tool is not merely economic retaliation; it is a declaration of political will. It was created to signal that Europe would never tolerate foreign coercion. But now, when it is needed most, it lies unused. It is not a bazooka. It is a paperweight.

Internal Disagreements

In the months preceding the EU-US trade deal, several EU states used strong language in public, but did not advocate the instrument to be activated. Others, including Ireland and Italy, openly advocated a softer European line.

A softer line is the worst option that the EU needs. It must implement its laws, even when they are inconvenient. In addition to the anti-coercion instrument, Europe should disable social media “recommended”-style algorithms, that suggest content the user has not requested, on EU territory until they are demonstrated to be secure for democracy.

Broader Digital Strategy

The public – not the automated systems of foreign oligarchs serving external agendas – should have the autonomy to decide for themselves about what they see and distribute online.

Trump is pressuring the EU to water down its online regulations. But now especially important, Europe should hold large US tech firms accountable for anti-competitive market rigging, snooping on Europeans, and targeting minors. EU authorities must ensure Ireland responsible for failing to enforce Europe's online regulations on US firms.

Enforcement is not enough, however. Europe must gradually substitute all non-EU “major technology” platforms and computing infrastructure over the coming years with European solutions.

The Danger of Inaction

The real danger of this moment is that if Europe does not take immediate action, 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 greater the tendency that its regulations are not binding, its governmental bodies not sovereign, its democracy dependent.

When that occurs, the path to undemocratic rule becomes inevitable, through automated influence on social media and the normalisation of lies. If the EU continues to remain passive, it will be drawn into that same abyss. Europe must act now, not just to push back against Trump, but to create space for itself to exist as a independent and autonomous power.

Global Implications

And in doing so, it must make a statement that the rest of the world can see. In Canada, Asia and Japan, democratic nations are watching. They are wondering if the EU, the last bastion of liberal multilateralism, will resist foreign pressure or surrender to it.

They are asking whether democratic institutions 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 faced down Trump and demonstrated that the approach to deal with a aggressor is to respond firmly.

But if the EU delays, if it continues to issue diplomatic communications, to levy symbolic penalties, to anticipate a better future, it will have effectively surrendered.